Skip to main content

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"

See other formats


L£ 


"Bi 


0A^^^^ 


Given  By 

U.  S.  SUPT.  OF  DOCUMENTS 


3^ 


INVESTIGATION  OF  IMPROPER  ACTIVITIES  IN  THE 
LABOR  OR  MANAGEMENT  FIELD 


HEARINGS 

BEFORE  THE 

SELECT  COMMITTEE 

ON  IMPROPER  ACTIVITIES  IN  THE 

LABOR  OR  MANAGEMENT  FIELD 

EIGHTY-FIFTH  CONGRESS 

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


MARCH  21,  JULY  8. 9, 10,  AND  11, 1958 


PART  33 


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 


I 


HEARINGS 

BEFORE  THE 

SELECT  COMMITTEE 

ON  IMPROPER  ACTIVITIES  IN  THE 

LABOR  OR  MANAGEMENT  FIELD 

EIGHTY-FIFTH  CONGRESS 

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


MARCH  21,  JULY  8,  9, 10,  AND  11, 1958 


PART  33 


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


UNITED  STATES 
GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 
r2K43  WASHINGTON  :   1958 


Boston  Public  Library 
Supertntend"nt  of  Documents 

OCT  2  8  1958 


SELECT  COMMITTEE  ON  IMPROPER  ACTIVITIES  IN  THE  LABOR 
OR  MANAGEMENT  FIELD 

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

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

FEAJ^K  CHURCH,  Idaho  CARL  T.  CURTIS,  Nebraska 

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

II 


CONTENTS 


The  Restaurant  Industry  in  the  Chicago  Area 

(hotel  and  restaurant  employees  and  bartenders  international  union) 

Page 

Appendix _    12855 

Testimony  of — 

Accardo,  Anthony  J 12782 

Battaglia,  Sam 12774 

Butler,  George 12519 

Caifano,  Marshall 12802 

Carson,  Chris 12637,  12648 

Cerone,  Jack 12809 

Champagne,  Anthony  V 12499,  12840 

DiVarco,  Joseph 12809 

Duffy,  LaVem  J 12797 

Duffy,  William 12730 

English,  Sam 12846 

Esrig,  Sheldon 12622 

Gotsch,  Gerald 12559,  12568,  12646,  12665 

Greenfield,  Robert  S 12745 

Gutgsell,  Ralph  J 12679 

Johnson,  Leslie  A 12615 

Kellv,  James  P 12527,  12536,  12583,  12606 

Kerf,  William  H 12587 

Marienthal,  George 12666 

Marquis,  Clifton 12824 

Marquis,  Donald 12824 

McCann,  John 12548,  12562 

Morris,  Lt.  Joseph 12730 

Mundie,  James  F 12702 

Peterson,  Virgil  W 12510,  12531,  12536,  12539,  12546 

Prio,  Ross 12809 

Reade,  Edward  Harold 12689,  12705 

Romano,  Louis 12593,  12606 

Rupcich,  John 12563,  12568 

Schimeal,  Frances 12584 

Schwimmer,  Harold 12624 

Smith,  Sidney 12654 

Strang,  Donald  W 12572 

Teitelbaum,  Abraham 12714,  12721 


EXHIBITS 


Introduced 
on  page 


Appears 
on  page 


13.  Letter  of  resignation  dated  June  14,   1954,  to  Chicago 

Restaurant  Association,  attention  Don  Kiesau,  from 

Anthony  V.  Champagne 12506       (*) 

13 A.  Application  for  charter  of  affiliation  to  the  Hotel  and 
Restaurant  Employees  and  Bartenders  International 
Union,  for  local  658,  dated  March  7,  1950 12527        12855 

14.  Criminal  record  of  Claude  Maddox,  a/k/a  John  Edward 

Moore 12536       (*) 

15.  Application  for  charter  of  affiliation  with  the  Hotel  and 

Restaurant  Employees  and  Beverage  Dispensers  Inter- 
national Alliance,  for  local  450,  dated  August  12,  1935, 

Cicero,  111 12537       12856 

*  May  be  found  in  the  file?  of  the  select  committee. 

m 


IV 


CONTENTS 


EXHIBITS— Continued 


Introduced 
on  page 


Appears 
on  page 


16.  Check  No.  546,  dated  June  11,  1952,  payable  to  Abra- 

ham Teitelbaum  in  the  amount  of  $2,240,  drawn  by 

Bar-Don  Corp 12579       12857 

17.  Membership  ledger  for  Howard  Johnson's  Restaurant, 

June  1952,  listing  40  employees  as  members  of  the 

union 12583       (*) 

18.  Cashier's   check    No.    156853,    dated    March   25,    1958, 

payable  to  Gerard  R.  Pucci  in  the  amount  of  $500...        12607       12858 
18A.  Application  for  exchange  in  the  amount  of  $500,  dated 
March  25,  1958,  showing  Gerard  R.  Pucci  as  appli- 
cant        12608       12859 

19.  Letter  dated  May  1,  1952,  addressed  to  Mr.  A.  Teitel- 

baum, signed  by  George  E.  Marienthal 12669       12860 

20.  Compilation  made  by  James  Mundie  of  expenses  of  the 

Nantucket  Restaurant 12703       (*) 

21.  Crime  Commission  of  Chicago  report  on  Mr.  Greenfield.       12761       (*) 

22.  Pictures  of  Mr.  Accardo  and  Mr.  Giancana 12785       (*) 

23.  Picture  of  6  men;  Paul  Ricca,  Sylvester  Agoglia,  Charles 

Lucania,  Meyer  Lansky,  John  Senna,  Harry  Brown. _        12790       (*) 
23A.  Picture  of  6  men:  Eugene  Cacciatore,  John  Miragalia, 
Albert  Tomasello,   Emil  Jancer,   James   Mirro,   and 
Ned  Bakes 12790       (*) 

24.  Picture  of  Marshall  Caifano  and  Sam  Battaglia 12805       (*) 

25.  Picture  of  Ross  Prio  and  Libby  Nuccio 12817       (*) 

26.  Picture  of  Sam  Hunt,  Tony  Accardo,  and  Sam  English..       12847       (*) 
Proceedings  of — 

March  21,  1958 12499 

July  8,  1958 12509 

July  9,  1958 12593 

July  10,  1958 12679 

July  11,  1958 12773 

•May  be  found  in  the  flies  of  the  select  committee 


I 


INVESTIGATION  OF  IMPROPER  ACTIVITIES  IN  THE 
LABOR  OR  MANAGE3IENT  FIELD 


FRIDAY,   MARCH   21,    1958 

United  States  Senate, 
Select  Committee  on  iMrRorER  Activities 

IN  TnE  Labor  or  Managethent  Field, 

Washington^  D.  C. 
The  select  committee  met  at  1 :  40  p.  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 ;  Senator 
Karl  E.  Mundt,  Republican,  South  Dakota ;  Senator  Barry  Goldwater, 
Republican,  Arizona ;  Senator  Carl  T.  Curtis,  Republican,  Nebraska. 
Also  present:  Robert  F.  Kennedy,  chief  counsel;  Jerome  S.  Adler- 
man,  assistant  chief  counsel ;  James  Mundie,  investigator ;  Ruth  Young 
Watt,  chief  clerk. 

AFTERNOON  SESSION 1  14  0  P.  M. 

(At  the  convening  of  the  hearing,  the  following  members  were 
present:    Senators  McClellan,  Curtis,  Mundt.) 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  will  come  to  order. 

The  witness  we  will  call  at  this  time  is  Anthony  V.  Champagne. 

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

The  Chairman.  You  will  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.  Champagne.  I  do. 

TESTIMONY  OF  ANTHONY  V.  CHAMPAGNE,  ACCOMPANIED  BY 
COUNSEL,  CLIEFORD  ALLDER 

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

Mr.  Champagne.  My  name  is  Anthony  V.  Champagne.  I  reside 
at  1501  Bonnie  Brae,  River  Forest,  111.  I  am  an  attorney  at  law, 
duly  licensed  to  practice  in  the  State  of  Illinois. 

The  Chairman.  All  right,  sir.  Do  you  have  counsel  present  to 
represent  you,  also  ? 

JNIr.  Champagne.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Counsel,  identify  yourself  for  the  record,  please. 

12499 


12500  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN   THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Allder.  My  name  is  Cliflford  Allder,  a  member  of  the  bar  of 
Washington,  D.  C. ;  my  local  office  is  at  401  Third  Street  NW. 

Mr.  Chairman.  Thank  you  very  much. 

Mr.  Champagne,  I  hand  you  a  document  and  ask  you  to  examine 
it  and  state  what  it  is,  and  if  you  received  a  copy  of  this  document, 
if  it  was  served  on  you. 

(The  document  was  handed  to  the  witness.) 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Champagne.  This  is  the  subpena  that  was  served  on  me  on 
Monday  of  this  week. 

The  Chairman.  On  Monday  of  this  week,  the  subpena  that  you 
have,  a  copy  of  it  was  served  on  you  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you  very  much.  The  subpena  in  full  will 
be  printed  in  the  record  at  this  point. 

United  States  of  America 
Congress  of  the  United  States  L-3026 

To  Anthony  V.  Champagne,  5679  West  Madison  Street,  Chicago,  III.,  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  forthwith,  195 — ,  at  —  o'clock  —  m., 
at  their  committee  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  produce  your  personal  and  business  records 
for  the  period  1950  to  present.     See  schedule  A  on  reverse  side. 

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

To  James  F.  Mundie  to  serve  and  return. 

Given  under  my  hand,  by  order  of  the  committee,  this  14th  day  of  March, 
in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  nine  hundred  and  fifty-eight. 

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

Production  of  these  records  in  Washington,  D.  C,  will  be  waived  at  this 
time  if  they  are  made  available  in  Chicago,  111. 

SCHEDULE  A 

Bank  accounts  (checking  and  savings). 

Deposit  tickets. 

Brokerage  accounts. 

Bank  statements. 

Canceled  checks. 

Check  stubs. 

Records  of  securities  and  other  assets  purchased  and  liquidated  during  period 

1950  to  present. 
Correspondence  file  relating  to  bank  accounts,  savings  and  checking,  and  other 

assets. 

Also  all  correspondence  from  or  to  Chicago  Restaurant  Association. 

March  17, 1958. 
I  made  service  of  the  within  subpena  by  hand,  the  within-named  Anthony 
V.  Champagne  at  room  206,  5679  West  Madison,  Chicago,  111.,  at  4:20  o'clock 
p.  m.,  on  the  17th  day  of  March  1958. 

James  F.  Mundie. 

The  Chairman.  The  subpena  from  this  committee  directs  you  to 
appear  forthwith  before  the  committee  in  room  101,  Senate  Office 
Building,  Washington,  D.  C,  and  then  and  there  to  testify  on  what 
you  may  know  relative  to  the  subject  matter  under  consideration 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12501 

by  said  committee,  and  produce  your  personal  and  business  records 
for  the  period  1950  to  the  present. 

See  schedule  A  on  reverse  side. 

On  the  reverse  side,  schedule  A  refers  to  bank  accounts,  checking 
and  savings,  deposit  tickets,  brokerage  accounts,  bank  statements, 
canceled  checks ;  check  stubs ;  record  of  securities  and  other  assets  pur- 
chased and  liquidated  during  the  period  1950  to  present ;  correspond- 
ence file  relating  to  bank  accounts;  savings,  checks,  and  other  assets; 
also  correspondence  from  or  to  Chicago  Restaurant:  Association. 

Mr.  Counsel,  before  I  proceed  further,  will  you  make  a  statement 
for  the  record  as  to  the  subject  matter  that  this  committee  is  inquir- 
ing into  and  to  which  this  subpena  is  related,  and  to  which  we  antici- 
pate the  testimony  of  the  witness  will  be  related  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Chairman,  we  are  making  a  study  in  Chicago 
as  well  as  elsewhere  regarding  the  activities  of  various  employer  asso- 
ciations. We  are  looking  into  the  relationship  of  certain  employer 
associations  with  various  labor  unions,  and  the  employment  of  attor- 
neys for  the  purpose  of  settling  labor  disputes  and  labor  difficulties 
by  unusual  methods.   We  are  looking  into  the  infiltration 

The  Chairman.  Methods,  you  mean,  that  might  be  regarded  as 
improper  practices  in  connection  with  labor-management  relations? 

Mr.  IvENNEDY.  That  is  correct.  And  we  are  looking  into  the  em- 
ployment or  use  of  gangsters  or  hoodlums  for  the  purpose  of  settling 
labor  difficulties  and  for  bringing  labor  peace.  We  are  looking  into 
shakedowns  and  also  collusive  arrangements  between  certain  dishonest 
management  and  dishonest  labor. 

The  Chairman.  In  other  words,  where  there  may  be  the  possi- 
bility that  these  matters  were  being  handled  by  attorneys  employed 
for  that  purpose,  and  where  the  character  of  people  that  you  have 
referred  to  are  employed  or  used  for  improper  labor  practices  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  is  correct. 

The  Chairman.  All  right,  Mr.  Champagne,  you  acknowledge  that 
you  received  the  subpena;  that  it  was  served  on  you.  According  to 
the  return  it  shows  it  was  served  on  the  I7th  day  of  March  1958.  I 
believe  you  say  it  was  served  on  you  last  Monday. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  is  correct. 

The  Chairman.  I  believe  that  is  the  correct  date.  Have  you  re- 
sponded to  the  subpena  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  your  response  to  it  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  I  have  the  records  called  for  in  the  subpena. 

The  Chairman.  In  the  first  place,  you  appear  here  in  response  to  it. 

Mr.  Champagne.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  In  the  first  place,  you  have  appeared  in  person  in 
response  to  the  subpena  and  you  are  now  present. 

Mr.  Champagne.  I  appear  in  person. 

The  Chairman.  With  respect  to  the  documents  that  you  were  di- 
rected to  deliver  by  the  subpena,  I  will  ask  you :  Do  you  have  those 
documents,  the  bank  accounts,  deposit  tickets,  brokerage  accounts, 
bank  statements,  canceled  checks,  check  stubs,  record  of  securities, 
and  other  assets  purchased  and  liquidated  during  the  period  1950  to 
the  present,  correspondence  file  relating  to  bank  accounts,  saving  and 
checking  and  other  assets,  also  all  correspondence  from  or  to  Chicago 
Restaurant  Association  ? 


12502  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN   THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Have  you  complied  with  the  subpena  by  bringing  to  the  committee 
the  documents  and  the  items  that  I  have  referred  to  here  in  schedule  A 
of  the  subpena  ? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Champagne.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  all  those  records  present  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  All  of  them  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  All  that  I  have. 

The  Chairman.  I  assume  you  have  a  copy  of  the  subpena  before 
you.  I  think  I  read  the  subpena  in  full.  If  I  overlooked  anything, 
I  am  referring  to  all  called  for  by  the  subpena.  Do  you  have  them 
physically  present — all  of  such  records  as  called  for  there  that  you 
have? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Which  of  those  records  do  you  not  have  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  I  have  them  all. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  them  all.  So  there  is  no  question  about 
there  being  some  missing,  then.  You  have  all  of  them  physically  pres- 
ent here  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  That  is  correct. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  ready  to  comply  with  the  order  and  de- 
liver them  to  the  subpena  ? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr,  Champagne.  No. 

The  Chairman.  You  refuse  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  You  refuse  to  deliver  them  to  the  subpena  ? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair  now  with  the  approval  of  the  committee 
orders  and  directs  you  to  immediately  deliver  these  documents  to  the 
committee. 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  refuse  ? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Champagne.  I  refuse  with  one  exception,  Mr.  Chairman,  the 
exception  being  that  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and 
all  of  its  amendments,  including  the  fifth  amendment,  I  decline  to 
answer  because  my  answer  might  tend  to  incriminate  me,  and  I 
refuse  to  be  a  witness  against  myself. 

I  am  ready  to  produce  and  turn  over  to  this  committee  the  cor- 
respondence  

The  Chairman.  The  what? 

Mr.  Champagne.  The  correspondence  between  myself  and  the  Chi- 
cago Restaurant  Association. 

The  CiiAiKiNrAN.  That  is  the  only  one  you  are  willing  to  comply 
with  of  the  items  listed  in  schedule  A  ?  That  is  the  last  item  there  on 
"Also  all  correspondence  from  or  to  the  Chicago  Restaurant  Associa- 
tion.'' 

Is  that  the  only  order  and  directive  with  respect  to  these  documents, 
records,  and  so  forth  that  you  are  willing  to  comply  with  ? 

(Witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Champagne.  Yes. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IX    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12503 

Tlie  Chairman.  On  the  others,  you  positively  refuse,  takiug  the 
position  that  to  disclose  them  would  be  testimony  against  yourself? 

Mr.  Champagxe.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  And  that  such  testimony,  if  submitted  to  the  com- 
mittee, or  given  by  you,  might  tend  to  incriminate  you  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  your  position  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  honestly  believe  under  oath  that  if  you  sub- 
mitted such  documents  to  the  committee,  these  documents  here  called 
for,  these  records  here  called  for,  that  you  are  now  declining  to  submit, 
that  the  records  called  for  and  the  information  revealed  therein  by 
them,  might  tend  to  incriminate  you  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  I  do. 

The  Chairman.  You  honestly  believe  that  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  I  honestly  and  sincerely  believe  it. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  you  would  know  better  than  I.  Are  there 
any  further  questions  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  might  just  ask  Mr.  Champagne  if 
we  have  the  correct  facts  about  his  tieup.  Do  you  know  anything 
about  the  Chicago  Restaurant  Association  ? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Champagne.  Under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and 
all  of  its  amendments,  including  the  fifth  amendment,  I  decline  to 
answer  because  my  answer  might  tend  to  incriminate  me,  and  I  refuse 
to  be  a  witness  against  myself. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  According  to  the  information  that  we  have,  you  were 
employed  by  the  Chicago  Eestaurant  Association,  between  the  period 
of  September  1953  and  July  1954 ;  is  that  correct? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Champagne.  Under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and 
all  of  its  amendments,  including  the  fifth  amendment,  I  decline  to  an- 
swer because  my  answer  might  tend  to  incriminate  me,  and  I  refuse  to 
be  a  witness  against  myself. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  that  when  you  were  in  private  practice,  before 
you  went  to  the  association,  you  were  making  approximately  $10,000 
a  year  in  private  practice. 

Is  that  correct  ? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Champagne.  I  refuse  to  answer  under  the  terms  of  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States  and  all  of  its  amendments,  including  the 
fifth  amendment,  because  my  answer  might  tend  to  incriminate  me 
and  I  refuse  to  be  a  witness  against  myself. 

Mr.  IvENNEDY.  And  then  when  you  went  with  the  Chicago  Restau- 
rant Association,  you  were  being  paid  a  salary  of  approximately 
$10,000  a  month,  is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and 
all  of  its  amendments,  including  the  fifth  amendment  I  decline  to 
answer  because  my  answer  might  tend  to  incriminate  me,  and  I  refuse 
to  be  a  witness  against  myself. 

Mr.  IvENNEDY.  And  then  you  resigned  in  July  1954  from  this  post 
which  paid  you  $10,000  a  month,  because  you  said  you  had  to  get  back 
to  your  other  clients  ? 


12504  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN   THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Champagne.  Under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and 
all  of  its  amendments,  including  the  fifth  amendment,  I  decline  to 
answer  because  my  answer  might  tend  to  incriminate  me,  and  I 
refuse  to  be  a  witness  against  myself. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Weren't  you  in  fact  hired  in  order  to  settle  an  impor- 
tant strike  of  a  large  restaurant  chain  in  Chicago,  111. 

Mr.  Champagne.  Under  the  terms  and  amendments  of  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States,  including  the  fifth  amendment,  I  decline 
to  answer,  because  my  answer  might  tend  to  incriminate  me,  and  I 
refuse  to  be  a  witness 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  wasn't  it  felt  that  because  of  your  association 
with  certain  of  the  underworld  in  Chicago,  111.,  that  you  could  settle 
the  strike  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and 
all  of  its  amendments,  including  the  fifth  amendment,  I  decline  to 
answer  because  my  answer  might  tend  to  incriminate  me,  and  I  refuse 
to  be  a  witness  against  myself. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Do  you  know  Tony  Accardo  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Under  the  terms  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  and  all  of  its  amendments,  including  the  fifth  amendment,  I 
decline  to  answer  because  my  answer  might  tend  to  incriminate  me,  and 
I  refuse  to  be  a  witness  against  myself. 

Mr.  KJENNEDY.  Aren't  you  a  close  associate  of  Tony  Accardo,  Vin- 
cent Insierro,  who  is  also  called  the  Saint,  and  Mooney  Giacanna  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and 
all  of  its  amendments,  including  the  fifth  amendment,  I  decline  to 
answer  because  my  answer  might  tend  to  incriminate  me,  and  I  refuse 
to  be  a  witness  against  myself. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  didn't  you  hire  an  assistant  to  help  you  in  this 
job,  a  man  by  the  name  of  Sam  English,  who  has  been  arrested  ap- 
pjoximately  eight  times  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and 
all  of  its  amendments,  including  the  fifth  amendment,  I  decline  to 
answer  because  my  answer  might  tend  to  incriminate  me,  and  I  refuse 
to  be  a  witness  against  myself. 

(At  this  point.  Senator  Curtis  withdrew  from  the  hearing  room.) 
Mr.  Kennedy,  And  he  has  been  convicted  of  burglary,  has  he  not, 
and  he  has  associations  with  Bill  Ardarcio,  Olie  Frabotta,  and  An- 
thony DeKosa  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and 
all  of  its  amendments,  including  the  fifth  amendment,  I  decline  to 
answer  because  my  answer  might  tend  to  incriminate  me,  and  I  refuse 
to  be  a  witness  against  myself. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  pass  any  of  the  money  that  you  received 
on  to  any  individual,  any  of  the  money  that  you  received  from  the 
Chicago  Restaurant  Association  ? 

Did  you  pass  that  on  to  anyone  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and 
all  of  its  amendments,  including  the  fifth  amendment,  I  decline  to 
answer  because  my  answer  might  tend  to  incriminate  me,  and  I  refuse 
to  be  a  witness  against  myself. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Chairman,  we  have  a  good  deal  more  informa- 
tion on  this  matter,  and  we  will  be  going  into  it  rather  extensively 
and  have  the  witnesses  from  the  Chicago  Restaurant  Association  as 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12505 

well  as  from  the  restaurant  chain  that  was  involved  in  this  particular 
strike. 

But  I  would  like  to  say  that  the  strike  was  settled  satisfactorily  to 
the  restaurant  chain. 

The  Chairman.  I  believe  you  stated  under  oath  that  you  have 
present  all  of  the  records  the  subpena  calls  for,  you  have  them  physi- 
cally present? 

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

Mr.  Champagne.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  show  them  to  us?  Let's  see  the  bulk  of 
them. 

( The  witness  complied  with  the  question  of  the  chairman.) 

The  Chairman.  You  have,  in  that  briefcase,  those  records  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  take  them  out  and  lay  them  on  the  table  ? 

Mr.  Allder.  That  was  some  of  his  traveling  equipment,  Senator. 

The  Chairman.  I  assume  that  was  his  toilet  kit.  That  may  be 
placed  back  in  the  briefcase.     Just  a  moment.     Just  put  the  kit  back. 

Mr.  Allder.  Excuse  me.  I  had  already  put  that  back.  I  didn't 
understand  you. 

The  Chairman.  I  said  it  was  all  right  to  put  it  back. 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Witness,  your  counsel  has  laid  out  before  you 
there  what  looks  like  some  4,  5,  or  6  packages,  or  folders,  presumably 
of  records  and  so  forth ;  is  that  correct  ? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Champagne.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CiLviRMAN.  Does  that  constitute,  what  is  now  on  the  table  be- 
fore your  counsel  and  to  your  left,  just  in  front  of  your  left  hand, 
do  those  2  packages  or  those  2  piles  of  documents  contain  all  of  the 
documents  called  for  by  schedule  A  of  tliis  subpena  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  the  documents  on  your 
left  contain  all  of  your  bank  accounts,  deposit  tickets,  brokerage  ac- 
counts, bank  statements,  canceled  checks,  check  stubs,  record  of  securi- 
ties and  other  assets  purchased,  and  liquidated  during  the  period  1950 
to  the  present,  correspondence  file  relating  to  bank  accounts,  savings, 
checking,  and  other  assets  ? 

Does  that  stack  of  documents  there  in  front  of  your  counsel  con- 
stitute all  that  the  subpena  calls  for,  which  I  have  just  read,  and  do 
you  say  that  is  all  of  the  records  during  that  period  of  time? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Since  1950? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Then  you,  obviously,  do  a  lot  of  your  business  by 
cash,  do  you  not  ? 

( The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Champagne.  Under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and 
all  of  its  amendments,  including  the  fifth  amendment — excuse  me. 

The  Chairman.  I  believe  we  would  like  to  hear  it. 

Mr.  Champagne.  Under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and 
all  of  its  amendments,  including  the  fifth  amendment,  I  decline  to 
answer  because  my  answer  might  tend  to  incriminate  me,  and  I  refuse 
to  be  a  witness  against  myself. 


12506  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR   FIELD 

The  Chairman.  Wliat  documents  do  you  have  now  before  you  that 
you  are  willing  to  turn  over  to  the  committee  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  The  correspondence  between  myself  and  the  Chi- 
cago Restaurant  Association. 

The  Chaikman.  Will  you  now  deliver  that  to  the  clerk  of  the 
committee? 

Mr.  Champagne.  I  will. 

(The  documents  were  handed  to  the  clerk.) 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you  very  much.  You  still  decline  to  deliver 
the  other  documents  to  the  committee  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Let  me  ask  you:  Are  you  a  member  of  any  bar 
association  ? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Champagne.  Yes,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  What  bar  association? 

Mr.  Champagne.  The  Chicago  Bar  Association. 

The  Chairman.  The  Chicago  Bar  Association?  All  the  Chair 
wanted  to  know — I  don't  know  what  they  will  do  about  it,  but,  you 
know,  the  labor  unions  have  passed  a  code  of  ethics,  the  AFL-CIO, 
and  I  remember  one  of  their  codes  is  that  those  who  take  the  fifth 
amendment  regardino;  matters  relating  to  their  unions  and  so  forth 
are  ineligible — well,  m  other  words,  that  practice  is  condemned  by 
their  ethical  code. 

I  am  going  to  watch,  with  a  little  interest,  the  attitude  of  a  bar 
association  with  respect  to  its  members.  Being  a  member  of  the  pro- 
fession myself,  I  know  often  the  bar  is  unjustly  criticized.  But  I 
think  that,  in  a  case  like  this,  in  an  instance  that  you  present  here  now, 
it  is  something  that  the  public  will  look  toward  with  some  concern, 
and  a  bit  of  curiosity,  to  know  what  will  be  the  reaction  of  the  bar 
association  when  one  of  its  members  finds  it  necessary  to  invoke  the 
fifth  amendment  regarding  the  business  transactions. 

Are  there  any  other  questions  ? 

May  I  present  to  you  now  a  photostatic  copy  of  a  letter  ?  I  ask  you 
to  examine  it  and  state  if  you  identify  it? 

TThe  document  was  handed  to  the  witness.) 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  examined  the  document,  the  photostatic 
copy  of  the  letter  the  Chair  presented  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  identify  it? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

The  WiTKi:ss.  Under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  all 
of  its  amendments,  including  the  fifth  amendment,  I  decline  to  answer 
because  my  answer  might  tend  to  incriminate  me,  and  I  refuse  to  be  a 
witness  against  myself. 

The  Chairman.  This  photostatic  copy  may  be  made  exhibit  No.  13, 
for  reference  (and  may  be  found  in  the  files  of  the  select  committee), 
so  as  to  give  background  information  as  to  the  matter  about  which  the 
witness  has  been  interrogated,  and  about  which  he  will  now  be 
interrogated. 

I  have  before  me  a  photostatic  copy  of  a  letter  on  the  stationary  of 
Anthony  V.  Champagne,  attorney  at  law,  5679  West  Madison  Street, 
Chicago  44,  111. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    L/\BOR    FIELD  12507 

The  letter  is  dated  June  14,  1954,  addressed  to  Chicago  Restaurant 
Association,  7  South  Dearborn  Street,  Chicago,  111.,  attention  Mr.  Don 
Kliesau,  executive  vice  president. 

Gentlemen  :  I  hereby  submit  my  resignation  as  an  attorney  for  your  associa- 
tion and  its  members,  effective  July  1,  1954.  It  would  be  appreciated  if  you 
would  advise  the  oflBcers  of  the  association  and  each  of  your  members  of  my 
resignation,  as  such.  I  wish  to  acknowledge  the  pleasant  relationship  which  I 
have  enjoyed  with  you,  personally,  the  oflBcers  and  directors,  as  well  as  the  in- 
dividual members  who  have  sought  my  counsel  during  my  tenure  as  their  at- 
torney. It  has  become  apparent  to  me  that  the  responsibilities  and  decisions  to 
be  made  in  behalf  of  your  association  and  its  members  require  the  full  time  and 
attention  of  myself  or  any  other  person  in  order  to  completely  and  competently 
solve  the  many  issues  which  arise.  As  you  know,  I  have  been  practicing  law  for 
the  past  25  years,  and  am  confronted  with  many  legal  problems  and  decisions  to 
be  made  in  behalf  of  my  clientele,  all  of  which  require  considerable  time  and 
effort  on  my  part.  In  view  of  the  established  practices  which  I  have  enjoyed 
for  many  years,  I  feel  it  my  duty  to  continue  serving  these  clients  without 
interruption. 

Again  assuring  you  that  it  has  been  a  pleasure  to  be  of  service  to  your  splendid 
organization,  I  remain,  sincerely  yours — 

and  it  appears  to  be  signed  "Anthony  V.  Champagne." 

Mr.  Champagne,  is  that  your  signature  on  this  letter  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and 
all  of  its  amendments,  including  the  fifth  amendment,  I  decline  to  an- 
swer because  my  answer  might  tend  to  incriminate  me,  and  I  refuse 
to  be  a  witness  against  myself. 

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

The  Chairman.  Did  you  write  this  letter  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Under  the  terms  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  and  all  of  its  amendments,  inclduing  the  fifth  amendment,  I 
decline  to  answer  because  my  answer  might  tend  to  incriminate  me, 
and  I  refuse  to  be  a  witness  against  myself. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  deny  this  as  your  signature?  I  believe 
I  asked  you  that.     We  will  pass  that  one. 

At  the  time  that  you  resigned  here,  were  you  receiving  from  $100,- 
000  to  $120,000  a  year  from  this  association  ? 

Mr.  Champagne,  Under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and 
all  of  its  amendments,  including  the  fifth  amendment,  I  decline  to 
answer  because  my  answer  might  tend  to  incriminate  me,  and  I  refuse 
to  be  a  witness  against  myself. 

The  Chairman.  Would  you  care  to  tell  the  committee  the  real  rea- 
son why  you  resigned  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and 
all  of  its  amendments,  including  the  fifth  amendment,  I  decline  to 
answer  because  my  answer  might  tend  to  incriminate  me,  and  I  refuse 
to  be  a  witness  against  myself. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Champagne,  you  can  well  appreciate,  bein^  a 
lawyer,  I  think,  the  Chair  need  not  go  to  much  trouble  to  admonish 
you  or  to  suggest  to  you  that  you  realize  that  you  can  anticipate  that 
the  committee  is  going  to  have  some  evidence  along  these  lines.  We 
are  going  to  get  some  testimony  about  it,  and  it  will  come  and  it  will 
be  produced.  Now,  would  you  care  to  make  any  explanation  of  this 
matter,  to  help  the  committee,  and  in  your  own  interest? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 


12508  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR   FIELD 

Mr.  Champagne.  Under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and 
all  of  its  amendments,  including  the  fifth  amendment,  I  decline  to 
answer  because  my  answer  might  tend  to  incriminate  me,  and  I  refuse 
to  be  a  witness  against  myself. 

The  Chairman.  All  right;  Mr.  Champagne,  before  you  leave  the 
stand,  the  Chair  orders  and  directs  you  to  deliver  the  records  referred 
to  in  this  schedule  A,  which  you  have  so  far  declined  and  refused  to 
deliver.     Do  you  comply  or  do  you  refuse  to  comply  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  I  refuse. 

The  Chairman.  You  will  remain  under  the  same  subpena,  subject 
to  being  recalled  by  the  committee  at  any  time.  Accepting  that  re- 
cognizance, the  Chair  will  let  you  go  at  this  time  if  you  agree  to  re- 
appear without  further  subpena  at  such  time  as  the  committee  may 
desire  your  presence,  by  giving  you  reasonable  notice. 

Mr.  Champagne.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  I  have  one  other  thing  I  wish  to  admonish  you 
about.  These  documents,  you  have  not  delivered  them,  are  under  sub- 
pena, and  any  destruction  of  them,  being  a  lawyer,  I  think  you  can 
appreciate  might  bring  you  within  contempt  of  the  United  States 
Senate. 

Mr.  Champagne.  I  understand. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  stand  aside. 

(Whereupon,  at  2:10  p.  m.,  the  committee  adjourned,  subject  to 
call  of  the  Chair.) 


INVESTIGATION  OF  IMPROPER  ACTIVITIES  IN  THE 
LABOR  OR  MANAGE3IENT  FIELD 


TUESDAY,   JULY  8,    1958 

United  States  Senate, 
Select  Committee  on  Improper  Activities 

IN  the  Labor  or  j\L\nagement  Field, 

Washington^  D.  C. 

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

Present:  Senator  John  L.  McClellan,  Democrat,  Arkansas;  Sen- 
ator Frank  Church,  Democrat,  Idaho ;  Senator  Carl  T.  Curtis,  Repub- 
lican, Nebraska. 

Also  present :  Robert  F.  Kennedy,  chief  counsel ;  John  J.  McGov- 
ern,  assistant  counsel;  LaVern  J.  Duffy,  investigator;  James  P.  Kelly, 
investigator;  James  Mundie,  investigator;  Ruth  Young  Watt,  chief 
clerk. 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  will  be  in  order. 

(Members  of  the  committee  present  at  the  opening  of  the  session 
were :  Senators  McClellan,  Church,  and  Curtis.) 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair  will  make  a  brief  opening  statement. 
Today  we  are  beginning  an  investigation  into  the  labor-management 
affairs  of  the  restaurant  industry  in  Chicago,  111. 

We  expect  to  inquire  into. 

( 1 )  Whether  groups  of  employers  banned  together  for  the  purposes 
of  destroying  legitimate  unionization. 

(2)  Whether  collusive  deals  were  made  between  dishonest  manage- 
ment and  dishonest  union  officials. 

(3)  Whether  gangsters  or  hoodlums  were  employed  by  an  associa- 
tion of  employers  to  keep  out  unionization  or  to  handle  their  labor 
relations. 

(4)  "\^'liether  certain  union  officials  have  been  or  are  presently  in 
the  control  of  the  criminal  syndicate  in  Chicago. 

During  these  hearings,  which  will  run  probably  for  2  weeks,  we 
expect  to  develop  the  fact  that,  in  arrangements  of  the  types  men- 
tioned above,  the  needs  and  interests  of  the  employees  are  completely 
ignored.  Unions  exist  for  the  purpose  of  helping  and  assisting  the 
employees  or  workers. 

However,  where  union  officials  ignore  their  trust  and  becoiiio  inter- 
ested only  in  money,  where  you  have  employers  interested  only  in  keep- 
ing down  their  costs,  no  matter  what  may  be  the  hardship  that  they 
impose  on  their  employees,  you  have  a  situation  that  is  a  perversion  of 
the  whole  idea  of  proper  and  legitimate  labor-management  relations. 

12509 


12510  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Such  situations  need  to  be  exposed  and,  where  possible,  Congress 
must  act  to  insure  that  they  do  not  continue. 

I  would  like  to  say  that  throughout  this  whole  investigation  we  have 
had  the  complete  cooperation  and  invaluable  assistance  of  Mayor  Rich- 
ard Daly  of  the  city  of  Chicago.  As  in  New  York,  where  District 
Attorney  Frank  Hogan  and  Police  Commissioner  Stephen  Kennedy 
were  of  such  assistance,  in  Chicago  Mayor  Daly  and  those  under  him 
have  been  of  great  help  in  furnishing  to  the  committee  background 
information  and  other  assistance  in  its  investigation.  The  committee 
is  very  grateful,  for  without  this  aid  the  investigation  would  have  been 
far  more  difficult. 

I  want  to  emphasize  the  value  of  assistance  given  the  committee  from 
time  to  time  by  local  officials.  Where  they  cooperate  with  us  we  are 
able  to  get  the  information  and  follow  up  leads  and  develop  the  facts 
much  easier  than  where  they  are  indifferent  to  our  labors  and  to  our 
mission,  or  where  they  provide  some  passive  resistance  to  our  efforts. 

It  is  always  gratifying  when  we  have  tliat  cooperation  from  local 
authorities  who  are  responsible  for  law  enforcement  in  their  areas. 

All  right,  Mr.  Kennedy,  will  you  call  the  first  witness  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Virgil  Peterson,  Mr.  Chairman,  who  is  the  oper- 
ating director  of  the  Chicago  Crime  Commission. 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  be  sworn,  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.  Peterson.  I  do. 

TESTIMONY  OF  VIEGIL  W.  PETERSON 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Peterson,  state  your  name,  and  your  place  of 
residence,  and  your  profession  or  occupation. 

Mr.  Peterson.  My  name  is  Virgil  W.  Peterson,  I  am  the  operating 
director  of  the  Chicago  Crime  Commission,  79  West  Monroe,  Chicago. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you.  How  long  have  you  been  in  that  posi- 
tion? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Since  April  1, 1942,  a  little  over  16  years. 

The  Chairman.  You  waive  counsel,  of  course,  Mr.  Peterson  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you.  The  Chair  overlooked  asking,  and 
I  apologize  for  not  asking  any  other  member  of  the  committee  if  they 
had  any  comment. 

Senator  Curtis.  I  have  no  comment,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Church.  I  had  no  comments,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  All  riglit,  Mv.  Kennedy,  proceed. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Chairman,  in  the  course  of  the  investigation 
that  we  have  been  making  in  Chicago,  we  have  had  great  assistance 
also  from  Mr.  Petoi'son,  wlio  is  acknowledged  I  think  throughout 
the  United  States  as  one  of  the  foremost  authorities  in  the  held  we 
are  inquiring  into.  We  have  called  Mr.  Peterson  to  give  some  back- 
ground information  regarding  some  of  the  individuals  in  whom  Ave 
have  an  interest.  I  would  like  to  start  out  by  asking  Mv.  Peterson 
if  he  has  any  information  indicating  that  the  old  Capone  group  out 
of  Chicago  was  interested  in  moving  into  any  of  the  labor  unions  or 
into  legitimate  business  durinjr  the  1920's  and  1930's. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12511 

Of  course,  Mr.  Chairman,  this  is  a  continuation  of  what  we  were 
inquiring  into  last  week  when  we  asked  similar  questions  of  other  indi- 
viduals from  other  sections  of  the  country. 

Mr.  Peterson.  Definitely,  we  have  such  information. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  "V^Hien  did  it  start,  Mr.  Peterson  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  A  number  of  years  ago.  For  example,  in  1940  the 
crime  commission  at  that  time,  together  with  other  officials  of  the 
Chicago  Association  of  Commerce  and  the  employers'  association, 
went  to  the  maj'^or  of  the  city  of  Chicago  at  that  time,  Edward  J. 
Kelly,  and  also  to  the  State's  attorney  and  advised  them  or  we  urged 
them  to  take  action  to  prevent  this  infiltration  of  notorious  Capone 
hoodlums  into  the  labor  field. 

Following  a  conference  that  we  had  at  that  time — and  I  say  "we," 
I  was  not  with  the  commission  at  that  time,  but  our  president,  Mr. 
Kohn,  was. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  long  have  you  been  with  the  commission  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Since  1942,  and  this  was  in  1940,  the  time  I  am 
speaking  of. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Your  testimony  is  based  on  the  records  of  the  crime 
commission  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  had  you  been  doing  prior  to  the  time  you 
came  with  the  commission  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Prior  to  that  time  I  was  with  the  FBI  from  1930 
until  1942.  In  a  short  time,  and  only  a  few  days  later,  the  Chicago 
police  then  conducted  raids  on  certain  unions  that  it  considered  domi- 
nated by  Frank  Nitti  and  the  Capone  ^ang. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Who  is  Frank  Nitti,  and  how  do  you  spell  his 
name? 

Mr.  Peterson.  N-i-t-t-i.  He  was  the  successor  to  Al  Capone  as  the 
leader  of  the  Capone  syndicate  or  gang  in  Chicago. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Was  he  also  known  as  "The  Enforcer"  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Frank  "The  Enforcer"  Nitti. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  does  that  term  mean,  "The  Enforcer"  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  I  think  it  is  rather  self-explanatory.  He  was  a 
vicious  hoodlum  and  he  enforced  demands  through  violence  and  that 
sort  of  thing. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Was  he  known  as  "The  Enforcer"  for  the  Capone 
mob? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Yes,  and  he  was  commonly  known  as  Frank  "The 
Enforcer"  Nitti,  that  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  the  Chicago  Police  Department  then  moved 
in  on  some  of  the  unions  that  they  believed  were  dominated  and  con- 
trolled by  people  and  individuals  such  as  Frank  Nitti,  is  that  right? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Yes,  and  in  fact  on  August  12,  1940,  the  Chicago 
police  raided  the  headquarters  of  local  593  of  the  Hotel,  Apartment 
Employees  and  Miscellaneous  Workers  Union  at  10  North  Wells 
Street,  in  Chicago.  They  seized  2  officers,  or  3  officers  at  the  union 
headquarters  who  were  James  Blakely,  then  secretary-treasurer  of 
local  593,  and  a  pal  of  Danny  Stanton,  a  well-known  Capone  gang- 
ster, and  in  fact  IBlakely  is  still  secretary-treasurer  of  local  593  and  a 
vice  president  of  the  international  union. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  is  B-1-a-k-e-l-y  ? 

21243— 58— pt.  33 2 


12512  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Peterson,  Yes,  and  they  also  seized  a  man  by  the  name  of  John 
Lardino,  a  business  agent  of  that  union,  who  also  was  very  close  to  a 
number  of  Capone  hoodlums,  and  another  business  agent  by  the  name 
of  Mike  Mikley. 

A  writ  of  habeas  corpus  was  filed  in  connection  with  the  seizure  of 
the  records  and  arrests  of  those  individuals  on  that  occasion,  and  Police 
Officer  Frank  O.  Sullivan  in  return  to  the  writ  stated  that  these  men 
were  wanted  in  connection  with  an  investigation  then  being  conducted 
by  the  Chicago  Police  Department  into  labor  terrorism  in  Chicago. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  you  stated  earlier  that  Blakely  was  a  friend 
of  Danny  Stanton  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Yes. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Who  was  Danny  Stanton  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Danny  Stanton  was  a  notorious  Capone  gangster, 
and  he  was  engaged  in  gambling  activities,  particularly  on  the  South 
Side,  and  he  was  also  considered  a  power  in  a  number  of  the  unions  in 
Chicago.    He  was  later  killed  in  gang  warfare. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  When  was  he  killed  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  May  12, 1943.    I  think  I  can  give  you  the  exact  date. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  It  was  1943? 

Mr.  Peterson.  It  was  May  5,  1943,  and  he  was  slain  in  a  tavern 
at  6500  South  May  Street. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  prior  to  that,  there  had  been  some  information 
indicating  that  the  Capone  groups  were  moving  into  some  unions  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Oh,  yes. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  They  had  in  1929  and  1930  moved  in  on  some  of  the 
teamsters  locals,  had  they  not  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  And  the  building  trades  unions,  and  as  a  matter  of 
fact  in  the  building  trades  there  were  special  grand  juries  and  investi- 
gations in  the  early  1920's,  and  in  fact  during  those  times  there  were 
a  number  of  prosecutions  at  that  time.  As  I  recall  the  former  president 
of  the  Chicago  Crime  Commission,  Frank  Lesh,  was  a  special  prose- 
cutor in  connection  with  some  of  those  cases. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  There  had  been  a  number  of  killings  of  union  offi- 
cials ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Yes. 

Senator  Curtis.  Excuse  me,  but  I  would  like  to  ask  a  question  right 
there.  Wliy  do  these  hoodlums — some  of  them  are  gangsters  and  mur- 
derers and  gamblers  and  extortionists  and  all  sorts  of  bad  actors — why 
did  they  select  unions  as  the  field  of  exploitation  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Well,  when  they  are  able  to  dominate  a  particular 
union,  it  is,  as  I  think  will  be  shown  in  these  hearings,  a  tremendously 
lucrative  operation  for  the  hoodlums  themselves. 

Senator  Curtis.  By  "lucrative,"  where  do  they  get  their  money  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Well,  with  reference  to  the  income  of  the  union  itself. 

Senator  Curtis.  The  checkoff  of  dues  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  The  dues  from  the  employees,  and,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  during  the  period  that  Mr.  Kennedy  was  inquiring  about,  in  the 
1920's,  for  example,  in  the  building  trades,  they  weren't  interested  in 
the  welfare  of  the  employees,  of  course,  but  they  had  these  contracts 
with  penalty  clauses  in  them  if  they  didn't  complete  the  contract  by 
a  certain  time. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12513 

Well,  a  racketeer  would  fjo  to  a  contractor  and  say  in  substance, 
"Well,  if  you  give  me  $20,000  or  $30,000  or  $50,000,  we  won't  call  a 
strike;  and  if  you  don't  give  me  the  $50,000  we  will  call  a  strike." 

A  number  of  the  racketeers  made  tremendous  incomes  during  that 
period  through  those  means. 

Senator  Curtis.  In  other  words,  it  appealed  to  them  as  a  lucrative 
proposition  first  to  get  their  hands  on  the  treasury  of  the  union  be- 
cause of  the  checkoff  and  the  compulsion  that  men  must  pay  to  con- 
tinue to  work,  and  another  source  of  income  was  that  it  gave  them  an 
opportunity  for  extortion  and  blackmail  and  that  sort  of  thing. 

Mr.  Peterson.  That  is  right.  And  there  have  been  instances  that 
I  don't  think  you  are  going  into  this  morning — take  in  the  jukebox 
field,  where  controlling  a  union  enables  monopolistic  practices  on  the 
part  of  those  with  whom  they  may  be  in  collusion. 

Senator  Curtis.  I  think  one  of  the  most  important  things  brought 
out  by  this  committee  in  the  months  of  its  work  has  been  that  the  laws 
of  our  land  are  such  in  reference  to  unions  that  it  invites  hoodlums 
and  the  wrong  sort  of  people  to  come  in.  The  law  permits  unions 
to  be  run  from  the  top.  We  have  seen  that  over  and  over  again.  The 
law  does  nothing  about  the  grievances  of  individual  union  members 
so  far  as,  by  and  large,  getting  any  relief  through  court  action. 

The  law  grants  a  certain  cloak  of  respectability  and  immunities  to 
unions  both  as  a  matter  of  law  and  as  a  matter  of  practice.  The  unions' 
practice  of  blocking  a  sidewalk  or  street  goes  unnoticed  and  it  puts 
a  weapon  in  the  hand  of  the  wrong  type  of  people  to  harass,  intimi- 
date, and  extort,  and  slow  up,  and  do  those  other  things.  We  have  the 
helpless  situation  of  union  members  and  their  inability  to  withdraw 
from  the  union  without  losing  their  job. 

I  think  that  we  are  going  to  have  to  strive  for  those  laws  that  will 
free  the  union  member  and  no  longer  make  it  profitable  for  hoodlums 
to  get  in. 

That  is  all.  I  am  sorry  for  the  interruption,  Mr.  Chairman,  and 
that  is  all  I  have  at  this  time. 

The  Chairman.  All  right,  we  will  proceed. 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  stated  that  Blakely  was  a  good  friend  of  Danny 
Stanton,  and  he  was  arrested,  and  also  Mr.  John  Lardino.    Can  you 
give  us  any  more  of  the  background  of  some  of  these  individuals, 
for  instance  Mr.  Blakely  ? 
Mr.  Peterson.  Yes. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Was  he  tied  in  with  any  of  the  other  of  the  Capone 
group  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Well,  his  principal  connections  at  that  time  were, 
as  I  understand  it,  with  Danny  Stanton. 

You  asked  for  background  information.  We  have  an  observer's  re- 
port from  1930,  relating  to  an  indictment  returned  against  Danny 
Stanton  for  carrying  concealed  weapons.  In  that  particular  case,  a 
police  officer,  William  Drewry,  who  has  since  been  killed,  testified  that 
at  2  p.  m.  on  December  16,  1929,  he  saw  Danny  Stanton  and  James 
Blakely  on  the  northeast  corner  of  Randolph  and  Clark  Streets;  he 
arrested  them.    He  went  over  to  Danny  Stanton,  and  in  his  overcoat 


12514  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

he  found  a  revolver  loaded  with  dum-dum  bullets,  and  he  placed  them 
both  in  a  taxicab  and  drove  them  to  the  police  station. 

While  they  were  en  route  to  the  police  station,  Stanton  told,  ac- 
cording to  Drewry's  testimony  told  Blakely,  he  said,  "Remember  that 
they  found  this  gun  on  the  floor  of  the  taxicab. 

"Thatisourout." 

Well,  apparently  the  court  believed  that  testimony  also,  because 
they  returned  a  verdict  of  not  guilty  in  connection  with  the  particular 
case.  But  Blakely  has  been  arrested  on  two  or  three  different  occa- 
sions. On  another  occasion  he  was  arrested  by  Lt.  George  Barnes  for 
abusive  language  and  that  sort  of  thing  in  connection  with  an  election 
of  Local  88  of  the  Cooks  and  Pastry  Workers'  Union. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  He  still  has  this  position  with  the  union,  does  he  not  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Yes ;  that  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Isn't  that  the  largest  hotel  employees'  union  in  the 
Chicago  area,  593  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Wliat  about  Mr.  Lardino  ?  Do  you  have  any  back- 
ground on  him  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Yes.  During  the  latter  part  of  1956  the  Crime  Com- 
mission received  information  that  a  number  of  individuals,  that  was 
as  late  as  1956,  had  recently  stepped  into  places  of  somewhat  impor- 
tance as  aids  to  Tony  Arcardo,  the  head  of  the  Capone  syndicate. 

Among  those  mentioned  in  this  capacity  was  John  Lardino.  From 
a  number  of  other  individuals  mentioned  by  these  same  sources  of 
information,  we  know  that  to  be  true. 

Lardino's  record  goes  back,  as  far  as  the  police  records  are  con- 
cerned, a  number  of  years,  over  30  years,  to  be  exact.  Our  observer's 
report  of  October  3,  192'7,  relates  to  an  indictment,  indictment  No. 
44028,  charging  Lardino  with  robbery,  together  with  3  other  indi- 
viduals, Joseph  Castalenti,  Mide  Reggri,  and  Sam  DeCesera. 

These  men  all  had  prior  records  and  he  was  placed  on  probation, 
as  I  recall,  in  that  particular  case.  In  fact,  the  police  records  show 
that  on  June  9,  1927,  Lardino  was  sentenced  to  6  months  in  the  house 
of  correction  on  vagrancy  charges,  and  on  October  14,  1927,  he  was 
placed  on  probation  for  robbery,  which  was  reduced  to  petit  larceny. 
On  October  7,  1927,  he  was  arrested  under  the  name  of  Edward 
Nardi,  No.  C-69840,  and  was  arrested  on  suspicion  and  for  investiga- 
tion. Again  on  March  14, 1948,  he  was  arrested  by  the  Chicago  police, 
by  the  detective  bureau,  Sergeant  Pape,  and  company. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Have  you  found  that  he  has  been  a  companion  or  a 
contact  with  a  number  of  the  well-known  gangsters  in  the  Chicago 
area? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Definitely.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  you  might  have 
some  interest  in  this:  On  May  30,  1955,  Louis  "Little  New  York" 
Campagna,  who  was  one  of  the  leading  Capone  syndicate  gangsters 
in  Chicago,  and  who,  as  you  may  know,  was  convicted  in  the  movie 
extortion  case  a  number  of  years  ago,  together  with  Paul  Ricca, 
Cliarles  Joey,  Phil  DeAndre,  Nick  Deane,  and  a  number  of  others. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Little  New  York,  he  was  called  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Yes.  On  May  30,  1955,  Campagna  died  on  a  boat 
off  the  coast  of  Florida.  His  body  was  returned  to  Chicago,  and 
there  was  a  wake  in  John  Ra<2:o's  Funeral  Parlor  on  South  Harlem 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12515 

Avenue.  At  this  wake  we  had  such  syndicate  hoodhuns  as  Joe 
Aiuppa,  Sam  Giancana,  Jack  Cerone,  Willie  Alosio,  Ealph  Pierce, 
James  Emory,  Frank  LaPorte,  Jolin  Lardino,  Tony  Accardo,  Mur- 
ray Humphrej's,  Rocco  Fischetti,  Joe  Glimco,  Claude  Maddox,  Sam 
Battaglia. 

He  drove  a  car  to  the  wake  with  1955  license  plates  745-748,  issued 
to  John  Lardino,  10  North  Wells  Street,  Chicago,  which  is  the  address 
of  local  593. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  "Wlio  are  these  other  individuals  that  you  men- 
tioned ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  They  are  all  notorious  hoodlums.  Tony  Accardo 
undoubtedly  is  the  successor  to  Frank  Nitti  as  head  of  the  Capone 
gang,  particularly  since  Paul  Ricca  has  been  under  wraps  somewhat 
with  reference  to  denaturalization  proceedings  and  the  extortion 
case.  Murray  Humphreys,  Rocco  Fischetti,  all  of  those  individuals, 
they  are  well-known  Chicago  Capone  syndicate  hoodlums. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  John  Lardino  was  in  their  company  at  that 
time? 

Mr.  Peterson.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Didn't  his  brother  Danny  Lardino  control  one  of 
those  hotel  and  restaurant  employees'  unions  in  the  Chicago  area? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Yes.  He  was  head  of  Local  658  of  the  Drugstore, 
Fountain,  and  Luncheonette  Employees'  Union,  which  also  has  an 
address  of  10  North  Wells  Street. 

Mr.  ICennedy.  That  is  local  658? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Local  658.  From  1950  through  1957,  he  was  in  that 
capacity.  In  January  1958,  local  658  merged  with  local  593,  and 
Daniel  Lardino  is  now  a  business  agent  in  local  593. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  593  is  the  one  that  belongs  to  John  Lardino? 

Mr.  Peterson.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  658  merged  with  them  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Rather  than  head  of  local  658,  he  then  became  just 
business  agent  for  593  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Yes. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Would  you  tell  us  a  little  about  Danny  Lardino? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Well,  Daniel  Lardino  has  a  criminal  record.  On 
August  18,  1944,  he  was  arrested  as  a  burglary  suspect  by  Officers 
McGuire,  Daley,  Hall,  and  Ward,  of  the  detective  bureau,  as  Dan 
Lardino,  No.  D-27863.  On  October  5,  1944,  he  was  sentenced  to  90 
days  in  the  house  of  correction  on  a  malicious  mischief  charge  and 
a  plea  of  guilty  before  Judge  Ward,  and  as  Daniel  Lardino  he  was 
arrested  July  16,  1950,  for  investigation  by  Officers  Megan  and  com- 
pany. 

Mr.  Kennedy,  Did  you  ever  receive  any  reports  from  the  Chicago 
Crime  Commission  regarding  Danny  Lardino's  activities  in  the  labor 
field  in  the  Chicago  area  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Yes.  In  September  1950,  we  received  information 
based  on  a  complaint  of  a  number  of  druggists  on  the  North  and 
West  Sides  of  Chicago.  At  that  time,  they  were  subjected  to  certain 
violence  tactics,  and  they  appealed  to  us  to  try  to  n:et  at  that  time 
the  Senate  committee,  the  Kefauver  committee,  to  investigate  what 
thev  called  racket  unions,  which  were  preying  on  them. 


i 


12516  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

In  fact,  I  wrote  a  letter  to  the  counsel  for  the  whole  Kefauver 
committee  at  that  time,  suggesting  that  they  look  into  this  matter. 
Included  in  the  complaint  was  local  658,  10  North  Wells  Street,  Chi- 
cago, and  the  union  officials  complained  of  were  Daniel  Lardino  and 
Henry  C.  Koberts.  The  complaint  alleged  that  these  union  officials 
had  instituted  picketing  and  violence,  that  windows  of  drugstores 
had  been  mysteriously  broken,  and  intimidating  telephone  calls  had 
been  received  by  the  wives  of  druggists,  suggesting  death  to  their 
husbands.  This  activity  centered,  as  I  said,  largely  on  the  North 
and  Northwest  Sides  of  Chicago.  Business  agents  representing  one 
or  more  of  the  unions  complained  of  would  visit  a  druggist,  suggest 
that  he  place  his  employees  in  the  union,  pay  initiation  fees  and  dues, 
and  it  was  claimed  that  if  he  would  pay  $20  a  month  he  would  there- 
after remain  absolutely  unmolested,  that  is,  on  each  employee,  by  the 
imion. 

It  was  also  claimed  to  us,  reported  to  us,  that  a  number  of  the  drug- 
gists were  paying  off  in  this  fashion. 

Senator  Cuktis.  Mr.  Chairman? 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Curtis? 

Senator  Curtis.  You  identified  that  union  by  number,  I  believe. 

That  dealt  with  the  druggists.     What  kind  of  a  union  was  it  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Well,  it  was  the  Drugstore,  Fountain,  and  Lunch- 
eonette Employees'  Union.     It  took  in  that  type  of  employee. 

Senator  Curtis.  I  would  like  to  have  this  background  information. 
In  the  course  of  the  years  that  you  have  had  to  deal  with  this  problem 
and  other  problems  in  this  Chicago  area,  you  have  become  familiar 
with  many  of  these  things.  I  would  like  to  know  what  unions  in  the 
Chicago  area  have  been  infiltrated  by  the  criminal  elements.  I  am 
not  asking  that  specific  locals  be  named  by  number,  but  what  occu- 
pations ? 

What  are  the  principal  ones  ? 

Mr,  Peterson.  Well,  that  would  cover  a  pretty  wide  field.  Cer- 
tainly the  Taxicab  Drivers'  Union,  headed  by  Joey  Glimco.  You 
have  had  certainly,  the  activities  in  the  jukebox  field  with  the  Electri- 
cal Workers'  Union.  There  have  been  just  innumerable  cases  of 
that. 

Senator  Curtis.  I  think  it  is  important  that  this  senatorial  commit- 
tee have  somewhat  of  a  detailed  list  on  that.  You  have  mentioned 
the  hotel  workers,  the  restaurant  and  hotel  workers. 

The  Chairman.  Would  it  be  well  to  let  him  submit  us  that  list? 

Mr.  Peterson.  I  will  be  glad  to  do  that. 

The  Chairman.  Some  of  them  are  presently  under  investigation  by 
the  committee. 

Senator  Curtis.  Did  you  also  mention  the  building  trades  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Yes.  In  time  gone  by.  I  don't  recall  right  offhand 
whether  that  situation  prevails  right  at  the  moment  or  not. 

Senator  Curtis.  Following  the  chairman's  suggestion,  I  think  it 
would  be  very  fine  if  you  would  submit  in  writing  a  detailed  answer  to 
my  question. 

Mr.  Peterson.  I  will  be  glad  to. 

Senator  Curtis.  It  will  show  the  extent  of  the  problem,  and  we  can 
also  follow  through  and  see  what  the  international  unions  have  done 
about  it. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12517 

The  Chairman.  Your  statement  will  be  submitted  under  oath,  so 
that  at  such  time  as  the  committee  may  desire,  it  may  be  made  a  part  of 
the  committee's  record. 

Senator  CuRxrs.  In  that  connection,  I  have  one  further  question. 
As  a  matter  of  public  opinion,  is  it  pretty  well  accepted  around  Chicago 
that  a  number  of  the  unions  are  dominated  by  criminal  elements? 

Mr.  Peterson.  I  am  sure  that  is  true,  yes.  In  fact,  I  think  you 
would  find  if  you  talked  to  many  rank-and-file  members  of  the  unions 
themselves  they  would  be  of  the  same  impression,  many  times,  and 
there  have  been  instances  where  there  has  been  a  feeling  of  hopeless- 
ness on  the  part  of  many  of  the  members. 

Senator  Curtis.  I  am  sure  that  is  true.  I  am  sure  you  have  rendered 
an  invaluable  public  service  in  the  work  you  have  carried  on. 

That  confirms  what  I  hear,  too.  Many  rank-and-file  members  feel 
that  our  present  laws  permit  too  much  regulation  from  the  top,  and 
they  feel  hopeless. 

Mr.  Peterson.  Wherever  you  have  gangster  infiltration,  whether 
it  be  in  the  labor-union  fields  or  in  the  legitimate  business  field, 
hoodlums  still  remain  hoodlums,  they  still  know  only  one  law  and  that 
is  the  law  of  the  jungle. 

That  is  the  way  they  operate,  that  is,  if  they  are  in  positions  of 
importance,  whether  it  is  in  unions  or  business.  They  are  interested, 
of  course,  in  maintaining  monopolies  for  the  benefit  of  the  hoodlums. 
They  are  not  interested  in  the  welfare  of  the  individuals  whom  they 
are  supposedly  representing. 

Senator  Curtis.  And  they  gravitate  to  those  activities  where  there 
is  money  and  power  and  monopoly  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  "V\nierever  there  is  money,  where  there  is  easy  money. 
In  other  words,  the  "fast  buck,"  so  to  speak,  that  is  what  your  hood- 
lum elements  are  always  interested  it. 

Senator  Curtis.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Church.  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Church. 

Senator  Church.  Mr.  Peterson,  returning  to  the  testimony  that 
you  were  giving,  you  were  comi^ncing  to  make  a  case  against  local 
593.  You  had  mentioned  two  of  the  officials,  James  Blakely  and 
John  Lardino,  and  had  mentioned  the  fact  that  each  had  criminal 
records.  You  also  mentioned  Danny  Lardino,  who  was  once  presi- 
dent of  local  658,  which  later  merged  with  this  same  union,  local  593. 
Can  you  tell  me,  in  order  that  I  can  better  follow  your  testimony, 
what  connection  these  officers  of  local  593  had,  if  any,  with  Frank 
Nitti,  "the  Enforcer,"  the  successor  to  Al  Capone  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Well,  as  I  mentioned  before,  Blakely  for  example 
was  a  friend  of  Danny  Stanton.  It  was  the  common  understanding 
of  the  police  in  1940,  which  I  will  go  into  a  little  bit  later,  in  connection 
with  the  bartenders  union  and  that  sort  of  thing,  but  there  were  a 
number  of  unions  which  were  taken  over  by  the  so-called  Capone 
syndicate,  headed  by  Frank  '"the  Enforcer"  Nitti,  and  this  was  one 
of  them  that  the  police  at  that  time  were  confident  was  in  that  par- 
ticular category,  particularly  in  view  of  the  relationship  of  Lardino 
and  Blakely  with  some  of  the  Capone  hoodlums. 

Senator  Church.  Tell  me,  what  kind  of  jurisdiction  did  local  593 
have  ?    That  is  to  say,  did  in  include  waiters  or  chefs  ? 


12518  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Peterson.  In  the  city  of  Chicago.  You  had  another  local  that 
covered  the  suburban  areas. 

Senator  Chukch.  Can  you  give  me  an  idea  about  the  size  or  scope 
of  its  activities  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  I  did  have  those  figures,  I  think  in  the  memorandum 
that  I  prepared.    It  went  into  several  thousand  of  employees. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  I  think  there  are  about  10,000. 

Senator  Church.  About  10,000  employees.  It  would  cover,  then,  a 
great  many  separate  restaurants  in  Chicago. 

Mr.  Peterson.  Yes. 

Senator  Church.  And  it  operated  within  suburban  Chicago  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  No.  It  operated  primarily  within  the  city  limits  of 
Chicago. 

Senator  Church.  Within  urban  Chicago  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Yes,  that  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Just  on  what  we  have  been  discussing,  you  did  not 
mean  to  say  or  imply  that  all  of  the  unions  in  the  Chicago  area  are 
controlled  by  gangsters. 

Mr.  Peterson.  Oh,  my,  no.   No. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Actually,  in  some  cases,  some  instances,  they  are  a 
minority  of  unions,  are  they  not  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Yes.  The  same  thing  would  apply — I  don't  want  to 
generalize  to  that  extent.  In  other  words,  you  have  a  number  of 
hoodlums  that  are  in  legitimate  businesses,  but  that  does  not  mean  that 
they  control  all  legitimate  businesses. 

Senator  Church.  I  think  we  have  to  be  careful  to  make  that  distinc- 
tion. Just  because  hoodlums  get  into  business  does  not  mean  we 
should  indict  business,  and  just  because  hoodlums  get  into  labor  does 
not  mean  we  should  indict  labor. 

Mr.  Peterson.  I  would  agree  with  that  a  hundred  percent.  Even 
those  that  they  have  infiltrated  into,  that  is  no  indictment  of  labor 
itself ;  that  is  an  indictment  of  the  individuals  who  have  been  success- 
ful in  taking  over  those  particular  unions. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Have  you  found  in  your  experience  that  one  of  the 
great  problems  in  breaking  this  contl-ol  is  the  failure  of  businessmen 
to  cooperate  with  the  law-enforcement  officials  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Yes.  You  see,  whenever  hoodlums  get  into  any 
activity  of  that  kind,  then,  of  course,  there  is  fear,  intimidation,  and  it 
is  in  many  instances  apparently  just  easier  to  go  along  than  it  is  to 
fight  it. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Also,  we  have  found  in  our  investigation,  there  is 
collusion  that  exists.  Often  businessmen  can  find  that  by  making  this 
deal  with  gangsters  or  hoodlums,  they  can  keep  competitors  out. 
Have  3^ou  found  that  also  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Well,  I  have  heard  that. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Chairman,  we  were  talking  about  Danny  Lar- 
dino.  He  controlled  local  658,  which  had  up  to  1,000  members.  When 
they  merged  with  local  593  it  had  only  approximately  400  workers,  but 
he  had  complete  control  and  dominion  of  the  local  and  the  individuals 
in  the  local.  Mr.  Peterson  has  given  some  background  information  on 
Mr.  Lardino,  but  we  have  another  witness  who  will  give  some  more 
background  information  on  him.  For  that  reason,  I  would  like  to 
have  Mr.  Peterson  step  aside  and  call  Lieutenant  Butler. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN   THE    LABOR    FIELD  12519 

The  Chairman.  Lieutenant,  you  do  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.  Butler.  I  do. 

TESTIMONY  OF  GEOKGE  BUTLER 

The  Chairman.  State  your  name,  your  place  of  residence. 

Mr.  Butler.  George  Butler,  Dallas,  Tex.;  police  officer. 

The  Chairman.  How  long  have  you  been  a  police  officer  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  22  years. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  your  rank  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  Lieutenant  of  detectives. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  in  Chicago  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  Dallas,  Tex. 

The  Chairman.  Dallas,  Tex.  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAiRiiAN.  Do  you  waive  counsel  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed,  Mr.  Kennedy. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Lieutenant,  were  you  with  the  intelligence  division 
of  the  Dallas  Police  Department  for  a  period  of  time  ? 

JSIr.  Butler.  No,  sir;  it  was  not  called  the  intelligence  division 
then. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  was  it  called  at  that  time  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  Just  special  assignments  detail. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Were  you  working  on  the  racketeers  and  gangsters  ? 
Was  that  your  specific  assignment? 

Mr.  Butler.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Are  you  on  that  assignment  at  the  present  time? 

Mr.  Butler.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  long  have  you  been  not  working  on  that? 

Mr.  Butler.  I  have  been  assigned  to  juvenile  work  for  the  past  3 
years. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  But  prior  to  that  you  were  an  expert  in  the  field 
of  racketeers  and  gangsters ;  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  Yv^ell,  that  is 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Well,  you  had  worked  on  it ;  hadn't  you  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  for  the  last  3  years  you  have  been  working  on 
juveniles  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Ivennedy.  You  were  transferred  into  this  juvenile  work? 

INIr.  Butler.  Yes,  sir. 

ISIr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  find  in  the  mid-1940's  that  there  was  a 
group  of  gangsters  that  came  from  Chicago  to  try  to  take  over  the 
rackets  in  the  city  of  Dallas  and  that  area? 

Mr.  Butler.  That  is  right,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Could  you  tell  the  committee  what  you  found  in  the 
course  of  your  investigation  and  some  of  the  individuals  that  were 
involved,  and  what  they  were  trying  to  do  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  Well,  in  1946,  or  1945,  there  had  been  a  change  in  ad- 
ministration in  Dallas.  The  gang  that  ordinarily  operated  down 
there  was  run  out,  which  left  the  gambling  field  and  racket  field  wide 


12520  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

open.  These  boys  from  Chicago  came  in,  looked  the  situation  over, 
and  decided  that  they  wanted  to  take  over  not  only  Dallas  but  the 
whole  State  of  Texas  and  the  Southwest. 

Mr.  Kennedy,  Who  were  some  of  the  people  that  came  in?  Can 
you  tell  us  that  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  The  first  man  that  came  down  that  we  got  informa- 
tion about  was  Paul  Roland  Jones. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Who  was  Paul  Roland  Jones  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  He  is  a  con  man.  He  has  been  handled  for  murder. 
He  has  been  handled  for  narcotics. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  He  has  been  handled  ? 

Mr,  Butler.  Well,  he  has  been  sent  to  the  penitentiary  for  murder. 
That  is  a  term  we  use  in  police  work,  handled. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  He  was  convicted  for  murder;  was  he  not? 

Mr,  Butler.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  for  narcotics? 

Mr.  Butler.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  he  had  been  pardoned  on  the  murder  charge? 

Mr.  Butler.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Out  of  a  penitentiary  in  Kansas,  was  it  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  That  is  right,  sir. 

Mr,  Kennedy,  And  he  had  come  down  to  Dallas.  Had  he  come 
originally  from  Chicago?  Had  he  been  associated  with  the  gang- 
sters there  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  He  had  been  associated  with  the  Chicago  people  in 
black-market  operations  and  counterfeit  ration-stamp  deals  and 
things  of  that  character  during  the  war  years. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Will  you  tell  us  what  happened  after  that  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  He  came  down  and  put  in  a  liquor  store  with  the 
thought  in  mind  of  taking  over  the  bootleg  whisky  running  into  Okla- 
homa, the  adjoining  dry  State.  We  got  onto  him,  and  he  sold  his 
liquor  store.     Then  a  man  named  Marcus  Lipsky 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Wlio  is  Marcus  Lipsky  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  He  was  a  man  from  the  Chicago  area  who  we  later 
found  to  have  developed  some  milk  unions  there  in  the  milk  industry 
for  the  Capone  people. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Was  he  also  a  well-known  gangster  in  Chicago  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  Well,  I  had  never  heard  of  him  prior  to  that.  He  was 
a  supersalesman  type  of  person,  high  pressure,  a  con  man,  a  very 
smooth'  operator.  He  could  mix  in  any  company,  with  all  kinds  of 
people. 

He  came  down  and  got  with  Jones.  They  made  a  survey  of  Dallas 
and  estimated  that  the  rackets  there  would  pay  around  $18  million  a 
year.  He  goes  back  to  Chicago  and  wants  to  get  those  people  to  O.  K. 
him.  By  that  he  indicated  that  they  would  back  him  up  financially, 
and  with  any  manpower  he  may  need  should  he  run  into  resistance  on 
this  new  enterprise  that  they  had  in  mind. 

Lipsky  wanted  tlie  Mhisky,  he  Avanted  the  gambling,  he  wanted  the 
slot  machines,  the  coin  machines,  and  he  wanted  the  whole  business, 
not  only  in  Dallas  but  all  of  the  Southwest. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  other  States  were  specifically  included  in 
what  they  were  going  to  take  over? 

Mr.  Butler.  They  took  over  coin  machine  and  amusement  com- 
panies in  Texas,  Louisiana,  and  Arkansas. 


IMPROPER    ACTrV^TIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12521 

Mr.  Kennedy.  They  were  going  to  take  over  Arkanscas,  also? 

Mr.  Butler.  Yes,  sir;  they  were  operating  in  Fort  Smith,  Ark.,  a 
slot-machine  and  jukebox  route  up  there  which  was  very  lucrative. 

Mr.  IvENNEDY.  This  was  not  just  slot  machines,  but  it  was  these  pin- 
ball  machines  and,  generally,  coin-operated  machines  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  say  he  went  up  to  Chicago  to  see  if  he  could 
get  this  operation  fmanced  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  Yes,  sir.  He  made  arrangements  through  a  man 
known  as  Nick  DeJolin.  DeJohn,  according  to  our  investigation,  was 
an  arbitrator  or  acted  as  the  judge  in  any  disputes  in  the  Capone  gang 
at  that  time.  When  he  O.  K.'d  Lipsgy  and  the  boys  up  there  put  up 
the  money  for  Lipsky  to  come  into  Texas  and  the  Southwest,  Nick 
DeJohn,  in  ejffect,  serv^ed  to  guarantee  the  return  of  that  money  should 
anything  happen.  A  little  later  on  it  developed  that  a  gang  war  was 
about  to  break  loose  down  there  between  Lipsky,  who  had  brought 
in 

Mr.  Kennedy.  ^Hio  did  Lipsky  bring  into  Texas  with  him? 

Mr.  Butler.  He  brought  Danny  Lardino.     Paul  Labriola. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  "VA-lio  was  Danny  Lardino?  Did  you  find  out  any- 
thing about  him,  what  his  background  had  been  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  Lardino  had  been  associated,  we  found  out,  with  the 
Capone  interests  for  some  time,  and  they  sent  him  down  here  on  a  dual 
purpose :  One,  to  keep  track  of  Lipsky,  and  watch  how  he  was  running 
the  show,  and  the  other,  of  course,  as  a  bodyguard  to  Lipsky. 

!Mr.  Kennedy.  Was  he  known  as  a  strong-arm  man  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  He  was  known  as  a  bodyguard  down  there;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Wlio  were  the  other  individuals  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  Labriola. 

Mr.  KJENNEDY.  AMiat  was  Labriola  ?    Would  you  spell  his  name  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  L-a-b-r-i-o-l-a ;  the  first  name  is  Paul. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  he  have  a  nickname  ? 

Mr.  Butler,  Needlenose ;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Needlenose  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  IvENNEDY.  Paul  "Needlenose"  Labriola? 

Mr.  Butler.  Yes.  sir. 

]Mr.  Kennedy.  AVlio  was  the  other  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  James  Weinberg. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Chairman,  Labriola  and  Weinberg  played  very 
important  roles  in  the  investigation  as  it  continues,  and  it  is  of  con- 
siderable interest  that  they  were  down  in  Dallas,  Tex.,  during  this 
period  of  time,  with  Nick  DeJohn  and  with  Danny  Lardino.  They 
will  play  extremely  important  roles  in  our  investigation. 

Mr.  Butler.  Another  member  of  that  goon  squad  was  "Marty  the 
Ox,"  whose  real  name  was,  I  believe,  Martin  Ochs.  He  was  a  well- 
known  Chicago  hoodlum.  In  all,  there  were  about  20  members  of  that 
mob  that  came  down  into  Dallas. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  they  set  up  this  operation  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  They  set  up  the  operation ;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  "\'\^iere  did  they  live  when  they  arrived  there  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  Well,  at  that  time,  hotel  space  was  at  a  premium,  and 
they  could  not  stay  anywhere  over  5  days  at  a  time.    They  were  stay- 


12522  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

ing  at  the  Whitmore  Hotel,  and  they  stayed  at  a  place  called  the  Scott 
Hotel.   Then  there  was  a  man  named  Sam  Yaras. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  do  you  spell  his  name  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  Y-a-r-a-s,  from  Chicago.  He  had  an  apartment  there. 
Occasionally,  they  stayed  with  him. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Is  he  the  brother  of  Dave  Yaras  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  That  is  right,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Chairman,  we  have  already  had  testimony  about 
Dave  Yaras  in  cennection  with  taking  over  of  certain  unions  in  the 
Miami  area  at  the  present  time,  and  that  he  has  also  moved  in,  I 
believe,  in  some  gambling  in  Cuba,  has  he  not  ?  Do  you  have  infor- 
mation along  those  lines  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  That  is  my  understanding ;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Curtis.  Mr.  Chairman? 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Curtis. 

Senator  Curtis.  I  would  like  to  ask,  Mr.  Butler,  did  hoodlums  and 
criminals  move  in  and,  if  so,  did  they  have  any  measure  of  success 
in  infiltrating  unions  in  the  Dallas  area  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  No,  sir ;  I  would  not  think  so. 

Senator  Curtis.  Did  they  have  any  successs  in  moving  into  unions 
anyplace  in  Texas  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Curtis.  Why  didn't  they. 

Mr.  Butler.  Well,  at  that  time,  the  gambling  business  was  appeal- 
ing to  them  more  than  anything  else. 

Senator  Curtis.  What  year  was  this  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  1945  and  1946. 

Senator  Curtis.  Have  the  criminal  elements,  such  as  described  by 
the  previous  witness,  Mr.  Peterson — and  you  heard  his  testimony — 
have  they  at  any  time  since  been  successful  in  moving  into  unions  in 
Texas? 

Mr.  Butler.  Not  that  I  know  of,  sir. 

Senator  Curtis.  Apparently,  not  on  any  large  scale  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  That  is  right. 

Senator  Curtis.  Why  is  it  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  Well,  maybe  it  is  the  breed  of  men  down  there.  They 
resent  somebody  trying  to  tell  them  what  to  do.  There  have  been  some 
fights  from  time  to  time.  Somebody  might  start  something  and  one  of 
those  Texas  boys  would  peal  his  head  with  a  club  or  something;  so, 
so  far,  they  have  not  had  enough  on  the  ball  to  get  started. 

Senator  Curtis.  And  Texas  does  not  permit  compulsory  unionism, 
do  they  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  That  is  my  understanding;  that  is  right. 

Senator  Curtis.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  they  appear  to  have  a  great  deal  of  money  when 
they  were  down  there  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  Who  is  that  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  This  group  that  moved  in ;  did  they  appear  to  have 
a  great  deal  of  money  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  Yes,  sir;  they  had  unlimited. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  For  instance,  Weinberg  and  Labriola ;  did  they  give 
any  occupation  ? 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12523 

Mr,  Butler.  Well,  they  claimed  to  be  clerks  at  the  San  Jacinto 
liquor  store,  which  was  run  by  this  mob,  but  actually,  they  were  living 
in  a  hotel  suite  at  that  time  that  cost  them  around  $30  a  day. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Would  you  tell  us  how  it  developed  then,  or  what 
occurred  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  Well,  when  this  pending  trouble  began  to  materialize 
between  the  Dallas  group  and  this  outside  group 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Was  there  any  suggestion  by  this  outside  group  as 
to  how  they  were  going  to  handle  the  Dallas  group  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  Yes,  sir.  Lipsky's  idea  was  to  kill  the  four  top 
gamblers  in  the  Dallas  area,  put  their  bodies  in  a  stolen  car,  and  park 
the  car  alongside  the  police  department,  and  let  everybody  know 
how  tough  he  was,  and  that  he  would  not  stand  for  any  foolishness 
down  there. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Was  that  plan  opposed  by  some  of  the  other  people  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  Yes,  sir.  Jones  thought  this  was  a  foolish  move.  He 
^ets  on  the  phone  and  calls  Nick  DeJohn  and  tells  him  what  Lipsky 
IS  up  to,  and  he  suggests  that  he  get  Danny  Lardino,  Weinberg, 
Labriola,  and  Marty  the  Ox  out  of  Texas. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  If  any  killing  was  to  be  done,  it  was  to  be  done  by 
this  group,  Labriola,  Weinberg,  Danny  Lardino,  and  the  Ox? 

Mr.  Butler.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  he  suggested  to  Nick  DeJohn,  who  was  financing 
this  whole  operation,  that  he  get  the  four  individuals  out  of  Texas 
back  to  Chicago? 

Mr.  Butler.  John  told  Jones  that  he  would  have  John  call  Danny 
back  to  Chicago. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  John  Lardino  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  John  Lardino.  And  which  was  done.  We  did,  about 
the  same  time,  or  just  a  few  days  after  that  instant,  the  police  depart- 
ment rounded  up  possibly  20  of  these  characters  and  discouraged  them 
as  much  as  possible.  So  they  liquidated  their  interest  and  got  out  of 
the  State  for  a  while. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Werethey  also  running  down  into  Mexico? 

Mr.  Butler.  Some  of  that  equipment  that  they  bought  to  operate 
in  Texas  they  did  move  into  Mexico.  They  set  up  a  gambling  deal 
down  there. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  With  pinballs  and  jukeboxes  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  Yes,  sir.  And  they  also  had  a  big  crapgame  down 
there.  They  had  made  a  fix  with  some  official.  They  ran  into  a 
little  trouble  there.  Some  of  the  politicians  that  were  not  in  on  the 
fix  give  them  a  big  check  for  chips,  lose  $15  or  $20  and  cash  the  rest 
of  the  chips  in  and  stick  the  money  in  their  pockets.  Of  course,  the 
chips  weren't  any  good. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Was  it  Jones'  idea,  rather  than  to  kill  this  other 
group,  that  he  could  make  some  deal  down  there  with  the  officials? 

Mr.  Butler.  Jones  wanted  to  make  a  fix,  and  he  tried  to  make  a  fix 
with  the  elected  sheriff,  Steve  Guthrie.  During  this  time,  we  con- 
ducted an  extensive  investigation  into  the  whole  setup,  and,  as  a  re- 
sult of  that,  we  got  Jones  trapped  and  a  man  named  Pat  Mano,  from 
Chicago,  supposedly  the  fifth  member  of  that  group,  who  was  going  to 
bankroll  Jones  in  his  operation  there.  Incidentally,  when  the  group 
effort  fizzled  out  as  far  as  Lipsky  was  concerned,  they  lost  a  good  deal 


12524  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

of  money.  Nick  DeJohn  was  called  on  to  make  this  guaranty  of  his 
stand  up,  and  he  couldn't  produce  the  money.  We  knew  several  weeks 
ahead  of  time  that  he  was  going  to  get  killed.  They  finally  did  kill 
him. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Where  did  they  kill  him  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  He  was  finally  located  in  San  Francisco. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  did  they  kill  him  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  They  tied  a  wire  around  his  neck  and  stuck  him  in 
the  back  end  of  a  car.  Incidentally,  it  was  the  same,  identical  way 
that  Labriola  and  Weinberg  were  killed  in  1954. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Labriola  and  Weinberg,  who  were  also  down  there, 
were  ultimately  killed,  also  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  In  the  same  manner ;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  By  the  wire  around  their  neck  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Is  that  an  old,  gangland  way  of  disposing  of  friends  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  It  apparently  does  not  make  much  noise  or  attract  too 
much  witnesses. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Jones,  who  was  down  there,  did  he  ultimately 
talk  and  expose  a  lot  of  these  things  to  the  police  department  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  Well,  sir,  in  this  investigation  we  found  out  some  of 
the  moves  that  the  gang  had  planned  to  make,  and  some  of  the  busi- 
ness ventures  that  they  were  going  to  enter  into.  It  developed  that 
they  were  going  to  muscle  into  the  Continental  Press,  the  nationwide 
wire  service.     That  happened  just  like  he  said  it  would  happen. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  He  described  what  they  were  going  to  do;  is  that 
right? 

Mr.  Butler.  Yes,  sir.  They  would  use  this  means  to  muscle  into 
other  communities,  which  was  followed  almost  to  a  letter  when  they 
muscled  into  Miami,  Fla.  Another  venture,  of  course,  was  their  enter- 
ing into  the  labor  unions. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  he  discuss  their  entrance  into  the  labor  unions  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  Yes,  sir;  that  was  one  of  their  prime  objectives  at  that 
time. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Would  you  describe  what  was  said  about  that? 

Mr.  Butler.  Well,  he  discussed  many  different  angles  of  putting 
pressure  on  different  companies  and  businesses.  One  of  the  things 
that  he  brought  out  was  the  fact  tliat  they  were  going  to  try  to  organ- 
ize or  unionize  every  truckdriver  in  the  Nation.  He  said,  "Wien  we 
do  that,  we  can  bring  industry  to  its  knees,  and  even  the  Government, 
if  we  have  to."     He  was  talking  about  different  angles. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  he  indicate  that  that  was  the  most  important 
area — to  get  control  of  the  truckdrivers  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  In  the  general  conversation.  For  the  most  part,  I  let 
these  people  talk  without  pinning  them  down  too  much  because  when 
I  did  they  would  shut  up. 

Another  way  that  they  worked  was  in  this  waiters  union  that  they 
used,  and  one  of  the  gimmicks  there  was  some  of  these  racket  boys 
would  go  into  a  higli-class  restaurant  and  say,  "We  are  going  to  sell 
you  some  meat.  You  are  paying  $1  a  pound  for  this  stuff,  and  we 
are  going  to  charge  you  $1 .25,  but  it  will  be  better  meat." 

Of  course,  the  restaurant  owner  would  be  pretty  well  satisfied  with 
what  ho  had,  and  tliey  would  run  the  man  off,  and  tha  next  day, 
through  these  unions'  control,  the  restaurant  operator  would  not  get 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12525 

any  linens,  and  he  would  not  have  any  tablecloths  or  napkins.  The 
racket  boys  would  go  back  and  say,  "I  still  want  to  sell  you  that  meat, 
and  it  has  gone  up  to  $1.50." 

The  man  would  run  him  off  again,  and  finally  this  racket  boy  would 
have  the  union  call  and  call  all  of  his  help  out  of  the  restaurant.  So, 
eventually,  he  had  to  do  business  with  them  and  that  is  just  one  phase 
of  their  activities,  excessive  charges  on  commodities  that  they  used 
in  the  restaurants,  and  terror. 

He  claimed  that  the  coin-machine  business  was  theirs. 

Mr.  Kexnedy.  Will  you  speak  up  a  little  louder? 

Mr.  Butler.  They  told  me  that  they  had  control  of  the  coin-machine 
devices,  and  one  of  their  big  gimmicks  was  the  cigarette  deal,  that  they 
put  those  cigarettes  in  liquor  stores  because  they  controlled  the  liquor 
business,  and  they  would  sell  you  cigarettes  at  a  very  cheap  price  by 
simply  cutting  the  retailer,  the  liquor-store  operator,  out  of  his  profits 
and  telling  him  that  he  could  use  only  cheap  cigarettes  as  a  leader  to 
get  people  to  come  into  his  store.     Most  of  them  did. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  they  indicate  what  the  value  of  all  of  these 
operations  was  going  to  be  at  any  time  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  The  Dallas  Survey,  according  to  most  people,  would 
run  about  $18  million  a  year.  The  wire-service  deal  that  they  planned 
to  muscle  in,  and  did  muscle  in  by  killing  Kagan 

JSIr.  Kennedy.  That  was  Kagan  that  was  killed  up  in  Chicago,  was 
it,  in  1948  or  around  then  ? 

Mr,  Butler.  I  believe  it  was  1946  or  1947,  or  somewhere  in  there. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  He  had  indicated  just  prior  to  that  that  he  had 
expected  to  be  killed  ? 

Mr.  Buti.er.  That  is  right.  They  said  that  this  thing  would  run 
them  $1  million  a  week,  the  wire  service,  which  is  a  pretty  fat  thing. 

Senator  Church.  Wliat  is  a  wire  service  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  It  was  the  service  that  bookies  used  back  when  the 
country  was  wide  open,  and  they  would  charge  each  bookie  according 
to  the  volume  of  business  that  he  did.  All  of  them  would  get  the 
same  service,  but  a  man  who  had  20  customers  would  not  pay  as  much 
as  a  man  that  had  300  customers. 

It  depended  on  the  size  of  the  operation. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  ever  learn  anything  as  to  who  was  responsi- 
ble for  killing  Kagan  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  Well,  nothing  that  I  could  swear  to.  It  was  en- 
gineered by  these  people. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  This  same  group  down  in  Dallas  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  The  same  group  that  were  behind  this  bunch,  yes. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Wasn't  Yaris  involved  in  that  ? 

Mr.  Butt^er.  Dave  Yaris,  according  to  the  information  given  out 
by  these  people  was  the  man  behind  the  killing,  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  they  indicate  what  these  enterprises  would  bring 
in  in  these  other  States  they  were  moving  into  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  No,  sir.     I  never  did  hear  any  estimate  give  to  that. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Just  the  $1  million  a  week  for  the  wire  services  and 
then  the  $18  million  in  Dallas,  Tex.,  alone,  would  indicate  that  it  is 
a  very  profitable  enterprise. 

Mr.  Butler.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  Jones  was  arrested  and  was  convicted  was  he 
not,  for  the  attempt  to  bribe  the  sheriff? 


12526  IMPROPER    ACTIVITrES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Butler.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  was  the  sheriff's  name  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  Guthrie,  Steve  Guthrie. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  have  any  more  difficulty  with  Mr.  Jones 
after  that? 

Mr.  Butler.  He  was  given  a  3-  to  5-year  sentence  and  while  he 
was  out  on  appeal  we  got  him  for  bringing  in  57  kilos  of  opium  from 
old  Mexico,  and  he  had  previously  told  us  that  he  was  not  interested 
in  narcotics.  Later  on,  it  developed  that  they  had  some  plans  to 
have  decisions  handed  down  by  certain  judges  that  they  controlled, 
which  practically  handcuffed  the  law-enforcement  field  in  their  fight 
against  narcotics. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Danny  Lardino  was  called  back  to  Chicago  by  John 
Lardino  through  Nick  de  John,  and  Weinberg  and  Labriola  were  actu- 
ally there  but  he  moved  into  this  group. 

Mr.  Butler.  Yes,  sir,  they  were  arrested. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  you  put  them  out  of  Texas,  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  as  I  explained,  this  is  the  same 
Danny  Lardino  that  subsequently  went  back  to  Chicago  and  took  over 
this  local  and  controlled  it,  and  John  Lardino  is  the  one  that  runs 
and  controls  the  biggest  hotel  and  restaurant  workers  union  in  Chi- 
cago. 

That  is  10,000  members  and  both  of  them  are  still  miion  officials. 

The  Chairman.  Are  there  any  questions  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Just  in  passing,  did  you  request  to  be  transferred  to 
juvenile  delinquency  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  No,  sir.  In  1955  I  worked  for  Senator  Kefauver  on 
his  investigation  into  juvenile  delinquency  and  when  I  got  back  to 
Dallas  they  assumed  I  was  an  expert  on  the  subject  and  transferred 
me  there. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Was  there  also  a  man  by  the  name  of  Mirro  down 
there? 

Mr.  Butler.  He  was  down  there.     They  called  him  "Cowboy." 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Do  you  know  how  he  got  the  name  "Cowboy"  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  No,  sir ;  I  don't. 

Mr.  KJENNEDY.  He  also  will  be  here  in  the  course  of  our  investiga- 
tions further  on,  Mr.  Chairman.  Mr.  Butler,  was  Lou  Schneider  down 
there? 

Mr.  Butler.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  He  was  also  down  there  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Do  you  know  what  Schneider's  position  was  ? 

Mr.  Butler.  No,  sir.  They  tell  me  that  Lou  Schneider  was  a  pretty 
nice  sort  of  person  and  he  got  in  with  those  people  and  as  soon  as  he  did 
he  realized  he  was  over  his  head,  and  tried  to  get  out,  but  he  couldn't 
doit. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  is  all. 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  Was  there  anything  else  that  you  can  think  of  ? 

]Mr.  Butler.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you  very  much.  Lieutenant. 

All  right,  do  you  wish  to  interrogate  Mr.  Peterson  any  further  ? 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12527 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Chairman,  could  I  call  Mr.  Kelly  who  can  put 
in  the  charter  for  local  658  ? 

The  Chairman.  All  riffht. 

Mr.  Kelly,  come  around. 

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.  Kelly.  I  do. 

TESTIMONY  OF  JAMES  P.  KELLY 

The  Chairman.  State  your  name,  and  your  address,  and  your  pres- 
ent occupation. 

Mr.  Kelly.  My  name  is  James  P.  Kelly.  I  live  in  New  York  City 
and  I  am  presently  a  staff  investigator  for  the  committee. 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Kelly,  have  you  gone  through  the  books  and 
records  of  the  International  Union  of  Hotel  and  Restaurant  Workers  ? 

Mr.  Kelly.  Yes,  sir ;  I  have. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  did  you  obtain  a  photostatic  copy  of  applica- 
tion for  charter  for  local  658  in  Chicago  ? 

Mr.  Kelly.  Yes,  sir ;  I  did. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Chairman,  could  I  present  that  to  the  witness  ? 

(A  document  was  handed  to  the  witness.) 

The  Chairman.  Please  examine  the  photostatic  copy  presented  to 
you  by  counsel  and  state  if  you  identify  it. 

Mr.  Kelly.  Yes,  sir ;  I  do.  I  had  this  photostat  made  when  I  was 
Cincinnati,  at  the  office  of  the  Hotel  and  Restaurant  and  Bartenders 
International  Union,  the  first  week  of  June  of  this  year.  It  is  an  appli- 
cation for  charter  of  affiliation  to  the  Hotel  and  Restaurant  employees 
and  Bartenders  International  Union. 

It  is  dated  March  7,  1950,  Chicago,  111.,  and  the  name  of  the  organi- 
zation is  the  Drug  Store,  Soda  Fountain,  and  Luncheonette  Employees 
Union,  and  the  address  is  10  North  Wells  Street,  Chicago,  111.  It  is  for 
local  658.    The  charter  is  dated  March  8,  1950. 

The  Chairman.  Could  you  tell  us  whether  Mr.  Danny  Lardino's 
name  appears  there  ? 

Mr.  Kelly.  Mr.  Danny  Lardino's  name  witli  the  address,  10  North 
Wells  Street,  Chicago,  111.,  appears  as  secretary,  and  the  international 
vice  president,  James  Blakely,  appears  as  organizer  with  the  address 
10  North  Wells  Street,  Chicago,  111. 

There  were  25  applicants  on  the  original  charter  and  it  is  interesting 
to  note  that  of  the  names  mentioned,  Danny  Lardino  is  listed  as  appli- 
cant No.  6,  and  he  is  the  only  one  for  whom  no  occupation  is  listed.  He 
gave  his  address  at  that  time  as  4875  North  Magnolia. 

The  Chairman.  That  may  be  made  exhibit  No.  13A. 

(The  document  referred  to  was  marked  "Exhibit  No.  13A"  for  ref- 
erence and  will  be  found  in  tlie  appendix  on  p.  12855.) 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Blakely,  who  appears  on  this  local  as  an  organizer, 
what  is  his  position  at  the  present  time  ? 

Mr.  Kelly.  He  has  several  positions,  Mr.  Kennedy.  He  is  the  sec- 
retary-treasurer of  local  593. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  is  the  largest  local  ? 

21243— 58— pt.  33 3 


12528  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Kelly.  Yes;  the  largest  local  in  the  joint  executive  board  in 
Chicago  and  he  also  has  been,  since  1947,  an  international  vice  presi- 
dent of  the  fifth  district  which  covers  Chicago,  111. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  He  was  an  international  vice  president  at  the  time 
that  he  appeared  on  this  local  application  charter  as  an  organizer ;  is 
that  right? 

Mr.  Kelly.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  it  would  appear  therefore,  that  he  was  the  one 
that  sponsored  this  ? 

Mr.  Kelly.  Well,  Mr.  Duffy  and  I  had  a  conversation  with  Mr. 
Lardino  in  our  office  in  Chicago 

Mr.  Kennedy.  He  will  be  a  witness  later  on,  and  so  you  need  not 
testify. 

Senator  Curtis.  This  Danny  Lardino  as  secretary  and  James 
Blakely  as  organizer,  they  are  the  same  individuals  that  have  been 
previously  mentioned  today  in  the  hearings  ? 

Mr.  Kelly.  Yes,  sir ;  they  are. 

Senator  Curtis.  Have  you  investigated  this  list  of  applicants  to 
find  out  whether  they  were  genuine  employees  and  applicants? 

Mr.  Kelly.  Not  each  individual  one ;  no,  sir.  Senator. 

Senator  Curtis.  Did  you  investigate  some  of  them  ? 

Mr.  Kelly.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Curtis.  This  charter  was  granted  ? 

Mr.  Kelly.  The  charter  was  granted. 

Senator  Curtis.  By  whom  ? 

Mr.  Kelly.  By  the  international  in  Cincinnati. 

Senator  Curtis.  And  by  the  president  or  by  an  executive  board, 
or  how  was  it  granted  ? 

Mr.  Kelly.  Well,  usually  the  approval  is  given  by  the  interna- 
tional vice  president,  and  in  this  case  Blakely  in  District  5  in  Chicago, 
and  it  is  usually  on  his  recommendation  to  the  international  that  final 
approval  is  given. 

Senator  Curtis.  Blakely  files  an  application  before  himself  and 
then  approves  it  ? 

Mr.  Kelly.  I  don't  know  whether  it  exactly  works  that  way.  Sena- 
tor, but  Blakely  in  this  particular  instance  on  the  application  for 
local  658,  does  appear  as  the  organizer  for  it. 

Senator  Curtis.  How  long  has  Blakely  been  a  vice  president  ? 

Mr.  Kelly.  Since  about  1947. 

Senator  Curtis.  How  does  he  get  that  job  ? 

Mr.  Kelly.  By  election. 

Senator  Curtis.  Was  he  elected  ? 

Mr.  Kelly.  I  believe  he  was ;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Curtis.  When  ? 

Mr.  Kelly.  In  1947  there  was  a  convention  at  that  time,  I  think,  in 
Milwaukee,  Wis. 

Senator  Curtis.  Who  was  the  head  of  the  international  union  at 
that  time  ? 

Mr.  Kelly.  At  that  time  I  believe  Mr,  Hugo  Ernst  was  president. 

Senator  Curtis.  Is  he  still  president  ? 

Mr.  Kelly.  No  ;  he  is  deceased. 

Senator  Curtis.  Who  is  president  now  ? 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12529 

Mr.  Kelly.  Edward  Miller. 

Senator  Curtis.  And  so  Blakely  served  as  vice  president  under 
both  Ernst  and  Miller? 

Mr.  Kelly.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  (Curtis.  Has  he  ever  been  elected  since  1947  ? 

Mr.  Kelly.  I  believe  there  was  another  election  since  then,  and  I 
do  not  exactly  have  the  data  on  that. 

Senator  Curtis.  You  do  not  know  whether  he  had  any  opposition  ? 

Mr.  Kelly.  I  do  not  believe  he  had  opposition  in  1947,  and  I  think, 
if  I  recall  correctly,  from  what  I  read  in  Cincinnati,  there  was  a 
ballot  cast  for  him,  one  ballot  cast  for  him,  and  I  don't  think  there 
was  opposition  at  that  time. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  in  his  position  as  secretary-treasurer  of  local 
593,  there  is  indication  that  he  has  not  been  opposed  for  that  office 
either. 

Senator  Curtis.  Have  they  ever  had  elections  in  that  local? 

Mr.  Kelly.  As  far  as  I  can  see. 

Senator  Curtis.  Now,  President  Miller,  is  he  acquainted  with 
James  Blakely? 

Mr.  Kelly.  Yes,  sir,  and  at  one  time  now  President  Miller  held  the 
position  that  Mr.  Blakely  held  in  District  5. 

Senator  Curtis.  Mr.  Miller  is  from  Chicago  ? 

IMr.  Kelly.  He  is  from  Kansas  City,  and  he  was  connected  with 
local  20  of  the  Bartenders  Union  in  Kansas  City  years  ago. 

Senator  Curtis.  Was  there  anything  about  your  investigation  that 
caused  you  to  believe  that  Mr.  Miller  knew  of  the  type  of  character 
that  Daniel  Lardino  and  James  Blakely  were? 

Mr.  Kelly.  There  is  nothing  from  the  direct  investigation  that 
kould  indicate  Mr.  Miller  did  or  did  not  know  what  their  characters 
were  except  that  available  reports  on  the  activities  of  this  union  in 
Chicago  were  made  available  to  him  as  president  of  the  international 
union. 

Senator  Curtis.  When  is  that? 

Mr.  Kelly.  Throughout  the  years,  from  the  time  he  became  inter- 
national president  and  when  he  was  vice  president  he  was  aware  of 
the  general  situation  in  Chicago. 

Senator  Curtis.  That  is  all  at  that  point. 

The  Chairman.  I  believe  that  application  was  dated  March  7, 1950, 
and  the  charter  was  granted  the  following  day,  on  March  8? 

Mr.  Kelly.  The  charter  was  dated  March  8,  which  would  be  the 
following  day. 

The  Chairman.  It  would  be  the  following  day  and  there  was  not 
much  investigation,  if  any,  made  regarding  the  application  for  the 
charter. 

Mr.  Kelly.  As  I  said.  Senator  McClellan,  the  investigation  and 
recommendations  usually  are  made  by  the  international  vice  president 
of  the  district. 

The  Chairman.  The  international  vice  president  of  the  district  was 
the  one  that  really  set  this  up  ? 

Mr.  Kelly.  Evidently. 

The  Chairman.  Apparently  so,  because  he  listed  himself  as  organ- 
izer in  this  application. 

Mr.  Kelly.  That  is  correct. 


12530  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

The  Chairman.  And  the  application  received  his  endorsement  and 
there  was  quick  action  taken  and  the  charter  was  issued  the  following 
day. 

Mr.  Kelly.  It  appears  that  way.  The  photostat  that  I  have  here 
sliows  that. 

Senator  Curtis.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  do  not  know  whether  this  witness 
can  provide  me  with  the  answer  or  not,  but  I  would  like  to  know 
what  remedy  employees  who  had  to  join  that  union,  or  employers 
involved  in  the  contract,  what  remedy  they  have  to  rid  themselves  of 
this  situation  of  paying  tribute  to  a  union  that  obviously,  is  organized 
and  dominated  and  run  and  looted  by  criminals. 

Mr.  Kelly.  It  appears  to  me.  Senator,  that  the  employees'  choice 
in  these  cases  is  sometimes  limited. 

Senator  Curtis.  I  mean  after  they  are  in. 

Mr.  Kelly.  Pardon  me  ? 

Senator  Curtis.  I  mean  after  they  are  in.  Here  the  employer 
signs  a  contract  and  maybe  he  did  it  with  fear  and  maybe  he  believed 
it  to  be  a  legitimate  union,  and  maybe  he  was  in  collusion  with  them, 
with  the  criminals,  I  do  not  know.  But  I  am  talking  about  an  em- 
ployer, we  will  say  a  drug  store  and  these  people  who  work  there  and 
work  for  a  living  find  that  they  are  all  in  the  clutches  of  this  union. 
Wliat  is  their  remedy  at  law  ? 

Mr.  I^LLY.  I  am  not  familiar  with  their  remedies  at  law.  Their 
remedy  would  appear  to  me.  Senator,  to  be  in  the  election  of  the 
officers  for  their  union.  Now,  as  far  as  I  know,  Dan  Lardino  was 
appointed  to  this  position  as  secretary  by  Mr.  Blakely. 

Senator  Curtis.  Of  course,  is  it  reasonable  to  anticipate  that  men 
of  this  character  are  going  to  conduct  a  union  meeting  that  is  open 
and  aboveboard  and  give  the  members  a  free  chance  to  choose  ? 

Mr.  Kelly.  Are  you  asking  my  opinion  on  this,  Senator  ? 

Senator  Curtis.  I  do  not  mean  to  ask  the  witness. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  He  can  answer  anything,  but  we  are  getting  into 
what  his  opinion  is,  and  I  do  not  know,  we  will  have  some  experts 
on  that. 

The  Chairman.  He  may  state  his  opinion  from  the  experience  that 
he  has  had  investigating,  for  whatever  it  is  worth,  if  he  knows. 

Mr.  Kelly.  For  what  it  is  worth,  my  opinion  in  this  regard  is  that 
sometimes  the  members  have  the  recourse  of  appearing  at  meetings 
and  voicing  their  opinions.  I  have  no  direct  evidence  as  to  what 
happened  in  this  particular  union,  in  local  658  as  far  as  elections 
were  concerned. 

Wliether  or  not  the  members  of  the  union  at  any  time  voiced  their 
opposition  to  the  particular  officers,  I  do  not  know. 

Senator  Curtis.  I  ask  these  questions  to  raise  them  in  the  record, 
and  certainly  not  to  ask  the  impossible  from  a  staff  member. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  I  understand  that,  but  I  did  not  know  whether  we 
wanted  to  get  in  the  position  of  having  staff  investigators  testify  as 
to  their  opinions  on  matters  such  as  this  where  we  will  have  experts. 

Senator  Cuktis.  I  regard  the  staff  as  experts. 

The  Chairman.  Of  course  the  staff  comes  to  some  opinion,  no 
doubt,  in  the  course  of  their  investigations,  and  that  is  a  matter  of 
individual  opinion.  What  one  person's  remedy  might  be,  might  not 
be  that  of  another. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    EST    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12531 

The  important  tiling  is  to  develop  these  facts  and  develop  the 
practices  that  are  being  engaged  in,  and  the  conditions  that  prevail, 
and  then  it  evolves  upon  the  Congress  to  find  a  remedy  and  by  hiw 
to  correct  these  conditions  insofar  as  we  can  do  so. 

Senator  Curtis.  I  think  in  other  instances  this  committee  has 
received  evidence  where  a  criminal  element  have  run  a  union  and  if 
some  member  protested  in  the  union  he  may  have  had  his  head  bashed 
in.  If  he  went  to  court,  he  might  be  expelled  from  the  union  because 
he  did  not  proceed  through  union  channels.  He  does  not  have  too 
much  of  a  remedy  and  it  is  one  of  the  problems  this  committee  has. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  correct.  Judging  from  the  character  of 
these  folks,  and  what  has  been  testified  to,  I  assume  if  one  attended 
a  meeting  and  raised  his  voice,  he  would  be  incurring  some  risk,  at 
least,  in  doing  so. 

All  right,  proceed. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  we  have  discussed  local  593  and 
local  658,  and  I  would  like  to  go  to  another  union  of  the  Hotel  and 
Restaui'ant  Employees  Union  in  Chicago,  and  that  would  be  local 
450  of  the  same  international. 

TESTIMONY  OF  VIRGIL  W.  PETERSON— Resumed 

INIr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  have  any  information  indicating  if  there 
were  any  gangster  infiltration  into  local  450? 

Mr.  Peterson.  It  is  our  information  and  quite  common  knowledge 
that  the  dominant  influence  back  of  local  450,  and  this  influence  prob- 
ably originally  organized  this  union,  was  Claude  Maddox,  alias  John 
Edward  Moore,  but  actually  his  real  name  is  John  Edward  Moore, 
and  he  has  used  the  name  of  Claude  Maddox. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  this  local  450  is  the  Hotel,  Club,  Restaurant 
Employees  and  Bartenders  International  Union  in  Cicero,  111.,  is  that 
right  i 

ISir  Peterson.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  who  is  Claude  Maddox,  Mr.  Peterson? 

Mr.  Peterson.  He  has  a  long  criminal  history.  He  was  born  in 
St.  Louis,  January  26,  1901,  and  in  fact,  he  died  just  2  weeks  ago  last 
Saturday,  I  think  it  was,  in  June  of  1958. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  I  would  like  to  say  there,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  Mr. 
Maddox  was  under  subpena  to  appear  before  the  committee,  and  he 
was  to  have  appeared  today  as  a  witness  but  died  about  a  week  ago, 
is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  That  is  right,  and  I  think  it  was  2  weeks  ago  Satur- 
day, if  my  memory  serves  me  correctly. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  He  also  had  a  very  nice  wake,  did  he  not  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  That  is  right. 

Senator  Church.  Did  he  die  of  natural  causes? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Yes,  sir;  natural  causes  and,  in  fact,  I  think  his 
wife  was  watching  television  and  he  was  asleep  in  the  bed  and  died  a 
very  peaceful  death. 

Senator  Curtis.  Is  that  a  natural  cause  for  a  hoodlum  to  die,  or 
an  unnatural  death? 

Mr.  Peterson.  In  view  of  his  background,  I  would  say  it  could  be 
considered  an  unnatural  death. 

Senator  Curtis.  Maybe  "unusual"  is  a  better  term. 


12532  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Peterson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Would  you  give  us  the  background  of  this  individ- 
ual who  controlled  local  450  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  When  he  was  quite  young,  while  he  was  still  in 
St.  Louis,  he  remained  there  the  first  few  years  of  his  life ;  he  was  a 
member  of  a  notorious  criminal  organization  known  as  Egan's  Rats. 
That  was  in  St.  Louis. 

His  first  arrest  record  was  in  1919  on  a  burglary  charge.  On  Au- 
gust 5, 1919,  he  was  sentenced  to  1  year  in  the  workhouse  for  burglary 
following  a  plea  of  guilty  to  petty  larceny  in  St.  Louis. 

On  July  10,  1920,  he  again  received  a  1-year  sentence  in  the  work- 
house on  a  robbery  charge,  after  a  plea  of  guilty  to  petty  larceny,  in 
St.  Louis. 

Information  indicates  that  he  came  to  Chicago  early  in  the  1920's 
and  he  became  affiliated  with  the  Capone  gangsters  and  some  of  the 
most  notorious  criminal  elements  in  Chicago.  In  fact,  on  December 
27,  1922,  3  men  were  arrested  by  the  police  following  an  attempt  on 
November  18,  1922,  to  rob  2  safes  in  the  Waitere  Association  Club 
rooms  at  105  West  Madison  Street,  Chicago. 

The  men  charged  with  burglary  on  that  occasion  were  Claude 
Maddox,  of  1340  West  Madison  Street,  and  Joseph  Lafertv,  of  17 
North  Ann  Street,  and  P.  J.  Dwyer,  of  123  South  Wood  Street. 

Dwyer,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  had  been  arrested  3  years  earlier  as  a 
suspect  in  the  Charles  Stillwell  dancehall  murder,  and  Laferty  had 
been  arrested  in  connection  with  the  Dearborn  Station  mail  robbery 
earlier. 

On  December  1,  1923,  Claude  Maddox  was  indicted  by  the  Cook 
County  grand  jury,  in  indictment  No.  30259,  for  burglary,  jointly 
with  John  Laferty  and  Pat  D^vyer.  That  was  a  result  of  the  at- 
tempted robbery  or  burglary  of  this  Waiters  Association. 

Our  observers'  report,  dated  June  5,  1923,  indicates  that  this  case 
was  stricken  off  with  leave  to  reinstate  because  the  witnesses  could 
not  be  located.  The  witnesses  could  not  be  located,  and,  naturally, 
there  was  nobody  to  testify  in  the  case.  We  have  another  report  in 
our  files  relating  to  an  incident  which  happened  at  10 :  50  a.  m.,  on 
November  4,  1924,  when  John  Mackey,  Anthony  Caissane,  a  notorious 
gangster  in  Chicago  at  the  time,  and  Claude  Maddox,  together  with 
another  unknown  man,  were  riding  in  a  car  in  front  of  405  South 
Hoyne  Avenue,  when  they  were  ambushed  by  another  car,  shotgun 
slugs  fired  into  the  place. 

Mackey,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  who  was  driving  the  car,  was  so  severely 
wounded  from  these  gunshot  wounds  that  he  died  en  route  to  the 
hospital.  Caissane  and  Maddox  tried  to  flee  from  this  obvious,  at- 
tempted gang  killing,  but  they  Avere  injured.  They  hurt  their  ankles 
in  some  fashion,  and  the  police  were  able  to  pick  them  up.  Caissane 
admitted  to  the  police  that  the  cause  of  the  shooting  stemmed  from  a 
fight  between  two  rival  alcohol-running  gangs,  and  each  gang  was 
out  to  get  the  other. 

Several  years  later  Chicago  was  the  scene  of  perhaps  one  of  the 
most  bizarre,  notorious  crimes  in  America,  known  as  the  St.  Valen- 
tine's Day  massacre,  on  February  14, 1929. 

You  are  probably  familiar  with  the  facts  in  this  case.  But  Capone 
gangsters  dressed  as  policemen  entered  a  garage  at  2122  North  Clark 
Street  in  Chicago,  the  headquarters  of  the  old  "Bugs"  Moran  gang. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIKS    IX    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12533 

The  gangsters  were  dressed  in  the  uniforms  of  policemen.  They  told 
these  other  hoodlums  that  they  were  under  arrest,  to  hold  their  hands 
up,  to  face  the  wall,  and  then  they  mowed  them  down.  There  were 
seven  of  them  killed  in  this  fashion. 

During  the  investigation  of  this  massacre,  the  police  ran  down  the 
trail  of  a  burned  automobile,  which  the  police  were  confident  figured 
in  the  St.  Valentine's  Day  massacre.  This  automobile  was  found  in  a 
garage  at  1923  North  Wood  Street.  The  garage  owner  claimed  that 
it  had  been  rented  by  a  man  giving  the  name  of  Rogers,  and  an  ad- 
dress of  1859  "West  Xorth  Avenue,  which  was  found  by  the  police  to 
be  vacant.  Plowever,  this  was  just  two  doors  away  or  a  door  away 
from  the  old  Circus  Cafe,  which  at  that  time  was  owned  by  Claude 
Maddox  and  was  the  headquarters  of  what  was  known  as  the  Circus 
Cafe  gang.  At  that  time,  to  show  you  the  reputation  of  Maddox,  who, 
incidentally,  was  a  primary  suspect  in  this  case,  he  was  known  and 
was  referred  to  constantly  as  the  friend  and  ally  of  ''Machinegun" 
Jack  McGurn,  who  was,  one  of  the  principal  gunmen  for  the  Capone 

Several  weeks  earlier,  the  police,  in  a  raid,  had  found  Maddox 
hiding  in  a  basement  at  this  North  Avenue  address,  and  right  near 
him  were  found  parts  of  a  machinegun.  Incidentally,  he  was  ar- 
rested in  connection  with  this  St.  Valentine's  Da)^  massacre  as  a  sus- 
pect, but  he  had  an  ironclad  alibi  and  was  released  in  connection 
with  that. 

On  October  12, 1930,  Claude  Maddox  was  again  arrested  in  the  com- 
pany of  George  "Red"  Barker  and  William  "Three-Finger  Jack" 
^Yllite,  by  Lt.  William  Blau  and  other  officers  of  the  State  attorney's 
office.  They  were  seized  while  sitting  in  an  automobile  a  few  doors 
away  from  the  Capone's  Cicero  headquarters  on  West  22d  Street.  In 
the  car  were  found  a  couple  of  revolvers. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Red  Barker  and  Three  Finger  were  close  associates 
of  certain  union  officials  of  the  Operating  Engineers? 

]Mr.  Pp:tersox.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  We  had  some  testimony  about  them  at  an  earlier 
hearing. 

Mr.  Peterson.  That's  right.  They  were  very  active  in  labor  rack- 
ets at  that  time.  On  June  26,  1931,  the  press  carried  accounts  of  the 
fact  that  the  Chicago  police,  that  is,  from  members  of  the  detective 
bureau,  arrested  five  men  when  they  were  released  from  the  DuPage 
County  jail  in  Wheaton,  where  they  had  been  arrested  on  prohibition 
charges. 

The  police  arrested  these  5  men,  and  they  were  all  close  associates, 
who  were,  of  course,  Claude  Maddox;  "Tough  Tony"  Capezio,  who 
was,  incidentally,  also  a  member  of  the  Circus  Cafe  gang  and  was  sus- 
pected with  Maddox  in  the  St,  Valentine's  Day  massacre;  Rocco  De- 
Grazio,  who  lived  at  145  West  21st  Place;  Louis  Stacey,  a  well-known 
hoodlum  from  Cicero,  111.;  and  a  fellow  by  the  name  of  John  Purdy. 
In  1931,  information  indicated  that  Maddox  was  then  playing  a  lead- 
ing role  in  the  invasion  of  the  Chicago  Teamsters  Union  by  "Chicago 
Red"  Barker  and  William  J.  "Three-Finger  Jack"  "^Vhite. 

Police  Officer  James  McBride,  of  Bellewood,  stated,  and  I  quote: 

I  had  arrested  "Three-Finger  Jack"  White  in  a  roadhouse  where  he  had 
killed  my  partner.  I  was,  of  course,  to  be  the  chief  witness  against  him  when  the 
trial  came.    But,  shortly  before  the  trial  started,  I  was  shot  by  Johnny  Moore. 


12534  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

He  fired  on  me  with  a  sawed-ofE  shotgun,  blasting  me  through  a  window  as  I  sat 
in  a  streetcar. 

In  fact,  part  of  McBricle's  jaw  was  shot  off.  'Wliite  was  later  ac- 
quitted in  the  trial,  but  he  was  later  murdered,  himself,  in  an  Oak  Park 
apartment  by  members  of  the  syndicate,  that  is  according  to  the  infor- 
mation, who  could  not  handle  him.  On  June  30,  1921,  the  State  nolle 
prossed  a  case  against  Maddox,  for  the  shooting  of  McBride,  when  a 
20-year  old  girl,  Gretchen  McDonald,  of  422  South  20th  Avenue,  May- 
wood,  111.,  refused  to  identify  Maddox  as  the  person  she  saw  shoot 
Officer  McBride.  Our  observers'  report  contains  an  account  of  this 
trial,  and  it  quotes  Prosecutor  Walker  Butler,  who,  incidentally,  is  now 
a  very  fine  judge  in  Chicago,  Walker  Butler  making  this  statement 
to  the  court  at  that  time. 

He  says : 

Your  Honor,  this  is  just  another  case  of  gangland's  successful  intimidation  of  a 
witness.    The  State  is  helpless  under  the  circumstances. 

It  appeared  that  Butler  had  called  the  witness  to  the  stand,  and  he 
asked  her  why  she  had  changed  her  testimony.  She  had  previously 
identified  Maddox.  During  1930,  Maddox  became  active  in  the  Cicero, 
111.,  headquarters  of  the  Capone  gang,  and  in  the  latter  part  of  1935  he 
was  again  picked  up  as  a  suspect  in  the  St.  Valentine's  Day  massacre 
case  because  of  additional  information  which,  I  believe,  was  obtained 
from  the  Federal  Government  at  that  time,  and  he  again,  of  course, 
furnished  an  alibi  for  the  St.  Valentine's  Day  massacre.  But  at  that 
time,  in  1935,  when  he  was  arrested,  he  was  operating  a  tavern  at  2241 
South  Cicero  Avenue,  and  it  was  common  understanding  among  police 
officials,  newspaper  officials,  and  others  at  that  time,  that  Maddox  had 
organized  Local  450  of  the  Hotel,  Club,  Restaurant  Employees  and 
Bartenders  Union.  There  were  indications  that  Maddox  was  assisted 
in  this  matter  by  Frank  "the  Enforcer"  Nitti,  Murray  Humphreys, 
Louis  Romano,  who  was  head  of  Local  278  of  the  Bartenders  Union  in 
Chicago,  in  establishing  control  over  local  450. 

On  May  5, 1943,  Danny  Stanton,  a  well-known  Capone  hoodlum,  was 
slain  in  a  tavern  at  6500  South  May  Street,  in  Chicago. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Stanton  was  the  one  who  was  the  friend  of  Blakely? 

Mr.  Peterson.  That  is  right.  And  Maddox  was  sought  by  the 
police  at  that  time  as  a  keyman  in  connection  with  the  investigation. 
Capt.  Patrick  Collins,  of  the  police  department,  and  Assistant  States 
Attorney  Francis  McCurrie  stated  publicly  that  Stanton  had  refused 
to  take  any  orders  from  or  surrender  any  of  his  powers  to  John 
Edward  Moore,  alias  Claude  Maddox,  who  had  recently  been  placed 
in  charge  of  labor-union  control  by  Paul  Ricca  and  Louis  "Little  New 
York"  Campagna. 

That  was  the  statement  made  by  those  two  officials  at  that  time. 
Press  reports  indicated  or  alleged  that  Maddox  was  then  attempting 
to  take  over  the  checkroom  attendants'  union  which  up  to  that  time 
had  belonged  to  Danny  Stanton.  Claude  Maddox,  in  Cicero,  has 
operated  a  place  called  the  Turf  Club,  and  his  associate,  Joseph  Aiup- 
pa 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Joseph  Aiuppa  is  also  an  important  figure  in  the 
course  of  this. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    EST    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12535 

Mr.  Petersox.  Yes,  alias  Joey  O'Brien;  he  is  a  notorious  hoodlum 
who  has  figured  very  prominently  in  syndicate  gambling  activities 
and  other  activities  in  Cicero.  In  fact,  there  was  positive  testimony 
and  evidence  concerning  a  handbook  that  he  operated  at  4831  West 
Cermak  Road  a  few  years  ago.  I  think  the  records  showed  that  his 
income  from  that  handbook  annually  was  in  the  neighborhood  of  $1 
million. 

That  is  a  matter  of  testimony  in  the  old  Kefauver  committee  hear- 
ings. Claude  Maddox,  Joseph  Aiuppa,  and  Robert  Ansoni  have  also 
been  associated  together  in  an  outfit  or  a  business  manufacturing 
concern,  called  Taylor  &  Co.,  which  manufactures  gambling-house 
equipment. 

Equipment  from  this  firm  has  been  shipped  all  over  the  United 
States  to  various  gambling  casinos.  On  January  26,  1956,  five  part- 
ners in  Taylor  &  Co.,  of  4848  West  25th  Street,  Cicero,  were  convicted 
in  Federal  court,  based  on  an  indictment  which  charged  that  these 
defendants  had  shipped  gambling  equipment  in  interstate  commerce 
from  Chicago  to  Pennsylvania  in  violation  of  the  Johnson   Act. 

Included  in  the  indictments  and  convicted  at  that  time,  on  January 
26,  in  addition  to  the  other  two  individuals,  were  Claude  Maddox, 
Joseph  Aiuppa,  and  Robert  J.  Ansoni.  Following  their  convictions. 
Federal  Judge  William  J.  Campbell  sentenced  each  defendant  to  serve 
1  year  and  1  day  in  Federal  prison  and  to  pay  a  fine  of  $1,000  and 
costs.  These  cases  were  appealed,  but  they  were  upheld  on  appeal, 
and  the  men  went  to  prison. 

On  January  22,  1955,  Claude  Maddox's  daughter  was  married. 
Among  those  present  at  the  reception  were  Paul  "the  Waiter"  Ricca, 
Tony  Arcardo,  Joseph  Aiuppa,  Robert  Ansoni,  Mike  Spranse,  John 
Arcardo,  Leonard  Patrick,  and  numerous  others.  And  cars  bringing 
guests  to  the  reception  bore  license  plates  issued  to,  in  tlie  first  in- 
stance, the  Produce  Drivers'  Union,  Local  703, 216  South  Ashland  Ave- 
nue; to  the  Hotel,  Club,  Restaurant  Employees,  and  Bartenders  In- 
ternational Union,  Suburban  Local  450,  2137  South  Cicero  Avenue, 
Chicago;  Picture  Frame  Workers  Union,  731  Southwestern  Avenue, 
Chicago,  Joseph  lello,  operator;  and  to  the  International  Hodcarriers 
Union,  814  West  Harrison  Street,  Chicago,  111. 

We  received  information  in  1953  to  the  effect — and  we  gave  this 
report  to  the  police  and  to  the  Senate  investigating  committee  and 
others — that  Claude  Maddox  allegedly  was  receiving  $10,000  a  month 
from  certain  unions,  including  local  593,  and  that  in  this  deal  were 
also  the  two  Lardino  brothers,  Johnnie  and  Dan  Lardino. 

Mr.  Kexxedy.  This  individual  that  you  just  described  is  the  indi- 
vidual that  information  indicates  controls  local  593  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  This,  Mr.  Chairman,  is  a  copy  of  his  police  record. 

Maddox  is  also  known  as  Screwy,  is  he  not  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Yes.  John  Edward  "Screwy"  Moore.  The  real 
name  is  John  Edward  Moore,  but  he  is  known  more  frequently  under 
the  name  of  John  Maddox. 

The  Chairman.  Is  he  also  known  as  John  Manning? 

Mr.  Peterson.  I  have  never  heard  that.     It  may  be. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Can  Mr.  Kelly  put  this  in? 


12536  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

TESTIMONY  OP  JAMES  P.  KELLY— Resumed 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Kelly,  you  have  the  criminal  record  of  this 
man  Moore  or  Maddox  ? 

Mr.  Kelly.  Yes,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  state  what  it  is. 

Mr.  Kelly.  He  is  known  as  John  Edward  Moore,  also  known  as 
Claude  JSIaddox,  also  known  as  Screwy  Moore,  also  known  as  John 
Manning. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Just  give  the  highlights. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  have  there  his  criminal  record  ? 

Mr.  Kelly.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  That  record  may  be  made  exhibit  No.  14  for  ref- 
erence, 

(The  document  referred  to  was  marked  "Exhibit  No.  14"  for  refer- 
ence and  may  be  found  in  the  files  of  the  Select  Labor  Committee.) 

Senator  Curtis.  Mr.  Chairman? 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Curtis. 

TESTIMONY  OF  VIRGIL  PETERSON— Resumed 

Senator  Curtis.  Mr,  Peterson,  do  you  have  an  estimate  of  what  has 
been  tlie  total  take  of  money,  both  from  the  collection  of  dues,  the 
shakedowns  and  extortions,  the  blackmail,  by  gangster-dominated  un- 
ions in  the  Chicago  area  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  I  wouldn't  be  able  to  make  it.  Any  estimate  along 
that  line  would  be  strictly  a  guess.  Just  like  the  cost  of  crime,  it  is 
very 

Senator  Curtis,  It  is  very  sizable,  is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Peterson,  It  would  be  very  substantial,  surely. 

Senator  Curtis,  Even  on  the  period  of  an  annual  basis  or  a  month- 
ly basis,  it  would  still  be  a  sizable  amount  ? 

Mr,  Peterson,  That  is  right. 

Senator  Curtis,  And  that  would  be  true  of  any  reasonable  guess  that 
■would  have  considerable  substantiation  ? 

Mr,  Peterson.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Chairman,  we  have  talked  about  596  and  358.  I 
would  like  to  have  Mr,  Kelly  put  on  the  stand  to  testify  as  to  what 
the  international  records  show  as  to  who  received  the  charter  for 
local  450. 

TESTIMONY  OF  JAMES  P.  KELLY— Resumed 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Kelly,  I  hand  you  a  photostatic  copy  of  a 
document  purporting  to  be  an  application  for  a  charter, 

I  will  ask  you  to  examine  this  document  and  state  if  you  identify  it. 

(The  document  was  lianded  to  the  witness,) 

Mr,  Kelly,  Yes,  sir,  I  do. 

The  Chairman,  Wliat  is  it  ? 

Mr,  Kelly.  It  is  a  pliotostatic  copy  of  an  application  for  charter  of 
affiliation  with  the  Hotel  and  Restaurant  Employees  and  Beverage 
Dispensers  International  Alliance.  It  is  dated  in  Cicero,  111.,  August 
12,  1935,  for  Local  Union  450,  Bart^inders  Union,  6O291/2  West  Roose- 
velt Road,  Cicero,  111. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12537 

The  Chairman.  What  date  was  the  charter  issued  on  that  appli- 
cation ? 

Mr.  Kelly.  There  are  several  rubber  stamps  here,  Mr.  Chariman. 
It  was  received  August  13, 1935 ;  that  would  be  the  international  stamp. 
There  is  a  date  that  it  was  answered  on  August  13, 1935. 

There  is  a  notation  on  the  side  12  books  and  initiation  stamps 
August  12,  1935,  which  would  mean  that  the  initiation  books  and  the 
stamps  were  prepared  for  the  local  on  the  dates  the  application  for  a 
charter  was  made  out. 

The  secretary  on  this  charter  application  is  Joseph  Aiuppa. 

Mv.  Kenxedy.  That  is  the  same  individual,  is  it  not,  that  we  have 
been  discussing  here  ? 

Mr.  Kelly.  Yes,  sir. 

Tlie  CiiAiRMAx,  Let  this  be  made  exhibit  No.  15. 

(The  document  referred  to  was  marked  "Exhibit  No.  15"  for  ref- 
erence and  will  be  found  in  the  appendix  on  p.  12856.) 

JNIr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Kelly,  you  attempted  to  subpena  Mr.  Aiuppa, 
didyounot? 

]\Ir.  Kelly.  Yes,  sir,  that  is  correct. 

]Mr.  Kenx-edy.  Mr.  Aiuppa,  Mr.  Chairman,  is  one  of  our  missing 
witnesses  in  Chicago,  who  has  avoided  being  subpenaed. 

Mr.  Kelly,  could  you  tell  us  if  you  went  to  Mr.  Aiuppa's  home  and 
tried  to  contact  him  ? 

Mr.  Kelly.  Yes,  sir,  I  did,  in  company  with  another  staff  member 
of  the  committee,  Mr.  Gosch,  on  the  14th  of  June  of  this  year,  I  went 
to  Mr.  Aiuppa's  home  at  4  Yorkshire  Drive  in  Elmhurst,  111.  The 
purpose  of  seeing  him  was  to  serve  him  with  a  committee  subpena. 

Air.  Kexxedy.  Would  you  tell  us  what  happened  ? 

Mr.  Kelly.  Well,  as  we  approached  the  house,  we  parked  the  car, 
we  had  a  Government  car,  we  parked  the  car  down  the  road  on  York- 
shire Drive.  As  we  approached  the  house,  a  man  wearing  working 
clothes  came  out  from  the  side  of  the  house  and  approached  us.  As 
we  came  up  the  road,  we  could  see  a  person  that  I  recognized  as  Joey 
Aiuppa,  standing  in  the  rear  of  the  yard,  patting  a  dog  on  the  head. 
He  had  a  fenced-in  kennel  in  the  back  yard.  He  was  patting  the  dog 
on  the  head.  We  came  up  to  the  front  of  the  house,  there  was  a  circu- 
lar driveway,  and  this  person  dressed  in  working  clothes  came  over  and 
asked  if  he  could  help  us.  We  told  him  we  would  like  to  see  Joey 
Aiuppa.  He  said  Joey  was  out  in  back.  He  said,  "He  is  going  out. 
He  has  an  important  engagement.  He  is  in  a  hurry.  I  will  tell  him 
you  want  to  see  him." 

He  called  in  through  an  open  window  to  a  maid  inside,  and  said, 
"Carlene,  tell  Joey  that  these  two  men  want  to  see  him." 

At  that  point,  Mr.  Gosch  and  I  waited  up  by  the  front  door.  Inci- 
dentally, they  had  this  one-way  mirror  glass  paneling  in  the  front  door. 

Mt.  Kexxedy.  You  could  look  out  but  you  could  not  look  in  ? 

Mr.  Kelly.  You  could  not  look  in.  You  would  see  your  own 
reflection.  We  waited  a  few  minutes  by  the  door,  and  this  person  in 
the  working  clothes  went  back  around  the  corner  of  the  house.  Within 
a  very  few  minutes  he  came  back  out  with  an  entirely  different  expres- 
sion on  his  face  and  said  "Joey  isn't  home,  fellows.  Is  there  anything 
we  can  do  for  you  ? " 

I  said  "Look,  we  saw  Joey  in  the  backyard  as  we  came  in  here.  You 
just  told  us  that  he  was  in  the  backyard  and  he  was  home." 


12538  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

I  said  "I  am  from  the  Government,  and  I  want  you  to  tell  Joey 
that  we  want  to  talk  to  him,  and  we  want  him  to  come  out  or  let  us 
come  in." 

So  the  maid  came  to  the  window  and  I  said  "Carlene,  I  want  you  to 
tell  Joey  to  come  out  and  see  us.  Tell  him  we  are  from  the  Govern- 
ment." 

She  said  "I  don't  think  he  is  in,  but  I  will  go  see." 

She  disappeared,  and  she  came  back  in  a  few  minutes  and  she  said 
"He  said  he  isn't  in." 

So  this  man  said  he  was  the  gardener  and  cautioned  me  not  to  step 
on  his  geraniums.  I  had  a  conversation  with  Mr.  Gosch  and  decided 
to  bring  the  Government  car  up,  and  if  Joey  had  an  important  en- 
gagement we  would  wait  for  him.  We  parked  in  front  in  the  car, 
and  as  we  sat  there,  I  could  see  this  man  who  identified  himself  as 
Mario,  having  a  conversation  with  someone  other  than  the  maid 
through  the  window.  Mario  was  rather  excited,  waving  his  arms, 
trying  to  say  something.  We  brought  the  car  back  up  and  parked 
it  out  in  front  where  they  could  see  it.  At  this  point,  Mario  came 
out  and  went  over  to  a  car  that  was  parked  alongside  the  house.  At 
this  place,  the  new  toll  road  is  going  through  and  there  is  a  bank  that 
extends  perhaps  25  or  30  feet,  from  the  side  of  his  home  down  to  the 
toll  road.  There  were  two  cars,  parked  there,  one  1957  Ford  which 
Mario  had  told  us  he  owned,  and  another  1951  Ford,  which  he  said 
he  didn't  know  who  owned  it  or  who  it  belonged  to. 

He  got  into  the  1957  Ford  and  he  started  to  drive  slowly  out  the 
driveway.  I  went  over  to  him  again  and  said,  "Look,  Mario,  we  are 
from  the  Government.  I  will  show  you  my  credentials  again.  I 
want  you  to  try  and  tell  Joey  that  we  want  to  see  him  for  a  few 
minutes,  that  it  is  important.  We  are  not  going  to  take  up  much 
of  his  time." 

He  said,  "Look,  fellows,  why  put  me  in  the  middle  ?" 

With  that  he  drove  off.  At  this  point  I  had  another  conversation 
with  Mr.  Gosch  and  decided  that  it  was  quite  possible  when  we  were 
out  of  sight  of  the  house  getting  our  car,  Joey  might  have  hidden 
himself  in  the  trunk,  as  he  was  mighty  anxious  to  get  out. 

So  I  said  to  Mr.  Gosch,  "Tail  him  for  a  while.  He  is  driving  very 
slowly  and  maybe  he  doesn't  want  to  jounce  him  around.  I  will  wait 
down  here  among  the  trees  where  he  can't  see  me,  and  if  he  tries  to 
bring  out  the  other  car,  I  will  try  to  intercept  him." 

At  this  point,  Mr.  Gosch  took  off  in  pursuit  of  Mario.  I  waited 
in  the  trees  in  a  position  where  I  could  see  the  house.  Wlien  Mario 
got  out  of  siglit,  the  little  1951  came  bouncing  down  the  driveway. 
So  I  was  walking  up  the  road  with  my  credentials  in  one  hand  and 
the  subpena  in  the  other  and  I  saw  this  man  that  was  drivin^^  the  car 
had  no  intention  of  stopping.  I  just  got  out  of  the  way  in  tmie.  As 
he  went  by,  he  looked  up  and  looked  at  me,  yelled  something  un- 
intelligible, but  T  could  see  his  face  clearly,  and  it  was  Joey  Aiuppa. 

He  made  the  turn  and  went  down  the  road  toward  Roosevelt  Eoad. 
That  was  the  last  I  saw  of  him. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  he  swerve  at  all  ? 

Mr.  Kelly.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Was  he  actually  picking  up  speed? 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12539 

Mr.  Kelly.  He  was  picking  up  speed  as  he  came  out  of  the  drive- 
way. He  did  not  slow  down  to  make  the  turn.  He  just  about  made 
the  turn. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  He  did  not  attempt  to  miss  you  at  that  time? 

Mr.  Kelly.  He  didn't  attempt  to  miss  me.  He  was  in  the  middle  of 
the  road,  not  on  the  right  or  left  but  in  the  middle. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  we  haven't  seen  Mr,  Aiuppa  since  that  time? 

Mr.  Kelly.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  asked  the  help  of  officers  out  there  to 
serve  the  subpena  ? 

Mr.  Kelly.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Aiuppa  has  a  criminal  record;  does  he  not? 

]\Ir.  Kelly.  Yes ;  lie  has. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  also  find  that  John  Edward  Moore  was  a 
member  of  that  local  450  ? 

Mr.  Kelly.  In  the  investigation  that  I  made  of  the  records  in  Cin- 
cinnati in  the  early  part  of  June,  the  first  week  in  June,  I  went 
throuffh  the  membership  initiation,  with  withdrawal,  et  cetera,  of 
local  450,  from  the  period  of  its  charter  to  about  1947. 

I  found  one  John  Edward  Moore,  and  he  was  initiated  into  the 
union  in  February  of  1941.  This  was  approximately  a  month  before 
the  international  convention  in  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  that  year. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  Mr.  Moore  attend  the  convention  in  Cincinnati? 

Mr.  Kelly.  The  records  indicate  that  he  did,  although  not  as  John 
Edward  Moore. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  But  he  did  attend  the  international  convention  in 
1941? 

Mr.  Kelly.  Yes,  sir;  and  attended  the  convention  in  1947,  in  Mil- 
waukee. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  This  is  the  same  individual  we  have  been  discussing  ? 

Mr.  Kelly.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  is  locals  593,  658,  and  450;  now  I  would  like 
to  go  to  local  278  of  the  same  union. 

TESTIMONY  OF  VIRGIL  PETERSON— Eesumed 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Do  you  have  any  information  that  Local  278  of  the 
Hotel  and  Restaurant  Workers  Union  is  controlled  or  has  been  infil- 
trated by  hoodlums  or  gangsters  ? 

IVIr.  Peterson.  Local  278,  Chicago  Bartenders  Union,  is  located  at 
10  North  Clark  Street. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Bartenders  and  Beverage  Dispensers  Union  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Yes.  That  has  a  long  history  with  reference  to 
hoodlum  infiltration.  In  1935  Frank  Nitti  attempted  to  gain  control 
over  278.  At  that  time,  we  had — not  at  that  time,  but  later,  there 
was  some  J:estimony  given  by  a  George  V.  McLane,  who  was  the  head 
of  local  278,  and  in  his  testimony  also  before  two  different  hearings, 
both  master  in  chancery  and  before  a  grand  jury,  he  told  of  his  con- 
versations with  Nitti  in  1935.  At  that  time,  Nitti  was  trying  to  take 
over  local  278.  Nitti  told  him  that  he  placed  George  G!  Browne  as 
presiden  of  the  International  Alliance  of  Theatrical  Stage  Employees 
and  Motion  Picture  Operators.    As  a  matter  of  fact,  Nitti,  together 


12540  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

with  Paul  Ricca,  Phil  DeAndre,  Paul  Joey,  Nick  Deane,  and  a  number 
of  others,  were  convicted.  They  had  taken  over  control  of  that  union 
and  were  convicted  in  1943  in  connection  with  a  million-dollar  extor- 
tion from  the  movie-picture  industry. 

So  he  was  not  idly  boasting  when  he  said  he  put  Browne  in  charge 
of  that  union.  He  also  was  not  boasting  ^vhen  he  said  he  placed 
Mike  Carroza  as  Chicago  czar.  He  also  made  George  Scalise  presi- 
dent of  the  Building  Service  Employees  International  Union.  As 
you  undoubtedly  recall,  Scalise  was  sent  to  prison  for  looting  this 
union  treasury. 

During  the  early  months  of  1935,  according  to  testimony,  or  accord- 
ing to  the  testimony  of  George  McLane,  he  received  a  telephone  call 
in  the  union  headquarters  from  Danny  Stanton,  who  has  been  men- 
tioned earlier  today.  Stanton  wanted  $500  from  McLane  to  go  to  the 
Kentucky  Derby,  and  said  he  would  send  over  2  men  to  pick  up  the 
money. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  was  McLane's  position  at  that  time? 

Mr.  Peterson.  He  was  the  president,  as  I  recall,  of  local  278.  He 
was  the  official  in  the  union.  McLane  replied  that  he  had  no  right 
to  give  out  union  funds.  However,  a  half  hour  later,  according  to 
McLane's  story,  two  men  came  over  to  pick  up  the  money,  and  McLane 
refused  to  give  it  to  them. 

They  then  called  Danny  Stanton,  and  Stanton  told  McLane,  ac- 
cording to  his  testimony,  "You  son  of  a  so  and  so,  we  will  get  the 
money  and  take  the  union  over." 

Two  or  three  weeks  later,  according  to  McLane's  testimony,  he  was 
contacted  by  an  emissary  of  Nitti,  who  said  he  wanted  to  see  him  at 
the  LaSalle  Hotel.  At  this  meeting,  Mr.  McLane  mentioned  the 
problem  of  Danny  Stanton,  his  previous  contact  with  him,  and  Nitti 
said,  "The  only  way  to  overcome  this  is  to  put  one  of  our  men  in  as 
an  officer." 

McLane  replied  that  this  was  impossible,  and  Nitti  said,  "We  have 
taken  over  other  unions.  You  will  put  him  in  or  get  shot  in  the 
head." 

According  to  McLane's  testimony,  his  next  contact  with  this  Capone 
group  was  at  the  old  Capri  Restaurant  on  the  third  floor  of  1232 
North  Clark  Street.  He  said  present  at  this  meeting  were  Frank 
Nitti,  Murray  "the  Camel"  Humphreys,  "Little  New  York"  Cam- 
pagna,  Paul  "the  Waiter"  Ricca,  Joe  Fusco,  and  Jake  Guzick.  Nitti 
called  McLane  over  to  his  table  in  this  restaurant  and  told  McLane 
that  he  had  to  put  his  man  in  as  an  officer  of  the  union.  McLane  re- 
plied that  this  was  impossible  as  he  had  to  have  the  approval  of  the 
executive  board,  and  the  man  had  to  be  a  member  of  the  union. 

Nitti  replied,  "Give  us  the  names  of  anyone  who  opposes,  and  Ave 
will  take  care  of  them.  We  want  no  more  playing  around.  If  you 
don't  do  what  we  say,  you  will  get  shot  in  the  head.  How  would 
your  wife  look  in  black  ?" 

That  was  the  conversation  that  McLane  reported  he  had  on  that 
occasion. 

His  next  summons  was  to  the  Capri  Restaurant  some  time  later 
where  he  met  Nitti,  Campagna,  and  Frederick  Evans.  At  this  meet- 
ing, he  said,  according  to  JSIcl^ane,  "Why  haven't  you  put  a  man  in 
as  an  officer?     What  are  you  stalling  for?     The  slugging  of  your 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12541 

pickets  and  intimidation  of  your  business  agents  will  stop  if  you  put 
our  man  to  work.  I  will  give  you  a  man  without  a  police  record. 
The  i)hices  that  our  syndicate  owns  will  join  the  union.  There  will 
be  no  pickets  and  no  bother." 

That  is  according  to  McLane's  report  of  this  conversation.  Mc- 
Lane  told  Nitti  that  the  executive  board  had  refused  to  accept  the 
gangster  as  an  officer,  and  Nitti  and  Humphreys  then  demanded 
the  names  of  those  who  had  opposed,  and  McLane  refused  to  give 
them  to  him.     They  then  said,  "We  will  take  care  of  that." 

This  was  said  by  Humphreys. 

"This  is  your  last  chance.  This  is  the  only  way  we  will  stand 
for  anything."     And  "Put  in  our  man  or  wind  up  in  an  alley." 

McLane  then  went  back  to  the  board,  according  to  his  testimony, 
told  them  about  the  threats  and  what  it  meant,  and  it  was  finally 
agreed  in  the  latter  part  of  July  1935  to  put  in  the  syndicate  man 
in  control  of  the  union.     This  man  was  Louis  Romano. 

^Ir.  Kexxedy.  Tliat  is  R-o-m-a-n-o? 

]\Ir.  Peterson.  Yes. 

Mr.  Kexxedy.  He  will  also  be  important  in  the  course  of  this  in- 
vestigation, Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Peteksox.  Apparently  then,  in  1940,  McLane  was  not  too 
happy  with  Romano's  domination  of  the  union.  He  tried  to  get 
him  ousted.  That  is  tlie  time  he  went  before  the  Cook  County 
grand  jury  and  testified  that  Romano,  along  with  Nitti,  Hum- 
phreys, Campagna,  and  Evans  controlled  Local  278. 

Following  McLane's  testimony,  Romano  and  other  syndicate  hood- 
lums were  indicted  on  October  3,  1940,  by  the  Cook  County  grand 
jury.  The  defendants  named  in  this  indictment  were  Frank  Nitti, 
Afurray  Humphreys,  Louis  Campagna,  Paul  Ricca,  also  known  as 
Paul  DeLuccia,  Louis  Romano,  alias  Louis  Stern,  Frederick  Evans, 
and  Thomas  Panton. 

Mr.  Kexxedy.  Mr.  Chairman,  we  might  just  talk  about  Paul  "the 
Waiter"  Ricca,  who  is  probably  the  most  important  gangster  in 
Chicago;  is  he  not? 

Mr.  Petersox.  Yes,  certainly  one  of  the  most  important. 

He  would  have  been,  without  any  question,  in  my  opinion,  the 
leader  of  the  syndicate  following  Frank  Nitti,  had  it  not  been  for 
his  difficulties  with  the  Federal  Government  beginning  in  1943,  his 
sentence  to  prison  in  connection  with  the  motion  picture  extortion 
case. 

Mr.  Kexxedy.  We  had  some  testimony  about  Paul  "the  Waiter" 
Ricca  in  our  hearings  last  fall,  where  it  was  developed  that  Jimmy 
Holfa,  who  is  now  international  president  of  the  Teamsters,  and  Bert 
Brennan,  who  is  a  vice  president,  had  purchased  for  the  Teamsters 
Mr.  Ricca's  home,  spending  $150,000  in  union  funds.  Mr.  Hoffa 
testified  that  it  was  going  to  be  used  as  a  place  to  instruct  and  teach 
the  business  agents  of  the  Teamsters. 

Go  ahead. 

Mr.  Petersox.  When  this  case  came  to  trial,  of  course,  the  pi-inci- 
pal  witness  was  George  V.  McLane,  and  he  invoked  the  fifth  amend- 
ment and  refused  to  testify.  According  to  the  State  attorney's 
office,  the  chief  investigator  for  that  office  claimed  that  in  November 
1940,  before  the  trial  came  up,  Claude  Macldox,  alias  John  IVIoore, 


12542  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

had  talked  to  McLane  and  made  a  deal  with  McLane  that  he  would  be 
reelected  as  a  union  business  agent  if  he  promised  to  save  Nitti 
and  others  from  conviction. 

Shortly  after  he  invoked  the  fifth  amendment  at  the  trial,  McLane's 
testimony  before  the  grand  jury  was  made  public  and  much  of  this 
testimony  or  story  that  I  have  related  here  came  from  that  grand 
jury  testimony. 

In  McLane's  testimony  before  the  grand  jury  it  was  learned  that  in 
the  middle  of  1938,  Nitti  forced  McLane  to  run  for  the  presidency  of 
the  Bartenders'  International  Union  at  a  meeting  which  was  held  in 
the  Bismark  Hotel  in  the  middle  of  1938.  McLane  met  George 
Browne,  who  also  figured  in  the  moving  picture  extortion  case,  inter- 
ijational  president  of  the  Stagehands  Union;  Willie  Bioff,  who  also 
figured  in  that  case;  Nick  Deane,  Louis  Romano,  and  Frank  Nitti. 
Bioff  advised  McLane  that  as  far  as  the  west  coast  is  concerned — that 
is,  in  connection  with  their  desire  to  put  in  McLane  as  president  of  the 
international  union — as  far  as  the  west  coast  was  concerned,  in  Seattle 
he  would  contact  various  organizations,  including  the  Teamsters,  and 
see  "That  our  people  there  will  vote  for  McLane  for  the  general 
president." 

Mr.  McLane  explained  to  them  that  they  were  picking  an  organi- 
zation that  was  28  years  old  and  it  was  almost  impossible  to  beat  an 
organization  of  that  standing. 

He  also  said  that  others  would  know  that  he  was  being  used  strictly 
as  a  front  man  or  a  yes  man  for  the  syndicate.  It  was  explained  to 
McLane,  however,  that  he  would  wind  up  in  the  penitentiary  or  out 
in  the  alley  if  he  did  not  consent  to  run  for  office. 

Mr.  McLane  testified  that  the  syndicate  hoodlums  said,  and  I  quote, 
this  is  McLane's  testimony,  "They  had  run  other  organizations  and 
had  taken  other  organizations  through  the  same  channels,  and  all  they 
said  they  Avanted  was  2  years  of  it  and  they  would  see  that  I  was 
elected.  Then  they  would  parcel  out  different  parts  of  the  country. 
Browne  was  supposed  to  take  care  of  the  eastern  part  of  it,  around 
Boston  and  through  there.  Deane  was  supposed  to  take  care  of  some 
other  place.    I  do  not  recall  just  where  he  was  deleoated." 

According  to  McLane,  Nitti  did  most  of  the  talking  after  Browne. 
Nitti  again  said  they  had  made  Mike  Carozzi  the  czar  of  the  Chicago 
Street  Cleaners  Union,  how  they  controlled  the  treasury  of  the  organi- 
zations, and  what  position  they  were  in  to  do  it. 

Nitti  said  Carozzi  did  not  amount  to  anything  until  he  affiliated 
with  the  syndicate,  and  they  were  going  to  do  the  same  for  McLane. 
Nitti  made  that  very  clear  at  the  end  of  the  meeting — that  McLane 
would  run  for  office  or  he  would  be  found  in  an  alley.  Incidentally, 
McLane  did  run  for  the  office  then,  but  he  was  defeated.  As  a  result 
of  McLane's  charges,  the  syndicate  control  of  local  278,  tlie  local  was 
put  into  receivership  in  August  of  1940,  in  hearings  before  Judge 
Robert  Jerome  Dunn  of  Chicago. 

On  January  6,  1941,  4,000  union  bartenders  cast  their  votes  in  the 
courtroom  of  Judge  Dunn,  who  had  placed  this  union  in  receiver- 
ship in  August  of  1940.  At  this  election,  James  Crowley  was  elected 
president,  and  McLane  was  defeated  for  reelection  as  business  agent. 
He  was  defeated  by  Joseph  McGilliott.  The  States  attorney's  office 
chief  investigator  at  that  time  stated  publicly  that  the  Nitti  mob  is 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12543 

still  in  control.  Rather  interestinirly,  on  February  13,  1941,  master 
in  chancery,  Isadore  Browne,  who  had  heard  testimony  from  Mc- 
Lane  and  others  before  him,  held  that  this  testimony  had  established 
(1)  that  the  present  head  of  the  Al  Capone  gang  in  Chicago  was  Frank 
Nitti,  that  is  1941;  (2)  that  Nitti  said  he  was  going  to  take  over  the 
Bartenders  Union  and  did  so;  (3)  that  there  was  fear  among  some  of 
the  bartenders  that  Nitti  and  some  of  his  gang  was  going  to  take  olF 
with  some  of  the  bartenders'  money,  and  this  fear  was  a  valid  one. 

This  master  in  chancery  held  that  with  the  exception  of  those  charges 
relating  to  fiscal  irregularities,  the  original  charges  made  by  George 
V.  McLane  had  been  absolutely  sustained. 

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

Mr.  Kenxedy.  You  mentioned  that  James  Crowley  was  elected 
president. 

]Mr.  Petersox.  Yes. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  he  continue  to  hold  the  office  or  position  of 
president  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  He  has  until  recently.  On  March  18,  1947,  gun- 
men attempted  to  assassinate  him. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  happened  then  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  He  and  his  wife  drove  up  in  front  of  their  resi- 
dence at  7225  Merlo  Avenue,  in  a  Cadillac  automobile.  Gunmen  from 
another  car  drew  alongside  and  blasted  several  shotgun  blasts  into 
the  car.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  five  blasts  from  the  shotgun  struck  the 
left  front  window  of  the  car.  At  least  25  slugs  hit  Mrs.  Crowdey  and 
killed  her  instantly.  Crowley  himself  had  five  shotgun  bullets  in 
his  left  arm  and  back.  He  was  taken  to  the  Jackson  Park  Hospital, 
where  he  recovered. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  they  amputate  his  arm  ? 

]\Ir.  Peterson.  I  don't  recall.  I  don't  think  so.  I  don't  know 
about  that.  He  was  later  questioned,  I  know,  at  the  Grant  Cross- 
ing police  station  and  in  the  pre.sence  of  his  attorney  and  also  Morris 
Sheiber,  secretary  and  treasurer  of  local  278,  he  denied  that  he  had 
any  knowledge  as  to  who  had  attempted  to  take  his  life,  or  he  denied 
that  his  life  had  been  threatened. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  he  remain  in  as  president  after  that  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  He  resigned  as  president  of  local  278,  May  5,  1958, 
just  this  year,  and  was  succeeded  by  Morris  J.  Sheiber. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  He  just  resigned  in  the  period  of  the  last  month  or 
so,  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  talked  about  Louis  Romano  being  placed  in 
control  of  this  union  for  the  syndicate.  Can  you  tell  us  anything 
about  the  background  of  Louis  Romano  ? 

Mr.  Pf:TERS0N.  Yes.  The  crime  commission  files  contain  informa- 
tion about  him  going  back  many  years.  In  fact,  he  was  involved  in 
a  shooting  in  a  saloon  at  2059  Division  Street,  in  Chicago,  on  April  5, 
1922,  and  on  that  occasion  he  shot  Abe  Rubin  four  times.  Rubin  was 
killed.  During  the  same  affray  Romano  shot  Isadore  Sulporr,  of 
Potomac  Avenue,  and  also  Charles  Hadesman  once.  On  April  20, 
1922,  three  indictments  were  returned  by  the  Cook  Countv  grand  jury 
against  Louis  Romano,  indictment  No.  28308,  charging  Romano  with 

21243—58 — pt.  33 4 


12544  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

the  murder  of  Kiibin ;  No.  28309,  assault  with  intent  to  murder  Isadore 
Sulporr;  and  No.  28310,  assault  with  intent  to  murder  Charles 
Hadesman. 

On  June  20,  1923,  indictments  28309  and  28310  were  stricken  off 
with  leave  to  reinstate,  and  indictment  28308  was  nolle  prossed. 

We  also  have  information  that  reveals  that  Romano  was  arrested 
in  1923  for  the  fatal  shooting  of  Albert  Lucentti.  This  fatal  shooting 
occurred  during  a  traffic  argument. 

Witnesses  failed  to  identify  Eomano,  however,  and  he  was  sub- 
sequently released.  Of  course,  I  have  mentioned  as  part  of  his  crimi- 
nal record,  or  criminal  history,  at  least,  this  indictment  returned 
October  3,  1940,  by  the  Cook  County  grand  jury,  and  that  indictment, 
incidentally,  a  motion  for  directed  verdict  of  not  guilty  was  returned 
on  December  2,  1940,  following  McLane's  invoking  of  the  fifth 
amendment. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  So  in  summary  he  was  ultimately  removed,  was 
he  not? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Yes,  as  a  result  of  those  receiversliip  proceedings. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Of  local  278. 

Mr.  Peterson.  Yes. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  He  was  placed  in  this  position,  supposedly  because 
he  was  the  one  that  did  not  have  the  long  criminal  record,  is  that 
right  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Yes. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  after  he  got  out  of  local  278,  or  was  put  out 
of  local  278,  who  did  he  go  to  work  for  within  a  short  period  of  time? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Abe  Tietelbaum,  labor  relations  counselor  for  the 
Chicago  Restaurant  Association.  Tietelbaum  admitted  Romano  was 
on  his  staff,  and  said  he  is  an  expert  in  labor  relations  matters. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  So  he  was  involved  in  these  criminal  activities  dur- 
ing 1930,  had  this  connection  with  the  union,  was  expelled  and  then 
was  picked  up  by  the  employers  as  a  labor-relations  consultant  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  that  was  within  a  short  period  of  time? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Yes ;  not  too  long  after  that.  I  don't  have  the  exact 
date. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Back  in  1935,  hadn't  he  also  been  head  of  the  Joint 
Council  of  the  Hotel  and  Restaurant  Employees'  Union? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Louis  Romano? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Yes. 

Mr.  Peterson.  That  is  my  recollection. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  was' 1935  to  1940.  So  he  held  this  important 
position  during  this  period  of  time  that  the  syndicate  was  attempting 
to  move  in  on  these  unions,  and  then  went  to  work  for  the  emjiloyers 
to  handle  their  labor  relations. 

Mr.  Peterson.  Louis  Romano  went  with  the  employers.  You  have 
given  the  background  of  the  syndicate  control  of  some  of  these  local 
unions.  Was  there  also  some  etForts  by  the  syndicate  to  get  in  and 
control  the  association,  and  did  the  association  or  the  employers  Avel- 
come  the  representatives  of  the  syndicate? 

Senator  Church.  Mr.  Chainnan,  before  we  get  into  this  aspect  of 
the  case,  I  have  a  couple  of  questions  I  would  like  to  ask  witli  respect 
to  tliis  local  278  to  complete  the  story  before  we  get  into  the  associa- 
tion side. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12545 

You  have  already  given  evidence  here  with  respect  to  two  locals  as 
to  how  they  were  initially  organized  by  these  mobster  elements. 

With  respect  to  local  278,  we  have  a  case  where  the  mobster  ele- 
ment muscled  in  through  an  established  local.  Not  only  was  it  inter- 
ested in  that  particular  local,  but  it  was  interested  in  an  attempt  to 
take  over  the  international,  and  it  made  McLane  its  front  man  in  that 
attempt.     That  attempt  failed ;  did  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Yes,  in  that  instance. 

Senator  Church.  But  they  did  manage  to  muscle  in  and  gain  con- 
trol of  local  278.  They  put  Louis  Eomano  in  charge.  It  then  went 
into  receivership  and  in  a  proceeding  Federal  court 

Mr.  Petersox.  No,  not  Federal  court. 

Senator  Church.  In  the  local  court,  then.  Crowley  was  elected 
president  of  the  local  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Yes. 

Senator  Church.  Now,  did  this  same  element,  that  is,  the  Frank 
Nitti  element,  continue  to  dominate  the  Crowley  regime  in  local  278  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  As  I  mentioned,  the  States  attorney's  office  stated  as 
a  result  of  that  election,  the  Nitti  mob  is  still  in  control,  and  there  was 
a  rather  interesting  incident  which  would  indicate  they  certainly  still 
had  a  considerable  amount  of  influence.  As  a  result  of  the  decision 
that  placed  the  union  in  receivership,  the  union  was  forced  to  fire  cer- 
tain business  agents  and  other  officials,  because  of  their  connections, 
including  Thomas  Panton,  one  of  the  individuals  who  was  named  in 
this  indictment. 

Almost  immediately  after  the  receivership  then  was  dissolved,  that 
is,  after  the  control  was  placed  back  in  the  hands  of  the  union,  they 
then,  Crowley  then  fired  or  the  union  fired  these  individuals  who  had 
been  placed  in  there  during  the  course  of  the  receivership,  and  took 
back  several  of  the  individuals  who  had  been  fired  as  a  result  of  this 
so-called  hoodlum  domination,  and,  as  I  recall,  one  of  those  that  was 
taken  back  was  Thomas  Panton,  who  had  been  indicted  in  connection 
with  this. 

So  certainly  there  was  a  very  strong  indication  that  the  complexion 
of  the  union  had  not  changed  too  much  insofar  as  syndicate  domina- 
tion was  concerned. 

Senator  Church.  Since  this  occurred  a  number  of  years  ago,  the 
receivership  proceeding  in  1940, 1  think  it  is  important  that  we  try  to 
bring  it  down  to  date  so  that  we  have  some  appraisal  of  the  current 
situation.    The  Crowley  regime  has  also  passed  into  Limbo,  has  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  That  is  right. 

Senator  Church.  What,  in  your  opinion,  is  the  situation  today  in 
local  278? 

Is  it  still  influenced  by  this  same  racketeer  element  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Certainly  the  influence  has  not  completely  disap- 
peared.   That  is  my  opinion. 

Senator  Church.  Thank  you. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  Mr.  Crowley  get  out? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Just  May  5, 1958. 

The  Chairman.  A  little  while  after  this  investigation  started? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  I  don't  suppose  this  had  anything  to  do  witli  his 
retirement. 


12546  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN   THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Peterson.  I  think  that  would  be  a  good  question.  I  think  any- 
one is  entitled  to  make  his  own  deduction. 

The  Chairman.  Yes,  sir.    Thank  you.    Proceed. 

Mr.  I^NNEDY.  Mr.  Chairman,  should  we  continue  this  afternoon  ? 

The  Chairman.  I  am  advised  by  counsel  we  can't  conclude  with  this 
witness  this  morning.  So  we  will  stand  in  recess  until  2  o'clock  this 
afternoon. 

(Whereupon,  at  12 :  20  p.  m.,  the  hearing  was  recessed,  to  reconvene 
at  2  p.  m.  of  the  same  day,  with  the  following  members  present :  Sena- 
tors McClellan  and  Church.) 

AFTERNOON   SESSION 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  will  be  in  order. 

(Members  of  the  committee  present  at  the  reconvening  of  the  session 
were :  Senators  McClellan  and  Curtis.) 

The  Chairman.  All  right,  Mr.  Peterson,  if  you  will  resume  the 
witness  stand,  please. 

TESTIMONY  OF  VIRGIL  W.  PETERSON— Resumed 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  this  morning  we  went  into  the 
hoodlum  control  of  the  four  different  locals  in  Chicago  of  the  Hotel 
and  Restaurant  Employees  Union  278,  593,  450,  and  local  658.  Now, 
on  the  other  side,  we  also  developed  the  connection  that  Louis  Romano 
who  was  a  member  of  the  Capone  syndicate,  first  is  associated  with 
the  union  and  then  is  associated  with  the  employers. 

Were  there  any  others  other  than  Louis  Romano  who  were  asso- 
ciated with  the  employers  side  of  this  industry  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Well,  of  course,  Romano  was  brought  into  the  pic- 
ture for  the  Chicago  Restaurant  Association  by  Abraham  Teitelbaum, 
who  was  formerly  attorney  for  Al  Capone. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Who  is  he  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  He  was  formerly  an  attorney  for  Al  Capone  and 
maintained  close  relations  with  the  members  of  the  Capone  syndicate. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  He  was  the  attorney  for  Capone,  and  was  it  also 
established  that  he  was  a  close  associate  of  those  in  the  Capone 
syndicate? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Many  years  ago,  that  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Was  he  a  close  associate  of  Capone  other  than  being 
his  attorney  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  If  you  are  going  to  be  an  attorney  for  a  man  like 
Capone,  you  have  to  be  a  close  associate  also. 

Senator  Curtis.  At  that  point,  do  you  happen  to  know  whether 
that  is  the  same  Mr.  Teitelbaum  that  featured  in  the  investigation  of 
the  tax  scandals  in  1951  and  1952  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  He  was  involved  in  tax  cases. 

Senator  Curtis.  I  am  informed  by  the  staff  it  is  the  same  individual. 
I  happened  to  be  a  member  of  the  House  committee  that  conducted 
those  investigations,  and  the  name  rang  a  bell  with  me. 

Mr.  Peterson.  I  am  sure  it  is  the  same. 

Mr,  Kennedy.  We  have  reviewed  your  questioning  of  Mr.  Teitel- 
baum, and  you  did  question  him  during  that  investigation. 

Senator  Curits.  I  had  forgotten  it,  it  has  been  so  long  ago. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12547 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  Teitelbaum  worked  with  the  association  for  a 
number  of  years,  did  he  not  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Yes,  and  he  was  brought  into  the  picture  as  I  under- 
stand it  in  this  fashion :  Around  1939  a  very  well  respected  restaurant 
owner  by  the  name  of  Gus  T.  Drake  had  his  place  of  Dusiness  picketed 
and  goons  smashed  his  windows,  and  he  was  hit  over  the  head  himself 
or  slugged  with  a  baseball  bat.  Following  this  violence,  that  is  when 
Abraham  Teitelbaum  was  brought  into  the  picture  as  a  labor  relations 
counsel  for  the  Chicago  Restaurant  Association. 

It  was  contended  that  because  of  Abraham  Teitelbaum's  relation- 
ship with  members  and  officers  of  local  593  and  the  union  there,  he 
was  able  to  perform  very  good  service  for  the  restaurant  association, 
and  also  for  the  union.  He  was  supposed  to  make  around  $125,000 
a  year  from  that  source. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  He  received  $125,000  a  year  ? 

Mr,  Peterson.  That  was  reported. 

Mr.  I^NNEDY.  He  remained  in  that  position,  and  I  think,  Mr. 
Chairman,  that  we  will  be  able  to  establish  that  he  did  receive  $125,000 
a  year,  and  when  he  resigned  in  1954  another  man  took  his  place,  is 
that  right? 

Mr.  Peterson.  That  is  right.     I  thought  it  was  in  1953. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  "\"Miat  happened  was  he  resigned  and  then  came 
back  again  in  1954  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  That  is  right.  But  at  that  time  apparently  in  1953, 
Teitelbaum  lost  some  of  his  favor  with  officials  of  local  593,  and  during 
that  period  there  was  a  lot  of  violence  and  a  lot  of  difficulty,  particu- 
larly involving  a  chain  of  restaurants  known  as  the  Marquis  Restau- 
rants, Inc.  So  Teitelbaum  was  then  replaced  as  counsel  for  the  Chi- 
cago Restaurant  Association  by  Anthony  V.  Champagne. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Who  was  Anthony  V.  Champagne  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  Anthony  V.  Champagne  has  long  been  a  close  friend 
of  many  of  the  Capone  hoodlums,  and  he  has  represented  many  of 
them,  going  back  as  far  as  1945.  Champagne  represented  Sam  Mooney 
Oiancana  who  is  a  right-hand  man  of  Tony  Accardo,  in  the  purchase 
of  some  property.  He  represented  a  number  of  these  individuals  and 
he  was  in  1953  representnig  for  a  time  this  Anthony  De  Rossa  who 
brought  charges  that  police  officers  had  manhandled  him. 

His  brother.  Dr.  Carl  Champagne,  also  appeared  as  a  witness  on 
behalf  of  DeRossa  and  Champagne  has  represented  Ray  Jones,  Phil 
Katz,  and  others  of  the  well  known  Capone  syndicate  wire  service 
operators,  and  Joseph  Icaro,  and  Carl  Cananda,  who  operated  gam- 
bling places  in  Cicero. 

Rather  interestingly  in  our  investigation  both  in  1954  and  in  1956 — 
in  1954  there  was  a  very  notorious  gambling  joint  called  the  "Wagon 
"Wlieel"  on  the  northwest  side  of  Chicago  and  this  place  had  an  alter- 
nate operating  place  at  6416  Gunnison.  In  August  of  1956,  we  learned 
that  this  same  place  which  is  owned  by  the  syndicate  and  operated  by 
the  syndicate  was  going  to  operate  this  big  crap  game.  There  was 
a  sign  on  this  syndicate  place  "Building  for  sale,  call  Estebrook 
8834,"  which  is  the  number  of  Anthony  V.  Champagne. 

It  also  appears  that  Champagne  appeared  in  connection  with  loans 
made  on  the  same  Giancana's  River  Road  Motel.  He  arranged  the 
loans;  that  is  what  the  party  who  made  the  loans  stated.     Anthony 


12548  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Champaf^ie  also  brought  into  the  picture  as  a  labor  relations  counsel 
another  hoodlum,  a  well-known  Capone  man,  Sam  English. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  these  individuals,  Mr.  Chairman,  will  all  be 
witnesses  later  on  during  the  hearing,  and  we  have  already  touched 
on  Mr.  Champagne  at  an  earlier  hearing. 

I  believe  that  gives  us  a  general  outline.  It  was  gangster  and 
hoodlum  infiltration  into  both  the  management  side  and  into  the  labor- 
union  side  ? 

Mr.  Peterson.  That  is  right. 

The  Chairiman.  Are  there  any  questions,  Senator  Curtis  ? 

Senator  Curtis.  I  have  no  questions  at  this  time. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you  very  much. 

Call  the  next  witness. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Rupcich. 

Mr.  RupciCH.  I  would  like  just  a  moment;  my  counsel  hasn't  re- 
turned from  lunch. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  "V^Hiere  is  j'our  counsel  ? 

Mr.  RupciCH.  I  believe  he  went  downstairs  to  lunch. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  We  told  him  to  be  here  at  2  o'clock. 

Mr.  Rtjpcich.  I  will  take  a  look  in  the  hall. 

The  Cpiairman.  We  will  stand  at  ease  for  2  or  3  minutes. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr,  Chairman,  we  are  now  going  into  a  new  phase 
of  the  investigation.  We  have  given  the  background  of  the  employer 
association  and  we  have  given  some  background  of  the  unions.  Now 
we  are  going  to  explore  how  the  union  and  the  employers  handle  their 
labor-management  relations  and  whether  the  union  officials  are,  in  fact, 
interested  in  the  employees  of  the  various  restaurants  in  Chicago. 

So  as  long  as  your  attorney  is  not  here,  we  will  have  to  call  Mr. 
McGann,  then. 

The  Chairman.  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.  McGann.  I  do. 

TESTIMONY  OF  JOHN  McGANN 

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

Mr.  McGann.  My  name  is  John  McGann,  and  I  live  at  9113  South 
Albany,  Evergreen  Park,  and  I  am  a  part  owner  of  the  Beverly 
Woods  Restaurant. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  waive  counsel  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  All  right,  Mr.  Kennedy. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  is  the  Beverly  Woods  Restaurant  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  In  Chicago ;  yes. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  are  a  part  owner  of  that  restaurant  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Do  you  also  have  a  part  ownership  in  the  Lincoln 
Heights  Restaurant  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  In  Chicago  Heights ;  yes. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  During  the  period  of  1949  and  1950,  you  worked  for 
Rupcich's  Restaurant  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  As  manager ;  yes,  sir. 


IMPROPER    ACTR'ITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12549 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  were  the  general  manager  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  when  that  restaurant  had  opened,  were  you 
approached  by  any  members  of  the  Hotel  and  Restaurant  JEmployees 
Union  about  having  the  waitresses  and  the  other  employees  join  the 
union  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  Shortly  after  we  opened,  we  were  approached. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  When  M'ould  that  be  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  In  the  early  summer  of  1950. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  When  is  that? 

Mr.  McGann.  In  the  early  summer  of  1950,  around  June  or  July 
of  1950. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  '^\^io  approached  you  at  that  time? 

Mr.  JNIcGann.  Mr.  O'Connor,  James  O'Connor. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  "NMiat  was  James  O'Connors  position  ? 

Mr.  ]McGann.  Business  agent  for  the  South  Chicago  Restaurant 
Union,  I  believe. 

Mr.  Kennedy.    I  believe  he  is  president  of  local  394. 

INIr.  ]McGann.  I  think  he  is  now,  and  I  didn't  know  whether  he  was 
at  that  time  or  not. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Of  the  Cooks,  Waiters,  and  Waitresses'  Union? 

Mr.  McGann.  Yes,  sir. 

]Mr.  Kennedy.  Could  you  tell  us  the  conversation  that  you  had  with 
Mr.  O'Connor? 

Mr.  McGann.  Well,  he  came  in  shortly  after  we  were  opened  as  I 
said,  and  told  me  that  he  would  like  us  to  join  the  union,  and  at  that 
time  I  told  him  I  was  just  the  manager  and  I  would  take  it  up  with 
Mr.  Rupcich,  which  I  did. 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  is  Rupcich  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  John  Rupcich. 

jNIr.  Kennedy.  Go  ahead. 

Mr.  McGann,  Mr.  Rupcich  had  not  had  any  previous  experience 
in  the  restaurant  business  prior  to  opening  this  restaurant,  and  I  had 
had  some.  I  knew  of  the  restaurant  association.  I  suggested  that  I 
^o  down  and  talk  to  the  Chicago  Restaurant  Association  and  find  out 
if  they  had  any  comment  or  advice  that  they  could  give  me  on  this 
matter.  So  I  called  up  and  made  a  date  to  go  down  there  and  did  go 
down  and  talk  to  Mr.  Kiscau  of  the  Chicago  Restaurant  Association. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  K-i-s-c-a-u  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  That  is  correct,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  T\niat  was  his  position  in  the  restaurant  association  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  I  think  he  was  the  executive  secretary  of  the  Restau- 
rant Association  at  the  time. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  he  stills  holds  that  position,  does  he? 

Mr.  McGann.  As  far  as  I  know,  he  does,  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy,  Would  you  relate  to  the  committee  what  your  con- 
versation was  about  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  At  that  time  I  told  him  I  had  been  approached  by 
Mr.  O'Connor  to  put  our  employees  in  the  union,  and  at  that  time  I 
was  aware  that  there  was  a  movement  underfoot  which  was  by  some 
other  restaurant  owners  on  the  South  Side  of  Chicago,  and  that  there 


12550  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

had  been  talk  of  forming  a  voluntary  committee  and  contributing 
funds  to  see  if  they  could  not  fight  this  type  of  union  organization. 

He  knew  of  such  a  movement.  In  fact,  he  gave  me  some  informa- 
tion on  it. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Wliat  did  he  say  about  it  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  He  said  yes,  that  they  had  had  several  meetings  on 
that,  and  that  they  were  in  the  process  of  organizing  such  a  group. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  was  to  fight  unionization  of  your  restaurants,  is 
that  right  ? 

Mr.  McCann.  That  is  correct. 

Senator  Curtis.  At  that  point,  may  I  ask :  Was  it  to  fight  all  union- 
ization of  restaurants? 

Mr.  McGann.  No,  not  necessarily.  I  mean  to  help  us  in  our  labor 
relationship.     Let's  put  it  that  way. 

Senator  Curtis.  The  reason  I  was  prompted  to  that  question  was 
that  your  remark  was  to  fight  this  type  of  unionization. 

Mr.  McGann.  Well,  it  was  the  only  type  I  knew  of  at  the  time,  sir. 

Senator  Curtis.  Had  you  run  into  any  situations  where  the  em- 
ployees themselves  got  together  and  formed  a  union  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  I  had  never,  not  in  my  experience,  no,  sir. 

Senator  Curtis.  All  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  information  had  you  had  as  to  how  this  union- 
ization was  fought  in  the  past  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  How  it  was  fought,  sir  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Yes. 

Mr.  McGann.  Up  to  that  time,  I  had  none. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  did  Mr.  Kiscau  indicate  to  you  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  He  told  me  that  there  was  a  movement  underfoot  to 
form  a  committee  such  as  this  group,  and  that  there  would  be  a  volun- 
tary contribution  to  it,  and  these  funds  would  be  used  for  legal  services 
and  other  means  of  helping  with  us  our  labor  problems. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  he  indicate  to  you  or  did  you  learn  as  to  how 
this  kind  of  problem  had  been  handled  in  the  past  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  No,  I  did  not  know  that. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Well,  continue. 

Mr.  McGann.  At  that,  I  went  back  and  talked  to  Mr.  Kupcich,  and 
he  agreed  we  should  join  the  restaurant  association.  He  thought  it 
was  a  good  idea,  and  so  did  I.  We  made  application  and  did  join  the 
restaurant  association. 

Shortly  after  we  were  a  member  of  the  restaurant  association,  IVIr. 
O'Connor  came  back,  and  I  believe  his  only  comment  at  this  time  was, 
"I  see  you  have  joined  the  restaurant  association,"  and  I  said,  "Yes,  we 
have,"  and  he  said,  "Well,  that  is  all  right." 

And  then  he  walked  out.  There  was  no  further  comment.  Then 
the  next  thing  I  know  is  a  short  time  after  that,  one  morning,  there 
were  pickets  in  front  of  Eupcich's  restaurant.  At  that  time— I 
was  not  there  the  day  it  came,  I  was  in  the  hospital — Mr.  Rupcich 
called  me  and  told  me  there  were  pickets  there.  I  suggested  he  call 
the  restaurant  association  right  away,  and  I  would  try  to  get  there 
as  soon  as  I  could.  I  was  able  to  get  out  of  the  hospital  for  a  short 
time  and  I  came  back  to  the  restaurant  and  got  there  around  4  o'clock 
in  the  afternoon.  At  that  time,  Mr.  Kiscau  had  made  arrangements 
for  a  Mr.  Tietelbaum. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Who  was  Mr.  Tietelbaum  at  that  time  ? 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12551 

Mr.  McGann.  At  that  time  I  did  not  know  who  he  was.  But  since 
then,  he  was  the  lawyer  for  the  restaurant  association. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  did  you  understand  the  arrangements  were? 

Mr.  McGann.  Well;  there  was  a  conversation  over  the  phone,  I 
believe,  at  first,  between  Mr.  Tietelbaum  and  Mr.  O'Connor,  as  to  how 
many  members  would  be  put  in  the  union,  and  there  was  a  little  bit 
of  quibbling,  I  think,  whether  it  was  G,  7,  or  8. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Approximately^  how  many  employees  did  you  have  at 
that  time  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  I  would  guess  about  20  to  25,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  there  was  going  to  be  just  a  selection  of  seven 
names  to  be  put  into  the  union  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Just  any  seven  people  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  Nobody  stipulated  who  they  had  to  be  There  was 
no  stipulation  as  to  who  they  had  to  be.  They  were  picked  at  random, 
I  believe. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Can  you  speak  a  little  more  clearly  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  They  were  picked  at  random. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Just  seven  names  were  picked  out  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  Right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  they  were  just  placed  on  the  union  rolls;  is 
that  right? 

Mr.  McGann.  That  is  correct. 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  Wliat  about  their  dues  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  They  were  paid  by  check,  by  Mr.  Rupcich. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  He  paid  the  dues  and  initiation  fees  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Do  you  know  how  much  he  paid  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  I  don't  know  the  exact  amount;  no,  sir.  I  believe 
it  was  around  $3  per  employee,  or  $21  for  the  first  month. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Were  the  employees  ever  consulted  about  it? 

Mr.  McGann.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  KJENNEDY.  Were  they  ever  told  that  they  were  in  the  union? 

Mr.  McGann.  I  don't  know  that  they  were. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  have  no  information?  You  were  general 
manager? 

Mr.  McGann.  Yes.  and  I  didn't  tell  them. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  you  have  no  information  that  the  union  ever 
consulted  with  any  of  these  people  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  Not  that  I  know  of. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  It  was  just  a  question  of  selecting  any  seven  names 
and  paying  the  initiation  fees  and  the  dues  of  those  people  and  then 
the  union  went  away  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  There  was  never  any  discussion  about  wages,  hours, 
or  conditions  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  while  you  remained  as  general  manager  of 
the  restaurant,  did  the  union  ever  come  back  or  a  representative  of 
the  union  ever  come  back  and  discuss  this  matter  with  you  as  far  as 
the  wages  or  the  hours  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  No,  sir. 


12552  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

The  Chairman.  What  did  vou  regard  such  an  arrangement  as  that 
to  be? 

Was  it  just  a  shakedown  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  Well,  it  was  an  unfortunate  situation  we  found 
ourselves  in,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  I  understand.  You  were  confronted  with  either 
a  picket  line  or  making  some  arrangements  on  the  order  you  have 
described  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  That  is  correct,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  regarded  it  as  a  shakedown,  didn't  you  ? 

Well,  name  it,  if  that  isn't  it.    State  what  it  is. 

Mr.  McGann.  I  think  it  could  be  construed  as  that ;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  the  people  whose  names  you  selected  and  put 
in  the  union  had  no  knowledge  of  it  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  To  my  knowledge  they  had  no  knowledge  of  it; 
that  is  right,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  In  other  words,  you  did  not  say  anything  to  them 
about  it? 

Mr.  McGann.  No,  sir ;  I  didn't. 

The  Chairman.  You  never  at  any  time  told  them  about  it  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  I  did  not ;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  did  they  ever  indicate  to  you  they  knew 
they  were  in  the  union  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  No,  sir ;  they  did  not. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  the  initiation  fees  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  I  didn't,  but  Mr.  Rupcich  did. 

The  Chairman.  All  right.    The  business  paid  it  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  The  business  paid  it ;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  They  paid  the  initiation  fees.  What  were  those 
fees? 

Mr.  McGann.  I  couldn't  tell  you  the  exact  amount  because  it  was 
8  years  ago.  I  believe  the  dues  were  $3  per  employee  or  $21  per 
month,  but  what  the  initiation  fee  was,  I  don't  know. 

The  Chairman.  You  don't  recall  what  it  was  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  I  don't  remember  what  it  was. 

The  Chairman.  In  other  words,  by  this  arrangement,  part  of  your 
employees  were  in  a  union,  not  a  union  of  their  choice,  not  with  their 
knowledge,  and  you  were  handling  this  as  a  business  expense  of  the 
restaurant  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  That  is  correct,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  It  was  charged  oif  as  a  business  expense;  was  it 
not? 

Mr.  McGann.  I  believe  it  is,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Therefore,  it  wouldn't  be  taxable;  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  McGann.  That  is  correct,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  another  way  of  getting  around  paying 
taxes. 

Mr.  McGann.  You  can  say  it,  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed,  Mr.  Kennedy. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  know  that  under  section  302  of  the  Taft- 
Hartley  Act,  making  this  kind  of  paj'ments  is  a  violation  of  the  huv, 
and  you  can  be  subject  to  a  year  in  prison  and  a  $10,000  fine? 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  Wlien  did  you  leave  the  employment  of  Rupcich? 


IMPROPER    ACTrV'ITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12553 

Mr.  McGann.  Approximately  2  years  later,  in  1952. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  then  form  your  own  restaurant? 

Mr.  McGann.  Not  at  that  time,  no.  I  went  to  work  for  another 
restaurant. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  After  a  while  did  you  form  a  restaurant? 

Mr.  McGann.  Yes,  I  did.     Three  years  ago. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  was  the  name  of  that  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  The  Beverly  Woods  Restaurant. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Located  where? 

Mr.  McGann,  11532  Southwestern  in  Chicago. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  many  employees  have  you  there  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  We  have  approximately  50  employees. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Were  you  approached  about  bringing  those  indi- 
viduals into  the  union? 

Mr.  McGann.  Shortly  after  we  were  opened  we  were  approached, 
yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  go  to  the  restaurant  association  then? 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  Why  didn't  you  go  at  that  time  ? 

Mr.  INIcGann.  I  felt  I  didn't  have  to,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  you  could  make  this  deal  yourself  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  Yes,  sir. 

]\Ir.  Kennedy,  Formerly  this  deal  had  been  made  through  Mr. 
Kiscau  and  through  Tietelbaum  and  you  felt  you  could  handle  this 
yourself  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  All  right.    Wliat  did  you  do  then  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  Well,  Mr.  O'Connor  came  in,  and  after  conferring 
with  him  on  several  occasions  we  agreed  on  the  number  of  employees, 
either  12,  13,  or  14,  something  similar  to  that,  I  am  not  sure  exactly. 
I  think  it  was  12. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  then  pay  the  initiation  fees  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  Yes,  we  did. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  the  dues? 

Mr.  McGann.  Initially  I  did,  yes,  sir.  Since  then  we  have  taken 
the  dues  out  of  the  employees'  pay. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  select  the  names  of  the  people  that  were 
to  be  put  into  the  union  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  Yes. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  selected  them  initially  ? 
Mr.  McGann.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  tell  your  employees  that  they  vrere  in  the 
union? 

Mr.  McGann.  Yes ;  they  all  knew  it. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  then  start  deducting  the  dues  from  their 
salaries  ? 
Mr.  McGann.  Yes ;  we  did,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Had  they  given  you  a  card  with  permission  to  deduct 
the  dues  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  No,  sir ;  they  did  not. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  just  told  them  you  were  deductmg  the  dues? 

Mr.  McGann.  Well,  we  had  a  meeting,  sir,  and  I  told  them  that  we 

would,  yes. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Do  you  know  whether  in  this  restaurant  you  are 

paying  union  rates  or  not  ? 


12554  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  McGann.  I  do  not  know  that,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  anybody  from  the  union  ever  discuss  that  with 
you? 

Mr.  McGann.  No,  sir ;  they  did  not. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  anybody  from  the  union  ever  discuss  wages, 
hours,  or  conditions  with  you  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  No,  sir. 

Mr,  Kennedy.  They  just  received  the  initiation  fees  and  the  dues 
of  the  employees  and  then  left,  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  That  is  correct,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  is  the  only  thing  they  were  interested  in  ? 

Mr,  McGann.  It  seems  so. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  do  not  even  know  what  you  are  supposed  to  be 
paying  your  employees  ? 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  about  your  second  restaurant  that  you  just 
opened  up  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  That  has  just  been  opened  about  5  months  now,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Have  you  been  approached  by  the  union  on  that? 

Mr.  McGann.  Yes ;  I  have,  by  the  same  union. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  By  the  same  individuals  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  Tlie  same  individual,  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  O'Connor,  again  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  James  O'Connor,  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  He  is  still  operating  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  Apparently  he  is,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Have  you  made  any  arrangements  with  him  on  that? 

Mr.  McGann.  I  have  discussed  it  with  him,  but  we  have  not  made 
anything  definite  on  it ;  no,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  But  you  will  make  the  same  deal,  if  you  can? 

Mr.  McGann.  If  I  have  to,  I  will. 

Senator  Curtis.  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Curtis. 

Senator  Curtis.  I  will  wait  until  Mr.  Kennedy  finishes  this  point. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  just  read  into  the  record  this 
provision  of  the  Taft-Hartley  Act,  section  302  (a)  : 

It  shall  be  unlawful  for  any  employer  to  pay  or  deliver  or  to  agree  to  pay  or 
deliver  any  money  or  other  thing  of  value  to  any  representative  of  any  of  his 
employees  who  are  employed  in  an  industry  affecting  commerce. 

Section  (c) : 

The  provisions  of  this  section  shall  not  be  applicable — 

and  then  it  says  under  section  4 : 

With  respect  to  money  deducted  from  the  wages  of  employees  in  payment  of 
membership  dues  in  a  labor  organization ;  provided  that  the  employer  has  re- 
ceived from  each  employee  on  whose  account  such  deductions  are  made  a  written 
assignment  which  shall  not  be  irrevocable  for  a  period  of  more  than  1  year  or 
beyond  the  termination  date  of  the  applicable  collective  agreement,  whichever 
occurs  sooner. 

And  then  (d),  says: 

Any  person  who  willfully  violates  any  provision  of  this  section  shall  upon  con- 
viction thereof  be  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor  and  be  subject  to  a  fine  of  not  more 
than  $10,000  or  imprisonment  of  not  more  than  1  year  or  both. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    EST    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12555 

Wliat  you  did  in  the  restaurant  that  you  owned,  you  paid  the  in- 
itiation fees  and  the  dues  for  the  first  month  without  consulting  your 
employees? 

Mr.  McGann.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  ^Vnd  then  the  deduction  was  made  at  a  later  time 
without  the  written  permission  of  the  employees,  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  McGann.  Yes,  sir ;  that  is  correct. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Chairman,  we  made  a  study  of  the  wages  of 
some  of  these  restaurants  that  we  are  going  to  have  witnesses  on  be- 
fore the  committee.  First,  however.  Senator  Curtis  has  some  ques- 
tions. 

Senator  Curtis.  How  many  employees  do  you  have  now  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  Between  50  and  55. 

Senator  Curtis.  How  many  of  them  belong  to  the  union  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  Fifteen  of  them,  sir. 

Senator  Curtis.  How  are  their  dues  paid  at  the  present  time  ? 

INIr.  McGann.  They  are  deducted  from  their  salary  and  they  are 
paid  by  check  once  every  3  months. 

Senator  Curtis.  They  are  deducted  from  their  salaries  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Curtis.  Did  any  of  those  employees  ever  ask  you  to  do 
that? 

Mr.  McGann.  Did  they  ask  me  to  ?     No,  sir ;  they  did  not. 

Senator  Curtis.  Do  you  know  whether  any  of  them  ever  attended 
a  union  meeting? 

Mr.  McGann.  I  don't  believe  they  do,  sir. 

Senator  Curtis.  Do  they  get  any  benefits  from  it  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  None  that  I  know  of,  sir. 

Senator  Curtis.  Why  do  you  take  the  money  away  fi*om  them  ? 

It  is  their  money.     They  earned  it. 

Mr.  McGann.  That's  right. 

Senator  Curtis.  Wliy  did  you  take  it  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  Well,  we  have  to  pay  the  dues,  and  at  the  time  we 
were  organized,  sir,  I  did  not  have  the  money  to  pay  it  myself  or  I 
would  have. 

Senator  Curtis.  You  would  be  violating  the  Federal  statute  any 
way  you  run.     But  why  did  you  take  their  money  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  We  had  a  meeting  and  they  agreed  that  they  would 
pay  the  dues,  sir. 

Senator  Curtis.  Fifteen  of  them  agreed  that  they  would  pay  the 
dues? 

Mr.  McGann.  All  the  waitresses  at  the  time  agreed  that  they  would 
pay  the  dues;  yes,  sir.  Any  of  the  girls  that  were  working.  There 
was  no  objection  voiced  when  we  told  them  that  we  were  going  to 
belong  to  the  union. 

Senator  Curtis.  You  told  them  that  they  were  going  to  belong  to 
the  union  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Curtis.  They  didn't  do  their  own  organizing  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  No  ;  they  did  not. 

Senator  Curtis.  These  50  or  55  employees,  of  them  how  many  are 
waitresses  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  About  25  of  them. 


12556  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Senator  Curtis.  And  15  of  them  agreed  to  pay  dues,  how  about 
the  other  10? 

Mr.  McGann.  Well,  they  also  pay  dues,  sir.     In  other  words,  we 
deduct  a  dollar  from  each  one  of  their  wages  per  week. 
Senator  Curtis.  You  deduct  from  all  of  them  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  From  all  of  the  waitresses  after  they  are  working 
there ;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Curtis.  You  took  money  out  of  the  paychecks  of  some  of 
them  whose  names  weren't  even  sent  to  the  union  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  Well,  they  get  into  the  union.  Every  3  months  when 
Mr,  O'Connor  comes,  the  ones  who  have  left,  he  picks  up  their  books 
and  new  girls  are  put  in,  sir. 

Senator  Curtis.  But  you  have  about  25  waitresses  continuously  ? 
Mr.  McGann.  That  is  correct ;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Curtis.  And  you  take  money  from  all  25  and  pay  dues  for 
15,  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  That  is  correct,  sir. 
Senator  Curtis.  And  they  said  that  was  all  right  ? 
Mr.  McGann.  Yes,  sir ;  they  agreed  to  it. 
Senator  Curtis.  Each  one  of  them  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  We  had  a  meeting,  sir,  and  they  did  not  object  to  it. 
Senator  Curtis.  How  many  times  did  you  have  such  a  meeting  ? 
Mr.  McGann.  We  had  a  meeting  for  the  union.    That  was  one  meet- 
ing, sir.    We  have  periodic  meetings.    We  don't  discuss  these  union 
problems  at  everj^  meeting. 

Senator  Curtis,  How  many  times  did  you  discuss  this  dues  business  ? 
Mr.  McGann.  Just  the  one  time,  sir. 
Senator  Curtis.  lYlien  was  that  ? 
Mr.  McGann.  Shortly  after  we  opened. 
Senator  Curtis.  When  ? 
Mr.  McGann.  Back  in  1955 ;  3  years  ago. 

Senator  Curtis.  Of  your  25  waitresses  that  you  have  now,  how 
many  have  been  with  you  since  1955  ? 
Mr.  McGann.  I  would  say  about  4  or  5. 

Senator  Curtis.  So  at  the  most,  only  4  or  5  have  ever  agreed  to  this. 
Is  that  true? 

Mr.  McGann.  That  was  all  that  was  there,  probably,  on  the  initial 
meeting;  yes, sir, 

Senator  Curtis.  So  it  isn't  true  that  the  25  who  are  paying  into  this 
have  agreed  to  it,  is  it  ? 

By  your  own  testimony,  you  say  you  brought  it  up  once  in  1955, 
and  you  only  have  4  or  5  of  those  waitresses  left.    Isn't  that  true? 
Mr.  McGann.  That  is  correct,  sir. 

Senator  Cttrtis.  So  when  you  said  a  bit  ago  that  they  agreed  to  it, 
at  least  20  of  them  have  not  agreed  to  it,  is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Mc(tann,  Well,  they  did  not  agree  to  it  at  the  original  meet- 
ing, and  T  have  not  discussed  it  with  thorn,  but  it  has  been  discussed 
informally  among  all  of  us. 

Senator  Cttrtis.  But  they  have  never  agreed  to  it  ? 
Mr.  McGann.  Pardon  me? 
Senator  (Xtrtis.  They  have  never  agreed  to  it  ? 
Mr.  McGann.  I  didn't  understand  you. 
SfMiator  CuR'i'TS.  They  have  never  agreed  to  it  ? 
Mr.  McGann.  Not  formally  or  written ;  no,  sir. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN   THE    LABOR    FIELD  12557 

Seniitor  Curtis.  Or  any  otlier  way  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  Yes;  they  have  agreed.  They  know  that  the  situa- 
tion exists. 

Senator  Curtis.  But  you  said  that  you  only  brought  this  up  in  your 
first  meeting,  and  you  have  about  20  waitresses  that  were  not  even 
employees  then.    Isn't  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  McGaxx.  That  is  correct,  sir. 

Senator  Curtis.  You  knew  that  they  were  not  getting  any  union 
benefits? 

Mr.McGAXN.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Curtis.  For  whose  benefit,  then,  was  this  money  paid  to 
the  union  ? 

Mr.  McGanx.  I  think  for  all  of  ours,  sir,  that  work  at  the  Beverly 
Woods  Kestaurant. 

Senator  Curtis.  For  what  ? 

Mr.  McGaxx.  For  all  of  us  that  work  at  the  Beverly  Woods 
Kestaurant. 

Senator  Curtis.  How  would  it  help  your  waitresses? 

Mr.  McGaxx.  It  provides  a  job  for  them,  sir. 

Senator  Cutitis.  They  couldn't  have  a  job  any  other  way  ? 

Ml-.  McGaxx.  I  didn't  say  they  couldn't  have  a  job.  But  they  all 
seem  to  be  willing  to  work  at  our  place  under  the  conditions  that  exist. 

Senator  Curtis.  It  seems  like  to  me,  when  we  dig  into  these  cor- 
rupt situations,  that  the  worker  is  just  a  pawn.  Management  and 
union  bosses  just  move  them  around  like  they  were  chessmen,  for  their 
convenience,  their  gain,  and  their  enrichment.  That  is  all,  Mr. 
Chairman. 

The  Chairmax.  I  just  want  to  ask  you  :  How  much  do  you  pay  into 
this  union  a  month  out  of  your  establishment  ? 

Mr.  McGaxx.  How  much  do  we  pay  into  it  out  of  our  restaurant  ? 

The  Chairmax^.  Yes. 

Mr.  McGaxx'.  I  could  not  answer  that,  sir. 

The  Ciiairmax-^.  Well,  you  have  25  people  working  for  you. 

Mr.  McGax'x.  It  is  $4  a  month  for  employee,  and  for  each  new  em- 
ployee we  put  in,  there  is  a  charge  of,  I  think  it  is  $12  initiation  fee,  and 
it  varies  from  month  to  month. 

The  CiiAiRMAx-.  Then  for  dues  alone  you  pay  in  about  $100  a 
month  ? 

Mr.  McGaxx'.  That  is  corrrect,  sir. 

The  CiiAiRMAx.  Then  you  pay  in  for  each  new  member  about  $12 
initiation  fee? 

Mr.  McGaxx'.  That  is  correct,  sir. 

The  C^HAiRMAx.  Do  you  have  any  conferences  with  the  union  with 
res])ect  to  terms  of  employment,  working  conditions,  or  anything  else 
for  the  benefit  of  those  who  work  for  you  ? 

Mr.  McGaxx.  No :  I  don't  sir. 

The  Chairmax'.  Have  they  ever  requested  any  such  arrangements 
or  any  sucli  conferences  ? 

Mr.  McGaxx.  No  ;  they  have  not. 

The  CiiAnoiAX'.  What  you  are  actuallj^  doing,  then,  is  collect- 
ing from  these  working  people  $4  a  month  out  of  their  wages,  plus 
$12  when  they  start  working  with  you,  and  paying  tribute  to  a  union 
that  is  nothing  but  a  shakedown  racket.  That  is  the  truth  about 
it,  isn't  it  ? 


12558  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  McGann.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  are  caught  in  a  situation  there  where 
you  are  helpless,  you  can't  do  anything  about  it,  other  than  close 
your  business  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  That  is  right,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  would  be  driven  out  of  business  if  you  didn't 
pay  tribute  to  this  gang  of  hoodlums. 

Mr.  McGann.  If  they  put  pickets  in  front  of  our  place,  we  can't 
operate. 

The  Chairman.  That  puts  you  out  of  business. 

Mr.  McGann.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  So  you  are  a  victim  of  circumstances.  You  either 
have  to  pay  off  to  this  criminal  element  that  is  operating  in  that 
fashion,  or  go  out  of  business  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  That  is  right,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  If  there  is  anything  wrong  with  what  I  have 
said,  and  you  are  a  party  to  it,  you  are  there,  the  victim  of  it,  if  there 
is  anything  wrong  with  what  I  have  said  about  it,  I  wish  you  would 
correct  me. 

Mr.  McGann.  "Well,  as  far  as  the  background  goes  that  you  are 
speaking  of,  sir,  my  first  knowledge  of  the  background  was  here 
this  morning,  listening  to  the  testimony  that  I  heard. 

The  Chairman.  I  will  take  the  responsibility  for  the  background 
that  I  referred  to. 

Mr.  McGann.  All  right,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  But  whatever  the  background  is,  it  operates  as  a 
shakedown  racket  so  far  as  you  are  concerned. 

Mr.  McGann.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  get  no  benefit  from  it,  neither  do  your  work- 
ers get  any  benefit  from  it,  except  this  crowd  decrees  that  you  may 
stay  in  business  and  they  may  have  their  jobs,  if  you  pay  tribute. 

Mr.  McGann.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Church.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  just  like  to  observe  in 
connection  with  your  statement  that  I  think  that  perhaps  it  is  not 
the  witness  here,  Mr.  McGann,  who  pays  tribute  to  maintain  the 
privilege  of  operating  his  restaurant  without  pickets  thrown  about 
It,  but  his  employees  who  pay  the  tribute,  because  the  deductions  are 
made  from  the  paychecks  of  his  employees  who  get  no  representa- 
tion and  no  benefit  from  it. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  I  do  not  know  whether  you  were  here 

Senator  Church.  I  believe  that  just  worsens  the  picture. 

The  Chairman.  Yes.  I  don't  know  wlietlier  you  were  here  or  not 
when  he  testified  about  another  business  where  the  company  or  the 
restaurant,  the  business,  itself,  paid  both  the  initiation  fee  and  the 
dues  to  stay  in  business. 

Senator  Church.  I  heard  the  witness  say  that  initially  the  com- 
pany paid  dues,  but  later  they  were  taken  from  the  pay  checks  of  the 
employees. 

Hut  in  any  case,  liere  clearly  is  demonstrated  the  operations  of  a 
labor  union  that  is  a  union  by  name,  and  certainly  not  in  substance, 
that  is  conducting  a  shakedown  operation  from  which  the  employees 
derive  no  benefit  whatsoever. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12559 

Tell  ine,  Mr.  McGjinn,  since  you  have  entered  into  this  arrange- 
ment Avith  local  394,  and  have  been  makinir  these  payments,  have  you 
purchased  peace  in  that  you  have  no  trouble  with  pickets? 

Mr.  McGann.  I  have  had  no  trouble  with  them  at  all,  sir. 

Senator  Church.  But  you  have  now  every  reason  to  believe  that 
if  you  were  to  discontinue  these  deductions  and  these  payments,  that 
trouble  miijht  ensue  ? 

Mr.  Mc'Gann.  Well,  just  5  blocks  aAvay  from  me,  the  Nantucket 
Restaurant  had  a  strike  for  2  years  at  the  same  time  we  opened 
our  place. 

The  Chairman.  All  rioht,  Mr.  Kennedy. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  McGann,  actually,  when  the  union  came  in 
there  it  cost  the  employees  some  wages,  did  it  not,  because  they  did 
not  get  an  increase  in  wages  at  the  time  you  started  making  the 
deductions  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  That  is  right,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  So  actually  the  union  cost  the  emplovees  money 
and  brought  no  benefit  ?  " 

Mr.  IVIcGann.  That  is  correct. 

Mr  Kennedy.  On  the  other  hand,  we  were  talking  about  the  union 
officials  gain  from  this  because  of  the  money  that  was  paid  in,  but 
also  you  gained  as  the  employer,  did  you  not,  because  through  this 
arrangement  there  was  no  enforcement  of  any  contract  as  far  as 
wages,  hours,  and  conditions  are  concerned  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  Well,  there  was  no  talk  of  a  contract,  no,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Wliat  you  received,  in  effect,  was  a  sweetheart  ar- 
rangement with  the  union,  was  it  not  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  Well,  I  don't  know  what  that  exactly  means,  but 
we  have  no  trouble  with  unions. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  For  the  payment  of  this  money. 

Mr.  McGann.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And,  in  fact,  your  employees,  the  majority  of  your 
employees,  do  not  receive  union  scale. 

Mr.  McGann.  I  don't  know  w^hat  union  scale  is. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  We  have  a  witness  here  who  will  give  you  some  in- 
formation on  the  situation  in  your  restaurant. 

Senator  Curtis.  Where  is  your  restaurant  located  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  11532  Southwestern,  and  there  is  another  restaurant 
that  ]ust  opened  up  in  Chicago  Heights,  where  w^e  do  not  belono-  to 
a  union  as  yet.  '^ 

The  Chairman.  Be  sworn,  please. 

You  do  solemnly  swear  the  evidence  you  shall  give  before  this  Sen- 
ate select  committee  shall  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothino- 
but  the  truth,  so  help  you  God  ?  "^ 

Mr.  GoTscH.  I  do. 

TESTIMONY  OP  GEEALD  GOTSCH 

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

Mr.  GoTscH.  My  name  is  Gerald  Gotsch,  from  Chicago,  111  I 
work  for  the  General  Accounting  Office. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  been  performing  services  for  this  com- 
jmittee,  have  you  ? 

21243— 58— pt.  33 5 


12560  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  GoTSCH.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  All  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  long  have  you  been  with  the  Government? 

Mr.  GoTscH.  For  about  2  years. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  I  might  say,  ISIr.  Chairman,  Mr.  Gotsch  has  been 
working  with  the  committee  for  some  time  and  has  been  a  great  help 
and  assistance  in  our  Chicago  office  and  has  been  working  on  this  par- 
ticular case  now  for  some  months. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Gotsch,  have  you  made  a  study  of  tlie  restaurant 
that  is  owned  by  Mr.  McGann,  the  witness  ? 

Mr.  Gotsch.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Have  you  made  a  comparison  and  a  study  of  the 
salaries  that  are  paid  to  the  employees  ? 

Mr.  Gotsch.  Yes,  I  have. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Could  you  tell  us — what  do  the  records  show  as  to 
how  many  employees  worked  for  that  restaurant  ? 

Mr.  GoTSCii.  At  the  time  of  my  examination,  sir,  there  were  65 
employees  at  the  Beverly  Woods  Restaurant. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  how  were  they  broken  down  ? 

Mr.  GoTSCH.  There  were  30  waitresses,  and  there  were  miscellaneous 
workers  amounting  to  22  employees,  and  bartenders,  also. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  of  the  30  waitresses,  how  many  were  union? 

Mr.  GoTSCH.  Twenty-nine  were  union,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Twenty-nine  ? 

Mr.  GoTSCH.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  is  the  wage  scale  for  waitresses  ? 

Mr.  Gotsch.  Sixty-seven  cents  an  hour  is  union  scale. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  were  the  waitresses  in  Mr.  McGann's  Restau- 
rant being  paid  ? 

Mr.  Gotsch.  It  varied,  depending  on  whether  they  worked  full- 
time,  lunches,  or  dinners. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  many  of  the  30  were  being  paid  below  union 
scale  ? 

Mr.  Gotsch.  Twenty-nine. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  They  were  being  paid  below  union  scale  ? 

Mr.  Gotsch.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Plow  many  of  the  29  that  are  union  are  being  paid 
below  union  scale  ? 

Mr.  Gotsch.  All  of  them  are  being  paid  below  union  scale. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  The  only  one  not  being  paid  below  union  scale  is 
the  one  that  is  nonunion  ? 

Mr.  Gotsch.  No;  she  is  also  being  paid  below  union  scale,  but  slio 
is  nonmiion. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  must  mean  28  out  of  the  29  ? 

Mr.  Gotsch.  No  ;  all  30. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  They  are  being  paid  below  union  scale  ? 

Mr.  Gotsch.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Including  the  29  members  of  the  union  ? 

Mr.  Gotsch.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  what  are  some  of  the  waitresses  getting  paid 
there? 

Mr.  Gotsch.  The  waitresses  that  Avork  lunches  and  dinners  are  paid 
$2  for  doing  that. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12561 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Give  us  the  hourly  rate  for  some  of  these  waitresses. 

Mr.  GoTSCii.  Well,  in  that  particular  case,  the  scale  is  set  up  on  a 
meal  basis. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Well,  let  us  compare  it  with  the  67  cents.  You  said 
the  waitresses  get  paid  67  cents. 

Mr.  GoTscH,  They  are  being  paid  50  cents  on  hour. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  is  some  17  cents  below  union  scale. 

]Mr.  GoTSCii.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Are  any  of  the  other  employees  in  similar  circum- 
stances ? 

Mr.  GoTSCH.  Well,  most  of  the  other  employees  except  for  the  bar- 
tenders are  nonunion,  but  for  instance  in  the  miscellaneous  category, 
all  of  them  are  nonunion,  and  11  are  being  paid  below  union  scale,  and 
11  are  being  paid  above. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  is  the  nonunion  ? 

Mr.  GoTSCH.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  about  the  bartenders  ? 

Mr.  GoTSCH.  The  bartenders  are  all  being  paid  the  scale. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Are  they  union  or  nonunion 't 

Mr.  GoTscH.  There  are  3  union  and  4  nonunion. 

Mr.  Kennedy,  So  it  amounts  to  a  disadvantage,  does  it  not,  to  be  a 
member  of  the  union  as  far  as  working  at  that  particular  restaurant  is 
concerned  ? 

Mr.  GoTSCH.  Yes. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  have  got  more  chance  of  being  paid  above  union 
scale  if  you  are  not  a  member  of  the  miion ;  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  GoTSCH.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Could  you  tell  the  committee  what  this  saves  the 
restaurant  over  a  period  ?  What  would  they  have  to  pay  in  union  dues, 
or  what  are  paid  in  union  dues  per  year  by  this  establishment  ? 

Mr.  GoTSCH.  The  total  is  about  $1,200. 

Mr.  Kennedy  That  goes  to  the  union  ? 

Mr.  GoTSCH.  Yes,  sir ;  that  is  taken  out  of  their  salaries. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Approximately  $1,200  ? 

Mr.  GoTscH.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  were  you  able  to  compute  as  to  the  savings  to 
this  restaurant  by  the  fact  that  they  do  not  meet  union  scale  for  their 
employees  ? 

Mr.  GoTSCH.  They  save  $21,300,  approximately. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  It  is  a  saving  of  approximately  $21,300  ? 

Mr.  GoTSCH.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  is  a  year  ? 

Mr.  GoTScii.  That  is  a  yearly  figure. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Plow  much  does  it  cost  a  waitress,  for  instance,  in 
wage  for  a  week  ?    Do  you  have  any  computation  on  that  ? 

Mr.  GoTSCH.  Pardon  me. 

Mr.  IvENNEDY.  For  instance,  how  much  does  it  cost  one  waitress  in 
wages  a  week  by  not  being  paid  union  scale  ? 

Mr.  GoTSCH.  I  have  a  daily  figure  here.  The  hourly  waitresses 
working  8-hour  shift  lose  about  $1.36  a  day  because  they  are  not  paid 
scale,  and  the  girls  that  work  lunches  lose  $1.23  a  day,  and  the  girls 
that  work  dinner,  in  comparison  with  union  scale,  lose  $1.61  per  day. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  This  would  ranffe  anywhere  from  approximately 
$6  to  $S  a  week? 


12562  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  GoTscH.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  I^NNEDY.  That  it  costs  each  one  of  these  employees  ? 
Mr.  GoTscH.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  KJENNEDY.  By  the  fact  that  the  union  contract  is  not  being 
enforced  ? 
Mr.  GoTSCH.  Plus  the  fact  they  have  to  pay  their  union  dues. 
Mr.  Kennedy.  Plus  the  deduction  ? 
Mr.  GoTSCH.  That  is  right. 

TESTIMONY  OF  JOHN  McGANN— Resumed 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  McGann,  I  take  it  that  you  are  truthful  in  your 
ansyer  that  you  did  not  know.  What  it  amounts  to  is  that  you  did 
receive  what  is  a  "sweetheart"  contract  with  the  union  in  this  arrange- 
ment. 

Mr.  McGann.  Could  I  say  something  along  the  lines  of  what  he 
just  said  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Yes. 

Mr.  McGann.  Wlien  you  talk  about  a  union  scale  for  a  waitress, 
I  would  like  to  know  just  how  that  is  computed.  Is  there  any  provi- 
sion for  meals  and  things  of  that  nature,  and  uniforms  ? 

Now,  in  other  words,  I  want  to  be  as  fair  as  I  can  with  you  and 
I  expect  you  to  be  as  fair  as  you  can  with  me,  in  reference  to  this: 
I  think  from  the  general  opinion  of  all  of  the  people  here,  me  and  my 
organization  here  are  painted  to  be  quite  Scrooge-like  in  our  dealings 
with  our  employees,  and  yet  I  can  say  here  right  now  in  front  of  them, 
because  I  am  sure  they  are  watching  me  in  Chicago,  that  I  don't  think 
that  there  is  any  better  labor  relationship  between  employee  and  em- 
ployer than  there  is  between  myself  and  my  employees. 

Although  those  figures  are  correct  because  Mr.  Gotsch  was  in  and 
saw  my  books,  he  doesn't  know  of  any  of  the  extenuating  circum- 
stances that  go  around  this. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  I  think  it  is  very  possible,  maybe  the  union  is  putting 
the  scale  above  what  anybody  could  afford  to  pay. 

Mr.  McGann.  Not  necessarily  that,  but  the  main  thing  I  was  going 
to  bring  out,  for  instance,  is  this :  I  could  afford  to  pay  my  employees 
75  cents  or  80  cents  or  $1  an  hour  and  then,  like  a  lot  of  restaurants, 
charge  them  $1  or  $2  a  day  for  meals. 

In  our  case,  we  don't  do  that.  Other  restaurants  I  know  pay  a 
higher  scale  for  instance  for  the  waitresses,  and  then  at  the  end  of  the 
day  deduct  $2  for  their  meals  that  they  eat  there. 

That  is,  I  think,  a  point  that  should  be  brought  out  right  at  this 
time. 

Senator  Curtis.  What  arrangements  do  you  have  about  uniforms? 

Mr.  McGann.  The  girls  buy  their  own  uniforms.  We  buy  the  uni- 
forms and  then  the  girls  purchase  them  from  us.  If  you  will  go  over 
our  figures  you  will  find  it  is  a  substantial  loss  as  a  result  of  that.  We 
originally  bought  the  uniforms  for  the  girls,  but  because  of  careless  use 
of  them  we  had  to  put  a  charge  on  them.  In  doing  that,  I  mean,  uni- 
forms become  very  expensive  things.  Even  though  we  in  effect  collect 
money  for  the  uniforms,  we  lose  an  awful  lot  of  money  as  a  result  of 
that  because  we  don't  collect  but  one-third  of  the  money  that  uniforms 
cost  us. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN   THE    LABOR    FIELD  12563 

Mr.  GoTSCH.  I  would  like  to  make  a  comment  on  this.  As  far  as 
the  union  scale  is  concei'ned,  it  does  not  have  anything  to  do  with 
meals.  The  union  contract  or  agreement  booklet  that  the  union  fur- 
nishes says  that  these  scales  do  not  include  meals,  and  meals  are  over 
and  above  this. 

Mr.  McGanx.  I  am  not  aware  of  what  the  contract  says,  but  I 
thouglit  I  would  like  to  point  out  to  you  our  particular  arrangement 
with  our  employees,  between  us  and  our  employees,  is  very  satisfactory, 
I  am  sure. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  the  point  is  that  the  representatives  of  the 
union  never  contacted  you  about  the  salaries,  or  the  way  you  were 
treating  your  employees? 

Mr.  McGann.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  were  never  contacted  after  you  started  paying 
the  dues,  isn't  that  correct? 

Mr.  McGann.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  They  never  evidenced  any  interest  in  it.  Just  on  a 
factual  basis  of  examining  what  the  union  scale  should  be,  we  have 
come  up  with  these  figures,  and  now  they  have  to  speak  for  themselves. 
I  appreciate  your  stating  your  position  on  it. 

Mr.  McGann.  Yes,  sir. 

Tlie  Chairman.  Well,  there  is  one  thing  that  stands  out  clearly, 
that  all  they  were  interested  in,  those  who  tried  to  organize  your  shop 
and  made  these  arrangements,  all  they  were  interested  in  was  the 
money  and  nothing  else.  They  manifested  no  interest  in  your  welfare 
or  the  welfare  of  your  help  or  anyone  else  ? 

Mr.  McGann.  That  is  right,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  All  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  is  all  for  now. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you  very  much. 

Call  the  next  witness. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  Mr.  Rupcich. 

The  Chairman.  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.  Rupcich.  I  do. 

TESTIMONY  OF  JOHN  EUPCICH,  ACCOMPANIED  BY  HIS  COUNSEL, 
WILLIAM  J.  LANCASTER 

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

Mr.  Rupcich.  I  am  John  Rupcich,  of  Chicago,  111.,  and  my  place 
of  business  is  Rupcich's  Restaurant. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  have  a  restaurant  by  that  name  ? 

Mr.  Rupcich.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  located  where  ? 

Mr.  Rupcich.  106th  and  Indianapolis  Boulevard. 

The  Chairman,  That  is  your  residence  also  ? 

Mr.  Rupcich.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  counsel  to  represent  you  ? 

Mr.  Rupcich,  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman,  Will  you  identify  yourself  for  the  record,  please? 


12564  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Lancaster.  William  J.  Lancaster,  111  West  WashinMon  Street, 
Chicago  2,  111. 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Eupcich,  you  opened  a  restaurant  in  Chicago 
in  1950? 

Mr.  RupciCH.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  you  had  Mr.  McGann  as  your  general  manager? 

Mr.  RupciCH.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  "were  approached  shortly  after  opening  up  by 
the  union  representative  about  organizing  your  employees  ? 

Mr.  RupciCH.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Then  you  were  approached  by  James  O'Connor,  of 
the  union  ? 

Mr.  RupcicH.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  personally  have  any  conversations  with 
Mr.  O'Connor? 

Mr.  RupciCH.  No ;  I  did  not. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Then  you  had  some  conferences  after  that,  did  you 
not,  with  the  representatives  of  the  restaurant  association  ? 

Mr.  RupcicH.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  With  whom  did  you  talk  down  there  ? 

Mr.  RupciCH.  I  talked  once  with  Mr.  Kiesaw. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  With  anyone  else  ? 

Mr.  RupciCH.  Well,  the  morning  that  the  strike  was  settled,  with 
Mr.  Teitelbaum. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  I  am  talking  about  prior  to  the  time  they  put  pickets 
there,  did  you  have  any  conversations  with  them  ? 

Mr.  Rtjpcich.  No. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  you  had  these  conversations  and  then  did  the 
union  come  along  and  place  pickets  in  front  of  your  restaurant ;  did 
they? 

Mr.  RupciCH.  I  didn't  have  any  conversations  with  anyone  before 
the  pickets  were  there. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  All  right,  after  the  pickets  were  there  ? 

Mr.  RupciCH.  After  the  pickets  came ;  yes. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Will  you  tell  what  happened  then  ? 

Mr.  RupciCH.  One  morning  my  wife  awakened  me  and  said  that 
the  building  was  surrounded  by  pickets,  and  I  immediately  called  Mr. 
McGann  and  he  said  to  get  in  touch  with  the  association,  and  that  he 
would  be  out.  So  later  that  afternoon  Mr.  McGann  came  out  and  he 
handled  the  situation  after  that.  The  pickets  left  that  afternoon  and 
the  next  morning  they  were  there  again,  and  Mr.  Teitelbaum  came  out 
and  settled  the  strike,  and  sent  the  pickets  on  their  way. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Plow  did  he  settle  the  strike  ? 

Mr.  RupcicH.  He  was  just  there  that  morning,  and  they  walked  into 
the  place,  and  he  walked  in  with  Mr.  O'Connor,  and  asked  me  if  it 
was  satisfactory. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Was  Mr.  Kiesaw  there  at  that  time  ? 

Mr.  Rurcicii.  No ;  he  was  not. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  He  had  arranged  for  Mr.  Teitelbaum  to  come  out? 

l^l^r.  RTTpricTi.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  Mr.  Teitelbaum,  when  he  arrived  there,  he  had 
some  conferences  with  Mr.  O'Connor,  and  they  were  able  to  settle  the 
strike  ? 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12565 

Mr.  Rupcicii.  I  believe  so. 

Mr.  Kexxp:dy.  What  were  the  arrancenients  that  were  made  ? 

Mr.  Rurcicii.  I  don't  know  wliat  arrangements  were  made.  All 
I  know  is  that  Mr.  McGann  asked  me  if  seven  employees  was  all  right, 
and  it  was  all  right,  and  I  said,  if  he  thought  so,  fine. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  would  agree  to  pay  $21  a  month,  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Rupcicii.  That  is  right,  plus  the  initiation. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  much  was  the  initiation  ? 

Mr.  RupciCH.  I  am  not  positive  at  this  time. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Approximately. 

Mr.  RupcicH.  I  imagine  it  was  about  $12,  $10  to  $12  per  employee. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  $10  or  $12. 

Mr.  RupciCH.  Per  employee. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  would  be  about  $100  altogether  ? 

Mr.  RupciCH.  That  is  right,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  pay  that  by  check  or  by  cash? 

Mr,  RupcicH.  All  by  check,  sir. 

Mr,  Kennedy,  Did  they  tell  you  that  you  could  select  the  employees  ? 

Mr,  RupciCH,  There  was  no  stipulation  made  as  to  employees. 

]\Ir.  Kennedy.  Did  you  select  any  seven  employees? 

Mr.  RupciCH.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  inform  the  employees  ? 

Mr.  Rupcicii.  I  did  not. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  inform  them  they  were  in  the  union  ? 

Mr,  RupciCH.  I  did  not, 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  you  started  paying  the  dues ;  is  that  right  ? 

INIr.  RxTcicH,  That  is  right, 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  the  ones  that  you  selected  were  L,  Pinkston? 

Mr,  RupciCH.  That  is  right,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy,  Helen  Young,  Margaret  Johnson,  Rebecca  Williams, 
Ann  Toliggel,  Mary  Kernel,  and  B.  Griffiths ;  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Rupcicii.  That  is  right, 

Mr.  Kennedy,  Did  you  continue  to  pay  dues  for  those  seven  indi- 
viduals ? 

Mr.  RupciCH.  Yes,  sir ;  I  did. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  For  instance,  L.  Pinkston  left  your  employment, 
according  to  your  records,  on  September  2,  1950,  and  how  long  did 
you  pay  dues  on  her  ? 

Mr.  Rupcicii.  Well,  I  just  paid  dues. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  In  fact,  you  were  paying  dues  on  her  when  we 
began  our  investigation,  in  1958  ? 

Mr.  RupciCH.  I  believe  so,  sir. 

ISIr,  Kennedy.  She  had  left  your  employment  some  71/^  years  prior 
to  that  time? 

Mr.  RupcicH,  That  is  right, 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Helen  Young,  August  18, 1950  ? 

Mr.  Rupcicii.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Margaret  Johnson,  February  21,  1951;  Rebecca 
Williams,  September  22,  1950? 

Mr,  Rupcicii.  That  is  right, 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Ann  Toliggel,  August  26,  1950;  Mary  Kernel,  No- 
vember 11,  1950;  and  B.  Griffiths,  June  30,  1951? 

Mr.  RuPCiCH.  That  is  risht. 


12566  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Kennedy.  But  you  were  paying  dues  on  these  seven  individuals 
even  up  to  1958  ? 

Mr.  KupciCH.  As  far  as  I  know,  that  is  correct. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Are  you  still  paying  dues  on  those  seven  people  ? 

Mr.  RupciCH.  I  believe  so. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  are  just  going  to  continue  on  the  same  indi- 
viduals? 

Mr.  RupciCH.  I  had  been  paying  my  dues  every  month. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Well,  have  you  ever  had  any  conversations  or  con- 
ferences with  the  union  officials  regarding  wages  or  hours  or  condi- 
tions for  the  employees  ? 

Mr.  RupciCH.  None  at  all. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  They  never  evidenced  any  interest  in  the  wages  of 
the  employees  ? 

Mr.  RupciCH.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  They  just  wanted  this  amount  of  money  each  month; 
is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  KuPCiCH.  I  believe  so. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  They  weren't  interested  in  anything  other  than  the 
money  being  paid  ? 

Mr.  RupciCH.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  we  have  an  affidavit  from  one 
of  the  employees,  if  we  could  read  it  into  the  record. 

Senator  Church.  Yes;  it  may  be  read  into  the  record.  Before  you 
do  that,  Mr.  Kennedy,  I  would  like  to  ask  the  witness :  What  do  you  pay 
the  $21  a  month  for? 

Mr.  RuPCiCH.  Well,  I  just  pay  it  for  the  right  to  operate,  and  just 
to  be  able  to  operate  in  a  friendly  way. 

Senator  Church.  You  pay  it  in  order  to  buy  no  trouble  ? 

Mr.  Rupcich.  That  is  right. 

Senator  Church.  Is  this  possible;  that  there  are  other  advantages 
that  might  accrue  to  you  by  virtue  of  this  $21-a-month  payment,  other 
than  no  trouble?  For  example,  you  have  heard  testimony  here  this 
afternoon  as  to  the  local  union  scale  in  Chicago.  Do  you  pay  that 
scale  in  your  own  restaurant  ? 

Mr.  Rupcich.  Well,  at  the  time  I  opened,  my  manager  took  care 
of  the  scale. 

Senator  Church.  Do  you  now  pay  that  scale  in  your  restaurant  ? 

Mr.  Rupcich.  I  believe  so,  and  I  thought  I  was  above  scale. 

Senator  Church.  There  is  competitive  advantage,  then,  you  feel, 
in  your  cases,  derived  by  virtue  of  this  arrangement  whereby  you  pay 
$21  a  month  and  have  no  trouble  ? 

Mr.  Rupcich.  That  is  right. 

Senator  Church.  I  am  thinking  in  terms  of  competition  with  other 
restaurants  that  may  be  paying  the  union  scale,  where  the  waiters  and 
waitresses  may  be  represented  by  legitimate  unions,  and  are  concerned 
with  their  welfare  and  are  negotiating  with  their  employers. 

Ml'.  Rupcich.  I  understand. 

Senator  Church.  And  it  seems  to  me  that  this  kind  of  a  situation 
could  easily  lend  itself  to  conditions  of  unfair  competition  with  restau- 
rants that  are  organized  legitimately  and  are  paying  union  scale. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  we  have  this  affidavit,  which  we  have  received 
permission  to  read  into  the  record. 

The  Chairman.  The  affidavit  may  be  printed  in  the  record. 


IMPROPER    ACTFVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12567 

(The  document  referred  to  follows  :) 
Mr.  Duffy  (reading)  : 

I,  Mrs.  Lucille  Kertis,  who  reside  at  2727  Birch  Street.  AVliitiiig,  Iiid.,  freely 
and  voluntarily  make  the  following  statement  to  LaVern  J.  Duffy,  who  has  iden- 
tified himself  to  me  as  a  member  of  the  staff  of  the  United  States  Senate  Select 
Committee  on  Impi'oper  Activities  in  the  Labor-Mana.s;ement  Field.  No  threats, 
force,  or  duress  have  been  used  to  induce  me  to  make  this  statement,  nor  have 
I  received  any  promise  of  immunity  from  any  consequences  which  may  result 
from  submission  of  this  statement  to  the  aforementioned  Senate  select  commit- 
tee. 

In  the  year  1950,  I  was  employed  as  a  waitress  at  Rupcich  Restaurant,  located 
at  106th  and  Indianapolis  Boulevard,  Chicago,  111.  I  left  Rupcich's  Restaurant 
in  the  latter  part  of  1950.  During  my  employment  at  Rupcich's  I  did  not  join 
any  union,  nor  was  I  ever  contacted  by  any  individual  inquiring  if  I  wanted  to 
join  a  union. 

Mr.  Duffy,  who  has  indentified  himself  as  a  member  of  the  Senate  Select  Com- 
mittee on  Improper  Activities  in  the  Labor-Management  Field,  informed  me 
that  I  was,  in  fact,  a  member  of  Local  394  of  the  Hotel,  Club,  Restaurant  Fm- 
ployees  and  Bartenders  International  Union  while  employed  at  Rupcich's.  This 
information  was  a  great  surprise  to  me  and  was  the  first  time  I  had  ever  been 
informed  that  I  was  a  member  of  a  union  while  employed  at  Rupcich's. 

The  first  time  I  ever  joined  a  labor  union  was  in  1953,  when  I  started  working 
as  a  waitress  at  Phil  Smidt  &  Son,  Inc.,  located  at  Whiting,  Ind.  When  I  began 
my  employment  at  this  establishment,  I  was  asked  by  a  union  representative 
if  I  wanted  to  join  Local  32  of  the  Hotel,  Club,  Restaurant  Employees  and 
Bartenders  International  Union  in  Gary,  Ind.  I  joined  the  union  and,  for  the 
past  5  years,  while  a  member  of  local  32,  I  have  paid  my  own  dues  and  am 
currently  a  member  in  good  standing. 

I  have  read  tlie  foregoing  statement,  and,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge,  it  is 
true  and  correct. 

Lucille  Kektes. 

Witnesses : 

Margaket  Kawalec. 

JtTLLA.  JACKURA. 

Sworn  and  subscribed  to  before  me  this  1st  day  of  July  1958. 

Cleo  a.  Myees,  Notary  Public. 
My  commission  expires  February  20, 1962. 

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

Mr.  Duffy.  Her  name,  prior  to  her  marriage,  was  Lucille  Kingston. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  There  are  five  individuals  that  you  pay  dues  on 
since  September  1950  that  have  not  been  employed  at  your  restaurant ; 
is  that  right?  There  are  five  employees  that  you  have  been  paying 
dues  on  since  September  1950  who  have  not  been  employed  at  your 
restaurant  ? 

Mr.  RurciCH.  That  is  right. 

ISIr.  Kennedy.  And  two  since  1951  ? 

Mr.  Rupcich.  That  is  right. 

]\Ir.  Kennedy.  And  none  of  them  knew  that  they  were  in  the  union  ? 

Mr.  RurciCH.  As  far  as  I  knew,  none  of  them  knew  that,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  many  employees  do  you  have  in  your  res- 
taurant ? 

Mr. Rupcich.  Today? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Yes. 

Mr.  Rltcich.  About  48. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  many  did  you  have  at  that  time  ? 

Mr.  Rupcich.  I  think  there  w^as  about  25. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Would  you  say  that  all  your  employees  have  been 
paid  union  scale  or  above  ? 


12568  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  RupciCH.  I  don't  know,  sir,  if  all  of  them.  I  believe,  other 
than  the  waitresses,  I  believe  that  they  were. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  We  have  some  information  on  that,  Mr.  Chairman. 

TESTIMONY  OF  GEEALD  GOTSCH— Resumed 

Mr,  Kennedy.  Could  you  tell  us  what  the  records  show,  so  far  as 
Mr.  Rupcich's  restaurant? 

Mr.  GoTSCH.  Their  total  number  of  employees  is  49.  At  the  time 
of  our  examination,  the  employer  was  paying  dues  on  seven  waitresses, 
none  of  whom,  of  course,  were  there  He  currently  employs,  at  the 
time  of  our  examination,  21  waitresses,  none  of  which  are  union.  None 
of  them  are  registered  in  the  union. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Of  those  21,  how  many  were  paid  below  union  scale? 

Mr.  GoTscH.  The  21  union  waitresses 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Nonunion. 

Mr.  GoTSCH.  They  are  all  nonunion.  Nine  are  paid  above  scale  and 
12  below  scale. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  about  the  miscellaneous  employees  ? 

Mr.  GoTsciT.  There  are  17  miscellaneous  employees,  none  of  which 
is  union. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  many  are  being  paid  below  scale  on  that  ? 

Mr.  GoTscH.  Sixteen  are  being  paid  below  scale  and  one  is  being 
paid  above. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  about  the  cooks  ? 

Mr.  GoTscH.  There  are  four  cooks,  none  of  whom  are  miion.  Three 
are  being  paid  above  union  scale  and  one  below  scale. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  about  the  hostesses  and  the  bartenders  ? 

Mr.  GoTSCH.  There  are  four  union  bartenders  and  they  are  all  being 
paid  above  union  scale.  Those  are  the  only  four  union  employees  in 
the  place. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  is  the  saving  to  the  employer  per  year  on 
this? 

Mr.  GoTSCH.  The  employer  is  saving  $6,162,  approximately,  on  his 
waitresses  by  not  paying  the  scale,  and  $8,516  on  the  miscellaneous 
kitchen  employees,  by  not  paying  scale,  for  a  total  of  $14,600,  approxi- 
mately. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  is  the  total  ? 

Mr.  GoTSCH.  $14,600,  approximately. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  is  the  saving  to  the  employer  each  year  ? 

Mr.  GoTscH.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  All  right. 

TESTIMONY  OF  JOHN  RUPCICH— Resumed 

Do  you  have  any  comment  on  that? 

Mr.  RuPCicH.  No,  but,  like  Mr.  McGann  said,  there  are  many  other 
things,  like  I  give  my  waitresses  a  meal,  and  also,  in  many  restaurants, 
where  the  waitresses  work,  they  have  to  pay  the  breakage  on  their 
dishes  and  all,  and  I  accept  that  myself. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Once  again,  this  is  what  the  contract  reads,  as  has 
been  explained,  as  to  how  much  they  should  be  paid  under  the  union 
scale. 

Mr.  RupciCH.  Yes ;  I  understand. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    EST    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12569 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  know  that  the  payments  you  are  making 
each  month  are  a  violation  of  the  law  ? 

Mr.  RupcicH,  No ;  I  did  not. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And,  if  you  are  found  guilty,  you  can  go  to  jail  for 
a  year  and  pay  a  $10,000  fine  ? 

Mr.  RupciCH.  I  did  not;  no. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  the  receipt  of  the  money  by  the  union  officials 
is  also  a  violation  of  the  law,  section  302  ? 

Mr.  RupciCH.  No ;  I  didn't. 

Mr.  ICennedy.  This  has  all  been  going  on  in  your  restaurant  for  a 
long  period  of  time,  and  in  Mr.  McGann's  restaurant  for  several 
years.    It  is  all  contrary  to  and  in  violation  of  the  criminal  law. 

The  Chairman.  Is  tiiere  anything  further  of  this  witness? 

Senator  Curtis.  Yes,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Curtis. 

Senator  Curtis.  I  would  like  to  ask  this  witness  something  about 
Mr.  McGann's  operation. 

You  stated  that  a  nmnber  of  his  employees  were  union  members. 

Mr.  GoTscH.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Curtis.  How  do  you  know  this  ? 

Mr.  GoTscH.  Because  I  talked  to  Mr.  McGann  and  asked  him  which 
persons  were  members  of  the  union  and  which  were  not. 

Senator  Curtis.  Did  any  of  the  employees  say  they  were  members 
of  the  union  ? 

Mr.  GoTSCH.  I  did  not  talk  to  the  employees  there,  sir ;  but  looked 
at  the  payroll  records  and  on  the  payroll  records  there  were  deductions 
for  union  dues. 

Senator  Curtis.  Did  you  examine  the  records  of  the  miion  ? 

Mr.  GoTSCH.  I  did  not  do  that  myself,  personally. 

Senator  Curtis.  In  other  words,  the  employer  says  they  belong  to 
the  union  I 

Mr.  GoTSCH.  That  is  right,  sir ;  and  dues  were  being  deducted  from 
their  wages. 

Senator  Curtis.  But  none  of  the  employees  told  you  they  belonged 
to  the  union  and  there  has  been  no  examination  that  the  union  carried 
them  as  members  ? 

Mr.  GoTscH.  I  did  not  check  into  that,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  We  checked  into  it,  and  they  are  in  the  union. 

Senator  Curtis.  They  are  in  the  union  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Yes. 

Senator  Curtis.  That  is  all  I  would  ask  this  witness. 

The  Chairman.  How  do  you  pay  into  the  union,  by  check  or  by 
cash? 

Mr.  RupciCH.  Yes,  sir ;  I  pay  by  check. 

The  Chairman.  Then  there  should  be  a  record  of  it.  I  believe  you 
said  you  checked  the  union  records  and  they  show  that  there  are 
memberships  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Yes. 

Senator  Church.  For  the  purpose  of  the  record,  it  might  be  help- 
ful, since  our  counsel,  Mr.  Kennedy,  has  alluded  to  the  Federal  law, 
for  him  to  explain  how  it  is  that  the  Federal  law  has  applicability 
in  this  field,  and  whether  or  not  the  NLEB  assumes  jurisdiction  in 
this  held. 


12570  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

This  committee  ought  to  know  if  there  are  gaps  in  the  Federal  law 
aspects  as  affects  a  problem  of  this  kind  and  to  what  extent  the  local 
authority  in  Chicago,  or  local  law  in  the  State  of  Illinois,  fails  to 
furnish  a  remedy  in  this  field. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Well,  I  checked  with  individuals  who  have  had  some 
experience  in  this  field,  and  the  Taft-Hartley  Act  itself  would  apply 
to  this  industry  because  of  the  fact  that  under  present  interpretations 
by  the  Supreme  Court  almost  everything  affects  interstate  commerce. 

For  instance,  in  the  restaurant  industry,  food  is  shipped  from  out  of 
State  into  the  restaurants,  and  people  that  go  into  the  restaurants 
often  come  from  out  of  State.  So  it  would  be  covered  by  the  Taft- 
Hartley  Act  itself.  But  the  National  Labor  Relations  Board  does  not 
assume  jurisdiction  in  these  cases,  and  the  State  boards  often  will  not 
assume  jurisdiction  because  they  say  this  is  a  matter  covered  by  the 
Taft-Hartley  Act,  and,  therefore,  they  have  no  jurisdiction.  I  think 
this  is  the  problem  for  the  employer,  and  sometimes  for  the  union 
itself.  These  individuals  end  up,  really,  in  "no  man's  land"  and  have 
no  recourse  or  no  place  that  they  can  go  as  far  as  a  remedy  is  concerned. 

That  has  been  one  of  the  great  difficulties.  But  I  understand  that 
has  been  covered  at  least  to  some  extent  by  the  law  that  has  been  passed 
by  the  Senate,  to  make  the  National  Labor  Relations  Board  assume 
jurisdiction. 

Senator  Curtis.  That  is  what  is  involved  in  the  so-called  no  man's 
land? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Yes. 

Senator  Curtis.  Wliy  has  an  extortion  organization  existed  as  an 
organization  allowed  to  picket  ? 

That  is  gi-anted  to  a  labor  organization.  Paragi'aph  5  of  section  2 
of  the  Taft-Hartley  law  defines  labor  organizations.     It  says : 

The  term  "labor  organization"  means  any  organization  of  any  kind  or  any 
agency  or  employee  representation  committee  or  plan  in  which  employees  par- 
ticipate, and  which  exists  for  the  purpose  in  whole  or  in  part  of  dealing  with 
employers  concerning  grievances,  labor  disputes,  wages,  rates  of  pay,  hours  of 
employment,  or  conditions  of  work. 

And  section  7  of  the  Taft-Hartley  law  deals  with  the  rights  of  em- 
ployees.   It  says : 

Employees  shall  have  the  right  to  seek  organizations,  to  form,  join,  or  assist 
labor  organizations  to  bargain  collectively  through  representatives  of  their  own 
choosing  and  to  engage  in  other  concerted  activities  for  the  purpose  of  collective 
bargaining  or  other  mutual  aid  or  protection. 

And  then  it  goes  on.  In  other  words,  workers  are  given  a  right  to 
picket.  Why  a  gang  of  extortionists  interferes  with  the  movement  of 
people  on  the  streets  of  Chicago  is  something  the  officials  of  Illinois 
and  Chicago  are  going  to  have  to  answer,  because  they  aren't  there 
representing  any  rights  of  employees. 

The  employees  do  not  participate,  and  they  do  not  bargain  for  the 
employees. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  None  of  these  pickets,  as  I  understand  it,  were 
your  employees. 

Mr.  RuPCicH.  Not  any  of  them. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  They  were  all  outsiders? 

Mr.  RuPCicH.  That  is  correct,  sir. 

Senator  Curtis.  Do  you  know  quite  a  few  of  the  other  restaurant 
owners  and  managers  in  your  area  in  Chicago  ? 


IMPROPER    ACTrV'ITIES    IN    TPIE    LABOR    FIELD  12571 

Mr.  RuPcicH.  In  my  area ;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Curtis.  Does  the  union  bargain  with  any  of  them  con- 
cerning rates  of  pay,  working  conditions,  and  that  sort  of  thing? 

Mr.  RuPciCH.  Not  in  my  immediate  area,  sir.  I  am  right  on  the 
Indiana-Illinois  State  line,  and  I  don't  know  how  the  local  in  Indiana 
operates. 

But  the  restaurants  in  Illinois  in  our  area,  no,  I  don't  know  of  their 
operation,  either,  whether  they  bargain  or  not. 

Senator  Curtis.  In  other  words,  I  doubt  very  much  if  this  union 
is  a  bargaining  agent.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  an  extortion  group 
having  a  lawful  right  to  picket,  or  to  enjoy  any  of  these  other  im- 
munities which  we  have  given  to  labor  organizations  to  do  things  that 
ordinary  citizens  can't  do. 

That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  they  don't  bargain  with  you. 

Mr.  RuPCiCH.  No,  sir. 

Tlie  Chairman.  From  the  evidence  here,  this  union  has  not  been 
certified,  as  the  bargaining  agent  for  your  employees.    Has  it? 

Mr.  RuPCiCH.  No,  it  has  not. 

The  Chairman.  So  while  it  is  not  a  bargaining  agent  duly  certified 
as  such  by  reason  of  the  choice  of  your  employees,  it  is  simply  operat- 
ing under  the  guise  of  a  imion  simply  for  shakedown  purposes.  That 
is  the  truth  about  it. 

It  is  not  operating  as  a  bargaining  agent.  It  is  under  the  guise  of 
that,  because  it  is  a  labor  union,  and  a  labor  union  is  supposed  to  be  a 
bargaining  agent  for  those  who  select  it  and  use  it  for  that  purpose. 

But  in  this  instance  they  are  not  bargaining.  They  make  no  pre- 
tense at  bargaining.  They  do  not  necessarily  have  a  majority  of  the 
employees  to  bargain  for.  The  employees  have  not  selected  the  union 
as  a  bargaining  agent.  It  is  simply  an  arrangement  in  the  nature  of 
extortion  on  the  part  of  the  union  officials,  imposed  on  management 
and  the  employees. 

All  right. 

Senator  Curtis.  I  wonder,  Mr.  Chairman,  do  we  have  any  record 
here  in  the  committee  that  the  National  Labor  Relations  Board  ever 
certified  this  local  as  a  bargaining  agent  any  place? 

The  Chairman.  Have  we  checked  on  that  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  I  don't  believe  we  have  any  information  along  that 
line. 

The  Chairman.  It  might  be  well  to  check  on  this  particular  local. 

Senator  Curtis.  If  they  have,  I  think  we  should  check  on  the 
NLRB,  too,  who  certified  such  an  outfit. 

The  Chairman.  There  might  very  well  be,  Senator,  a  place  where 
they  do  have  and  actually  represent  a  majority. 

Senator  Curtis.  I  am  talking  about  this  local. 

The  Chairman.  I  am  talking  about  this  local.  It  may  have  some 
restaurants  where  they  have  a  majority.  I  don't  know  that  it  has. 
Maybe  it  has  none.  But  it  could  in  one  place  operate  legitimately 
as  one  restaurant  and  in  another  operate  as  has  been  testified  to  here. 

It  would  be  well  to  check  and  ascertain  whether  it  has  ever  been 
certified  as  a  bargaining  agent  for  any  group. 

Are  there  any  other  questions  ? 

If  not,  thank  you  very  much. 

Call  the  next  witness. 


12572  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    EST    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Chairman,  that  is  an  indication  on  this  union 
as  to  how  it  operates  Now  we  are  fjoing  into  another  facet,  as  to  the 
operation,  and  we  have  three  witnesses  on  this  matter,  altog^ether, 
and  the  first  witness  is  Donald  W.  Strang. 

The  Chairman.  Come  forward,  Mr.  Strang. 

Will  you  stand  and  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.  Strang.  I  do. 

TESTIMONY  OF  DONALD  W.  STRANG 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Strang,  state  your  name,  your  place  of  resi- 
dence, and  your  business  or  occupation,  please,  sir? 

Mr.  Strang.  Donald  W.  Strang,  1205  Overlook  Koad,  Lakewood, 
Ohio. 

I  am  in  the  restaurant  business. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  waive  counsel,  Mr.  Strang  ? 

Mr.  Strang.  I  do. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you  very  much.     Proceed,  Mr.  Kennedy. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  is  the  name  of  your  restaurant? 

Mr.  Strang.  The  one  in  Chicago  operates  under  the  name  of 
Howard  Johnson. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  do  you  have  restaurants  in  other  areas  ? 

Mr.  Strang.  Yes ;  I  have  three  restaurants  in  Cleveland. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Are  they  named  How^ard  Johnson  also? 

Mr.  Strang.  One  is  Howard  Johnson.  One  is  Berwyn's  Restaurant 
in  Union  Commerce  Building  and  one  is  Damon's  Eestaurant  in 
Cleveland  Heights. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Where  is  Howard  Johnson's  located  in  Chicago 
which  you  own  ? 

Mr.  Strang.  Located  in  Niles,  111.,  at  the  corner  of  Caldwell  and 
Towley  Avenue. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Chairman,  we  had  some  discussion  before  about 
the  meals  that  were  supplied  to  the  employees. 

Section  16  of  the  contract  regarding  the  employees  stipulates — 

MealvS  supplied  to  employees  are  so  supplied  for  the  convenience  of  the  em- 
ployer and  there  shall  be  no  deduction  from  wages  with  respect  to  same. 

The  Chairman.  Wliat  are  you  reading  from,  the  standard  con- 
tract ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Yes,  of  the  Hotel  and  Restaurant  Employees  Union, 
the  Greater  Chicago  Area  Local  Joint  Executive  Board,  Hotel  and 
Restaurant  Employees.  That  should  cover  the  arrangement  that  was 
made  with  the  previous  witness. 

Wlien  did  you  open  up  your  restaurant  in  Niles,  111.? 

Mr.  Strang.  In  February  1952. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  at  that  time  did  you  have  any  discussions  or 
conferences  with  any  individual  from  the  Chicago  Restaurant  Asso- 
ciation ? 

Mr.  Strang.  Yes;  I  did. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  For  what  reason  did  you  have  conferences  with 
them  ? 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12573 

Mr.  Straxg.  About  the  fact  that  I  would  want  to  be  a  member  of 
the  Chicago  Restaurant  Association. 

Mr.  Kexxedy.  Wliy  did  you  want  to  become  a  member? 

Mr.  Strang.  Well,  I  believe  in  association  work.  I  have  been  very 
active  in  association,  trade  association,  work  in  Ohio. 

Mr.  Kexxedy.  And  did  you  have  conferences  with  them  to  indi- 
cate that  they  were  going  to  take  over  your  labor  relations  or  could 
help  you  or  assist  you  in  your  labor  relations? 

Mr.  Straxg.  I  was  told  that  they  did  have  an  attorney  who  did 
take  care  of  your  labor  relations,  but  that  it  was  not  included  in  the 
membership  to  the  Chicago  Restaurant  Association,  but,  rather,  was 
an  additional  service  which  would  be  paid  for  additionally. 

Mr.  Kexxedy.  You  would  have  to  contribute  to  a  voluntary  fund ; 
is  that  right? 

Mr.  Straxg.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kexxedy.  And  the  attorney  that  handled  this  would  be  Abra- 
ham Teitelbaum  ? 

Mr.  Strax'g.  I  didn't  know  who  the  attorney  w^as  who  was  repre- 
senting them. 

I  was  new  in  Chicago  and  I  didn't  know  much  about  it. 

Mr.  Kex'x'edy.  Subsequently  did  you  learn  it  was  Abraham  Teitel- 
baum ? 

Mr.  Strang.  Later;  yes. 

Mr.  Kexxedy.  And  the  individual  who  told  you  about  him,  or  told 
you  about  this  arrangement,  was  Mr.  Kiscau,  is  that  right? 

Mr.  Straxg.  Yes. 

Mr.  Kexxedy.  Then  did  you  have  any  difficulties  or  problems  with 
the  union  subsequently,  in  1952  ? 

Mr.  Straxg.  In  the  latter  part  of  May,  I  believe,  the  union  ap- 
proached the  store  and  spoke  to  the  manager  asking  to  see  me  about 
becoming  a  part  of  the  union.  I  was  not  in  town  at  the  time.  They 
left  word  that  when  I  did  come  to  town  they  would  like  to  talk  to  me 
about  having  the  employees  join  the  union. 

Mr.  Kexxedy.  What  union  did  they  represent? 

Mr.  Strang.  A  Cicero  local,  I  think. 

Mr.  Kexxedy.  Local  450  of  the  Bartenders  and  Waiters  Miscel- 
laneous Union,  located  in  Cicero  ? 

Mr.  Straxg.  I  am  not  sure. 

Mr.  Kexxedy.  Well,  it  was  the  local  from  Cicero  ? 

Mr.  Straxg.  I  understand  it  was. 

Mr.  Kexxedy.  That  is  local  450,  which  is  the  union  we  had  the 
testimony  about  this  morning,  controlled  by  Claude  jMaddox,  also 
known  as  Jolm  Edward  Moore. 

Did  you  have  conferences  with  anybody  from  that  union  subse- 
quently ? 

Mr.  Strax'g.  I  had  no  conferences  with  the  union  before  the  picket 
line  was  placed  around  us. 

Mr.  Kexxedy.  Pickets  appeared  ? 

Mr.  Straxg.  Pickets  appeared. 

Mr.  Kexxedy.  Prior  to  the  pickets  appearing,  had  your  employees 
voted  to  go  out  on  strike  ? 

Mr.  Straxg.  The  employees  did  not  vote  to  go  on  strike.  They  had 
not  been  approaclied,  to  my  understanding. 

Mr.  Kexxedy.  They  had  never  even  been  consulted? 


12574  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Strang.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  But  the  picket  line  appeared,  nonetheless? 

Mr.  Strang.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  have  conferences  with  them  then  ? 

Mr.  Strang.  I  arrived  in  Chicago  a  couple  of  days  after  the  pickets 
had  been  placed  around  the  restaurant.  Some  time  after  I  arrived, 
and  not  too  long,  the  union  officials  came  into  the  store  and  asked  to 
see  me. 

I  invited  them  into  the  office. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Who  came,  do  you  know,  representing  the  union  ? 

Mr.  Strang.  I  think  there  were  two  officials  of  the  Restaurant 
Union. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Do  you  remember  their  names  ? 

Mr.  Strang.  I  don't ;  no.    I  am  not  sure  what  their  names  were. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Do  you  know  if  there  was  a  Mr.  Kerr  ? 

Mr.  Strang.  I  think  so. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Bill  Kerr? 

Mr.  Strang.  I  think  he  was  one  of  them. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Do  you  remember  a  John  Theibold  ? 

Mr.  Strang.  It  sounds  familiar. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  But  you  remember  the  name  Kerr,  anyway? 

Mr.  Strang.  I  remember  the  name.  It  has  been  talked  of  since 
then.     I  believe  that  is  the  one,  but  I  can't  say  for  sure. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Would  you  relate  to  the  coimnittee  what  your  con- 
ferences or  discussions  were  with  them  ? 

Mr.  Strang.  They  said  they  wanted  to  talk  over  the  matter  of  me 
joining  the  union  for  my  employees,  and  I  told  them  that  in  my 
opinion  they  were  going  about  this  thing  all  wrong,  that  if  they 
could  come  in  and  say  that  my  employees  wished  to  be  represented 
by  tliem,  that  was  another  story,  but  I  said,  "As  far  as  I  know,  none 
of  our  employees  want  you  to  represent  them,"  and  I  said  "For  me 
to  join  for  them  against  their  will,  or  to  force  them  to  join  in  order 
to  keep  their  jobs  was  just  the  same  as  telling  them  what  church  they 
had  to  belong  to  if  they  wanted  to  work  for  me." 

I  considered  it  un-American,  unconstitutional,  and  I  would  not 
do  it. 

I  said  I  would  close  the  store  first. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  said  that  to  the  representative  of  local  450  and 
also  the  representative  of  the  Teamsters  Union  ? 

Mr.  Strang.  No.  Tlien  they  went  out  and  they  came  back  with  a 
representative  of  the  Teamsters  Union,  and  I  told  him  somewliat  along 
the  same  lines,  and  he  said,  "Well,"  he  said,  "You  can't  always  tell." 

He  said,  "We  had  a  manufacturing  company  that  said  that  the 
majority  of  the  members  did  not  want  to  belong,  but  after  we  took 
a  vote,  they  foimd  that  the  majority  did  want  to  belong." 

So  I  said,  "Well,  let's  have  a  vote.  I  will  agree  to  a  vote,  and  it 
will  be  handled  in  an  unbiased  manner,  in  a  manner  acceptable  to 
both  of  us." 

The  head  of  the  Restaurant  Union  said,  "Oh,  no,  we  just  came  in  to 
talk  this  thing  over.  Your  employees  would  be  nfraid  to  vote,  to  vote 
for  a  union,  afraid  of  their  jobs."  I  said,  "Afraid  of  their  job  (  We  are 
having  a  hard  time  to  get  them  to  work  for  us  for  love  or  money." 

They  said,  "Well,  we  just  wanted  to  talk  this  over.  We  will  leave 
now,"  and  they  walked  out. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12575 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Was  it  ever  suggested  to  you  that  you  could  put  in 
a  fixed  number  of  employees  and  that  would  take  care  of  the  situa- 
tion ? 

Mr.  Strang.  Later,  Mr.  Teitelbaum  came  out  to  the  restaurant 
shortly  after  I  arrived  in  Chicago  one  night;  Mr,  Kiscau  happened  to 
have  been  talking  with  me  about  tlie  situation  at  that  time.  He  said 
he  thought  he  could  convince  them  that  they  were  in  the  wrong,  and 
that  we  were  not  going  to  join  for  our  members.  We  decided  that  if 
he  could  do  that,  it  would  be  fine,  although  at  that  time  we  did  not 
have  any  assurance.  But  if  he  could  convince  them  to  stop  picketing, 
because  we  were  not  going  to  join  for  our  members  or  make  any  kind 
of  a  deal,  it  certainly  would  be  a  good  deed. 

Mr.  IvENNEDY.  Relate  what  happened,  would  you  please  ? 

Mr.  Strang.  Well,  that  was  the  end  of  that  conversation. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Then  did  he  come  subsequently  ? 

Mr.  Strang.  Yes.  Several  times  during  the  period  he  came  with 
different  propositions  that  the  union  was  on  the  hook,  they  had  made 
a  mistake,  they  did  not  realize  it  was  going  to  be  so  expensive,  but, 
nevertheless,  they  had  to  have  something  to  save  face,  and  could  we 
agree  to  signing  up  some  of  the  employees?  We  refused  to  have  any- 
thing to  do  with  anything  like  that. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  discuss  that  with  Kiscau,  too? 

Mr,  Strang.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kiscau  advised  against  it.  He  said  that  he  didn't  think  it  was 
right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Was  the  picket  line  going  on  at  this  period  of  time? 

Mr.  Strang.  Continuously,  24  hours  a  day,  I  think. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Were  any  of  your  employees  picketing? 

Mr.  Strang,  None  of  our  employees  were  picketing. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Would  you  relate  to  the  committee  what  the  situa- 
tion was  at  your  restaurant? 

Mr.  Strang.  About,  I  would  say,  20  or  30  pickets  were  surrounding 
us,  and  everything  was  tried  to  either  persuade  us  to  join  or  to  close 
up,  I  guess.  There  was  vandalism.  There  they  put  tacks  all  over  the 
lot  so  that  our  customers  would  have  punctures.  They  slashed  our 
employees'  tires,  particularly  at  nighttime.  We  had  a  garage  that 
came  over  and  fixed  them,  but  that  was  stopped  because  they  wouldn't 
let  tlie  people  come  and  fix  them  any  more.  In  fact,  last  week  I  was 
talking  with  our  present  manager  and  she  said  that  her  tires  had  been 
slashed  15  times  during  that  3-week  period.  They  put  sugar  in  the 
gasoline  tank  of  our  present  manager  and  the  manager  at  the  time. 
The  first  was  able  to  fix  the  car  at  a  considerable  expense. 

The  latter,  the  motor  was  ruined  and  the  car  was  sold  for  junk,  and 
I  had  to  replace  the  car. 

They  threw  firecrackers  after  the  employees  as  they  would  leave. 
The  teamsters  union  cooperated  with  them  so  that  they  were  unable 
to  get  any  deliveries  of  food.  We  were  unable  to  have  our  garbage 
taken  out.  We  were  unable  to  have  our  money  removed  by  armored 
express,  so  we  had  to  do  that  ourselves.  We  brought  in  food  with  my 
automobile  and  in  the  automobiles  of  other  employees,  such  as  the 
manager's  and  supervisor's.  We  had  to  go  to  the  source  of  the  food 
or  to  other  restaurants  where  food  was  delivered  and  we  would  try 
to  lose  the  people  following  us,  which  they  usually  did  when  we 
started  out,  so  tliat  they  wouldn't  know  to  what  restaurants  we  got  the 
food  given  to  us. 

21243— 5S—pt.  33 6 


12576  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

I  rented  a  trailer  to  take  out  our  garbage  and  before  I  was  able  to 
get  it  out,  the  trailer  company  took  it  away  from  me,  saying  that  they 
had  been  told  that  we  should  not  use  that  trailer. 

So  I  bought  a  trailer.  We  loaded  it  up  and  started  out  to  dump  it. 
At  the  second  stoplight  I  stopped  for  the  light  and  I  heard  a  hissing 
noise.  I  got  out  and  the  tires  of  the  trailer  had  several  nails  in  them. 
The  State  police  came  along  about  that  time,  even  before  the  air  was 
entirely  out  of  the  tires,  and  they  tried  to  catch  them,  but  they  were 
unable  to  do  so. 

We  had  the  tires  repaired  and  continued  on  our  way ;  we  were  fol- 
lowed by  an  automobile  full  of  several  men. 

When  we  got  to  the  dump  they  would  not  take  it.  We  rode  around 
trying  to  find  some  place 

Mr.  Kennedy.  The  dump  would  not  take  it  ? 

Mr.  Strang.  The  dump  would  not  take  it.  We  tried  to  find  some 
place  that  would  take  it  and  could  not  find  any  place.  I  went  back 
and  put  the  trailer  back  in  the  yard.  The  health  department  was 
after  us  because  we  had  so  much  garbage  and  rubbish  around  there. 
So  they  were  exercising  considerable  pressure  for  us  to  do  something 
about  it. 

Senator  Curtis.  Who  operated  that  garbage  dump  where  they 
would  not  take  it  after  you  got  there  ? 

Mr.  Strang.  I  don't  remember. 

Senator  Curtis.  Is  that  city  owned  ? 

Mr.  Strang.  We  took  it  to  another  city.  It  was  a  town  nearby 
Niles.  I  am  not  sure  just  wliat  it  was.  It  seems  to  me  it  was  Glen- 
view,  but  I  wouldn't  say  for  sure. 

Senator  Curtis.  It  wasn't  privately  owned  ? 

Mr.  Strang.  I  don't  know. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  This  was  the  power  really  of  the  Teamsters. 

Mr.  Strang.  Yes,  that  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  They  were  the  ones  that  were  able  to  prevent  all  of 
this,  or  cause  all  this,  is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Strang.  That  is  correct.  They  cooperated  with  them  in  order 
to  bring  us  to  our  knees,  I  guess. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  They  would  have  control  over  the  trailer,  they 
would  have  control  over  the  garbage,  and  they  would  have  control 
over  the  dumps. 

Mr.  Strang.  That  is  right. 

Then  there  was  intimidation.  Our  employees  were  intimidated, 
they  were  followed  home,  run  off  the  road.  They  drove  cai-s,  followed 
right  to  their  homes.  Girls  going  home  late  at  niglit  were  followed 
and  were  fearful.  They  became  very  incensed,  however,  about  the  tac- 
tics. I  remember  one  time  one  of  them  said  that  if  we  joined  up  with 
the  union  for  them,  they  would  all  quit.  Believe  me,  she  would  stick 
by  it. 

But  the  next  day  she  came  back  and  said  her  husband  was  afraid 
for  her.  She  was  cr^'ing.  But  lie  was  afraid  slie  might  get  hurt.  And 
that  ha])pened  with  other  employees. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  go  to  any  State  bodies? 

Mr.  Strang.  Yes. 

I  might  say  the  customers  had  their  license  taken  as  they  entered  the 
lot  and  their  numbers  called  out,  and  as  they  left  the  lot  their  numbers 
were  also  called  out  again  with  an  attempt  to  intimidate  them,  but  they 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12577 

did  not  seem  to  intimidate  them.  Business  kept  on  coming,  thank 
goodness.  That  is  what  saved  our  lives.  A  Howard  Johnson  truck 
arrived  and  as  they  arrived  at  the  point,  the  driver  was  told  that  if 
he  drove  over  the  line  that  would  be  the  last  time  he  would  be  in  that 
seat.  Our  manager  said  ''Get  down,"  and  he  got  in  and  drove  it  over 
the  line.  It  was  swarmed  on  by  pickets  in  the  lot  who  liad  no  business 
in  our  premises.  So  we  put  an  alarm  in,  and  a  deputy  sheriff's  officer 
heard  the  alarm  and  came  running  to  the  situation  and  forced  the 
pickets  off  at  gunpoint. 

I  understand,  or  they  told  me  later  on,  that  he  had  almost  lost  his 
job  because  he  had  interfered. 

The  Borden  Co.  supplied  us  with  milk.  When  you  open  a  new 
restaurant,  everyone  wants  to  get  your  milk  business,  because  you 
usually  deal  with  one  person.  We  had  decided  to  do  business  with 
them.  After  it  had  been  going  on  for  some  time,  there  was  a  call  in 
the  restaurant  which  said,  from  one  of  the  representatives  of  Borden's, 
that  maybe  it  would  be  a  good  idea  if  Mr.  Strang  would  buy  his  milk 
from  somebody  else,  and  that  they  had  been  told  that  if  they  con- 
tinued— and  I  was  picking  the  milk  up,  they  weren't  bringing  it  in — 
that  if  I  continued  to  bring  it  in,  they  would  pull  all  the  teamsters  off 
all  the  Borden  trucks  off  all  over  the  city  of  Chicago. 

I  called  the  restaurant  association  and  I  told  them  what  the  situa- 
tion was,  and  I  said,  "If  this  is  what  can  happen,  and  you  can't  even 
go  after  your  food,  we  are  through,  and  every  restaurant  in  Chicago 
is  through,  so  you  might  as  well  make  up  your  mind  to  it." 

I  think  they  got  in  touch  with  the  officials  of  Borden,  and  they 
changed  their  tactics.  HoAvever,  they  took  their  names  off  the  cartons 
so  you  would  not  know  where  the  milk  was  coming  from. 

We  had  a  scavenger — we  couldn't  get  anyone  to  take  our  garbage 
out,  so  one  of  the  employees  called  a  scavenger  in  another  town  nearby, 
and  he  said,  "Yes,  I  will  come  and  try  and  get  it  out." 

He  came,  loaded  it  up,  and  on  the  way  out,  and  he  had  his  little  boy 
in  the  seat  with  him,  and  they  said,  "If  you  think  anything  of  that 
little  boy,  you  will  take  that  garbage  back  and  put  it  where  it  was." 
He  did.     He  couldn't  take  any  chances  with  his  little  boy. 

I  called  the  State  police  for  protection  of  the  Howard  Johnson  truck 
coming  from  Cleveland,  Ohio,  coming  from  Indiana,  Illinois,  and  Wis- 
consin, and  stopped  to  leave  a  load  at  our  store  on  the  way. 

I  had  a  hard  time  getting  them.  I  even  went  down  to  the  office,  but 
they  didn't  seem  to  be  around.  Finally  I  got  him  on  the  telephone, 
and  he  said,  "Well,  I  am  sorry,  but  my  hands  are  tied.  I  have  been 
called  off  by  the  Governor's  office,  it  is  a  local  proposition,  and  we  can- 
not do  anything.  I  am  so  mad,  and  our  men  are  so  mad,  that  they  are 
hot  under  the  collar.  All  of  those  hoodlums,  we  would  like  to  put 
them  in  jail.     But  I  can't  do  anything  about  it. 

I  said,  "This  is  interstate.  They  are  coming  through  the  State. 
They  are  not  in  the  State.     It  is  not  local." 

He  said,  "I  can't  do  anything  about  it  now.  But  I  will  tell  you 
now,  you  are  getting  a  raw  deal." 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  say  about  the  Governor? 

Mr.  Strang.  He  said  he  had  instructions  from  the  Governor's  office 
to  lay  off. 

The  Chairman.  The  governor  of  what  State  ? 

Mr.  Strang.  Illinois. 


12578  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Senator  Curtis.  What  year  was  that  ? 

Mr.  Strang.  1952. 

Senator  Curtis.  I  don't  care  what  year  it  is,  I  do  not  agree  witli  it. 
That  is  one  thing  I  have  been  hammering  here  all  the  time,  that  labor 
unions  enjoy  some  immunities  that  are  not  extended  to  other  citizens. 

They  are  permitted  to  do  things  and  judges,  courts,  and  legislative 
bodies  pass  it  by. 

That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair  was  not  interested  in  the  politics  of  it, 
but  he  was  interested  in  the  broader  aspects  of  it. 

Mr.  Strang.  I  don't  know  who  in  the  Governor's  office  made  that 
statement.     He  just  said  the  Governor's  office. 

The  Chairman.  Right  or  wrong,  it  would  not  matter  to  me  who 
was  governor.  But  I  just  cannot  concede  anyone  occupying  the 
position  of  chief  executive  of  the  State  who  would  tolerate,  let  alone 
cooperate  with,  condone  and  protect,  such  criminal  activity. 

So  whoever  it  is,  whoever  it  was,  if  he  was  responsible  for  that  kind 
of  action,  I  think  it  deserves  condemnation. 

Proceed. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Of  course,  the  information  you  got  was  second  or 
third  hand,  was  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Strang.  It  was  second  hand,  and  I  don't  know  who  it  was  in 
the  Governor's  office  that  gave  it.  But  that  was  his  excuse,  because 
he  was  wrought  up  about  it.  He  was  pretty  mad  that  they  weren't 
allowed  to  help  us  under  the  circumstances. 

The  Chairman.  All  right. 

Mr.  Strang.  We  run  our  restaurants  with  oil.  Oil  was  used  for 
steam  for  cooking,  for  hot  water  and  everything  else.  So  if  we  run 
out  of  oil,  we  are  out  of  business.  I  think  they  figured  we  would  be 
pretty  low,  and  we  were.  We  couldn't  get  the  oil  in.  The  man  that 
was  delivering  us  oil  would  not  bring  it  in.  So  I  got  a  friend  of  mine 
who  knew  an  oil  company,  and  he  said,  "I  will  call  and  ask  if  they  will 
bring  it  in,"  and  he  did,  and  they  said,  "Yes,  we  will  try  and  run  it  in." 

The  pickets  usually  were  around,  but  they  were  getting  a  little 
careless  about  that  time  and  would  congregate  one  time  and  visit 
a  little  bit,  and  one  time  they  were  congregating  we  ran  the  oil  in 
the  other  side.  There  was  a  hole  on  the  other  side  of  the  building, 
and  we  would  turn  the  knob  and  we  got  our  oil.  If  it  had  not 
been  for  that,  we  would  have  been  out  of  business,  too.  I  think  that 
is  one  reason  the  union  listened  to  reason  on  calling  off  their  pickets. 

I  would  just  like  to  remark  that  as  a  small-business  man  I  went 
to  Chicago  in  good  faith  and  I  was  doing  things  legally,  as  far  as  I 
knew,  trying  to  mind  my  own  business,  and  all  of  a  sudden  I  am 
besieged  with  this  sort  of  thing  I  have  just  described.  I  could  get 
no  injunction.  I  was  told  if  I  invoked  the  Taft-Hartley  Act  it 
could  be  delayed  in  hearings  so  long  that  it  w^ould  not  do  me  any 
good. 

I  even  called  Senator  Taft's  office  in  Washington  to  ask  him  if  he 
knew  some  way  that  something  could  be  done  to  protect  our  interests. 
It  is  a  sad  state,  and  I  think  it  is  bad  for  the  employer  for  such  a 
thing  to  be  allowed ;  I  think  it  is  bad  for  the  unions,  because  they 
should  1)0  willing  to  sell  their  wares  like  anyone  else,  their  services 
like  anyone,  any  other  salesman.  I  think  there  should  be  something 
done  about  it. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    EST    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12579 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  have  further  questions  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Yes,  Mr.  Chairman.  What  finally  liappened? 
Could  you  tell  us  how  it  was  settled  ? 

Mr.  Strang.  I  was  informed  that  the  union  had 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Who  informed  you  ? 

Mr.  Str.\ng.  Well,  it  was  either  Mr.  Kiscau  or  Mr.  Teitelbaum. 
It  was  pretty  much  of  a  nightmare  at  the  time.  I  was  told  that  the 
miion  decided  to  stop  picketing,  and  I  was  to  give  Mr.  Teitelbaum 
a  check  for  attorney's  fees.  I  conferred  with  the  restaurant  associa- 
tion, and  I  said  I  think  it  is  well  worth  it  if  he  can  convince  them 
that  we  are  not  going  to  join  for  our  members,  and  they  advised  that 
they  thought  it  was,  too. 

That  was  the  end  of  it. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  then  pay  Teitelbaum  $2,240  ? 

Mr.  Strang.  $2,240,  I  think,  is  correct. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  was  for  legal  fees  ? 

Mr.  Strang.  That  was  for  legal  fees  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  was  on  the  suggestion  of  Mr.  Kiscau  or  Mr. 
Teitelbaum,  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Sti^ang.  That  is  the  only  wa;^  I  would  pay  it. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  pay  it  in  the  presence  of  Mr.  Kiscau? 

Mr.  Strang.  I  am  not  sure.  I  thought  he  was  there,  but  I  am  not 
sure. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Wliere  did  you  give  Teitelbaum  the  money  ? 

Mr.  Strang.  I  gave  it  to  him  in  my  office  in  the  restaurant. 

Mr.  KJENNEDY.  Did  he  tell  you  that  the  pickets  would  not  appear 
again  ? 

Mr.  Strang.  He  said  that  the  union  had  agreed  to  remove  the 
pickets. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  perform  any  legal  services  for  you? 

Mr.  Strang.  I  worked  about  3  weeks  on  this  thing  to  try  and  con- 
vince them  that  we  were  not  going  to  join  the  union. 

The  Chairman.  I  have  here  a  photostatic  copy  and  also  the  origi- 
nal of  the  check  you  gave  Mr.  Teitelbaum.  If  you  will  identif}'^  both 
of  them,  please,  I  will  use  tlie  photostatic  copy  for  the  record. 

(The  document  was  handed  to  the  witness.) 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  the  original  check  and  also  a  photostatic 
copy  of  the  check  you  gave  Mr.  Teitelbaum  ? 

Mr.  Str^vng.  I  tliink  it  is.     It  looks  like  it.     It  is  my  signature. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  your  signature  ? 

Mr.  Strang.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  accept  it.  The  check  may  be  made  ex- 
hibit 16. 

(The  document  referred  to  was  marked  "Exhibit  Xo.  16"  for  refer- 
erence  and  will  be  found  in  the  appendix  on  p.  12857.) 

Mr.  I^JENNEDY.  This  check  was  given  to  Mr.  Teitelbaum  about  3 
weeks  after  the  picketing  started,  is  that  right  ? 

The  picketing  lasted  about  3  weeks  ? 

Mr.  Strang.  I  think  so,  yes. 

Mr,  Kennedy.  Did  you  hear  from  the  union  again  after  you  gave 
him  this  check  ? 

Mr.  Strang.  About  a  year  later. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Wliat  happened  at  this  meeting  ? 


12580  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Strang.  I  understand  that  a  representative  called  at  my  store, 
at  the  store  of  the  company  that  I  am  the  head  of,  and  asked  that  we 
sign  another  contract.  My  manager  said,  "We  have  no  contract  with 
any  union,"  and  he  said,  "Well,  here  is  a  contract."  And  the  man- 
ager said,  "Let's  see  it."  He  showed  it  to  her,  and  she  said,  "That 
is  not  Mr.  Strang's  signature." 

I  then  got  a  call  in  Cleveland,  asking  me,  and  I  said  that  we  did 
not  join  for  any  of  our  people.  She  said,  "Well,  I  have  a  check 
from  Mr.  Teitelbaum,"  and  I  said,  "Well,  I  don't  know  anything 
about  that,  because,  Mr.  Teitelbavim  never  had  any  authority  to  join 
for  our  members  or  to  give  you  a  check  from  us." 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  hear  from  them  again  ? 

Mr.  Strang.  No.     That  was  it. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  ever  learn  what  Mr.  Teitelbaum  had  done 
with  the  $2,240  ? 

Mr.  Strang.  Well,  I  saw  an  endorsement  about  1955.  It  was  the 
first  time  I  knew  that  Mr.  Teitelbaum  evidently  had  endorsed  it  over  to 
the  union,  when  a  revenue  agent  came  into  the  office  for  a  checkup  of 
our  books. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  The  endorsement  on  the  back  reads,  "In  payment  of 
40  initiation  fees  at  $20  a  person,  totaling  $800,  and  1  year's  dues  for 
$1,140,"  making  a  total  of  $2,240. 

So  he  paid  the  initiation  fees  on  40  individuals  and  their  dues  for  a 
period  of  a  year ;  isn't  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Strang.  I  don't  know  anything  more,  except  what  is  on  the  back 
of  that  check. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Wliat  happened  was  that  your  employees  were  in  the 
union  and  you  didn't  know  it. 

Mr.  Strang.  My  employees  were  not  in  the  union. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Well,  the  money  had  been  paid  for  your  employees' 
dues. 

Mr.  Strang.  They  had  no  authority  to  pay  for  my  employees. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  I  understand  that.  You  made  that  point.  I  am  not 
finding  any  fault  with  you.  But  I  am  saying  what  happened  as  a  result 
of  this  money  being  paid  over  was  that  your  employees  were  made 
members  of  the  union  without  your  knowledge  and  without  their 
knowledge ;  isn't  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Strang.  If  you  will  call  that  a  membership,  which  I  don't 
agree  to — I  don't  believe  it  is  a  membership  myself. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Assuming  that  is  a  membership,  they  were  made 
members  of  the  union  without  your  knowledge  and  without  their 
knowledge  ? 

Mr.  Strang.  I  will  let  the  facts  stand  on  their  own  feet. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  did  not  know  anything  about  it  ? 

Mr.  Strang.  I  do  not  want  to  give  opinions  on  it. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  did  not  know  anything  about  their  money  being 
paid  to  the  union  and  the  employees  did  not  know  anything  about  it? 

Mr,  Strang.  No,  sir ;  they  did  not. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  their  names  were  entered,  were  they  not,  in  the 
union  records? 

Mr.  Strang.  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  I  think  we  have  a  witness  on  that. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12581 

The  Chairman.  Had  you  known  that  tliis  check  was  going  to  be  en- 
dorsed and  that  the  proceeds  of  it  was  going  to  the  union,  would  you 
liave  ever  given  the  check  ? 

Mr.  Strang.  Certainly  not.  That  was  the  whole  basis  of  why  we 
resisted  it  and  went  through  this  nightmare  as  long  as  we  did.  I  could 
liave  made  a  much  better  deal  than  that  earlier  in  the  thing  by  signing 
up  for  fewer  members,  but  we  would  have  nothing  to  do  with  anything 
like  that. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  Mr.  Teitelbaum  then  was  supposed  to  be  the 
attorney  for  the  association,  and  not  attorney  for  the  union;  is  that 
correct  ? 

Mr.  Strang.  He  w^as  not  the  attorney  for  the  union.  He  repre- 
sented me  in  this  instance. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  what  I  say,  and  you  got  him  as  the  asso- 
ciation's attorney  for  the  restaurant  association. 

Mr.  Str^vng.  Well,  Senator,  I  was  under  the  impression  that  he  was 
not  on  the  payroll  of  the  association. 

The  Chairman.  You  thought  you  were  employing  him  just  as  your 
individual  attorney  ? 

Mr.  Strang.  That  is  right. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  recall  how  he  arrived  at  the  $2,240?  Did 
he  give  you  any  statement  for  that  amount  ? 

Mr.  Strang.  No,  he  did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Wasn't  it  a  kind  of  a  strange  thing  ?  I  know  a  little 
about  how  lawyers  charge,  and  was  there  any  expense  account  sub- 
mitted in  connection  with  the  fee? 

Mr.  Strang.  No  expense  account.  I  have  never  been  able  to  figure 
out  lawyers'  bills. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  I  have,  and  that  is  why  I  am  intrigued  by 
this  check  for  $2,240. 

Mr.  Strang.  I  did  not  know,  nor  consider  that  at  the  time,  and  it 
was  a  reasonable  fee  if  he  could  perform  and  he  did  perform  and  he 
worked  for  several  weeks  and  I  would  have  been  glad  to  give  it  to  any 
attorney  that  performed  the  same  deal,  and  I  had  been  willing  to  pay 
a  little  more  because  we  were  losing  a  lot  more  than  that  every  week. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  a  $2,240  fee  is  just  $10  short  or  maybe  $260 
short  of  what  an  attorney  normally  would  charge  unless  there  is  some 
arrangement  about  it. 

Mr.  Strang.  There  were  no  arrangements  about  it.  That  is  what 
he  wanted. 

The  Chairman.  He  must  have  calculated  it  knowing  how  he  was 
going  to  handle  it  with  the  union  and  he  got  his  fee  actually  from  the 
union. 

Mr.  Strang.  Well,  as  I  say 

The  Chairman.  Instead  of  actually  representing  you  all  of  the 
time,  although  you  were  paying  him  as  you  thought,  he  was  represent- 
ing the  union.  That  would  be  the  deduction  I  would  make  from  the 
circumstances  and  the  facts  as  developed. 

Senator  Church.  Mr,  Strang,  the  endorsement  that  Abraham  Teit- 
elbaum made  on  your  check  reads,  "In  payment  of  40  initiation  fees 
as  $20,"  which  equals  $800  and  the  year  dues,  $1,440,  making  a  total 
of  $2,240.     But  when  Mr.  Teitelbaum  approachecl  you  and  asked  you 


12582  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

for  the  $2,240  he  made  no  explanation  that  would  m  any  way  indicate 
that  this  was  the  reason  he  was  asking  for  $2,240  ? 

Mr.  Strang,  Absolutely  not. 

Senator  Church.  Earlier  this  morning  we  had  some  testimony  con- 
cerning this  local  that  you  were  having  your  troubles  with,  local  450.- 
It  showed  that  at  least  two  notorious  figures  in  the  ring  of  well-known 
racketeers  in  Chicago  were  associated  with  this  local. 

One  was  Claude  Maddox  and  the  other  was  Joseph  Aiuppa.  This 
is  one  of  the  four  locals  we  have  considered  where  there  is  much  evi- 
dence of  the  mobster  element. 

Certainly,  that  was  borne  out  in  the  tactics  that  were  used  by  this 
local  in  the  ordeal  that  you  suffered.  You  have  already  indicated  that 
there  were  acts  of  intimidation,  there  was  considerable  property  de- 
stroyed, there  was  coercion  and  violence. 

Now,  these  acts  are  certainly  in  conflict  with  the  local  peace  laws  of 
the  community.  Did  you,  during  the  course  of  this  ordeal,  consult  with 
any  other  attorney  other  than  Mr.  Teitelbamn  ? 

Mr.  Strang.  Yes ;  I  did. 

Senator  Church.  Did  you  make  an  effort  to  ascertain  what  your 
rights  were  under  the  local  peace  laws?  Did  you  attempt  to  contact 
the  local  district  attorney  ? 

Mr.  Strang.  No ;  I  did  not  contact  the  local  district  attorney.  I  was 
satisfied  that  the  advice  I  was  getting  from  the  restaurant  association 
was  perhaps  as  good  as  I  could  get  from  anyone. 

However,  I  did  call  my  attorneys  in  Chicago  and  ask  them  if  they 
did  not  know  any  way  out  of  this  thing,  and  the  only  answer  I  got 
on  that  was  it  was  a  little  out  of  their  line  and  they  referred  me  to 
another  firm  who  were  primarily  specialists  in  labor  relations. 

Senator  Church.  The  point  I  want  to  make  is  this:  I  question 
whether  this  is  so  much  a  problem  of  labor  relations  as  much  as  it  is 
a  problem  of  dealing  with  mobsters.  Mobsters  use  tactics  that  ob- 
viously conflict  with  the  local  peace  laws  of  the  community  and  they 
did  in  this  particular  case. 

Now,  the  Federal  Government  is  not  primarily  involved  in  the 
maintenance  of  peace  and  order  within  the  community.  That  re- 
sponsibility falls  primarily  to  local  authorities  and  should,  to  the 
district  attorneys  and  to  the  community  police,  and  to  the  State  law- 
enforcement  officers. 

I  am  wondering  what  steps  you  took  in  connection  with  trying  to 
get  local  authority  to  intervene  to  maintain  order  and  maintain  peace. 
In  that  connection  I  should  think  that  the  district  attorney's  office 
would  have  been  perhaps  the  most  important  office  to  deal  with. 

Mr.  Strang.  Well,  it  might  have  been  a  good  thing  to  do. 

Senator  Church.  But  you  did  not  contact  the  district  attorney  ? 

Mr.  Strang.  No,  but  we  did  the  chief  of  police  and  he  gave  us  all 
of  the  support  he  could,  and  I  understand  terrific  pressure  was  put 
on  him  to  let  the  thing  take  its  course.  We  tried  to  get  certain  local 
enforcement  authorities  and  they  were  told  to  stay  away  and  the  State 
police  were  told  to  stay  away. 

Senator  Church.  I  think,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  one  of  the  benefits 
that  should  flow  from  a  hearing  of  this  kind  is  that  in  bringing  to 
the  attention  of  the  public  generally  abuses  of  this  sort,  the  effect 
should  be  to  alert  local  police  authorities  and  thus  to  root  out  this 
practice  at  the  local  level  where  it  can  be  dealt  with  most  effectively. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN   THE    LABOR    FIELD  12583 

Mr,  Strang.  I  agree  with  you  100  percent. 

The  Chairman.  Are  there  any  further  questions  ? 

Senator  Curtis.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  just  want  to  say  to  this  gentle- 
man, that  I  think  he  is  to  be  commended  for  his  courage  and  his 
forthriglitness  in  dealing  with  this  situation  and  protecting  the  in- 
herent rights  of  his  workers  and  everybody  else  involved. 

It  is  regrettable  that  you  had  to  do  battle  all  alone  and  the  forces 
of  law  and  order  on  every  level  did  not  come  to  your  assistance. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  I  think  Mr.  Kelly  has  already  been  sworn,  Mr. 
Chairman,  and  I  want  to  ask  him  some  questions. 

TESTIMONY  OF  JAMES  P.  KELLY— Resumed 

Mr,  Kennedy.  Did  you  make  an  examination  of  the  books  and 
records  of  local  450  ? 

Mr.  Kelly.  Yes,  sir ;  I  did, 

Mr,  Kennedy,  Did  you  determine  as  to  whether  40  employees  of 
the  Howard  Johnson  Restaurant  were  in  fact  entered  on  the  books 
and  records  ? 

Mr.  Kelly,  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  were,  in  fact,  members  of  the  union  ? 

Mr.  Kelly.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Would  you  examine  that? 

Mr,  Kelly,  Yes,  sir, 

( A  document  was  handed  to  the  witness. ) 

Mr.  Kelly.  This,  Mr.  Kennedy,  is  a  membership  ledger  showing 
the  name  "Howard  Johnson  Restaurant,"  the  address  in  Niles,  111., 
and  the  initiation  date  June  of  1952.  It  shows  a  list  of  names,  alpha- 
betically listed. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  there  are  40  names,  are  there  not  ? 

Mr.  Kelly.  There  are  40  members,  that  is  correct,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  All  right,  so  the  40  employees  of  your  restaurant 
were  in  fact  made  members  of  the  union  and  they  were  made  unbe- 
knowns  to  you. 

Mr.  Strang.  That  is  correct.  I  was  asked  how  they  got  those  names, 
and  my  answer  to  that  was  that  I  did  not  know.  However,  last  week 
in  talking  with  our  present  manager,  he  reminded  me  that  several 
pages  had  been  torn  and  stolen  out  of  the  payroll  book  at  the  time 
that  this  thing  was  going  on. 

That  may  have  been  the  way  they  got  it.  Other  than  that,  I  don't 
know. 

Mr.  Kennedy,  You  paid  this  money,  and  you  were  not  aware  of  the 
fact  that  your  employees  were  being  made  members  of  the  union  ? 

Mr,  Strang,  Absolutely. 

The  Chairman.  This  ledger  sheet  may  be  made  exhibit  No.  17. 

(The  document  referred  to  was  marked  "Exhibit  No.  17,"  and 
may  be  found  in  the  files  of  the  subcommittee. ) 

Mr,  Kennedy,  They  never  have  been  unionized  since  then  ? 

Mr,  Strang,  No,  not  since  then,  nor  did  they  ever  think  they  were 
in  the  union. 

The  Chairjvian.  Thank  you  very  much. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  I  would  like  to  call  a  lady  who  was  an  employee  at 
the  time,  to  find  out  whether  the  employees  knew  that  they  were  being 
made  members  of  the  union,  and  I  would  like  to  call  Mrs.  Frances 
Schimeal. 


12584  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  be  sworn. 

You  do  solemnly  swear  that  the  evidence  you  are  about  to  give 
before  this  Senate  select  committee  shall  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth, 
and  nothing  but  the  truth,  so  help  you  God  ? 

Mrs.  SCHIMEAL.   I  do. 

TESTIMONY  OF  MRS.  FRANCES  SCHIMEAL 

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

Mrs.  ScHiMEAL.  My  name  is  Frances  Schimeal,  and  I  live  at  39 
Woodcrest  Lane,  Elk  Koad  Village,  111. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  waive  counsel  ? 

Mrs.  Schimeal.  Yes ;  I  do. 

The  Chairman.  I  interrupted  you — and  your  business  or  occupa- 
tion? 

Mrs.  Schimeal.  At  present,  I  am  a  housewife. 

Mr.  IVENNEDY.  What  was  your  name  before  you  were  married  ? 

Mrs.  Schimeal.  Frances  Braun. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  long  have  you  been  married  ? 

Mrs.  Schimeal.  Six  years. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  you  were  working  at  the  Howard  Johnson  Ees- 
taurant  in  Niles,  111.  ? 

Mrs.  Schimeal.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  In  1952? 

Mrs.  Schimeal.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  were  employed  there  as  a  waitress,  were  you? 

Mrs.  Schimeal.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  ICjennedy.  You  and  your  sister  both  worked  there  ? 

Mrs.  Schimeal.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Local  450  of  the  Restaurant  Employees  Union  came 
around  to  attempt  to  organize  ? 

Mrs.  Schimeal.  Well,  there  was  a  union,  and  I  was  not  told  what 
it  was. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  any  union  official  ever  speak  to  you  about  join- 
ing the  union  ? 

Mrs.  Schimeal.  Outside  of  the  parking  lot,  I  was  approached  by 
three  men,  and  they  wanted  to  know  if  tlie  workers  would  like  to  join 
the  union,  and  I  told  them  that  none  were  interested  as  most  of  them 
were  summer  help,  and  they  were  not  interested  in  any  benefits  that 
a  union  could  give  them,  you  know,  for  a  short  time  that  they  would 
work  there. 

Mr.  Kennedy,  What  was  their  reaction  to  that  ? 

Mrs.  Schimeal.  Well,  they  mentioned  such-and-such  a  restaurant 
where  their  waitresses  belonged,  which  later  I  found  out  was  not  true, 
and,  I  believe,  from  Mr.  Duffy. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  know  wlio  these  three  men  were? 

Mrs.  Schimeal.  No;  they  did  not  introduce  themselves,  and  they 
said  they  were  officials  of  the  union. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  they  drive  up  or  walk  up  ? 

Mrs.  Schimeal.  They  were  ]>arked  there,  and  tliis  was  on  a  day  that 
I  had  off,  and  my  sister  worked,  and  at  the  time  1  would  pick  her  up, 
so  that  she  would  not  have  to  drive  alone  during  tlie  strike. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  This  was  after  the  strike  had  started  ? 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12585 

Mrs.  ScFiiMEAL.  That's  right. 

Mr.  Kenxedy.  What  kind  of  automobile  were  they  in? 

Mrs.  Sciii^EEAL.  It  was  a  Cadillac,  black  Cadillac. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Were  any  of  the  employees,  in  fact,  interested  in 
joining  the  union? 

Mrs.  SciiiMEAL.  None  of  them  were. 

Mr.  ICennedy.  Had  you  been  approached  by  representatives  of  the 
union  prior  to  the  time  the  picket  line  was  placed  ? 

Mrs.  SCIIIMEAL.   No. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Do  you  know  any  of  the  employees  that  were  ap- 
proached prior  to  the  time  of  the  picket  line? 

Mrs.  SCHIMEAL.   No. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  After  the  picket  line  was  started,  were  any  of  the 
employees  interested  in  joining  the  union? 

Mrs.  ScHiMEAL.  None  of  them. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  you  were  never  consulted  ? 

Mrs.  ScHiiHEAL.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  I^nnedy.  Do  you  know  of  individuals  whose  cars  were  dam- 
aged or  who  were  followed  home  or  anything  like  that  ? 

Mrs.  ScHiMEAL.  My  sister  was  followed  home  one  evening,  and  it 
happened  to  be  one  evening  I  was  not  with  her,  and  she  was  chased 
out  into  the  rural  areas  where  we  live,  and  she  sped  up  the  car  and 
thouglit  she  lost  them. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Was  there  much  damage  or  was  there  any  damage 
to  any  of  your  fellow  employees  ? 

Mrs.  Schimeal.  Personally,  I  did  not  see  any,  but,  naturally,  you 
get  the  word,  and  all  of  the  things  that  Mr.  Strang  had  said  was  the 
common  conversation  during  that  time. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Other  employees  told  you  of  the  tires  of  their  auto- 
mobiles being  slashed  ? 

Mrs.  Schimeal.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  nails  in  the  tires  ? 

Mrs.  Schimeal.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  sugar  in  the  gas  tank  ? 

Mrs.  ScHiMEL.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  ever  join  the  union? 

Mrs.  Schimeal.  Never. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  "Why  did  the  pickets  leave  the  restaurant? 

jVIrs.  Schimeal.  We  never  knew.  One  morning  we  came  to  work, 
and  they  just  were  not  there. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Were  you  aware  of  the  fact  that  you  were  made  a 
member  of  the  union  ? 

Mrs.  Schimeal.  Not  until  Mr.  Duffy  told  it  to  me  3  months  ago. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  was  the  first  time  that  vou  knew  you  were  in 
local  450? 

Mrs.  Schimeal.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  did  you  know  if  your  sister  knew  she  was  also 
a  member  of  the  union  ? 

Mrs.  Schime.'ll.  Absolutely  not. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  your  initiation  fees  and  your  dues  were  paid? 

Mrs.  Schimeal.  We  never  paid  anything. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  So,  it  would  appear,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  not  only 
did  the  employer  not  know  they  were  members  of  the  union,  but  the 
employees  themselves  did  not  know  they  were  members  of  the  union. 


12586  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

and  there  was  never  any  interest  in  any  of  the  wages,  hours,  and  con- 
ditions. Evidently,  you  were  in  the  union,  according  to  the  records, 
from  June  of  1952  to  May  of  1954. 

Mrs.  ScHiMEAL.  Well,  according  to  their  books,  but,  of  course,  I 
worked  3  months  there  next  summer,  and  so  it  would  be  improbable 
that  I  would  pay  dues  for  2  years  for  3  months'  work. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  any  of  the  employees  help  or  assist  the  picket 
line? 

Mrs.  SCHIMEAL.   No. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  These  were  all  outsiders  ? 

Mrs.  Schimeal.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Church.  I  want  to  say,  in  this  connection,  that  we  have 
a  habit  in  this  country  of  facing  up  to  problems  with  the  statement, 
"There  ought  to  be  a  law."  It  Is  evident,  I  think,  in  situations  like 
this,  that  the  improvement  of  the  law  is  not,  by  any  means,  the 
whole  answer. 

There  are  laws  in  Illinois  against  the  intentional  and  malicious 
destruction  of  property.  Spreading  tacks  out  on  a  parking  lot  is 
against  the  law  of  Illinois,  I  am  sure.  Slashing  tires  is  against  the 
law  of  Illinois,  I  am  sure.  Many  of  the  other  activities  that  have 
been  testified  to  here  in  connection  with  the  attempt  to  coerce  the 
organization  of  these  employees,  I  have  no  doubt,  violate  the  laws 
of  Illinois. 

This  problem  could  have  been  met  and  protection  could  have  been 
given  at  a  local  level  by  the  law-enforcement  officers.  Wliat  it  takes 
to  get  that  kind  of  law  enforcement  is  not  more  laws,  necessarily. 
Wliat  it  takes  is  an  alert  press  that  brings  to  the  attention  of  the 
public,  in  any  given  community  where  such  activities  take  place,  the 
facts,  and  then,  if  the  local  law-enforcement  officers  fail  to  do  their 
duty,  the  public  will  have  an  opportunity  to  remove  them  and  to 
put  in  their  place  district  attorneys  and  police  officers  who  will. 

I  think  we  just  cannot  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  in  this  situation 
we  have  evidence  of  a  problem  of  the  kind  that  cannot  be  entirely 
solved  by  Federal  law,  but  has  to  be  worked  at  constantly  by  the 
law-enforcement  officers  at  every  level,  and  must  always  be  attended 
by  a  press  that  brings  the  facts  of  abuses  of  this  kind  to  the  atten- 
tion of  the  public  at  large.  I  do  not  mean  to  give  this  as  a  lecture 
to  you,  by  any  means,  and  your  testimony  has  been  most  helpful. 

Mrs.  Schimeal.  May  I  add  something,  please?  At  the  beginning 
of  the  strike,  the  local  law  enforcement,  the  Niles  police,  were  on  the 
property  almost  constantly,  but,  naturally,  as  2  or  3  weeks  went  by 
they  could  not  give  this  institution  their  full  time.  But  any  time 
that  you  would  look  out  you  would  see  1  or  2  squad  cars  around,  but, 
naturally,  they  could  not  be  there  the  full  time. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you  very  much. 

Call  the  next  witness. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  William  H.  Kerr. 

The  Chahiman.  Do  you  solemnly  swear  that  the  testimony  you 
are  about  to  give  before  this  Senate  select  committee  shall  be  the 
truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth,  so  help  you  God? 

Mr.  Kerr.  I  do. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12587 

TESTIMONY  OF  WILLIAM  H.  KERR,  ACCOMPANIED  BY  HIS 
COUNSEL,  JOSEPH  A.  DePAUL 

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

Mr.  Kkrr.  William  Howard  Kerr,  6342  South  Kolin  Avenue,  Chi- 
cago, 111.,  and  I  am  an  employee  of  the  Illinois  State  Division  of 
Rehabilitation. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you,  sir.    You  have  counsel  present  ? 

Mr.  Kerr.  Yes ;  I  do. 

The  Chairman.  Identify  yourself  for  the  record. 

Mr.  DePaul.  My  name  is  Joseph  DePaul,  and  I  am  a  member  of 
the  Maryland  bar  and  the  District  of  Columbia  bar,  and  I  have  my 
offices  in  Hyattsville,  Md. 

Mr.  Chairman,  if  I  may,  may  I  make  a  brief  point  ? 

I  am  rather  unaccustomed  to  these  things,  but  Mr.  Kerr  has  asked 
me  to  ask  the  committee  if  it  is  possible  to  have  these  gentlemen  take 
their  photos  and  then  subside  into  the  background. 

The  Chairman.  If  the  witness  cooperates  with  the  committee,  the 
committee  will  cooperate  with  him,  and  his  request  is  granted,  for 
the  present. 

Gentlemen,  get  your  pictures. 

We  will  proceed. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Kerr,  how  long  have  you  been  with  the  State 
of  Illinois? 

Mr.  Kerr,  I  believe  about  31^  years. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  whom  were  you  with  prior  to  that  ? 

Mr.  Kerr.  Prior  to  that,  I  was  secretary  and  treasurer  of  local  450. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  When  did  you  become  secretary-treasurer  of  local 
450? 

Mr.  Kerr.  It  was  in  January  of  1940. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Januaiy  of  1940? 

Mr.  Kerr.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  you  were  secretary-treasurer  up  until  May  of 
1953? 

Mr.  Kerr.  May  15, 1953. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now^,  in  local  450,  did  you  know  a  man  by  the  name 
of  Joseph  iViuppa  ? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Kerr.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question,  Senator. 

The  Chairman.  Just  a  moment.    On  what  ground  ? 

Mr.  Kerr.  On  advice  of  counsel,  I  would  like  to  take  the  fifth 
amendment. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  taking  the  fifth  amendment  ? 

Mr.  Kerr.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  All  right ;  gentlemen,  you  can  snap  all  of  the  pic- 
tures you  want. 

Proceed. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  the  information  that  we  have,  Mr.  Kerr,  is  that 
local  450  was  chartei-ed  by  Joseph  Aiuppa  in  1935.  Could  you  tell 
us  anything  about  that  ? 

Mr.  Kerr.  No,  sir. 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 


12588  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Kerr.  I  decline  to  answer  that  on  advice  of  counsel. 

The  Chairman.  Just  a  moment.  The  advice  of  counsel  is  not  a 
sufficient  refusal. 

Mr.  Kerr.  On  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Prior  to  the  time  you  became  secretary-treasurer, 
Mr.  Kerr,  you  were  recording  secretary ''( 

Mr.  Kerr.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  period  of  time  were  you  recording  secretary  ? 

Mr.  Kerr.  I  don't  remember,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Were  you  recording  secretary  in  September  of  1940'? 

Mr.  Kerr.  I  cannot  answer  truthfully,  sir,  and  I  do  not  recall. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Well,  the  records  indicate  that  you  were  recording 
secretary  in  September  of  1940  and  that  Mr.  Aiuppa  received  an  hon- 
orary withdrawal  card  from  local  450  in  that  month.  Can  you  tell  us 
about  that  ? 

Mr.  Kerr.  Well,  it  happened,  sir,  the  name  did  not  mean  anything 
to  me,  and  I  do  not  I'ecall. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  do  not  recall  it  ? 

Mr.  Kerr.  No. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  know  John  Edward  Moore  ? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel. ) 

Mr.  Kerr.  I  decline  to  answ^er  that  question  on  the  ground  it  may 
tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  he  also  is  known  as  Claude  Maddox.  Did  you 
know  Claude  Maddox  ? 

jSIr.  Kerr.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question  on  the  ground  it  may 
tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  He  was  also  associated  with  local  450,  and  did  you 
hear  any  discussion  around  the  union  as  to  the  relationship  of  Claude 
Maddox  to  that  union,  local  450  ? 

Mr.  Kerr.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question  on  the  ground  it  may 
incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  I  would  like  to  ask  you  about  this  strike  of  the 
Howard  Johnson  restaurant  in  Niles,  111.,  in  May  or  June  of  1950. 
Could  you  tell  us  wluxt  part  you  played  in  that  ? 

( The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Kerr.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question,  sir,  on  the  ground  it 
may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  we  understand  that  the  check  of  $2,240  was 
handed  to  you  by  Mr.  Teitelbaum.  Could  you  tell  us  why  you  took 
a  check  of  this  amount  ? 

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

The  Chairman.  What  is  there  incriminating  about  people  joining 
a  union  and  paying  initiation  fees  and  dues? 
(The  w^itness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Kerr.  I  do  not  feel  I  am  in  a  position  to  give  the  answer  to 
that. 

Tlie  Chairman.  Do  you  know  the  answer? 
(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

ifr.  Kerr.  In  tlie  light  of  what  has  been  testified  here  now,  it  might 
conceivably  incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  It  may  be  if  it  is  not  legitimate.  I  thought  it  was 
perfectly  proper,  and  legal,  and  legitimate,  and  maybe  sometimes 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12589 

advisable  for  employees  to  join  a  union  and  to  pay  initiation  fees  and 
dues. 

But  it  seems  to  me  that  there  is  a  reflection  cast  upon  your  local, 
upon  the  way  you  operate  implying  possibly  there  is  something  illegal 
about  that,  and  something  improper.  Do  you  want  to  let  the  record 
stand  that  way  with  that  reflection  ? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Kerr.  I  believe,  yes,  sir ;  I  have  taken  the  fifth. 

The  Chairmax.  You  will  have  to  let  it  stand  that  way  ? 

Mr.  IvERit.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Could  you  tell  us  anything  about  the  violence  that 
has  been  testified  to  here,  Mr.  Kerr,  as  to  who  was  responsible  for  the 
violence  against  the  employees  and  the  property  of  the  Howard  John- 
son restaurant? 

Mr.  Kerr.  I  will  have  to  decline  to  answer  that  question  on  the 
ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  Did  the  union  order  it  done  ? 

Mr.  Kerr.  I  will  have  to  decline  to  answer  that.  Senator,  on  the 
ground  it  may  incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  If  you  said  "no"  there  could  not  be  any  incrimi- 
nation against  you  or  the  union  with  the  answer  ? 

Again,  do  you  want  to  let  the  record  stand  with  that  reflection? 

Mr.  Kerr.  I  liave  already  testified  to  that  effect,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  I  asked  you  if  you  wanted  to  let  the  record  stand 
with  that  reflection. 

Mr.  Kerr.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  All  right,  proceed. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Could  you  identify  this  Exhibit  No.  17  for  us,  Mr. 
Kerr,  and  tell  the  conmiittee  how  it  was  that  you  signed  those  40 
employees  up? 

( A  document  was  handed  to  the  witness.) 

^Ir.  Kerr.  I  decline  to  answer  on  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incrimi- 
nate me. 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  Why  weren't  the  employees  ever  consulted,  Mr. 
Kerr  ? 

Mr.  Kerr.  Sir  ? 

]\Ir.  Kennedy.  "\Miy  weren't  the  employees  ever  consulted? 

Mr.  Kerr.  Again  I  will  have  to  decline  to  answer  that. 

]\rr.  Kennedy,  Will  you  tell  us  anything  about  that  strike  what- 
soever, the  payment  of  the  money,  the  signing  up  of  tlie  employees,  or 
the  violence? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Kerr.  I  decline  to  testify  on  the  grounds  that  it  may  incrimi- 
nate me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Do  you  know  Mr.  Tietelbaum  ? 

Mr.  Kerr.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question  on  the  gi'ounds  it  may 
tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  is  all. 

The  Chairman.  Are  there  any  other  questions? 

Senator  Church.  No  questions. 


12590  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  now  associated  or  a  member  associated 
with  a  union  in  any  way  ? 
Mr.  Kerr.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  leave  the  union,  sever  your  union 
connections  ? 

Mr.  Kerr.  In  May,  May  15, 1953. 

The  Chairman.  So  5  years  have  elapsed  and  you  feel  now  if  you 
told  the  truth  about  this  matter  it  might  tend  to  incriminate  you ;  is 
that  right? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  IvERR.  I  have  already  answered  that,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  going  to  answer  this.  I  asked  you  if  you 
felt  that  if  you  told  the  truth  about  it,  it  would  tend  to  incriminate 
you? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  KJERR.  I  decline  to  answer  that,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair  asks  you  the  question :  Do  you  honestly 
believe  that  if  you  answered  these  questions  truthfully,  the  truth 
might  tend  to  incriminate  you  ? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel. ) 

Mr.  IvERR.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  All  right.     Proceed. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Chairman,  we  had  interviewed  Mr.  Kerr  before, 
and  he  had  admitted  that  the  check  for  $2,240  was  given  to  him  by  Mr. 
Tietelbaum ;  I  believe,  in  the  presence  of  Mr.  Kiscau.  That  is  where 
we  had  the  information.  He  was  being  called  because  of  his  partici- 
pation in  this  strike,  and  his  important  position  in  the  local,  and  his 
knowledge  about  this  money  being  paid,  and,  of  course,  because  of  the 
employees  being  signed  up. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  deny  the  statement  of  counsel  that  you  told 
the  investigators,  representatives  of  this  committee,  that  you  made 
these  statements  to  them  ? 

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

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

The  Chairman.  I  asked  you  if  you  denied  it. 

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

The  Chairman.  In  other  words,  if  what  you  told  them  was  true, 
it  might  tend  to  incriminate  you  if  you  admit  that  you  did  so,  now  ? 

Mr.  Kerr.  It  may  still  tend  to  incriminate  me.     I  decline  to  answer. 

Senator  Church.  What  are  you  doing  now  ? 

Mr.  Kerr.  I  work  with  handicapped  people  for  the  State  of  Illinois. 
I  might  preface  that  by  saying  I  think — I  used  to  work  for  them. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  presently  in  a  state  of  fear?  Have  you 
been  threatened  regarding  your  testimony  here  ? 

Mr.  Kerr.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  under  no  apprehension  of  any  personal 
violence  or  any  retaliation  against  you  ? 

Mr.  Kerr.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  you  are  doing  is  a  matter  of  your  own  con- 
sci*^nce  o'-  lock  of  conscience  about  what  you  have  done  in  the  past, 
is  that  right  ? 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN   THE    LABOR   FIELD  12591 

Mr.  Kerr.  Definitely  my  own  conscience. 

The  Chlvirman.  I  see. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  De  Paul.  Mr.  Chairman,  is  the  witness  excused?  May  he 
leave  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Yes. 

Mr.  De  Paul.  He  is  released  from  the  subpena,  then  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes ;  he  may  go  home. 

Mr.  De  Paul.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman, 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  tomorrow  will  have  to  meet  in 
another  room.  This  one  will  be  occupied  by  another  committee, 
the  committee  will  recess  until  10  o'clock  in  the  morning  and  we  will 
reconvene  in  room  357. 

("Whereupon,  at  4:  28  p.  m.,  the  hearing  was  recessed,  to  reconvene 
at  10  a.  m.  Wednesday,  July  9,  19,")8.  At  this  point  the  following 
members  were  present:  Senators McClellan  and  Church.) 


21243— 58— pt.  33 7 


INVESTIGATION  OF  IMPROPER  ACTIVITIES  IN  THE 
LABOR  OR  3IANAGEMENT  FIELD 


I 


wednesday,  july  9,  1958 

United  States  Senate, 
Select  Committee  on  Improper  Activities 

IN  THE  Labor  or  Management  Field, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

The  select  committee  met  at  10  a.  m.,  pursuant  to  Senate  Resolution 
74,  agreed  to  Januai^  30,  1957,  in  room  357,  Senate  Office  Building, 
Senator  John  L.  McClellan  (chairman  of  the  select  committee)  pre- 
siding. 

Present :  Senator  John  L.  McClellan,  Democrat,  Arkansas ;  Senator 
Sam  J.  Ervin,  Democrat,  North  Carolina;  Senator  Frank  Church, 
Democrat,  Idaho;  Senator  Barry  Goldwater,  Republican,  Arizona; 
Senator  Karl  E.  Mundt,  Republican,  South  Dakota ;  Senator  Carl  T. 
Curtis,  Republican,  Nebraska. 

Present:  Robert  F.  Kennedy,  chief  counsel;  John  J.  McGovern, 
assistant  counsel;  LaVerne  J.  Duffy,  investigator;  James  P.  Kelly, 
investigator;  James  Mundie,  investigator;  Ruth  Young  Watt,  chief 
clerk. 

The  Chair3ian.  The  committee  will  be  in  order. 

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

The  Chairman.  We  will  resume  the  hearings  as  previously  an- 
nounced.    Proceed,  Mr.  Kennedy,  to  call  the  next  witness. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Louis  Romano. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  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.  Romano.  I  do. 

TESTIMONY  OF  LOUIS  ROMANO 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  state  j'our  name,  and  your  place  of  resi- 
dence and  your  business  or  occupation  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  My  name  is  Louis  Romano.  I  reside  at  6513  San- 
tano  Street,  Coral  Gables,  Fla.     My  occupation  is  insurance  agent. 

The  Chairman.  Insurance  agent  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  That  is  right. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  waive  counsel,  Mr.  Romano  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  do. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you  very  much.     Proceed,  Mr.  Kennedy. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Romano,  could  you  give  us  a  little  bit  of  your 
background,  where  you  were  born,  and  where  you  came  from? 

12593 


12594  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  ^ 

Mr.  Romano.  I  am  going  to  decline  to  answer  the  question  because 
it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  IvENNEDY.  Even  where  you  were  born,  Mr.  Romano  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  KJENNEDY.  That  couldn't  incriminate  you.    Could  you  give  us 
the  date  of  your  birth  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  decline  to  answer  the  question. 

Mr.  Ejennedy.  Will  you  answer  or  tell  us  where  you  reside  at  the 
present  time,  Mr.  Romano  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  decline  to  answer  the  question. 

Mr.  Ejennedy.  Didn't  you  just  tell  us  that  you  resided  in  Florida  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  did  tell  you  that  once,  and  must  I  repeat  it  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Would  you  repeat  it  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  6513  Santono  Street,  Coral  Gables,  Fla. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  ^Vliere  did  you  reside  prior  to  that  time  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  132  Santalin,  Coral  Gables. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  When  did  you  reside  there  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  A  year  prior  to  that. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  When  was  that? 

Mr.  Romano.  1957. 

Mr.  EJENNEDY.  In  1957? 

Mr.  Romano.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Where  did  you  reside  prior  to  1957  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  43  Minoris,  Coral  Gables. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  long  did  you  reside  there  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  One  year. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  was  during  1956  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  KJENNEDY.  Where  did  you  reside  prior  to  that  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  61  Southeast  24th  Road,  Miami. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  For  how  long? 

Mr.  Romano.  Three  years. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  For  1  year  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  No,  three  years. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  would  be  1953  to  1956? 

Mr.  Romano.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Where  did  you  reside  prior  to  that  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  In  Chicago. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Whereabouts  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  735  Junior  Terrace. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  long  did  you  reside  at  that  address  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Thirteen  years. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Where  did  you  reside  prior  to  that  ?    That  would  be 
back  to  1940.   Where  did  you  reside  prior  to  1940  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  5000  Marine  Drive. 

Mr.  I^jiNNEDY.  Whereabouts  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Chicago. 

Mr.  IvENNEDY.  For  how  long  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Two  years. 
Mr.  Kennedy.  That  was  back  to  1938  ? 
Mr.  Romano.  I  don't  remember  the  years. 
Mr.  Kennedy.  Prior  to  1938,  where  did  you  reside? 
Mr.  Romano.  I  have  no  record,  and  I  can't  refer  to  those,  and  I 
don't  remember. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12595' 

Mr.  IvENXEDT.  Where  do  you  think  that  you  resided  prior  to  1938  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Prior  to  what  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Prior  to  1938,  where  did  you  reside  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  In  Chicago,  somewhere. 

Mr.  I^NNEDT.  You  don't  remember  where? 

Mr.  Romano.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  ever  live  any  place  other  than  Cliicago? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  was  born  and  raised  in  Chicago. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Thank  you.  "Wliat  was  the  date,  and  when  were  you 
bom  there  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Sixty-four  years  ago,  July  1. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Could  you  tell  us  where  you  went  to  school  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  don't  remember. 

Mr.  IvENNEDY.  Did  you  go  to  school  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Yes. 

Mr.  IvENNEDY.  You  dou't  remember  the  name  of  the  school  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  No. 

Mr.  IvENNEDY.  How  many  grades  did  you  finish  in  school  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Through  high  school. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  "Wliat  did  you  do  after  you  got  out  of  high  school  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  worked  for  a  printer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  For  what? 

Mr.  Romano.  A  printing  job,  running  errands  for  a  printing  shop. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  then  what,  how  long  did  you  do  that? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  was  a  boy  then,  about  14  years  old,  and  I  don't 
remember  how  long. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  did  you  do  when  you  were  17  or  18,  for  in- 
stance ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  don't  remember. 

]Mr.  Kennedy.  What  was  your  first  major  job  which  you  held? 
Wliat  was  the  first  job  you  held  on  a  permanent  basis  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  don't  remember. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  don't  remember  that  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  No. 

Mr.  IvENNEDY.  Could  you  tell  us  some  of  the  businesses  that  you; 
have  been  in  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  tliink  it  was  back  in  1918, 1  was  a  truck  driver,  and 
I  worked  for  Forker  Truck  Co.,  for  4  years  or  better.  I  worked  for 
John  Quirk,  and  drove  a  team  for  him  in  South  Water  Market. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  I  can't  hear  you  very  well.  Could  you  pull  those 
microphones  close  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  "\Aniich  ones? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Both  of  them. 

Mr.  Romano.  I  drove  a  team  for  the  express  companies,  in  Chi- 
cago. 

^Ir.  Kennedy.  Were  you  a  member  of  the  Teamsters  then  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  local  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  705. 

Mr.  I\j:nnedy.  Wlio  was  head  of  that  then  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  think  it  was  Mr.  Shay,  I  think  it  was. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Were  you  an  official  of  any  kind  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  was  a  steward  of  the  barn. 

Mr.  IvENNEDY.  How  loug  did  you  drive  then  ? 


12596  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Romano.  A  team,  you  mean  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Yes. 

Mr.  Romano.  About  10  years. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  did  you  do  after  that  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  drove  a  taxicab  for  Yellow  and  Checker. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Were  you  a  member  of  the  Teamsters  Union  then? 

Mr.  Romano.  Yes. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  local  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  The  same  one,  705,  IBT. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  they  have  jurisdiction  of  the  taxicab  drivers? 

Mr.  Romano.  Yes;  they  did. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  long  did  you  drive  a  taxicab  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  About  a  w^eek,  and  then  I  was  made  general  superin- 
tendent, road  superintendent. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Of  the  taxicab  company  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Of  the  Yellow  Cab  Co.  in  Chicago,  and  of  the  Checker 
Cab  Co.  in  Chicago. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  year  was  that  about? 

Mr.  Romano.  Well 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Approximately. 

Mr.  Romano.  Back  in  the  twenties,  and  I  don't  remember  when. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  long  did  you  stay  with  that  job  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  don't  remember  the  amount  of  years. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Approximately,  could  you  give  us  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Quite  a  few  years. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Do  you  remember  what  your  next  job  was  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Selling  automobiles  after  that. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  For  whom  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  For  Dearborn  Motors  of  Chicago,  and  Ferto  Motors 
of  Chicago. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  long  did  you  keep  that  position  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  did  that  for  a  couple  of  years,  I  think. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Were  you  a  member  of  any  union  then  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Still  a  member  of  the  Teamsters. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  705? 

Mr.  Romano.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  they  have  jurisdiction  of  those  employees  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  No,  sir ;  those  were  the  sales  people. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Were  you  an  officer  at  that  time  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Of  the  automobile  Teamsters;  no.  I  just  got  my 
book. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  j ust  had  your  book  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  did  you  do  after  you  were  a  salesman  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  went  to  work  as  an  organizer  and  business  agent  for 
the  Chicago  Bartender's  Union. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  When  Avas  that? 

Mr.  Romano.  In  1934, 1  think  it  was. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Who  liired  you  in  that  job  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Jolni  Stackenburg,  and  George  McLane.  One  was 
a  secretary-treasurer,  and  the  other  was  the  business  agent. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  long  did  you  stay  with  them  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  stayed  there  6  years, 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Up  to  1940,  or  1941,  about  ? 


I 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12597 

Mr.  Romano.  About  up  to  1940. 

yh\  Kennedy.  Then  you  resigned,  did  you  ? 

]\Ir.  Romano.  I  resigned ;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  IvENNEDY.  And  then  what  did  you  do  after  that  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Then  I  associated  Avith  a  haw  firm,  Teitelbaum  and 
Mihiick,  and  I  got  a  contract  from  them  doing  labor  relations  work, 
and  I  did  that  for  12  years. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Had  3'ou  known  Mr.  Teitelbaum  for  a  long  time  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  knew  him  a  couple  of  years  j)rior  to  that.  I  worked 
witli  him  on  settling  a  strike. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Had  he  been  representing  the  same  side  as  you  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  We  were  on  opposite  sides. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  were  with  the  union  ? 

IMr.  Romano.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  he  was  with  the  association  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  He  was  an  attorney  at  law. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Was  he  representing  any  particular  restaurant  at 
that  time? 

IMr.  Romano.  He  was  Carbonetti's  personal  counsel,  president  of 
the  Chicago  Restaurant  Association. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  he  himself  have  some  restaurants  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  He  had  a  chain  of  13, 1  believe. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Do  you  remember  the  names  of  those  restaurants  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  All  called  the  Triangle  Restaurants. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  know  Mr.  Milnick,  or  had  you  known  him  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Melnick  was  the  maiden  name  of  his  wife,  and  she 
was  also  an  attorney. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  This  Melnick  of  whom  Teitelbaum  was  a  partner, 
wliat  was  his  first  name  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Esther. 

Mr.  IvENNEDY.  Wliat  is  that? 

Mr.  Romano.  Esther. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  was  the  girl,  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  That  was  his  wife. 

Mr,  Kennedy.  Was  there  a  man  IVIelnick  in  it  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Yes,  there  was ;  and  I  forget  his  name,  and  he  was  an 
uncle  of  the  girl,  and  he  was  associated  with  the  law  firm,  JNIelnick, 
and  there  was  a  Max  List,  another  attorney  associated  with  the  firm. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  was  your  position  with  the  union  at  the  time 
that  you  resigned  ? 

!Mr.  Romano.  I  was  president  of  the  Bartender's  Union. 

Mr.  Ivennedy.  Local  what? 

Mr.  Romano.  Local  278. 

Mr,  Kennedy.  What  other  positions  had  you  held  with  local  278  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  started  as  organizer  and  business  agent. 

IVIr,  Kennedy.  And  then  you  were  elected  as  president,  were  you 
appointed  ? 

Air.  Romano.  Yes,  sir,  in  the  process  of  being  active,  I  was  elected 
president  2i/2  years  prior  to  my  resigning, 

Mr,  Kennedy.  How  many  members  of  the  union  were  there? 

Mr.  Romano.  Well,  there  were  4,200  when  I  left,  and  it  started 
with  about  750. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  have  any  opposition  when  you  ran  for 
president  or  was  it  unanimous  ? 


12598  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Romano.  I  was  imanimously  elected. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Everybody  wanted  you  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  IvENNEDY.  Then  you  went  to  work  with  Mr.  Teitelbaum. 
What  kind  of  work  did  you  do  for  him  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Labor  relations  work,  and  anything  that  pertained  to 
labor,  and  we  counseled,  and  we  negotiated  contracts  together. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  and  Mr.  Teitelbaum  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Yes. 

Mr.  KJENNEDY.  How  long  did  you  hold  that  job  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Twelve  years. 

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

Mr.  Ivennedy.  Then  you  resigned,  or  were  fired,  or  what  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  The  job  ran  out.  Teitelbaum's  contract  expired 
and  my  job  expired  with  it,  and  contract,  too. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  much  money  were  you  making  at  that  time? 

Mr.  Romano.  When  it  expired  I  was  making  $18,000,  yes. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  From  the  restaurant  association  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  From  the  law  firm. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  got  a  check  from  the  law  firm  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  got  checks  and  I  got  cash. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  got  paid  both  ways,  did  you  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  also  get  expenses  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Just  the  $18,000  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Then  what  did  you  do  after  that,  in  1953  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Well,  I  went  to  Florida,  semiretired. 

Mr.  I^NNEDY.  Did  you  have  any  employment  at  all?  Have  you 
had  any  employment  since  1953  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  With  2  or  3  different  insurance  companies  in  Flor- 
ida. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  have  you  been  living  on  since  then  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  My  savings. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Your  savings  ?  Is  that  the  money  you  saved  while 
you  were  with  the  restaurant  association  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  And  my  64  years. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  put  all  that  money  in  a  bank,  did  you,  some- 
where ?     Excuse  me  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  am  going  to  decline  to  answer  the  question. 

The  Chairman.  On  what  ground  ?     Let's  make  a  record  of  it. 

Mr.  Romano.  You  might  use  it,  so  it  may  tend  to  incriminate 
me. 

The  Chairman.  In  other  words,  if  you  told  whether  you  put  your 
money  into  a  bank,  it  might  tend  to  incriminate  you:  is  that  your 
position? 

Mr.  Romano.  That  is  right. 

The  Chairman.  It  would  not  incriminate  you,  would  it,  if  you  did 
not  put  your  money  into  a  bank  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  think  it  is  personal.  If  I  have  done  anything 
wrong,  there  is  enough  law-enforcing  agencies  to  take  care  of  me. 

The  Chairman.  I  beg  your  pardon  ? 


IJVIPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12599 

Mr.  Romano.  I  said  if  I  did  anything  wrong,  there  are  enough 
law-enforcing  agencies  to  take  care  of  me.     I  have  nothing  to  hide. 

The  Chaikivian.  I  didn't  assume  you  did. 

Mr.  Romano.  Then  it  is  my  personal  business.  I  don't  have  to 
reveal  it.     There  is  no  law  that  says  that  I  do. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  just  a  question  of  whether  you  want  to  co- 
operate with  the  committee. 

Mr.  Romano.  I  will  cooperate  to  the  extent  my  conscience  will  let 
me. 

The  Cha-irman.  The  best  your  conscience  will  let  you  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  I  hope  your  conscience  will  let  you,  and  you 
will  be  able  to  fully  cooperate. 

Proceed,  Mr.  Kennedy. 

Mr.  IvENNEDY.  Have  you  ever  been  arrested,  Mr.  Romano? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  decline  to  answer  the  question  on  the  same  grounds. 

The  Chairman.  On  what  ground  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  It  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  IvENNEDY.  Prior  to  the  time  that  you  went  with  the  union, 
had  you  ever  been  arrested?     Would  you  tell  us  about  that? 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Romano,  you  and  I  had  a  talk  down  in  the  office 
prior  to  your  coming  up  here  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Didn't  I  ask  you  that  question  then  ? 

Mr,  Romano.  I  don't  remember. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  don't  remember  that,  a  half  hour  ago?  If  I 
tell  you  that  I  did  ask  you  the  question  and  that  you  replied  that 
you  had  been  arrested  about  a  dozen  times,  would  that  refresh  your 
recollection? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  don't  remember. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  don't  remember  that? 

Mr.  Romano.  No. 

The  Chairman.  You  mean  you  don't  remember  a  conversation  you 
may  have  had  within  the  last  hour? 

Mr.  Romano.  Well,  he  had  me  all  excited  by  going  into  my  personal 
business.     I  did  not  know  what  he  was  talking  about. 

The  Chairman.  It  may  be  your  personal  business,  but  if  you  were 
arrested  and  convicted,  it  would  also  be  a  public  record  and  would 
be  public  business. 

Mr.  Romano.  And  personal. 

The  Chairman.  Yes ;  I  suppose  it  could  be  said  that  anyone  who 
commits  a  crime,  while  committing  it  is  tending  to  what  he  calls  his 
personal  business.     It  also  becomes  a  matter  of  public  interest. 

Mr.  Romano.  Right. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed. 

Mr,  Kennedy,  You  don't  remember  that  conversation  at  all? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  don't  remember. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  then  you  said  you  had  been  arrested  about  a 
dozen  times.  You  were  asked  what  you  had  been  arrested  for.  Do 
you  remember  that? 

Mr.  Romano.  No. 


12600  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  said  "I  have  been  arrested  a  dozen  times  for 
playing  hooky."     You  don't  remember  saying  that  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  don't  remember. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  don't  remember  that  at  all  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  No, 

Mr,  Kennedy.  You  don't  remember  skipping  school  and  being  ar- 
rested for  playing  hooky  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  don't  remember. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  took  place  just  about  an  hour  ago.  You  don't 
remember  that  ? 

Mr.  Romano,  Do  you  remember  getting  me  all  excited  ?  Don't  you 
remember  that  ?     You  told  me  to  tell  the  truth. 

The  CiiAiKMAN.  Are  you  excited  now  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  asked  you  why  don't  you  thrive  on  the  trutli  instead 
of  a  lot  of  newspaper  j^ublicity.  Didn't  I  ask  you  that?  We  were 
all  excited,  weren't  we?  How  do  you  expect  me  to  remember  any- 
thing during  an  excitable  conversation  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  I  say  I  remember  that,  now,  do  you  remember  tell- 
ing me  you  had  been  arrested  a  dozen  times  for  playing  hooky  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  don't  remember  saying  it. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  can't  remember  that  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  No. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  While  you  were  with  the  Restaurant  Association, 
would  you  tell  us  where  your  bank  accounts  were  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  was  not  with  no  Restaurant  Association. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Wlien  you  were  with  Mr.  Teitelbaum. 

Mr,  Romano.  I  decline  to  answer  the  question  on  the  grounds  it 
may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy,  Were  you  doing  any  work  for  the  Restaurant  Asso- 
ciation while  you  were  with  Mr.  Teitelbaum  ? 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  Would  you  tell  us  what  kind  of  work  you  were  do- 
ing for  the  Restaurant  Association  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Play  it  in  another  pitch.  I  can't  sing  that  same 
tune.     I  decline  to  answer  the  question  on  the  grounds 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Would  you  say  that  a  little  louder?  I  could  not 
hear  the  first  part  of  it. 

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

Mr,  Kennedy,  Just  what  kind  of  work  were  j^ou  doing  at  that  time, 
Mr.  Romano? 

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

Senator  Curtis.  Mr.  Chairman? 

The  Chairman,  Senator  Curtis. 

Senator  Curtis.  Mr.  Romano,  you  said  that  you  Avere  in  labor  rela- 
tions work,  working  for  the  Teitelbaum  law  firm.  Did  you  take  part 
in  getting  some  strikes  settled  while  you  worked  there? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  took  part  in  the  office  work. 

Senator  Curtis,  Were  a  number  of  strikes  settled  ? 

Mr.  Romano,  There  were. 

Senator  Curtis,  How  would  you  go  about  getting  the  parties  to- 
gether to  settle  them  ? 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  j.2601 

Mr.  Romano.  The  first  thing  Ave  woiikl  ask  the  iniion  if  they  repre- 
sented the  people,  and  what  people  they  represented,  to  offer  their 
names.  If  they  represented  a  majority  of  the  people,  we  negotiated 
with  them. 

Senator  Curtis.  Is  it  true  that  sometimes  you  caused  employers  to 
put  certain  of  their  employees  into  the  union  as  a  matter  of  settlement? 

Mr.  EoMANO.  Not  to  my  knowledge.  I  wouldn't  tolerate  any  of 
that  stuff. 

Senator  Curtis.  So  far  as  you  know,  there  was  never  any  settlement 
in  any  case  where  management  would  say,  "Well,  we  will  yield  to 
your  demand  to  put  in  12  employees  into  the  union  and  the  money  will 
be  sent  over  there  and  the  names  of  the  employees,''  and  they  would  not 
know  anything  about  it? 

^Ir.  Romano.  I  never  negotiated  that  type  of  a  contract.  The  only 
time  we  made  a  concession,  I  would  say,  was  when  they  had  the 
majority  of  the  people,  and  we  granted  the  employer  time  to  replace 
the  nonunion  people  with  union  people. 

Senator  Cirtis.  I  am  not  talking  about  writing  a  contract.  I  am 
talking  about  settling  strikes,  where  the  union  has  picket  lines  out 
in  front  of  a  place  that  they  did  not  have  any  members  in  at  all. 

Did  you  participate  in  some  of  those  settlements? 

Mr.  Romano.  Only  the  office  work. 

Senator  Curtis.  Only  the  office  work? 

Mr.  Romano.  That  is  right.  I  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  negotia- 
tion between  the  employer  and  the  union.    The  law  firm  did  that. 

Senator  Curtis.  You  were  quite  familiar  with  what  went  on  in  the 
office  ^ 

Mr.  Romano.  Sir  ? 

Senator  Curtis.  You  were  quite  familiar  with  what  went  on  in 
the  office  ^ 

Mr.  Romano.  Yes. 

Senator  Curtis.  AYas  money  that  came  from  management  ever  paid 
to  unions  or  union  officials  during  the  course  of  these  settlements  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  That  part  didn't  come  under  my  knowledge  at  all.  I 
had  nothing  to  do  with  that. 

Senator  Curtis.  You  just  told  me  that  you  worked  in  the  office,  and 
you  were  familiar  with  what  went  on  there. 

Mr.  Romano.  Only  with  what  pertained  to  negotiating  a  contract 
or  settling  a  strike.  If  there  was  any  moneys  paid,  the  legal  end  of  it 
handled  that.    I  know  nothing  about  it. 

Senator  Curtis.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  I^JENNEDY.  So  that  we  get  it  completely  understood,  you  say 
that  you  never  had  anythmg  to  do  with  making  arrangements  to  bring 
in  just  a  certain  number  of  employees  and  making  them  members  of 
the  union  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Xo.  Just  with  Teitelbaiim.  Whatever  I  discussed 
with  labor-management 

Mr.  IvENNEDY.  I  am  asking  whether  you  personally  had  any  knowl- 
edge, information,  or  participated  yourself  in  bringing  in  a  certain 
number  of  employees  and  arbitrarily  making  them  members  of  the 
union. 

Mr.  Romano.  Xo,  sir;  I  never  had  anything  to  do  with  that. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  never  had  anj'thing  to  do  with  that.  Did  you 
have  anything  to  do  with  the  Inglenook  Restaurant  ? 


12602  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Romano.  No. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  never  had  any  conversations  or  discussions 
about  that  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  KJENNEDT.  Do  you  know  Mr.  Les  Johnson  of  the  Inglenook 
Restaurant  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  No  ;  I  don't. 

Mr.  Kj^nnedy.  You  never  had  any  conversations  with  him  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Do  you  know  Mr.  Frank  Nitti  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  refuse  to  answer  the  question  on  the  grounds  it  may 
tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  KJENNEDY.  We  have  information  that  you  did  know  Frank 
Nitti  and  that  you  were  placed  in  local  278  by  him.    Is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Romano.  No,  sir ;  it  is  not  correct. 

Mr.  I^nnedy.  Did  you  know  Frank  Nitti  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  No  ;  I  did  not. 

Mr.  KJENNEDY.  You  never  met  him  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Never  met  him. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  never  discussed  it  with  him  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  How  could  I  discuss  it  with  him  ?    I  didn't  know  him. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Why  did  you  take  the  fifth  amendment  on  knowing 
Frank  Nitti? 

Mr.  Romano.  Because  I  don't  know  what  you  are  liable  to  twist 
and  connect  me  up  with. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  I  am  just  asking  you  questions. 

Mr.  Romano.  Not  much. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Romano,  I  am  just  asking  you  questions.  All 
we  want  are  the  honest  answers.     Did  you  know  Frank  Nitti  I 

Mr.  Romano.  No. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  know  Murray  "The  Camel"  Humphreys? 

Mr.  Romano.  No. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  never  met  him  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  No. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Never  knew  him  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  No. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Louis  Campagna  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  never  met  him  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Paul  "The  Waiter"  Ricca  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  No. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Frederick  Evans  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  knew  him  because  he  lived  in  the  same  building  as 
I  lived  in. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  never  had  any  dealings  with  him  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  None  whatsoever. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  ever  make  an  arrangement  Avith  him  that 
he  would  handle  all  the  loans  to  the  bartenders  in  the  Chicago  area  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Do  you  know  Tony  Arccardo  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  ever  meet  him  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  No,  sir. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    EST    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12603 

Mr.  Kexxedt.  Did  you  ever  talk  to  him  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Were  you  ever  arrested  with  him  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Not  to  my  knowledge,  no,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  e^er  go  to  the  Chicago  Police  Depart- 
ment and  ask  that  a  picture  of  you  and  Tony  Arccardo  be  removed 
from  the  files  i 

Mr.  Romano.  That  is  a  procedure  that  is  followed 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Just  answer  the  question. 

]\Ir.  Romano.  I  believe  I  did,  yes. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Would  you  explain  that  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  don't  know  if  it  was  with  him  or  with  anybody  else. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Explain  that  to  the  committee. 

Mr.  Romano.  I  don't  know  of  any  pictures. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  did  you  do'^ 

Mr.  Romano.  I  got  nothing  to  do  with  the  way  the  police  depart- 
ment runs  the  police  department.  They  will  put  90  people  up  against 
the  wall  and  take  their  picture  and  it  will  be  a  group  picture.  A^^iat 
business  have  they  got  doing  that  for  display  for  your  benefit  for 
what  you  are  doing  now  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  go  to  the  police  department  and  make  such 
a  request  ? 

*Mr.  Romano.  I  did. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  were  the  circumstances? 

Mr.  Romano.  Tlie  circumstances  were  I  got  my  picture  out  of  there. 
It  didn't  belong  there.    The  arrest  was  false. 

jNIr.  Kennedy.  Who  was  your  picture  with  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  don't  know. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Don't  you  know  your  picture  was  with  Tony  Arc- 
cardo at  the  time  ? 

IMr.  Romano.  Xo,  I  don't  know. 

jNIr.  Kennedy.  Don't  you  know  at  this  time  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  You  are  telling  me.    I  know  it  now. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Didn't  you  know  before  this  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  No. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  never  knew  that  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  No. 

Senator  Curtis.  Mr.  Romano,  when  were  you  last  a  member  of  the 
Teamsters  Union,  about  when  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  don't  remember.  I  would  have  to  look  it  up  to  tell 
you. 

Senator  Curtis.  Would  it  be  in  the  1930's,  the  1940's,  or  wlien? 

IVIr.  Romano.  It  was  back  from  1917  or  1915  all  the  way  up  to  the 
1930's. 

Senator  Curtis.  Did  you  know  any  officials  in  the  Teamsters  Union, 
any  of  the  international  officials? 

Mr.  Romano.  Yes.  I  knew  Ray  Schlesinger  of  the  Beer  Drivers. 
A  lot  of  them  are  deceased  now.  Shea  is  deceased.  Tom  Neery  is 
deceased. 

Senator  Curtis.  Did  you  ever  know  the  international  president  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Of  a  Cfhicago  local  ? 

Senator  Curtis.  No,  of  the  whole  country. 

Mr.  Romano.  I  knew  Dan  Tobin. 


12604  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Senator  Curtis.  Did  you  know  any  of  the  men  that  followed  Dan 
Tobin? 

Mr.  EoMANo.  No,  I  just  heard  of  them.  I  don't  know.  I  didn't 
know  any  of  them. 

Senator  Curtis.  But  you  did  know  Dan  Tobin  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Right. 

Senator  Curtis.  You  knew  most  of  the  Teamsters  officials  in 
'Chicago  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  still  know  a  lot  of  them  now.  I  know  Sandy 
O'Brien,  with  the  Meat  Drivers. 

Senator  Curtis.  Do  you  know  any  of  the  Teamster  Union  officials 
or  agents  in  St.  Louis  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  No,  I  don't. 

Senator  Curtis.  Information  has  come  to  this  committee  that  the 
Chicago  Crime  Commission  had  a  list  of  people  alleged  by  them  to  be 
members  of  the  Al  Capone  syndicate  back  in  1944,  and  it  listed  a 
Louis  Romano,  of  735  Junior  Terrace,  Chicago.    Is  that  you? 

Mr.  Romano.  That  is  me. 

Senator  Curtis.  That  is  correct  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  What  is  correct  ?    I  did  not  understand  the  question. 

Senator  Curtis.  The  listing  by  the  Chicago  Crime  Commission. 
Were  you  a  part  of  the  Capone  syndicate  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  No,  sir.  * 

Senator  Curtis.  You  didn't  know  any  of  the  men  connected  with  it? 

Mr.  Romano.  Who  was  the  crime  commissioner?     Mr.  Peterson? 

Senator  Curtis.  Yes. 

Mr.  Romano.  Yes,  I  sat  with  Mr.  Peterson  at  one  of  the  Kiwanis 
Club  meetings,  several  times.    Mr.  Peterson  ain't  no  angel. 

Senator  Curtis.  How  did  your  name  get  on  that  list  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Ask  Peterson.   He  gave  it  to  you. 

Senator  Curtis.  You  weren't  a  member  of  the  Capone  syndicate  at 
all? 

Mr.  Romano.  Definitely  not.  I  was  making  my  living  doing  labor- 
relations  work  with  a  law  firm  at  that  time,  1944. 

Senator  Curtis.  No,  I  am  talking  about  any  time. 

Mr.  Romano.  At  no  time. 

Senator  Curtis.  Did  you  ever  know  any  of  the  men  that  were  in 
the  Capone  syndicate  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  How  should  I  know  ?    I  had  nothing  to  do  with  them. 

Senator  Curtis.  When  did  you  first  learn  that  the  crime  com- 
mission listed  you  as  a  member  of  the  Capone  syndicate  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Right  now.    You  are  telling  me. 

Senator  Curtis.  That  is  the  first  you  ever  heard  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  The  first  I  ever  heard  of  it. 

Senator  Curtis.  If  I  were  you,  I  Avould  sue  them. 

Mr.  Romano.  Don't  worry,  I  am  going  to  do  a  lot  of  suing  when  I 
get  back  to  that  burg. 

Senator  Curtis.  If  they  spelled  your  name  right,  had  the  correct 
address,  accused  you  of  being  a  member  of  the  Capone  syndicate 

Mr.  Romano.  Can  I  help  it  if  that  guy  likes  the  front  page,  that  guy 
Peterson  ? 

Senator  Curtis.  And,  being  a  member  of  the  Capone  syndicate,  I 
think  you  have  a  good  case. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12605 

Mr.  RoMAXO.  I  got  a  good  case  against  a  lot  of  the  newspapers,  too. 

Senator  Curtis.  Well,  I  would  be  interested  in  you.    Proceed. 

Mr.  Romano.  Give  me  counsel  and  I  will  start  tomorrow. 

Senator  Curtis.  I  can't  do  that. 

Mr.  Romano.  You  can't  do  it. 

IMr.  Kennedy.  Have  you  ever  shot  anybody  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Xo,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  "Were  you  arrested  for  shooting  anyone  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  refuse  to  answer  the  question  on  the  ground  it  may 
tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  According  to  the  records  that  we  have,  on  April  5, 
1922,  you  shot  Abe  Rubin  four  times,  and  he  was  killed.  Is  that 
correct  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Were  you  involved  in  that  at  all  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  refuse  to  answer  on  the  ground  it  may  tend  to 
incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And,  also,  you  shot  Isadore  Suporr  and  Charles 
Hadesman. 

Mr.  Romano.  Why  don't  you  go  and  dig  up  all  the  dead  ones  out  in 
the  graveyard  and  ask  me  if  I  shot  them,  you  Chinaman? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  I  am  just  asking  you  if  you  shot  these. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  have  counsel.  Let  the  Chair  admonish 
you  now  to  answer  the  questions  respectfully. 

]Mr.  Romano.  Yes  or  or  no ;  all  right ;  ask  the  questions. 

The  Chairman.  Show  proper  respect  for  your  Government. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Were  you  arrested  in  connection  with  shooting  Abe 
Rubin? 

Mr.  Romano.  No. 

JSIi".  Kennedy.  Were  you  arrested  in  connection  with  shooting 
Charles  Hadesman  ? 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  Were  you  arrested  in  connection  witli  the  shooting  of 
Isadore  Suporr  ? 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  was  in  1922.  Were  you,  in  fact,  indicted  for 
the  shooting  of  these  individuals  ? 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  stated  that  you  were  not  arrested  in  connection 
with  the  shooting  of  Abe  Rubin,  and,  in  fact,  we  have  information  that 
you  were  indicted  for  that  murder. 

Mr.  Romano.  I  decline  to  answer  your  question  on  the  ground  it 
may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Romano,  I  remind  you  that  you  are  under  oath. 

]\Ir.  Romano.  I  am. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  According  to  our  records,  it  was  indictm.rnt  No. 
28308.     Not  only  were  you  arrested,  but  you  Avere  indicted. 

Mr.  Romano.  I  decline  to  answer  your  question  on  the  ground  it 
may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

]\Ir.  Kennedy.  That  was  for  murder.  You  were  indicted  also  for 
.■assault  with  intent  to  murder  Charles  Hadesman.     Is  that  rijjht? 


12606  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Romano.  I  decline  to  answer  your  question. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Then,  later  on,  in  1933,  arrested  for  the  fatal  shoot- 
mg  of  Albert  Lucenti ;  is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  decline  to  answer  your  question  on  the  ground  it 
may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  know  George  Scalise  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  decline  to  answer  your  question  on  the  ground  it 
may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  have  already  said,  in  answer  to  Senator  Curtis, 
that  3'ou  did  not  know  any  members  of  the  Al  Capone  syndicate. 
Did  you  know  George  Scalise  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  did  not  know  George  Scalise. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  never  met  George  Scalise  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  No. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Kelly  has  already  been  sworn,  Mr.  Chairman. 
Could  I  ask  him  a  question  ? 

TESTIMONY  OF  JAMES  P.  KELLY— Eesumed 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  interview  Mr.  Romano  in  Florida  ? 

Mr.  Kelly.  Yes ;  I  clid. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  ask  him  at  that  time  if  he  knew  George 
Scalise? 

Mr.  Kelly.  Yes. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  did  he  say  ? 

Mr.  Kelly.  He  said  he  had  seen  George  Scalise  in  Chicago  one  time 
in  the  mid-1930's.  I  asked  him  if  he  had  known  Scalise  to  be  con- 
nected with  any  labor  unions,  and  he  said  he  didn't  recall,  but  he 
thought  he  saw  him  at  a  labor  meeting. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  But  he  didn't  indicate  that  he  knew,  but  just  said 
that  he  saw  him  ? 

Mr.  Kelly.  He  just  said  he  saAV  him  there. 

TESTIMONY  OF  LOUIS  EOMANO— Resumed 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  did  you  know  Fred  Evans  was  connected  with 
the  Al  Capone  syndicate  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  No  ;  I  did  not. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  But  you  know  Fred  Evans  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  lived  in  the  same  building  with  him. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Well,  he  is  also  listed.  Did  you  have  any  business 
dealings  with  him  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  None  whatsoever. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  the  master  in  chnncery  on  February  13,  1941, 
stated  that  he  was  convinced  that  the  Al  Capone  gang  in  Chicago  was 
attempting  to  take  over  this  Bartender's  Union  and  was  attempting 
to  use  you  for  that  purpose.    Do  you  deny  that  was  true? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  certainly  do. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Do  you  know  Sid  Poritsky  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  know  him  now ;  yes. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  get  into  an  altercation  with  Sid  Poritsky 
in  Florida  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Yes,  sir ;  I  did. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  was  that  about  ? 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IX    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12607 

Mr.  Romano.  AYe  had  a  little  figlit. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  About  what  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Somebody  ran  by  my  car,  and  he  was  chasing  some- 
body, and  lie  didn't  see  liini  go  past  my  car,  and  he  thought  I  was  that 
person,  and  so  he  grabbed  me  by  the  neck,  and  he  said,  "You  are  under 
arrest.  You  are  a  shoplifter,"  and  I  said,  "Take  your  hands  off  me; 
you  don't  know  what  you  are  talking  about."  So,  he  tried  to  drag  me 
and  punch  me  and  push  me,  and  we  wound  up  in  a  fight. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  iVnd  you  were  the  wrong  man  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  Avas  the  wrong  man. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  he  apologize  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  He  apologized,  and  it  is  all  over  with. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  he  give  you  a  written  apology  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Ivennedy.  You  never  apologized  to  him  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Did  I  apologize  to  him  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Pie  apologized  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  He  apologized  to  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Pie  had  the  wrong  man  as  the  individual  who  was 
shoplifting  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Psn't  it  a  fact  that  you  gave  him  $500  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  P  didn't  pay  him  nothing,  and  1  know  nothing  about 
any  money. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Chairman,  we  have  information  quite  to  the 
contrary  as  to  how  he  is  testifjdng,  including  this  matter  about  Sid 
Poritsky.  Pt  is  a  matter  that  is  not  directly  involved  with  labor, 
but  it  is  a  matter  going  to  the  veracity  of  the  witness  and  the  answers 
that  he  is  giving  to  the  questions  that  are  being  asked  of  him  by  the 
committee. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  have  this  struggle  with  him  ? 

jNIr.  Romano.  Here  about  2  months  ago,  P  believe,  or  3  months  ago. 

The  Chairman.  About  3  months  ago  ? 

IVIr.  Romano.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  P  hand  you  here  a  cashier's  check  in  the  amount  of 
$500  on  the  Coral  Gables  First  National  Bank,  payable  to  the  order 
of  Pucci,  and  P  present  this  check  to  you  and  ask  you  to  examine  it  and 
state  if  you  identify  it. 

(A  document  was  handed  to  the  witness.) 

Mr.  Romano.  P  never  saw  the  check  before. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  purchase  that  cashier's  check? 

Mr.  Romano.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  write  your  name  on  that  pad,  and  send  it 
up  to  me,  please,  sir? 

(The  witness  wrote  his  name.) 

(The  document  was  handed  to  the  chairman.) 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you  very  much.  This  check  may  be  made 
exhibit  No.  18. 

(Document  referred  to  was  marked  "Exhibit  No.  18"  for  identifi- 
cation, and  will  be  found  in  the  appendix  on  p.  12858.) 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  married  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Would  you  recognize  your  wife's  signature? 

21243— 5S—pt.  33 8 


12608  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Romano.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  I  present  you  application  liere  for  exchange  in  the 
amount  of  $500,  dated  March  25,  1958,  and  I  ask  you  to  examine  the 
signature  on  it,  as  the  applicant,  and  state  if  you  identify  it. 

(A  document  was  handed  to  the  witness.) 

Mr.  Romano.  I  think  that  is  her  signature. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  her  signature  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  I  will  ask  you  to  examine  now  the  check,  and  this 
application  may  be  made  exhibit  No.  18-A. 

(Document  referred  to  was  marked  "Exhibit  No.  18-A"  for  identi- 
fication, and  will  be  found  in  the  appendix  on  p.  12859.) 

The  Chairman.  I  will  ask  you  to  examine  the  check  and  the  appli- 
cation, and  see  if  they  are  not  dated  the  same  date. 

(Documents  were  handed  to  the  witness.) 

Mr.  Romano.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  They  are  the  same  date  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  After  you  have  examined  the  signature,  I  will  ask 
you  to  examine  the  endorsement  on  the  reverse  side  and  read  that 
endorsement. 

Mr.  Romano.  Yes ;  I  did. 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  read  it  out  loud,  please  ? 

Mr.  Romano  [reading] : 

Pay  to  the  order  of  Sid  Poritsky,  as  full  settlement  for  damages  re  Louis 
Romano. 

Gerald  R.  Pucci. 

Tlie  Chairman.  Do  you  have  any  explanation  of  that? 

Mr.  Romano.  It  is  Sidney  Poritsky. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  have  any  explanation  of  that  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  No;  I  haven't. 

The  Chairman.  It  seems  that  he  got  $500  in  full  settlement. 

Mr.  Romano.  He  didn't  get  it  from  me,  and  I  didn't  give  it  to 
him. 

The  Chairman.  You  knew  about  it,  of  course  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  know  about  it  now. 

The  Chairman.  You  knew  about  it  then,  didn't  you  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Not  then ;  no. 

The  Chairman.  "VYlien  did  you  first  hear  about  it  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  don't  remember ;  about  a  month  later. 

The  Chairman.  About  a  month  after  it  happened  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  So,  you  do  know  that  he  was  paid  $500  in  full 
settlement  of  damages  you  had  caused  him  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  knew  that? 

Mr.  Romano.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  You  knew  it  when  we  first  started  to  interrogate 
you  about  it,  didn't  you  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  yet  you  denied  that  it  had  occurred. 

Mr.  Romano.  I  didn't  deny  it  occurred,  and  I  said  we  had  a  fight. 

The  Chairman.  I  know,  but  you  were  asked  if  you  didn't  pay  him 
damages. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IX    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12609 

Mr.  Romano.  I  didn't  settle  with  him.  I  woukhrt  give  him  a  lead 
nickel,  and  he  wasn't  entitled  to  it. 

The  Chairman.  He  was  settled  with  by  your  wife;  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Romano.  She  wanted  it  settled. 

The  Celvirman.  And  to  your  knowledge  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  was  in  the  right. 

The  Chairman.  You  knew  she  was  handling  it  for  you,  didn't  you  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  ^Vhat  is  that  ? 

The  Chairman.  You  knew  she  was  handling  it  for  you  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  didn't  Imow  she  was  handling  it. 

The  Chairman.  You  sent  her  to  the  bank  to  get  the  money  and  take 
care  of  it,  didn't  you  ? 

Mr.  Romano,  I  did  nothing  of  the  kind. 

The  Chairman.  Don't  you  know  she  did  it  with  your  approval  and 
under  j'our  direction  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  She  didn't  do  it  with  my  approval. 

The  Chairman.  I  read  in  the  record  here  an  affidavit,  pertinent 
jxirts  of  it,  and  it  may  be  printed  in  full  in  the  record  at  this  point. 
The  affidavit  is  from  Sid  Poritsl^,  and  it  is  dated  the  26th  day  of 
June  1958. 

(The  affidavit  is  as  follows :) 

I,  Sid  Poritsky,  who  resides  at  6510  Southwest  13th  Street,  South  Miami,  Fla., 
freely  and  voluntarily  make  the  following  statement  to  Ralph  W.  Mills,  who  has 
identified  himself  to  me  as  a  member  of  the  staff  of  the  United  States  Senate 
Select  Committee  on  Improper  Activities  in  the  Labor-Management  Field.  No 
threats,  force,  or  duress  has  been  used  to  induce  me  to  make  this  statement, 
nor  have  I  received  any  promise  of  immunity  from  any  consequences  which  may 
result  from  submission  of  this  statement  to  the  aforementioned  Senate  select 
•committee : 

I  am  employed  as  a  security  guard  by  Roland  Bayles,  of  5024  Northwest 
Seventh  Avenue,  Miami,  Fla. 

On  March  13,  1958,  I  was  working  at  the  Stevens  Market  in  South  Miami  Fla. 
I  was  maintaining  surveillance  from  a  secret  vantage  point  in  the  market  for 
the  purpose  of  observing  shoplifters. 

I  observed  a  person  who  was  later  identified  as  Louis  Romano  of  6513  Santona 
Street,  Coral  Gables,  Fla.,  take  two  reels  of  fishing  line  from  one  of  the  shelves 
and  place  them  in  tlie  pocket  of  the  jacket  he  was  wearing.  I  kept  him  under 
surveillance  until  he  checked  out  at  the  cashier's  counter,  at  which  time  I  went 
down  and  asked  the  cashier  if  this  person  had  paid  for  the  fishing  line.  She 
informed  me  that  he  had  not.  I  then  followed  him  out  to  the  parking  lot.  where 
I  observed  him  taking  the  two  reels  of  fishing  line  from  his  pocket  and  placing 
them  in  the  open  trunk  of  a  1956  Chevrolet  sedan. 

I  approached  this  person  and  identified  myself  as  the  security  officer  for  Stevens 
Market.  I  said  to  liim,  "Did  you  pay  for  that  fishing  line?"  He  said  to  me, 
"Are  you  accusing  me  of  stealing  this  line?"  I  told  him  that  he  could  call  it 
whatever  he  wanted  to,  but  that  he  had  not  paid  for  the  fishing  line  and  would 
have  to  return  to  the  market  with  me.  At  this  point  he  struck  me  on  the  face  with 
his  hand  causing  a  laceration  on  my  left  cheek.  I  grappled  with  him,  but  he 
managed  to  break  away,  get  into  the  1956  Chevrolet  sedan,  and  drive  away. 

I  was  able  to  obtain  the  license  plate  number  (1-1310.57)  of  this  car,  and 
through  the  South  Miami  Police  Department  was  able  to  ascertain  that  the  car 
was  regLstered  to  a  Rochelle  Romano  who  lived  at  6513  Santona  Street,  Coral 
Gables.  Fla.  She  told  the  police  that  her  husband,  Louis  Romano,  had  called 
her  prior  to  their  arrival  and  told  her  that  he  had  been  in  some  trouble  at  the 
market,  and  would  not  be  home. 

I  then  went  to  the  South  Miami  Police  Department  and  swore  out  an  affidavit 
charging  Louis  Romano  with  violation  of  ordinance  344,  chapter  15,  section  18 
(disorderly  conduct,  assaulting  complainant,  and  petty  larceny  shoplifting.) 

Approximately  a  week  before  this  altercation  I  was  relea.sed  from  the  Coral 
Gables  Veterans'  Administration  Hospital,  with  a  diagnosis  of  a  heart  condition. 
I  was  treated  by  my  private  physician.  Dr.  Yesner.  and  although  I  did  not  require 
hospitalization  as  a  result  of  this  altercation,  I  have  had  to  visit  the  Veterans' 


12610  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IX    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Administration  since  that  time  for  treatment  of  my  heart  condition  which  was 
aggravated  by  this  altercation. 

A  few  days  after  the  altercation  I  was  visited  at  my  home  by  an  attorney  who 
identified  himself  to  me  as  Gerard  Pucci,  and  told  me  that  he  represented  Louis 
Romano,  having  been  retained  by  Romano's  wife,  Rochelle.  He  said  that  his 
client  wanted  to  settle  this  matter  and  offered  me  the  sum  of  $100,  which  I  then 
refused.  I  then  heard  from  my  boss,  Mr.  Roland  Bayles,  who  told  me  that  he 
had  received  some  phone  calls  from  "people"  who  were  putting  pressure  on  him 
to  talk  to  me  about  settling  with  Louis  Romano.  I  again  heard  from  the  lawyer. 
Pucci,  who  told  me  that  his  client  would  pay  $500  to  settle  this  case,  provided 
I  would  drop  the  charges  against  him.  I  finally  agreed  to  do  so,  and  received 
a  cashier's  check  from  the  Coral  Gables  First  National  Bank,  dated  March  2.5, 
1958,  for  the  sum  of  $.500.  I  recall  that  this  check  was  made  out  to  Gerard  R. 
Pucci,  who  endorsed  it  to  me  as  follows  : 

"Pay  to  the  order  of  S.  Poritsky  as  full  settlement  for  damages  re  Louis 
Romano. 

"Geeakd  R.  Pucci." 

I  deposited  this  check  in  my  own  bank  account.  I  considered  this  payment 
as  a  payoff  to  drop  charges  against  Romano  in  this  case. 

I  have  read  the  foregoing  statement,  and  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge,  it  i& 
true  and  correct. 

Sidney  Poritsky. 
"Witness : 

James  F.  Muxdie. 

Sworn  and  subscribed  to  before  me  this  26th  day  of  June  1958. 

Ralph  V.  Achlunx. 
'Notary  Public,  State  of  Florida,  at  Large. 

My  commission  expires  November  8, 1958. 
Bonded  by  Pan  American  Surety  Co. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  affidavit  true  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Search  me ;  I  don't  know. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  mean  by  shrugging  your  shoulders  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  You  have  got  it,  and  you  didn't  get  it  from  me. 

The  Chairman.  I  asked  you  if  it  is  true,  and  you  know  whether 
the  facts  are  true  or  not. 

Mr.  Romano.  I  paid  no  attention  to  you  because  I  don't  believe  it. 

The  Chairman.  You  don't  believe  what  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  don't  believe  what  the  affidavit  says. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  you  know  whether  it  is  true  or  not. 

Mr.  Romano.  Am  I  going  to  say  "yes''  to  a  man  whom  you  say  ac- 
cepted money  ? 

The  Chairman.  You  can  answer  or  take  the  fifth  amendment. 

Mr.  Romano.  No. 

The  Chairman.  The  statement  is  not  true  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  No. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  the  check  is  true,  that  part  of  it  is  true: 
isn't  it? 

Mr.  Romano.  Yes,  sir ;  but  not  for  what  he  said  he  got  it  for. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  that  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Not  for  what  he  said  he  got  it  for. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  give  him  the  check  for  or  have  it 
given  to  him  for  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  understand  it  was  for  his  doctor  bill. 

Tlie  Chairman.  All  right,  then,  you  paid  him  for  the  damage  you 
had  done  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  And  he  admitted  that  it  was  a  mistaken  identity,  and 
he  was  wrong:. 


I 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    I^ST    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12611 

The  Chairman.  Why  were  you  paying  off  on  a  mistaken  identity  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Because  I  was  sorry  that  I  hurt  the  man. 

The  Chairman.  Then  you  did  pay  him  off,  and  he  was  paid  off  with 
your  knowledge  and  consent ;  was  he  not  ? 

Mr.  EoMANO.  I  hurt  him.    He  is  40  years  old  and  I  am  64. 

The  Chairman.  Let  me  ask  the  question  and  then  you  answer  it. 
You  said  you  didn't  know  about  it  for  a  month  afterwards? 

Mr.  Romano.  That  is  right. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  what  you  testified  to  a  few  moments  ago? 

]Mr,  Romano.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  now  you  say  you  knew  you  were  paying  him 
off  for  liis  doctor  bill ;  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  That  is  correct. 

The  Chairman.  So  you  did  know  of  the  transaction  at  the  time? 

Mr.  Romano.  Not  what  he  stated.  You  are  reading  me  his  state- 
ment. 

The  Chairman.  I  am  not  saying  that. 

Mr.  Romano.  I  don't  care  what  he  stated. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  going  to  be  respectful  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  am  respectful,  but  you  want  me  to  say 

The  Chairman.  You  let  me  ask  the  questions  and  you  answer  them 
any  way  you  want  to. 

Mr.  Romano.  I  answered  "No." 

The  Chairman.  All  right,  I  am  asking  you  if  you  didn't  know  at 
the  time  of  this  payoff  to  him  ? 

Mr.  Ro3iANO.  That  it  was  for  what  purpose  ? 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  know  at  the  time  that  $500  was  given  to 
him.  that  it  was  being  given  to  him  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  For  his  doctor  bill. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  know  it  was  being  given  to  him? 

Mr.  Romano.  For  his  doctor  bill :  yes. 

The  Chairman.  At  the  time  ? 

Mr.  Ro3iANo.  At  the  time. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  awhile  ago  you  said  you  didn't  know  any- 
thing about  it,  but  you  didn't  know  it  for  a  month  afterward. 
Proceed. 

Mr.  Romano.  I  mean  a  month  later,  and  I  didn't  negotiate  the  deal. 

The  Chairman.  You  knew  it  was  being  negotiated,  didn't  you? 
Didn't  you  know  all  about  it  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  had  an  idea  it  was  being  negotiated  but  I  wasn't 
consulted  on  it. 

The  Chair3ian.  You  knew  it  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  ^\liat  difference  does  it  make? 

The  Chairman.  It  doesn't  matter  whether  it  makes  any  difference 
or  not. 

Mr.  Romano.  A  man  got  paid  for  his  troubles  . 

The  Chairman.  I  am  asking  you  the  question.  Did  you  know  it 
or  didn't  vou  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  '\'\^iat  is  the  question  ? 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  know  or  didn't  you  know  that  the  $500 
was  being  paid  to  him  at  the  time  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  knew  a  month  later. 

The  Chairman.  You  didn't  know  it  at  the  time  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  No. 


12612  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

The  Chairman.  Now  then  how  do  you  know  then  it  was  being 
paid  for  his  doctor  bill  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Because  I  was  told  it  was  for  his  doctor  bill. 

The  Chairman.  When? 

Mr.  Romano.  A  month  later. 

The  Chairman.  You  never  heard  of  it  before  that  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  No. 

Senator  Curtis.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  ask,  Where  were  you  when 
the  settlement  was  being  made  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  was  at  home. 

Senator  Curtis.  You  were  at  home  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Yes. 

Senator  Curtis.  Hadn't  you  telephoned  your  wife  and  said  you 
wouldn't  be  at  home  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  went  away  on  a  business  trip. 

Senator  Curtis.  You  had  gone  away  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  For  about  2  days,  and  I  was  back  home  all  of  the 
time. 

Senator  Curtis.  The  first  couple  of  days  you  didn't  show  up  here 
at  home. 

Mr.  Romano.  I  had  business  to  tend  to. 

Senator  Curtis.  You  didn't  go  back  from  the  market,  did  you  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  No. 

Senator  Curtis.  You  said  you  were  going  to  take  care  of  this 
business  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  No  ;  I  didn't. 

Senator  Curtis.  But  you  did  go  away  for  a  couple  of  days  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Yes ;  I  had  some  business  to  attend  to. 

Senator  Curtis.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Where  did  you  get  the  money,  Mr.  Romano,  and. 
where  did  the  money  come  from  to  settle  this  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  don't  know.     My  wife  paid  it. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  "Wliat  was  her  source  of  income? 

Mr.  Romano.  She  has  no  income. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Where  did  your  money  come  from  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  saved  my  money  when  I  was  working. 

]VIr.  Kennedy.  Where  do  you  keep  your  money  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  In  my  pockets. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  just  walk  around  with  it  in  your  pockets  ? 

Mr,  Romano.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr,  Kennedy,  You  own  an  automobile  ? 

Mr,  Romano,  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  kind  of  an  automobile  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Chevrolet, 

Mr.  Kennedy.  When  did  you  get  tliat  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  1956. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  did  you  pay  for  that  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Casli. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Where  did  you  get  the  cash  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  From  my  savings. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Where  do  you  keep  your  savings  ? 

Mr,  Romano,  In  my  ]:)ocket. 

Mr,  Kennedy,  How  mucli  money  did  you  have  at  the  time  ? 

Mr,  Romano.  Don't  remember. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IX    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12613 

Mr,  IvENNEDY.  IIow  nuicli  money  do  you  have  in  cash  now  in  your 
pocket  ? 

Mr.  KoMANO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  grounds  ^ 

]Mr.  Romano.  It  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Romano,  we  examined  your  income-tax  re- 
turns and  you  liaven't  dechired  any  income  except  $600  a  year  over 
the  period  of  the  past  4  years,  and  what  are  you  living  on? 

Mr.  Romano.  On  my  savings  of  prior  years. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  From  working  for  Mr.  Teitelbaum;  is  that  right? 

Mr.  Romano.  Teitelbaum  antl  the  unions,  and  taxicab  companies 
and  I  saved  money  when  I  was  working  and  I  paid  taxes  all  of 
those  yeai's. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Where  did  you  keep  the  money  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Why  don't  you  go  and  ask  Uncle  Sam  ? 

]\Ir.  Kennedy.  Where  do  you  keep  the  money  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  don't  have  to  reveal  that  question  to  you. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Yes  you  do. 

Mr.  Romano.  I  don't  have  to. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  are  going  to  have  to  refuse. 

Mr.  Romano.  I  refuse  to  answer  on  the  ground  it  may  tend  to 
incriminate  me.    Is  that  the  answer  you  want? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  No;  I  want  to  get  the  truth. 

Mr.  Romano.  That  is  the  truth,  and  I  don't  have  to  tell  you. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Whether  you  were  getting  "payoffs"  and  asking 
payoffs  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  You  go  find  out  and  then  charge  me  with  them. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Romano,  the  only  way 

Mr.  Romano.  You  find  out  where  the  payoffs  were  made. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  We  want  your  cooperation  and  your  help. 

Mr.  Romano.  I  gave  it  to  you ;  and  the  trouble  with  you  is  you  are 
twisting,  and  you  are  making  somebody  think  something  else  is  wrong 
here  when  there  isn't. 

The  Chairman.  You  tell  us  what  is  wrong. 

Mr.  Romano.  The  whole  bunch  of  you  are  wrong. 

The  Chairman.  The  whole  Government  is  wrong,  is  it  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  It  is  cockeyed  in  certain  respects. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  trying  to  prevent  wrongdoing,  and  the  whole 
Government  is  wrong  ? 

Mr.  RoivrANo.  They  try  to  prevent  it. 

The  Chairman.  All  right ;  proceed. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  The  way  we  can  get  the  facts  concerning  the  matters 
that  we  are  asking  about  is  to  go  into  Mr.  Romano's  bank  accounts 
and  learn  about  his  cash  and  the  sources  of  his  income.  He  refuses 
to  give  answers  to  those  questions.  He  has  answered  some  questions, 
and  we  found  in  at  least  one  instance  that  he  told  untruths  to  the 
committee.  It  seems  to  me  that  it  raises  a  question  as  to  all  of  the 
other  testimony  that  he  has  given. 

Now  we  are  going  to  have  some  further  testimony  on  Mv.  Romano's 
activities,  which  is  a  further  reflection  on  his  testimony. 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair  feels,  since  the  witness  does  not  have 
counsel  present  to  represent  him,  and  he  waives  counsel,  that  it  is  the 
duty  of  the  Chair  to  admonish  the  witness  that  false  statements  of 
material  facts  before  this  committee  would  constitute  the  crime  of 


12614  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

perjury.  I  think  that  the  witness  has  had  plenty  of  experience  and 
knows  that  without  being  admonished,  but  I  think  that  it  is  the  duty 
of  the  Chair  so  to  admonish  him ;  and  if  he  has  made  false  statements 
here  regarding  material  facts  pertinent  to  this  inquiry,  such  false 
statements,  willfully  made,  would  constitute  perjury. 

If  the  record  develops  as  it  may,  it  would  be  the  duty  of  the  com- 
mittee to  refer  to  the  Justice  Department  for  proper  attention  and 
action  the  transcript  of  this  record  of  your  testimony  and  other  tesi- 
mony  the  committee  may  receive  that  is  contradictory  to  your 
statement. 

So  the  witness  may  bear  that  in  mind.  If  you  have  made  any  false 
statements  and  you  are  conscious  of  it,  and  you  wish  to  correct  your 
testimony  at  any  time  before  you  leave  the  witness  stand,  you  will  be 
given  opportunity  to  do  so. 

I  think  that  you  should  keep  that  in  mind,  if  you  haven't  had  it  in 
mind,  and  you  should  get  it  in  mind  and  keep  it  in  mind  until  your 
testimony  is  concluded. 

Proceed,  ISIr.  Kennedy. 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Romano,  will  you  tell  us  what  your  source  of 
income  has  been  over  the  last  4  years  ? 

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

Mr.  Kennedy,  Mr.  Chairman,  there  is  no  sense  in  proceeding  with 
this  witness. 

The  Chairman.  Is  there  any  statement  you  have  made  under  oath, 
before  you  leave  the  witness  stand,  that  you  want  to  correct? 

Mr.  Romano.  What  statements  did  I  answer  incorrect  ? 

The  Chairman.  Any  answer  that  you  have  given 

Mr.  Romano.  I  have  no  record  here.     I  don't  remember  the  answers. 

The  Chairman.  I  think  you  remember  the  answers.  I  am  just  ask- 
ing you.     You  have  been  asked  a  good  many  questions 

Mr.  Romano.  If  there  are  any  incorrect,  refresh  my  memory.  I 
will  be  glad  to  correct  them. 

The  Chairman.  I  am  simply  offering  you  the  opportunity  now,  if 
you  want  to  correct  any  statement  you  have  made,  before  you  leave 
the  witness  stand. 

Mr.  Romano.  I  am  willing  to  correct  any  misstatement. 

The  Chairman.  All  right.     Did  you  make  any  misstatements  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Not  that  I  know  of. 

The  Chairman.  You  would  know.  You  would  know  better  than 
we  would. 

Mr.  Romano.  I  don't  know  of  any. 

The  Chairman.  I  don't  think  your  memory  is  as  weak  as  you  pre- 
tend it  to  be.  I  think  you  can  remember  what  you  said,  and  I  think 
you  know  Avliat  you  are  saying,  and  know  whether  you  were  telling 
the  truth  or  not.  I  leave  that  to  your  judgment.  That  is  a  matter 
for  you  to  decide.  If  you  want  to  let  the  record  stand  as  3'ou  made  it, 
you  have  that  right,  and  you  may  do  so.  If  you  want  to  correct  it 
now,  tlie  Chair  is  offering  you,  the  committee  is  offering  you,  that 
opportunity. 

Mr.  Romano.  I  have  no  corrections.  Your  Honor. 

The  Chairman.  All  rijilit. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12615 

Is  there  anytliing  further  ? 

Senator  Ervin.  I  would  like  to  suggest  that  Mr.  Romano  can  be 
one  of  the  greatest  public  benefactors  in  the  United  States  we  have 
ever  liad  if  lie  can  just  tell  us  how  it  is,  in  this  age  of  inflation  and 
high  cost  of  living,  a  man  can  exist  4  years  on  an  income  not  exceed- 
ing $000  a  year. 

Mr.  Romano.  Well,  one  reason  is  I  buy  very  little  food.  Mr.  Kelly 
seen  me  fishing,  I  catch  a  lot  of  fish  for  food.  And  I  can  eat  it  six 
times  a  week.  If  you  want  any  good  hints  how  to  cut  down  the  high 
cost  of  living,  there  is  a  good  one. 

Senator  Ervix.  You  get  more  cooperation  out  of  the  fish  than  I  do 
when  I  go  fishing. 

Mr.  Romano.  I  got  an  icebox  freezer  with  about  40  pounds  of 
frozen  fish  in  it^ — pompano,  barracuda. 

Senator  Erven.  How  do  you  get  out  where  the  pompano  or  barra- 
cuda are  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  I  get  out  there  when  they  start  feeding,  early  in  the 
morning. 

Senator  Er\t:n.  To  catch  fish,  you  would  have  to  go  out  on  a  boat. 

Mr.  Romano.  No;  I  catch  them  on  the  bridge.  If  anyone  wants 
any  lessons,  I  will  be  glad  to  give  them,  free  of  charge. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Where  do  you  live  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  6513  Santona. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Do  you  pay  rent  there  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Yes,  sir ;  $105  a  month. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Where  did  you  get  the  money  ?     That  is  over  $600. 

Mr.  Romano.  I  have  a  lot  of  savings. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Where  did  you  get  the  savings  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  My  64  years. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  about  your  automobile  ?  Where  did  you  get 
the  money  to  pay  for  your  automobile  ? 

Mr.  Romano.  Cash. 

The  Chairman.  All  right.     You  may  stand  aside. 

Call  the  next  witness. 

Mr.  Romano.  Am  I  released  ?     Can  I  go  back  home  ? 

The  Chairman.  No.  You  will  remain  here  today.  You  may  be 
interested  in  some  further  testimony  that  the  committee  may  hear. 

Mr.  Romano.  I  will  be  around,  sir.     Thank  you. 

The  Chairman.  Call  the  next  witness. 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Johnson. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  solemnl}'-  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.  Johnson.  I  do. 

TESTIMONY  OF  LESLIE  A.  JOHNSON 

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

Mr.  Johnson.  My  name  is  Leslie  A.  Johnson.  I  reside  at  9000 
Lavlin  Avenue,  in  the  city  of  Chicago.  My  place  is  known  as  the 
Inglenook  Log  Cabin  Re'staurant  at  llSOf  South  Halsted  Street, 
Chicago. 


12616  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

The  Chairman.  You  are  in  the  restaurant  business  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  That  is  right,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  How  long  liave  you  been  in  the  restaurant  business  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  Since  1932. 

The  Chairman.  Since  1932  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  At  this  same  location  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  waive  counsel,  Mr.  Johnson  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you  very  much. 

Proceed,  Mr.  Kennedy. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Johnson,  do  you  own  the  Inglenook  Restaurant  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  Yes ;  I  do. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Were  you  approached  in  the  period  of  the  early 
1940's  by  local  394  about  putting  some  of  your  employees  in  the  union  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  At  that  time,  I  didn't  know  what  local  it  was,  whether 
it  was  394,  but  I  was  doing  some  remodeling  at  that  time,  and  we  were 
putting  a  new  roof  on  the  building.  At  that  time  I  was  approached 
by  the  union  and  told  to  put  my  employees  in  the  union  or  my  con- 
tractor would  be  pulled  off  the  building. 

I  wanted  the  work  done,  so  I  negotiated  with  them  at  the  time.  I 
think,  for  a  sum  of  around  $100  or  $125,  they  let  my  building  contrac- 
tor finish  his  job. 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  So,  you  made  the  payoff  that  time  of  about  $125  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  then  they  let  you  alone  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Were  you  approached  again  in  August  1951  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  In  August  of  1951  or  1950,  there  was  a  picket  line 
at  my  place  of  business  on  Monday  morning,  wliich  I  knew  nothing  of. 
They  had  not  contacted  me.  This  picket  line  was  placed  there  and  was 
there  for  about  10  days. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  any  union  offi- 
cial about  it? 

Mr.  Johnson.  For  the  first  2  or  3  days,  I  didn't.  After  that  they 
cut  off  all  my  supplies  and  I  had  to  go  out  and  get  my  supplies.  I 
decided  to  get  in  touch  with  the  Chicago  Restaurant  Association,  which 
I  have  been  a  member  of  since  1935,  and  ask  tliem  for  some  lielp.  So, 
I  contacted  the  Chicago  Restam'ant  Association  and  told  them  my 
troubles,  and  they  said  they  would  try  to  get  me  an  appointment  with 
Mr.  Teitelbaum.  ^ 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Who  is  "they"?    Who  told  you  this? 

Mr.  Johnson.  Mr.  Donald  Kiscau,  who  at  that  time  and  since  that 
time  has  been  in  charge  of  their  employee  relations  for  the  Chicago 
Restaurant  Association 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  he  arrange  the  apj^ointment  with  Teitelbaum? 

Mr.  Johnson.  He  arranged  an  appointment  with  Teitelbaum,  and 
called  me  and  told  me  I  had  an  appointment  in  his  office  on  Tuesday 
afternoon,  2  o'clock  or  thereabouts,  at  which  time  I  appeared  at  Mr. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12617 

Teitelbaiim's  office,  and  his  secretary  informed  me  that  Mr.  Teitel- 
baum  was  not  at  liis  oflice,  bnt  a  JNIr.  I^ouis  Romano  would  listen  to 
my  story. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Would  you  tell  us  about  the  conversation  with  Mr. 
Romano? 

Mr.  Johnson.  I  went  to  Mr.  Romano's  office.  I  told  him  my  name 
and  what  I  came  down  there  for.  I  told  him  the  picket  line  had  been 
in  front  of  my  place  for  a  week,  and  I  was  anxious  to  tret  the  thing 
•over  with  and  get  back  to  normal  business  operations,  and  I  asked  him 
what  I  should  do  He  asked  me  how  many  employees  I  had,  which  I 
told  him,  and  he  said,  "Well,  you  will  have  to  make  your  final  decision 
with  the  local  394." 

So,  at  that  time  he  tried  to  figure  out  something  for  me,  and  I  think 
he  figured  that  I  should  put  6  waitresses  in  the  union  or  8  waitresses 
in  the  union — no ;  I  think  he  said  6^ — and  2  from  my  kitchen. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  This  was  Mr.  Romano  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  This  was  Mr.  Romano. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Were  you  here  when  Mr.  Romano  testified  this 
morning  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  Yes ;  I  was. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  do  you  remember  my  questions  to  Mr.  Romano  ? 

Mr  Johnson.  Yes. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  his  testimony  ? 

Mr.  Johnson,  Of  course,  he  only  saw  me  for  15  or  20  minutes.  He 
might  have  not  even  remembered  me  being  in  his  office.  I  don't  know. 
But  I  definitely  was  in  his  office  and  talked  to  him. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  So,  his  testimony  on  this  is  incorrect;  is  that  right? 

Mr.  Johnson.  I  would  say  so. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  He  did,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  suggest  putting  a  per- 
centage of  your  employees  into  the  union? 

Mr.  Johnson.  Well,  he  said  that  he  would  talk  to  the  union  about 
the  thing    He  suggested  it. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  ever  hear  from  the  union  then,  after  that? 

Mr.  Johnson.  The  same  afternoon,  or  the  following  morning,  Mr. 
Trungell,  of  local  394,  contacted  me  and  said  that  he  had  heard  that 
I  would  Avant  to  get  this  thing  settled  and  where  could  I  settle  it? 
He  suggested  to  settle  it  outside  of  my  business,  so  we  went  over  to 
my  home.  At  that  time  I  was  living  at  11201  Parnell  Avenue,  Chicago, 
111. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  was  Mr.  Trungell's  position  at  that  time  ?  Was 
he  secretary  and  treasurer  of  local  394? 

Mr.  Johnson.  I  believe  at  that  time  he  was  secretary  and  treasurer 
of  that  local. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  So,  it  Avas  arranged  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  There  was  a  meeting  arranged  at  m}^  home. 

I\Ir.  Kennedy.  Who  else  Avas  present? 

Mr.  Johnson.  There  Avas  a  Mr.  O'Connor  present. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  James  F.  O'Connor? 

Mr.  Johnson.  James  F.  O'Connor. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  He  is  president  of  local  394  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  At  this  time  I  guess  he  is  president  of  it. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Would  you  tell  us  what  transpired  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  Well,  after  a  conversation  with  Mr.  Trungell,  we 
reached  the  decision  to  put  10  of  my  employees  into  the  union,  and  I 


12618  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

had  to  pay  tlieir  initiation  fee,  plus  3  months'  dues,  and  I  had  to  pay 
a  fine  of  $35  for  each  one  of  my  bartenders  for  crossing  the  picket  line 
during  the  strike. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Approximately  how  much  money  was  paid,  al- 
together ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  Somewhere  between  $300  and  $400.  I  just  don't 
remember. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  that  was  paid  in  cash  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  I  don't  remember  whether  it  was  paid  by  check  or 
not.    My  records  have  been  destroyed  through  a  fire. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  is  your  best  recollection  as  to  whether  it  was 
a  check  or  cash  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  My  best  recollection  is  I  think  it  was  cash. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  this  was  paid  in  order  to  get  rid  of  the  picket 
line ;  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  So  I  could  get  back  to  normal  operations. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  were  led  to  believe  that,  if  you  did  not  make  this 
payment,  the  picket  line  would  continue  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  I  was  led  to  believe  that,  if  I  made  this  payment, 
they  would  take  the  picket  line  off,  which  they  did. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  ever  furnish  the  names  of  any  employees 
for  whom  this  money  was  being  paid  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  The  way  my  agreement  with  the  union  was  at  that 
time,  I  put  10  employees  in,  and  I  cautioned  them  at  that  time  that, 
if  I  put  10  employees  in,  if  I  had  to  change  these  employees  at  a  later 
date  would  I  have  to  pay  another  initiation  fee  for  these  employees 
that  would  come  in  as  new  employees,  and  the  answer  was  "No" ;  that 
I  would  just  keep  a  running  account  of  10  employees  and  pay  the  dues 
on  those  employees.  From  time  to  time,  I  furnished  them  a  new  sheet 
where  employees  had  been  dismissed  from  my  service  or  had  left  for 
other  reasons. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Who  selected  the  employees  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  I  did. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  They  never  approached  these  people  before? 

Mr.  Johnson.  They  have  never  talked  to  any  of  my  employees. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  just  selected  any  10  that  you  wanted  toi' 

Mr.  Johnson.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  furnished  those  names  to  them  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  I  furnished  the  names  to  the  union. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Was  there  ever  a  contract,  then,  with  the  union  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  We  never  had  a  contract  with  the  union. 

Mr.  Kennedy,  Did  they  ever  discuss  the  wages,  hours,  or  conditions 
of  your  employees  with  you  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  No;  they  haven't,  but  they  have  asked  me  several 
times  what  I  paid  my  employees,  and  I  was  glad  to  tell  them  what 
I  paid  my  waitresses  and  my  employees.  I  pay  my  day  girls  75  cents 
an  hour  and  my  night  girls  85  cents  an  hour,  well  above  the  union 
scale.    And  my  kitchen  help  is  based  on  the  same  rates. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  They  never  evidenced  any  interest,  themselves? 

Mr.  Johnson,  They  never  were  interested ;  no. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And,  as  far  as  you  know,  tliey  never  approached 
your  employees  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  To  m}-  knowledge,  they  never  have. 


IMPROPER    ACTR^ITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12619 

Mr.  Kennedy.  The  only  thing:  they  were  interested  in  was  the  pay- 
mient  of  this  money ;  is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  Well,  they  send  my  employees  literature  and,  I  think, 
their  paper.  My  employees  have  told  me  that,  but  I  have  never  seen 
one  of  the  papers,  myself. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  But,  as  far  as  the  wages  or  conditions  of  your  em- 
plo^'ees,  as  far  as  approaching  j^our  employees,  you  determined  that 
the'only  thing  they  were  interested  in  was  this  payment;  is  that  right? 

^Ir.  Johnson.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  ever  deduct  the  dues  from  the  employees' 
salaries  ( 

Mr.  Johnson.  I  never  have.  I  have  told  my  employees  that  I  have 
a  union  condition  here.  I  have  told  them  that  they  are  in  the  miion, 
and  I  have  also  told  them  that  I  pay  their  monthly  dues. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  take  this  original  payment  and  the  sub- 
sequent payment  and  deduct  them  as  business  expenses  on  your 
income  tax? 

Mr.  Johnson.  I  don't  believe  so.  I  think  they  are  all  charged  to 
my  personal  account. 

Air.  Kennedy.  You  didn't  take  deductions  on  them  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  Xo,  sir. 

!Mr.  Kennedy.  Why  was  that  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  Because  I  felt  it  was  an  expense  of  my  own  for  keep- 
ing my  place  of  business  up. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Couldn't  you,  ordinarily,  deduct  something  like  that 
from  your  tax  return  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  No  ;  I  don't  think  so. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  feel  it  was  an  illegal  payment  or  an  im- 
proper payment  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  Well,  I  didn't  feel  as  though  it  was,  but  I  didn't 
want  it  to  ever  be  that  way. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Is  that  why 

Mr.  Johnson.  I  feel  as  though  I  was  doing  the  right  thing  under 
the  circumstances,  because 

Mr.  Kennedy.  If  it  was  a  proper  payment,  of  course,  you  could 
deduct  it.     I  wonder  if,  in  your  own  mind,  you  felt 

Mr.  Johnson.  Well,  I  hope  someday  I  can  deduct  it,  because  I 
would  sure  like  to. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Is  that  the  reason  that  vou  did  not  deduct  it  in  the 
past? 

Mr.  Johnson.  Well,  my  wife  is  a  good  boolvkeeper,  and  she  don't 
want  me  to  do  anything  like  that. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  much  money  do  you  pay  every  month  now? 

Mr.  Johnson.  I  give  them  a  check  every  3  months  for  $120.  That 
is  $40  a  month.  Those  payments  were  decreased,  I  think,  the  first 
of  the  year,  to  $96  every  3  months. 

The  Chairman.  Why  did  they  decrease  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  Because  I  have  two  less  employees  on  the  payroll. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Have  you  paid  dues  on  individuals  who  weren't 
even  employed  there  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  Well,  the  list  is  changed  every  year,  and  through 
the  year  there  is  a  possibility  of  employees  leaving  and  new  employees 
coming  in.  As  far  as  the  union  records  are  concerned,  I  am  paying 
on  employees  that  are  not  in  my  employment. 


12620  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Isn't  it  a  fact  that,  from  December  1957  through' 
March  1958,  you  were  paying  dues  for  a  dead  person  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  This  waitress  died;  yes.  The  union  was  notified,, 
not  on  my  November  payment,  but  they  were  in  the  early  spring  pay- 
ment, and  at  that  time  they  told  me  that  I  should  have  notified  them 
before,  because  there  is  a  $100  death  benefit  from  the  union.  So,  they 
asked  me  to  get  a  certificate  of  death  from  her  family,  and  I  told  the 
union  official  at  that  time  I  thought  it  was  up  to  him,  seeing  that  the 
union  was  paying  it  off.     I  thought  they  should  follow  it  through. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Then,  as  another  example,  there  was  an  employee 
who  you  have  been  paying  the  dues  on  from  December  31,  1957,  to 
March  1958,  a  cook  who  terminated  his  employment  on  December  30, 
1957.    Is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Johnson.  Yes. 

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

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Johnson,  did  you  regard  this  demand  on  you 
for  payments  to  the  union  as  a  form  of  extortion  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  No  ;  I  thought  it  was  just  one  of  the  evils  of  business 
that  was  prevalent  in  our  business,  and  there  was  no  law  which  could 
help  us  out,  as  a  small-business  man.  It  was  just  a  business  expense 
that  I  had  to  carry. 

The  Chairman.  You  didn't  regard  it  as  a  legitimate  business  ex- 
pense ;  did  you  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  I  regard  it  as  a  business  expense,  because  there  is 
no  other  way  out. 

The  Chairman.  In  other  words,  you  have  no  alternative,  in  view 
of  the  power  that  the  union  had  to  either  destroy  or  seriously  damage 
your  business. 

Mr.  Johnson.  Well,  I  didn't  want  to  take  that  chance. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  what  I  say.  Other  than  that,  if  they  did 
not  have  that  power  to  damage  you,  to  damage  your  business,  or  to 
destroy  it,  you  wouldn't  have  paid  it ;  would  you  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  No.  I  would  much  rather  see  the  union  go  in  and 
organize  my  employees  themselves. 

The  Chairman.  That  would  be  different.  But  I  am  talking  about 
under  these  circumstances.  If  it  had  not  been  for  the  power  they 
have  by  organizational  picketing,  to  either  greatly  damage  your  busi- 
ness or  to  put  you  out  of  business,  you  would  not  have  paid. 

Mr.  Johnson.  That  is  right. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  is,  in  my  viewpoint,  a  form  of  extortion, 
because  the  employees  were  not  consulted.  They  were  placed  in  a 
union  not  of  their  own  choice,  and  not  with  their  consent.  Isn't  thnt 
correct  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  That  is  correct. 

The  Chairman.  So,  the  reason  that  that  came  about,  and  that  such 
transactions  can  be  compelled,  is  because  of  the  power  that  is  reposed 
in  the  right  of  organizational  picketing,  if  it  is  a  right. 

Mr.  Johnson.  I  think  that  is  why  Ave  need  some  of  our  laws 
changed,  so  it  will  help  management  and  labor,  both. 

The  Chairman.  I  agi'oe  with  you,  but  I  am  pointing  out  Ave  are 
looking  into  impro])er  ])ractices.  I  Avould  think  that  the  poAver  to 
do  this,  or  the  right  to  do  it  under  existing  laAv,  actually  constitutes 
an  improper  practice  that  can  be  used,  a  means  that  can  be  used,  to 
compel  union  membership  against  the  will  and  Avithout  the  consent 


i 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12621 

of  employees,  and,  also,  to  extort  money  from  management.  Isn't 
that  correct  ? 

Mr.  JoHNSox.  That  is  correct. 

The  Chairman.  I  agree  with  yon;  I  think  the  laws  should  be 
changed  to  prohibit  this  type  of  picketing.  It  is  an  imposition  that 
amounts,  in  my  judgment,  in  the  only  way  I  can  interpret  it,  to  a 
form  of  extortion,  getting  money  for  nothing  in  return  except  not 
to  use  a  poAver  that  is  in  the  nature  of  a  force  to  compel  people  to 
join  a  union,  and  management  to  put  its  employees  into  the  union. 

May  I  ask  you :  Did  any  of  your  employees  that  joined  the  union 
receive  any  benefit  whatsoever,  so  far  as  you  know,  the  10  of  them  that 
you  paid  initiation  fees  and  dues  for  ? 

Mr.  Johnson".  The  only  benefits  that  they  will  get — this  girl  that 
died ;  her  family  might  get  the  $100  that  the  union  pays  for  a  death 
benefit  of  an  employee. 

The  Chairman.  Did  they  get  the  money  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  I  talked  to  her  son  about  a  week  ago  if  the  union 
contacted  them  for  a  death  certificate  from  his  mother,  and  he  said 
"No." 

The  Chairman.  So,  as  far  as  you  know,  they  have  not  even  gotten 
that? 

Mr.  Johnson.  That  is  right. 

The  Chairman.  But  I  mean,  primarily,  with  respect  to  this.  You 
don't  pay  any  pension  or  welfare  funds,  do  you  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  No  ;  I  don't. 

The  Chairman.  So,  there  is  no  money  being  paid  for  them  into  a 
pension  fund  or  a  welfare  fund  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  Definitely  not. 

The  Chairman.  Was  there  any  arrangement  made  or  any  effort 
at  any  time  by  the  union  to  get  you  to  raise  your  wages  or  improve 
the  conditions  of  employment,  or  do  anything  that  was  for  the  benefit 
of  your  employees  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  No  ;  nothing  but  what  I  have  done  myself. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  that  on  your  own. 

Mr.  Johnson.  That  is  right. 

The  Chairman.  Not  because  you  were  in  a  union,  not  because  you 
have  paid  the  money.     You  did  that  of  your  own  volition. 

Mr.  Johnson.  That  is  right. 

The  Chairman.  Without  their  knowledge  or  consent,  I  suppose. 

Mr.  Johnson.  That  is  right. 

The  Chairman.  They  had  no  interest  in  it,  so  far  as  you  know  ^ 

Mr.  Johnson.  None  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  How  long  is  your  contract — or  this  arrangement; 
possibly  it  is  not  a  contract  ? 

How  long  has  this  arrangement  been  between  your  business  and 
the  union  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  Since  1950. 

The  Chairman.  Since  1950  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Something  near  8  years.     And  it  is  still  in  effect  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  It  is  still  in  effect. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  any  questions,  Senator  Ervin  ? 

Senator  Ervin.  No  questions. 

The  Chairman.  If  not,  thank  you  very  much. 


12622  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    L.\BOR    FIELD 

Call  the  next  witness. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Sheldon  Esrig. 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  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.  Esrig.  I  do. 

TESTIMONY  OF  SHELDON  ESRIG 

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

Mr.  EsRiG.  Sheldon  Esrig 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Johnson,  I  have  one  further  question  before 
I  proceed.  I  forgot  to  ask  you.  How  many  employees  have  you  now 
in  your  restaurant  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  We  have  16  employees.  Some  are  part  time — dish 
washers  and  janitors. 

The  Chairihan.  Thank  you  very  much.  I  wanted  to  get  that  into 
the  record. 

Mr.  Esrig,  would  you  state  your  name,  your  place  of  residence,  and 
your  business  or  occupation,  please  ? 

Mr.  Esrig.  My  name  is  Sheldon  Esrig.  I  live  at  3808  North  Shef- 
field Avenue,  Chicago.  I  am  in  the  restaurant  business  at  600  South 
Dearborn. 

The  Chairman.  You  will  have  to  speak  a  little  louder,  if  you  will, 
please. 

How  long  have  you  been  in  the  restaurant  business  ? 

Mr.  Esrig.  Since  1945. 

The  Chairman.  Is  your  business  at  the  same  location  now  as  when 
you  established  it  ? 

Mr.  Esrig.  No. 

The  Chairman,  "Wliat  is  the  present  location  ? 

Mr.  Esrig.  600  South  Dearborn. 

The  Chairman.  "VA^iat  was  previously  the  location  ? 

Mr.  Esrig.  230  West  Van  Buren. 

The  Chairman.  Are  those  the  only  two  locations  ? 

Mr.  Esrig.  No.    We  were  at  65  East  South  Water  Street. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  waive  counsel?  Mr.  Esrig,  do  you  waive 
counsel  ? 

Mr.  Esrig.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  All  right.  Thank  you  very  much.  Proceed,  Mr. 
Kennedy. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Esrig,  you  and  your  brother  opened  the  restau- 
rant known  as  Esrig's  Coffee  Shop  on  February  15,  1949,  did  you  not? 

Mr.  Esrig.  Yes ;  we  bought  it  that  date. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  was  at  230  West  Van  Buren  Street? 

Mr.  Esrig.  Yes. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Approximately  6  months  later,  did  a  representative 
of  the  local  593  approach  you  ? 

Mr.  Esrig.  Yes. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Would  you  tell  us  what  happened  ? 

Mr.  Esrig.  They  wanted  to 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Who  was  it  that  came  to  you  ? 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12623 

Mr.  EsRiG.  I  don't — I  am  pretty  sure  that  Mr.  Siiieo:i;un  and 
another  man,  but  I  don't  recall  the  other  man's  name. 

They  talked  to  our  employees  without  our  knowledge,  about  join- 
ing the  union.  Then  they  told  us  that  the  employees  agreed  to  join 
a  union.  AVell,  we  told  them  if  the  em[)loyees  want  to  join  a  union, 
we  will  join  a  union.  So  when  we  told  the  employees  that  they  had 
to  pay  their  dues  monthly,  they  changed  their  mind.  They  didn't 
want  to  belong  to  the  union.  So  we  told  them  that  we  can't  join 
the  union  because  these  people  will  quit  and  to  come  down  every  morn- 
ing looking  for  diti'erent  help,  it  is  too  tough.  Well,  they  pressed  the 
issue,  so  we  went  to  the  Restaurant  Association. 

Mr,  Kennedy.  When  you  say  they  pressed  the  issue,  what  did  they 
say'^ 

Mr.  EsRiG.  Well,  they  kept  bothering  us  to  join  the  union. 

Mr.  K?:nnedy.  Did  they  indicate  what  would  happen  if  3'ou  did 
not  join  the  union  ^ 

Mr.  EsRiG.  Yes ;  they  said  they  would  picket  us. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  you  had  informed  them,  had  you,  that  the 
membership,  your  employees,  were  not  interested  in  joining  the  union? 

Mr.  EsRiG.  Yes. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Finally  you  decided  to  go  down  to  see  them  ? 

Mr.  EsRiG.  The  Restaurant  Association ;  yes.  And  they  sent  us  to 
Teitelbaum. 

Mr.  Kenned.  "Wlio  is  "they"  ? 

Mr.  EsRiG.  Mr.  Kiscau. 

Teitelbaum  said  he  would  make  a  deal  with  the  union.  He  made  a 
deal  for  seven  emploj-ees,  and  we  accepted  it,  and  a  few  months  later 
they  wanted  more,  they  wanted  more  employees. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  When  you  say  7  employees,  did  you  pay  the  dues  for 
those  7  employees  ? 

Mr.  EsRiG.  Yes. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  you  deducted  it  from  the  employees'  salaries  ? 

Mr.  EsRiG.  Not  at  first ;  no.     We  just  paid 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  about  initiation  fees  ? 

Mr.  EsRiG.  We  paid  that. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  was  a  blanket  sum  that  you  gave  them  ? 

Mr.  EsRiG.  Yes. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  It  was  not  deducted  from  the  salaries  of  the  em- 
ployees ? 

Mr.  EsRiG.  No. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Plow  much  was  it  approximately  at  that  time  ? 

Mr.  EsRiG.  I  don't  know.  The  statement  was  made  to  me  that  it  was 
$200.     That  might  be  so. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Was  that  by  check  or  cash  ? 

Mr.  EsRiG.  I  am  pretty  sure  it  was  a  check. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  don't  know  ? 

Mr.  EsRiG.  I  am  almost  positive  it  was  a  check.  I  wouldn't  say  for 
sure. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Who  did  you  make  this  deal  with  ? 

Mr.  EsRiG.  We  made  it  with  Mr.  Teitelbaum. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Teitelbaum  ? 

Mr.  EsRiG.  And  the  union. 

jSIr.  Kennedy.  Were  they  all  there  together  ? 
21243— 58— pt.  33 9 


12624  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.EsRiG.  Yes. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Who  represented  the  union  at  that  time  ? 

Mr.  EsRiG.  I  don't  know. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  many  union  officials  were  there  ? 

Mr.  EsRiG.  I  think  tliere  were  four  of  them. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  So  then  did  you  consult  with  your  employees  at  that 
time  ?     Did  you  tell  them  you  were  putting  them  into  the  union  ? 

Mr.  EsRiCx.  I  don't  recall  if  we  did  then,  but  they  knew  about  it  later 
because  we  decided  to  take  it  out  of  their  pay. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  But  you  didn't  tell  them  in  the  beginning  ? 

Mr.  EsRiG.  No ;  I  don't  think  so. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  just  took  seven  names,  did  you  ? 

Mr.  EsRiG.  Seven  names  that  were  working  there. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Then  they  approached  j'ou  again  later  on  ? 

Mr.  EsRiG.  Yes,  for  more. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Tell  us  what  happened  ? 

Mr.  EsRiG.  So  we  called  Teitelbaum.  Teitelbaum  told  us  to  give 
them  whatever  they  want.  At  this  point  we  did  not  need  Teitelbaum, 
so  we  quit  the  restaurant  association  and  we  went  with  the  union. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  many  more  employees  did  you  put  in  ? 

Mr.  EsRiG.  I  think  there  were  three. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  much  money  did  you  pay  then  ? 

Mr.  EsRiG.  Just  the  three  initiation  fees, 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Didn't  they  make  a  demand  on  you  to  pay  the 
retroactive  dues  between  the  time  that  they  came  in  to  see  you  and 
the  time  that  you  opened  the  restaurant  6  months  earlier  ? 

Mr.  EsRiG.  I  don't  recall  that,  but  if  that  was  the  reason  that  we 
gave  them  the  money,  that  would  have  to  have  been  done  at  the  first 
meeting  with  the  union  and  Teitelbaum,  and  I  don't  recall  whether  it 
was  retroactive  or  not. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Do  you  remember  any  discussions  about  that  ? 

Initially  when  you  were  interviewed  by  the  investigatoi-s,  you 
stated  that  they  made  a  demand  on  you  that  you  pay  the  retroactive 
dues  for  the  6  months'  period  of  time  and  that  this  $200,  approxi- 
mately, was  to  cover  that. 

Is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  EsRiG.  That  might  be  very  true.  But  I  just  can't  recall 
whether  it  was  retroactive  or  not.  As  I  sit  here  and  think  what  would 
make  up  $200,  if  that  were  the  amount,  then  maybe  that  would  have 
to  be  tlie  way  it  happened. 

Mr,  Kennedy.  And  this  was  even  before  they  had  approached  you, 
is  that  right? 

This  was  during  a  period  of  time  that  they  had  not  even  come  into 
your  restaurant,  a  6-montli  period  ? 

Mr.  EsRiG.  Yes.  Do  you  mean  when  the  $200  was  supposed  to  have 
been  paid  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Yes. 

Mr,  Esh'iG,  Well,  it  would  have  to  be. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  So  first  you  ])ut  in  the  7  men,  and  made  this  pay- 
ment of  $2;)0  and  ultimately  you  put  in  I]  more ;  is  that  correct  ? 

Mr,  EsRiG,  Yes, 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  sign  a  contract  at  that  tijne,  in  1051  ? 

Mr.  Ekrig,  No, 

Mr,  Kennedy,  Wlion  was  the  first  time  vou  signed  a  contract  ? 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12625 

Mr.  PlsRiG.  About  1956. 

Mr.  Kknnedy.  Tlie  union  officials,  did  they  ever  inquire  about  the 
wages,  hours,  or  conditions  of  your  enipkjyees  'i 

Mr.  P^SRiG.  Would  you  repeat  that,  please  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  the  union  officials  ever  inquire  about  the  wages, 
houi-s,  or  conditions  of  your  employees  ^ 

Mr.  EsRiG.  I  think  they  did.  They  gave  us  a  booklet  on  the  wages. 
I^ut  our  wages  at  the  time  were  above  the  union  scale. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  they  ever  ask  for  a  look  at  your  books  and 
records  to  determine  how  much  you  werepaymg? 

Mr.  EsKiG.  ]So. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Do  you  know  if  they  ever  had  any  conferences  or 
conversations  with  your  employees  about  it? 

yiv.  EsRiG.  About  their  salaries? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Yes. 

Mr.  EsRiG.  Xo,  I  don't  know  if  they  did  or  not.  They  did  in  the 
very  beginning.  I  guess  they  painted  a  pretty  good  picture  to  them 
before  you  knew  anj'thing  about  it,  because  they  were  very  happy  to 
join  the  union. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  But  your  employees  decided  after  that  that  they 
would  not  join  the  union,  did  they  not  ? 

Mr.  EsRio.  Yes. 

(At  this  point,  Senator  Goldw^ater  entered  the  hearing  room.) 

The  CiLMRMAN.  Did  they  ever  present  to  you  cards  that  your  em- 
ployees would  sign,  stating  they  wanted  to  belong  to  the  union? 

Mr.  EsKiG.  I  don't  recall.  Yes ;  I  think  they  did.  I  think  that  is 
what  they  came  into  us  with  the  first  time,  with  cards  to  sign.  1  am 
pretty  sure. 

The  Ch^virman.  Saying  they  had  cards  signed  up  ? 

Mr.  EsRiG.  Yes;  that  was  without  our  knowledge.  We  didn't  know 
anything  about  it. 

The  Chairman.  As  I  underetand  you,  when  you  talked  to  your 
employees  and  they  found  out  the  dues  would  be  deducted  from  their 
wages,  then  they  didn't  want  to  join  ? 

Mr.  EsRiG.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  give  any  gifts  to  any  of  these  union  officials? 

Mr.  EsRiG.  We  gave  gifts  to  everybody  that  we  did  business  with. 
If  they  happened  to  be  there  at  Christmastime,  they  got  gifts  like 
everybody  else,  but  no  special  gifts. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  give  some  gifts  to  these  union  officials  ? 

Mr.  EsRiG.  I  think  so. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  occasion,  did  you  give  them  some  cash  <>ifts  ? 

Mr.  EsRiG.  I  doubt  it.  We  might  have,  but  I  doubt  itr  We  gave 
casli  gifts,  but  I  don't  know  if  we  o;ave  it  to  the  union. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Donald  Esrig,  is  he  your  brother  ? 

Mr.  EsRiG,  Yes. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  He  stated  in  a  statf  interview  that  he  had  given 
them. 

Mr.  Esrig.  Xo,  he  did  not  state  that.  He  stated  we  had  given  cash 
gifts,  but  not  giving  cash  gifts  to  the  union. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Donald  Esrig  admitted  giving  casli  gifts  to  mem- 
bers of  the  union. 

Mr.  Esrig.  X"ot  at  Christmastime. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  It  says  officials  of  local  593. 


12626  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IX    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  EsRiG.  That  must  be  a  mistake. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Do  you  deny  that  you  or  your  brother  gave  cash 
gifts  to  union  officials  at  Christmastime  ? 

Mr.  EsRiG.  Well,  I  will  state 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Do  you  deny  that  you  did  ? 

Mr.  EsRiG.  Yes,  I  deny  that  I  did. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  about  your  brother  ? 

Mr.  EsRiG.  I  don't  believe  so.  We  dealt  with  this  Sinegram  through- 
out the  entire  time,  and  he  was  not  a  bad  fellow.  He  Mould  not  even 
let  me  pick  up  his  check. 

He  told  me  he  was  on  an  expense  account.  But  as  far  as  a  lighter  or 
some  kind  of  a  token,  we  might  have  given  him  a  bottle  of  whisky. 

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

The  Chairman.  Is  there  anything  further  ? 

Let  me  ask  you :  Have  your  employees  ever  received  any  benefit 
whatsoever  from  the  fact  that  you  placed  them  in  the  union  ? 

Mr.  EsRiG.  Not  that  I  know  of. 

The  Chairman.  Has  the  union  manifested  any  particular  interest 
in  their  working  conditions?  Did  they  ever  talk  to  you  about  them, 
asking  you  to  improve  them  ? 

Mr.  Esrig.  No.  One  waitress  became  pregnant  and  the  union  agent 
told  me  to  tell  her  to  go  to  the  American  Hospital  and  she  would  be 
treated  free.  I  told  her  tliat,  but  she  decided  to  go  to  her  own  doctor 
anyway. 

The  Chairman.  Being  pregnant  would  not  necessarily  have  any 
relation  to  the  working  conditions,  I  wouldn't  think. 

Mr.  EsRiG.  You  asked  me  if  they  received  any  benefits. 

The  Chairman.  Wliat  I  am  interested  in  is  whether  the  union  has 
done,  as  most  legitimate  unions  do,  and  those  who  are  representing 
unions  in  good  faith  and  who  are  concerned  about  the  welfare  of 
their  members  and  employees.  They  usually  try  to  ascertain  what 
working  conditions  prevail  at  a  plant  or  at  a  business,  and  also  the 
wages  that  are  being  paid,  and  check  on  them  to  see  that  those  condi- 
tions are  satisfactory. 

Mr.  EsRiG.  Only  the  business  agent  of  the  Waitress'  Union  has  ever 
made  any  inquiries  on  that.     No  other. 

The  Chairman.  In  this  union,  they  have  not  ? 

Mr.  EsRiG.  No. 

The  Chairman.  The  union  they  belong  to,  they  have  not  inquired 
about  it  ? 

ESRIG.  No. 

The  Chairman.  They  have  showed  no  interest  in  them  ? 

Mr.  EsRiG.  No. 

The  Chairman.  I  am  sure  you  pay  j'our  employeos  well,  and  so 
forth,  but  even  where  that  prevails,  the  purpose  of  belonging  to  a 
union,  as  I  understand  it,  or  one  of  the  pur])oses,  is  that  the  employees 
may  benefit  by  reason  of  collective  bargaining  that  takes  into  account 
working  conditions,  wages,  hours,  and  so  forth,  for  the  im])rovement 
and  for  the  benefit  of  the  people  who  do  the  work,  who  are  laborers, 
and  who  belong  to  the  union. 

Wliat  I  am  trying  to  ascoi'tain  is  whethei"  tliis  miion,  in  wliich  your 
employees  liave  been  placed,  whether  it  has  taken  any  interest  in  that 
asi)ect  of  its  res])onsibility. 

Mr.  EsRTG.  No. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12627 

The  Chairman.  It  has  not? 

Mr.  EsRiG.  No. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you  very  much. 

Are  there  any  further  questions  ? 

If  not,  thank  you. 

Call  the  next  witness. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  INIr.  Harold  Schwimmer. 

The  CiiAiRiNiAN.  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.  Schwimmer.  I  do. 

TESTIMONY  OF  HAROLD  SCHWIMMER 

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

Mr.  Schwimmer.  My  name  is  Harry  Schwimmer.  I  reside  at  6130 
North  Central  Park  Avenue,  in  Chicago,  111. 

The  name  of  the  restaurant  that  I  manage  and  part  own  is  Barney's 
Market  Club,  known  as  Yes,  Sir,  Senator's  Kestaurant  in  Chicago. 

The  Chairman.  Known  as  what  ? 

Mr.  Schwimmer.  Yes,  Sir,  Senator's. 

The  Chairman.  Yes,  Sir,  Senator's  ? 

Mr.  Schwimmer.  That  is  right. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  I  do  have  pictures  of  you  and  all  presiding 
Senators  in  our  restaurant  with  your  signatures  on  it. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  regard  that  as  good  advertising  ? 

Mr.  Schwimmer.  Well,  it  is  regarded  as  an  old  restaurant  from  the 
early  1920's,  and  famous  for  all  the  important  politicians  going 
through  the  city  of  Chicago. 

The  Chairman.  I  see. 

May  I  ask  you  now  if  you  waive  counsel  ? 

Mr.  Schwimmer.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  How  long  have  you  been  in  the  restaurant  business? 

Mr.  Schwimmer.  Since  1941. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  been  at  this  same  location,  I  suppose  ? 

Mr,  Schwimmer.  The  same  location.  I  have  held  a  job,  manager's 
jobs,  at  different  restaurants  to  acquire  the  experience  needed. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  have  been  in  business  for  yourself  since 
1941. 

Mr.  Schwimmer,  I  am  at  this  location  as  a  manager  since  1951,  when 
the  past  owner  passed  away,  Barney  Kessel. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed,  Mr.  Kennedy. 

]Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Schwimmer,  you  were  approached  in  1953  by 
representatives  of  local  278  about  getting  certain  of  your  employees 
to  join  the  union? 

Mr.  Schwimmer,  At  that  time  we  had  about  seven  bartenders  work- 
ing. Among  them  there  was  only  one  that  was  a  member  of  the 
union.  Their  negotiations  were  strictly  with  the  bartenders,  without 
my  knowledge.  After  several  meetings  during  working  hours,  I  have 
found  out  that  tliey  have  been  contacting  my  bartenders  during  their 
working  houi-s,  and  I  have  asked  the  bartenders  at  their  next  meeting 
or  the  next  time  the  men  or  man  should  come  in,  I  should  be  called 
immediately,  for  I  wanted  to  speak  to  them. 


12628  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Well,  I  would  say  about  3  or  4  days  later  these  2  men  approached 
my  bartenders  again,  and  I  was  notified  of  it,  upon  which  I  had  asked 
their  name  and  their  business,  and  then  they  had  identified  them- 
selves. 

I  could  not  tell  you  their  names  now ;  I  do  not  remember  it.  And 
they  have  told  me  that  they  are  here  to  organize  our  bartenders. 

I  asked  them  why  they  did  not  approach  me  first  and  ask  my  per- 
mission to  speak  to  them,  and  why  do  they  molest  my  man,  and  why  do 
they  demand  that  my  man  come  up  to  their  office  within  a  certain  given 
day  and  join  the  union. 

Their  reply  was  then  that  they  were  negotiating  with  the  bartenders 
themselves,  and  if  I  had  any  objections  that  they  would  put  out  pickets 
in  front  of  my  place  and  organize  all  the  rest  of  the  employees,  mean- 
ing the  cooks,  waiters,  and  waitresses. 

At  that  time,  and  at  the  present  time,  we  have  about  100  people 
working  there. 

Well,  I  told  them  that  they  have  no  right  to  speak  to  my  employees 
during  working  hours,  and  if  they  felt  that  they  wanted  to  organize 
they  should  call  them  on  their  own  time.  They  left  and  came  back 
the  following  day,  3  strong  instead  of  2,  and  demanded  that  we  have 
2  of  the  bartenders  go  with  them  immediately  up  to  the  union  and 
join  up,  and  the  following  day  the  rest  of  them,  or  I  would  have  to 
dismiss  them. 

I  asked  in  plain  English  as  to  what  did  he  mean  by  dismiss  them. 

"Well,  you  would  have  to  fire  them.  They  will  not  be  able  to  work 
for  you  any  more." 

Well,  these  employees  have  been  with  us  for,  right  now,  12,  14,  and 
16  years,  and  some  25  years  with  us,  and  I  felt  that  that  was  unjust 
to  me  and  to  them.  I  told  them  that  they  better  get  out  and  stay 
out  of  our  place.  Well,  there  was  a  big  gorilla  among  them.  He 
came  up  to  me  and  he  said,  "What  will  you  do  about  it  if  we  do  not 
leave?" 

I  went  behind  our  bar  where  I  have  a  .45  revolver.  I  took  out  this 
revolver  and  I  cocked  the  pit  on  it,  the  safety,  and  I  told  them  on 
the  3  of  a  count,  if  they  were  not  out,  that  I  would  start  shooting, 
and  then  ask  questions  later. 

Well,  they  thought  they  would  bluff  me  and  I  opened  the  safety, 
counted  to  1,  to  2,  well,  they  all  went  up  to  the  front  door,  turned 
around,  and  he  says  to  me,  "You  have  the  upper  hand  now,  but  you 
will  hear  from  us  later."     And  with  that  they  left. 

Surely,  I  was  as  scared  as  they  were,  perhaps  more  so.  After  they 
left,  about  an  hour  or  two  later,  I  called  ]\Ir.  Crowley  who  was  the  head 
of  the  Bartenders  Union. 

The  Chairman.  The  head  of  the  Bartenders  Union  ? 

Mr.  Sciiw^iMMER.  That  is  right.  I  think  that  is  his  position  at  the 
time.  I  don't  know  what  position  he  has  held.  But  I  heard  of  Mr. 
Crowley  only  due  to  a  yearly  publication  that  they  have. 

Every  year  they  come  out  with  a  bartenders'  union  book,  in  which 
they  advertise  your  name,  which  cost  us,  I  think,  $60  a  year.  I  do 
recall  the  name  of  Mr.  Crowley.  So  I  called  Mr.  Crowley  and  asked 
him  what  was  on  his  mind,  what  did  he  want  from  us?  He  said, 
"Well,  you  threw  out  a  couple  of  my  men  bodily,  and  for  that  we  are 
going  to  organize  the  entire  staff  of  yours." 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12629 

He  told  1110  that  witliiii  :i  Aveelc's  time  tliey  would  have  a  picketline 
in  front  of  us,  and  or<Tanize  all  of  tlieni.  AVell,  it  never  came  about, 
for  I  have  called  on  some  friends  around  town,  and  after  a  couple  of 
tries  they  finally,  my  2  bartenders,  the  lirst  2  that  were  ever  ap- 
proached to  join  the  nnion,  decided  that,  rather  than  to  have  trouble, 
and  they  had  families,  that  they  would  join  the  nnion,  and  perhaps 
they  would  call  olf  the  heat  that  we  have  had. 

I  went  as  far  as  haviiiir  signs  made,  stating  that  we  are  going  out 
of  business  due  to  a  strike  condition  which  was  called  by  the  union 
for  no  reason  whatsoever.  Our  employees  have  been  there  so  long 
that  due  to  all  these  wage  increases,  we  would  be  way  above  union 
wages  today,  and  they  have  been  higher  above  union  wages.  I  hire 
them  above  union  wages  today. 

So  my  conversation  with  Crowley  was  at  the  time  on  the  phone. 
I  said,  "Well,  perhaps  I  should  join  the  union  and  fire  all  my  men 
and  get  new  help  at  the  new  rate  and  I  will  be  saving  a  lot  of  money," 
for  most  of  my  men  are  earning  much  more  than  union  scale  is,  and  he 
said,  "No,  you  would  have  to  retain  all  of  your  employees,  pay  them 
the  salary  they  have  now,  plus  all  the  benefits  that  we  would  negotiate 
between  you.  All  these  increases  would  have  to  go  with  the  salary 
they  are  now  earning  right  now." 

Union  wages,  I  think,  are  about  $87.50  per  bartender  per  week, 
and  my  men  are  earning  in  excess  of  $120  a  week  or  $130  a  week. 

Well,  not  knowing  that  Mr.  Crowley  had  had  previous  trouble,  and 
I  am  relating  to  that  shooting  that  he  has  had,  his  wife  and  he,  in 
which  his  wife  was  killed — I  did  not  know  about  that — I  asked  him 
on  the  phone,  I  said,  "Mr.  Crowley,  if  I  were  to  come  to  your  house 
around  11 :  30  or  noon,  and  pick  up  the  pot  and  look  in  the  pot  to  see 
that  your  wife  made  an  Irish  stew,  would  it  be  proper  for  me  to  de- 
mand a  dollar  in  order  for  her  to  serve  that  to  you,"  at  which  he  got 
very  angry  and  hung  up  on  me. 

Then  I  found  out  the  following  day  that  his  wife  was  killed  due  to 
a  shooting  accident,  and  that  kind  of  provoked  him. 

Well,  I  don't  blame  the  man.  But,  of  course,  I  did  not  know  it  at 
the  time.  After  my  two  bartenders  have  joined  the  union,  for  which 
I  have  paid  their  initiation 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  all  of  it? 

Mr.  ScHwiMMER.  I  paid  all  of  it  in  cash.  I  paid  it  out  of  my  own 
money. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  the  initiation  fee  ? 

Mr.  ScHiMMER.  I  think  it  was  about  $100  a  man.  And  they  con- 
tinue paying  their  dues  now  every  3  months. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  pay  their  dues  or  do  they  pay  it  ? 

Mr.  Sciiwimmi:r.  They  pay  their  own.  I  also  was  instructed  that 
I  would  have  to  collect  their  dues,  at  which  point  I  have  told  them 
that  in  order  to  do  that,  they  would  have  to  pay  me  for  a  bookkeeper 
in  order  to  keep  the  books  straight.  I  will  not  have  my  girl  do  their 
work.  If  they  wanted  me  to  deduct  their  dues,  we  would  have  a  girl 
come  in  2  days  a  week  or  1  day  a  week,  pay  her  a  salary,  and  deduct 
it  from  the  clues  to  take  care  of  it.  Well,  then  they  finally  decided 
that  they  would  come  in.  I  would  not  allow  that  either.  So  they 
have  decided  that  the  bartenders  will  go  up  to  the  miion  hall  and 
pay  it  every  3  months. 


12630  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

The  Chairman.  Each  three  months? 

Mr,  ScHwiMMER.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  try  to  get  help  from  any  other  source,  from 
any  outside  source? 

Mr.  ScHwiMMER.  Well,  I  ha^e  had  many  people  try  to  help  me.  In 
other  words,  I  probably  called  on  dozens  of  people  to  get  me  out  of 
this  hotspot.  I  was  still  new  in  the  management  of  the  restaurant 
business,  for  the  man  that  owned  that  restaurant  was  a  one-man 
operator.  Only  one  man  operated  that,  and  I  knew  nothing  about 
management.  Of  course,  I  worked  in  all  phases  of  that  business. 
After  he  passed  away,  which  was  at  the  end  of  1951,  my  troubles  began 
in  the  beginning  of  1953.  Not  having  previous  experience  in  handling 
unions,  I  have  called  on  anybody  I  thought  might  have  had  some  hand 
politically  or  influentially. 

After  this  thing  was  settled,  everybody  come  in  and  took  a  bow 
and  said,  "I  told  you  I  would  help  you." 

Well,  the  question  is.  Who  helped  me  ?  Personally,  I  think  the  two 
men  joining  the  union  helped  the  situation. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  about  the  Chicago  Restaurant  Association? 

Did  you  go  to  them  ? 

Mr.  Schwimmer.  No.  I  did  not  approach  the  restaurant  associa- 
tion, although  I  did  have  one  meeting  with  Mr.  Kiscau  in  May  of  that 
year  at  the  restaurant  show  at  the  Navy  Pier.  I  bumped  into  him 
there,  for  he  is  at  all  meetings,  all  these  shows,  and  elaborated  about 
my  problems.  Well,  I  don't  know  the  exact  discussion  of  it,  all  the 
way  through. 

There  were  some  questions  I  did  ask  him  about  the  union,  which 
he  could  not  say  much  to. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  was  the  schedule  about  the  voluntary  fund? 

Mr.  Schwimmer.  At  that  time  I  found  out  that  the  restaurant 
association,  of  which  we  were  a  member  all  along,  has  had  another 
fund  or  whatever  you  might  call  it,  I  do  not  know  the  right  name  for 
it,  in  which  employers  pay  $1.50  per  month  per  employee  into  this 
so-called  kitty. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  was  the  purpose  of  that  ? 

Mr.  Schwimmer.  I  do  not  know,  sir. 

]Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  they  suggest  that  you  pay  into  that  ? 

Mr.  Schwimmer.  No  ;  they  did  not  suggest  that  I  pay  it. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  have  a  conversation  about  it  ? 

Mr.  Schwimmer.  Yes.  I  think  we  had  a  conversation  to  the  effect 
that  I  asked  him  "What  is  this  for?"'  and  I  don't  recall  the  exact  words 
but  I  did  narrow  it  down  to  the  point  that  if  I  were  a  member  of  this 
voluntary  group,  that  they  could  possibly  have  helped  me  in  case  of 
a  strike,  meaning  that  they  could  perhaps  pick  up  mj^  refuse,  they 
could  bring  in  food,  they  could  have  their  own  man  bring  and  take 
out  foods  and  merchandise  or  liquor,  and  so  on,  even  though  there  was 
a  strike  going  one. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  agree  to  belong  to  the  voluntary  fund  and 
make  the  payments  ? 

Mr.  Schwimmer.  I  did  not  agree,  because  I  was  not  asked  to  join. 
I  was  given  to  understand  at  the  time  that  I  could  not  join  it  any  more, 
because  I  already  have  had  my  labor  problems. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  did  you  decide  to  do  ?  Did  you  decide  to  join 
the  voluntary  fund  ? 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12631 

Mr.  SciiwiMMER.  No ;  I  still  do  not  belong  to  it. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  AVhy  ? 

Mr.  Sc'inviM:\rER.  Well,  let's  put  it  plainly,  that  if  I  were  to  pay  that, 
or  pay  it  to  the  union,  I  don't  see  any  differential  there.  It  would  be 
the  same  people. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Why  wouldn't  you  want  to  pay  into  the  voluntary 
fund  ? 

Mr.  SciiwiMMER.  Well,  I  wouldn't  want  to  pay  it.  I  wouldn't  never 
accept  it.    That  would  be — well,  shall  we  call  it  protection  money? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  felt  that  paying  into  the  voluntary  fund  was 
protection  money  ? 

Mr.  Schwimmer.  Well,  I  don't  know  much  about  this  voluntary 
setup. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Just  tell  me  what  you  thought  ? 

Mr.  SciiwiMMER.  Well,  I  really  don't  know. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Well,  you  used  the  term.  You  felt  that  your  payment 
to  the  voluntary  fund  was  a  protection  payment  that  you  were  receiv- 
ing or  were  going  to  get  ? 

Mr.  Sciiwim:mer.  Well,  if  you  narrowed  it  down,  in  case  of  trouble, 
if  they  could  help  me  out,  that  would  be  more  or  less  something  you  are 
paying  for  protection  in  future  years  or  at  future  times.  I  hope  I 
abbreviate  it  properly. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Were  you  against  that  ? 

Mr.  Schwimmer.  Definitely. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  For  what  reason  ? 

Mr.  Schwimmer.  Well,  if  I  didn't  want  to  pay  off  the  union,  if  I 
didn't  feel  like  belonging  to  a  union  and  paying  them,  why  should  I 
have  to  pay  the  restaurant  association  or  anyone  else  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  3^ou  know  that  they  had  Mr.  Teitelbaum  at  that 
time,  that  they  were  paying  Mr.  Teitelbaum  out  of  this  voluntary 
fund? 

Mr.  Schwimmer.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  that  Mr.  Louis  Komano  had  been  paid  out  of  the 
fund? 

Mr.  Schwimmer.  I  never  heard  of  the  man  before. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  make  any  approach  to  anybody  else  ? 

Mr.  Schwimmer.  I  had  no  approach  except  for  these  friends  of  ours, 
family  friends  from  the  old  days  gone  by,  Barney's  friends,  except  I 
had  a  call  from  Captain  Barnes  of  tlie  labor  detail  in  Chicago,  at  that 
time,  telling  me  that  he  has  heard  that  I  have  been  having  labor 
troubles,  and  some  friends  of  his  have  approached  him  to  get  in  touch 
witli  me. 

He  suggested  that  I  join  the  union  and  iron  out  my  own  problems 
for  he  could  not  help  me  in  any  way. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  He  suggested  that  you  join  the  union  ? 

Mr.  Schwimmer.  That  I  join  the  union. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Had  you  called  him  first  ? 

Mr.  Schwimmer.  No  ;  I  did  not  call  him. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  He  called  you  first  ? 

Mr.  Sciiwi:\iMER.  He  has  called  me  on  the  phone. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  he  is  the  one  that  suggested  that  you  belong 
to  the  union  ? 


12632  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  ScHwiMMER.  That  is  riglit.  That  I  take  care  of  my  problems 
with  the  union  and  do  whatever  they  ask  me  to  do,  for  he  conld  not 
help  me  in  any  way. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  ask  him  to  help  you  ? 

Mr.  ScHwiMMER.  I  did  not  ask  him.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  I  had 
harsh  words  with  him  over  the  phojie. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  did  you  say  to  him  ? 

Mr.  Schwimmer.  Well,  that  I  thought  it  was  improper  for  a  police 
officer  who  was  supposed  to  perhaps  help  me  to  tell  me  to  join  the  union, 
or  negotiate  with  them.  I  asked  them  who  has  told  him  about  my 
problems,  and  he  said,  "Well,  the  word  gets  around." 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  did  the  conversation  end  with  him  ? 

Mr.  Schwimmer.  Well,  I  don't  know  whether  he  hung  up  on  me  or  I 
hung  up  on  him,  but  I  know  we  had  kind  of  harsh  words  on  the  phone. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Goldwater. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Mr.  Schwimmer,  what  is  the  function  of  the 
Chicago  police  labor  detail  ? 

Mr.  Schwimmer.  I  do  not  know.  I  could  not  tell  you,  sir.  I  have 
very  little  knowledge  of  the  labor  detail  at  all. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Do  you  know  how  big  it  is  ? 

Mr.  Schwimmer.  No. 

Senator  Goldavater.  Do  you  know  how  long  it  has  been  in  existence  ? 

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

Senator  Goldwater.  What  are  it  duties  ?    Do  you  know  ? 

Mr.  Schwimmer.  I  could  not  tell  you,  sir. 

I  would  say  offhand  perhaps  during  a  strike  that  they  would  have 
assigned  men  in  front  of  the  place  to  observe  or  watch  for  violence  of 
any  sort. 

Senator  Goldwater.  When  you  started  to  have  this  trouble  with  the 
union,  did  you  know  of  the  existence  of  the  Chicago  police  labor  detail  ? 

Mr.  Schwimmer.  No,  I  did  not,  except  perhaps  from  reading  it  in 
the  newspapers.  But  I  definitely  did  not  approach  Captain  Barnes 
for  any  help. 

Senator  Goldwater.  If  you  had  called  the  police  in  case  of  trouble, 
would  you  have  been  furnished  police  offices  from  the  regular  force  or 
from  this  labor  detail  ? 

Mr.  Schwimmer.  That  I  could  not  tell  you,  sir.    I  don't  know. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Do  you  know  of  other  restaurant  owners  and 
operators  in  Chicago  who  have  had  trouble  with  this  same  union  ? 

Mr.  Schwimmer.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Goldw^ater.  You  are  the  only  one  that  you  know  of  ? 

Mr.  Schwimmer.  That  is  riglit. 

Senator  Goldavater.  Did  3'ou  ever  talk  with  other  restaurant  owners 
about  your  business  ^ 

Mr,  Schwimmer.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Goldwater.  You  play  it  pretty  much  alone? 

Mr.  Schwimmer.  I  am  an  18-liour-lT-hour  operator,  7  days  a  week. 

Senator  Goldwater.  And  you  have  never  heard  of  this  police  labor 
detail? 

Mr.  Schwimmer.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Goldwater.  I  will  ask  the  counsel  if  the  staff  has  looked 
into  that. 

That  is,  the  police  labor  detail. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12633 

Mr.  Kennedy.  In  Avhat  way,  Senator  ?  ,        a     ^    i  fiolrl« 

Senator  Goldwater.  To  find  out  how  they  operate  and  what  fields 
they  operate  m,  and  if  they  approach  all  problen.s  with  the  same 
attitude  that  they  approached  this  one,  namely  'Mom  the  union  and 
you  wouldn't  have  any  trouble."  t  u,w,vv  in«t- 

Uv  Kennedy.  I  wouldn't  have  any  idea  about  that.  1  knou  ]Ubt 
that  thev  have  a  labor  detail.  I  have  never  met  Captain  Barnes  and 
do  not  know  the  manner  in  which  they  operate  or  whether  this  is  a 
characteristic  of  Captain  Barnes' operations. 

S(^nator  (IoiwaIkh.  It  seems  rather  stran<.-e  to  me  that  police  de- 
partment officials  would  immediately  side  in  with  the  labor  union 
and  advise  the  owner  to  sign  up  with  the  union. 

He  mav  have  been  perfectly  correct  m  doiuii"  that.  I  tlon  t  knoNv 
the  details.  But  it  does  seem  peculiar  that  an  oroanizat^ion  that  is 
supposed  to  crive  assistance  to  law  and  order  would  side  witli  an 
orfrinization  that,  from  what  we  have  heard,  is  not  too  much  interested 

"\Il^  Scii™mer.  Of  course,  Senator,  we  did  not  have  yet  any  open 
trouble  with  them.  This  was  still  strictly  on  the  mside  There  was 
no  strike  called.  There  was  no  violence  of  any  sort,  ihis  perhaps 
couid  have  been  just  a  friendly  call  to  Captain  Barnes  on  the  side  ot 
some  friends  of  ours.  .  i       „ 

Senator  Goldwater.  When  2  or  3  men  come  to  visit  you  and  you 
sav  1  was  a  gorilla,  and  you  had  to  ask  them  out  at  the  point  ot  a 
45  vou  did  not  expect  a  tea  party  at  the  next  meeting;  did  you. 

Mr  Sciiwimmer.  No.  I  just  figured— of  course,  what  I  am  saymg 
now  has  no  bearing  on  Captain  Barnes'  detail  or  the  labor  detail 

at  all.  „  ^     ,    •    IT  0 

Senator  Goldwater.  You  didn  t  call  Captain  Barnes  ( 

Mr.  Schavimmer.  No  ;  I  did  not,  at  no  time. 

Senator  Goldw^ater.  Some  friends  of  yours  called  him  ^ 

Mr.  Sen wiMMER.  That  is  right. 

Senator  Goldwater.  And  you  know  nothing  about  the  operation 
or  duties  of  that  detail  ? 

Mr.  Schavimmer.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Goldwater.  I  don't  either,  and  I  don't  want  my  remarks 
to  seem  to  be  critical  of  them.  But  it  does  seem  to  be  a  rather  strange 
operation,  for  a  police  force  to  be  helping  the  organization  of  your 
employees  when  you  do  not  care  to  have  them  organize,  or  that  the 
employees  wanted  to  be  organized.    That  is  what  impresses  me. 

Mr.  ScHWiMMER.  That  is  the  debate  we  had  over  the  phone  that 
got  me  so  upset  at  the  time  that  we  got  into  some  rather  violent  words. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Was  he  rather  insistent  that  you  go  into  the 

union?  .     .  tt    •     i.       j 

Mr.  ScHWiMMER.  No,  sir,  he  was  not  insistent.  He  ]ust  made  a  sug- 
gestion at  that  time.   That  got  me  very  angry. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Was  it  a  strong  suggestion  ? 

Mr.  ScHWiMMER.  No,  in  a  friendly  manner,  but  very  precise. 

Senator  Goldwater.  It  was  friendly  but  firm  ? 

Mr.  ScHAViMivrER.  Yes. 

Senator  Goldwater.  You  got  the  idea  ? 

Mr.  ScHAViMMER.  I  saw  the  sign  immediately,  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  have  a  bartender  by  the  name  of  August 
Kinella? 


12634  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  ScHwiMMER.  Yes.  August  Rinella  is  working  for  us  for  8 
or  9  years — 8  years,  I  would  say. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  have  one  by  the  name  of  William  Joseph 
Schuck? 

Mr.  ScHwiMMER.  Shuck  is  working  for  us  for  about  12  years,  or 
13  years  now. 

The  Chairman.  We  have  affidavits  from  both  of  those.  Those  are 
the  two  that  joined  the  union,  are  they  ? 

Mr.  ScH^viMMER.  That  is  right,  sir. 

The  Chairmax.  We  have  affidavits  from  both  of  them.  The  affida- 
vits may  be  placed  in  the  record  at  this  point.  I  will  read  the  pertinent 
parts  of  one  of  the  affidavits. 

They  are  along  the  same  line.   This  is  from  Mr.  Rinella. 

He  states : 

Since  the  year  1950  I  have  been  employed  as  a  bartender  at  Barney's  Market 
Club,  located  at  741  West  Randolph  Street,  Chicago,  111. 

Some  time  in  June  1953,  I  recall  that  my  employer,  Mr.  Harold  Schwimmer, 
was  approached  by  certain  business  agents  of  Bartenders  Local  278  here  in 
Chicago.  The  agents  demanded  that  he  put  two  bartenders  in  the  union.  At  the 
time  I  was  on  a  withdrawal  card  from  the  union,  and  I  felt  I  was  working  in 
an  establishment  where  I  didn't  have  to  belong  to  the  union  if  I  did  not  want  to. 

I  attended  only  one  of  the  meetings  that  Mr.  Schwimmer  had  with  representa- 
tives of  local  278.  On  this  particular  occasion  Al  Tack,  business  agent  of 
local  278,  came  into  the  establishment  and  insisted  that  Schwimmer  put  two 
bartenders  in  the  union. 

Mr.  Schwimmer  had  related  to  me  prior  that  he  had  been  visited  by  certain 
union  ofBcials  of  local  278  who  tried  to  force  him  to  sign  up  the  nonunion  bar- 
tenders. Although  I  did  not  want  to  go  back  into  the  union,  I  decided  to 
rejoin  because  I  felt  if  Mr.  Schwimmer  continued  to  fight  our  battle  something 
would  happen  to  him  or  the  restaurant. 

Since  the  year  1953  I  have  belonged  to  the  union  and  have  paid  $16.50  in 
union  dues  every  3  months.  In  my  many  years  in  the  union,  no  union  oflacial 
has  ever  informed  me  of  any  union  benefits.  I  do  not  even  receive  any  sick 
benefits  from  my  dues. 

The  other  affidavit  of  Mr.  Schuck  may  be  printed  immediately 
following  this  one  in  the  record. 

(The  documents  referred  to  follow :) 

Affidavit 

I,  August  Rinella,  who  resides  at  3148  South  Lowe  Street,  Chicago,  111.,  freely 
and  voluntarily  make  the  following  statement  to  LaVern  J.  Duffy,  who  has 
identified  himself  to  me  as  a  member  of  the  staff  of  the  United  States  Senate 
Select  Committee  on  Improper  Activities  in  the  Labor  or  INIanagement  Field. 
No  threats,  force,  or  duress  has  been  used  to  induce  me  to  make  this  statement 
nor  have  I  received  any  promise  of  imnuuiity  from  any  consequences  which 
may  result  from  submission  of  this  statement  to  the  aforementioned  Senate 
select  committee. 

Since  the  year  1950  I  have  been  employed  as  a  bartender  at  Barney's  Market 
Club,  located  at  741  West  Randolph  Street,  Chicago,  111. 

Some  time  in  June  1953,  I  recall  that  my  emjjloyer,  Mr.  Harold  Schwimmer, 
was  approached  by  certain  business  agents  of  Bartenders  Local  27S  here  in 
Chicago.  The  agents  demanded  that  hi'  put  two  bartenders  in  tlie  imion.  At 
the  time  I  was  on  a  withdrawal  card  from  the  union,  and  I  felt  I  was  working 
in  an  establishment  where  I  didnt  have  to  belong  to  the  union  if  I  did  not  want  to. 

I  attended  only  one  of  the  meetings  Ihat  Mr.  Schwimmer  had  with  repre- 
sentatives of  local  278.  On  this  particular  occasion  Al  Tack,  business  agent 
of  local  278,  came  into  the  establishment  and  insisted  that  Schwimmer  put 
two  bartenders  in  the  union. 

Mr.  Schwimmer  had  related  to  me  prior  that  he  had  been  visited  by  certain 
union  officials  of  local  278  who  tried  to  force  him  to  sign  up  the  nonunion  bar- 
tenders.    Although  I  did  not  want  to  go  back  into  the  union,  I  decided  to  rejoin 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12635 

because  I  felt  if  Mr.  Schwimmer  continued  to  fight  our  battle  something  would 
happen  to  him  or  the  restaurant. 

Since  the  year  195S  I  have  belonged  to  the  union  and  have  paid  $16.50  in  union 
dues  every  3  months.  In  my  many  years  in  the  union  no  union  oflScial  has  ever 
informed  me  of  any  union  benefits.  I  do  not  even  receive  any  sick  benefits  from 
my  dues. 

I  have  read  the  foregoing  statement,  and  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge  it  is 
true  and  correct. 

August  Kinella. 

Witnesses : 

Gerald  S.  Gotch. 

LaVeBNE  J.  DUBTT. 

Sworn  and  subscribed  to  before  me  this  2d  day  of  July  1958. 

Ethel  Appel,  'Notary  Publia 
My  commission  expires  November  12, 1960. 


Affidavit 


I.  William  .Toseph  Schuck,  who  reside  at  903  West  76th  Street,  Chicago,  111., 
freely  and  voluntarily  make  the  following  statement  to  La  Verne  J.  Duffy,  who 
has  identified  himself  to  me  as  a  member  of  the  staff  of  the  United  States  Senate 
Select  Committee  on  Improper  Activities  in  the  Labor  or  Management  Field. 
No  threats,  force,  or  duress  have  been  used  to  induce  me  to  make  this  statement, 
nor  have  I  received  any  promise  of  immunity  from  any  consequences  which  may 
result  from  submission  of  this  statement  to  the  aforementioned  Senate  select 
committee. 

Since  the  year  1946  I  have  been  employed  as  a  bartender  at  Barney's  Market 
Club,  located  at  741  West  Randolph  Street,  Chicago,  111. 

Some  time  in  June  1953  I  recall  that  my  employer,  Mr.  Harold  Schwimmer, 
was  approached  by  certain  business  agents  of  Bartenders'  Local  278  here  in 
Chicago.  The  agents  demanded  that  he  put  two  bartenders  in  the  union.  As 
one  of  the  nonunion  bartenders,  the  union  ofl5cials  did  not  ask  me  if  I  wanted 
to  join  the  union  or  not. 

I  attended  only  one  of  the  meetings  that  Mr.  Schwimmer  had  with  repre- 
sentatives of  local  278.  On  this  particular  occasion,  Al  Tack,  business  agent 
of  local  278,  came  into  the  establishment  and  insisted  that  Schwimmer  put  two 
bartenders  in  the  union. 

Mr.  Schwimmer  had  related  to  me  prior  that  he  had  been  visited  by  certain 
union  officials  of  local  278  who  tried  to  force  him  to  sign  up  the  nonunion  bar- 
tenders. Although  I  did  not  want  to  join  the  union,  I  decided  to  join  because 
I  felt  if  Mr.  Schwimmer  continued  to  fight  our  battle  something  would  happen 
to  him  or  the  restaurant. 

Since  the  year  1953  I  have  belonged  to  the  unic«i  and  have  paid  $16.50  in 
union  dues  every  3  months.  In  my  many  years  in  the  union  no  union  official 
has  ever  informed  me  of  any  union  benefits.  I  da  not  even  receive  any  sick 
benefits  from  my  dues. 

I  have  read  the  foregoing  statement,  and  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge,  it  is 
true  and  correct. 

William  Josbiph  Schuck. 

Witnesses : 

LaVebn   J.   Duffy. 
Mary  F.  Kenney. 

Sworn  and  subscribed  to  before  me  this  9th  day  of  June  1958. 

Ethel  Appel,  Nortanj  Public. 
My  commission  expires  November  12,  1960. 

The  Chairman.  Is  there  anything  further? 
Mr.  Kexnedy.  Tliat  is  all. 

The  Chairman.  I  believe  you  said  you  had  about  100  employees? 
Mr.  Schwimmer.  That  is  right,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  these  two  bartenders  are  all  that  ever  joined 
the  union? 

Mr.  Schwimmer.  That  is  riirht. 


12636  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

The  Chairman.  The  rest  are  still  unorganized  ? 

Mr.  SciiwiMMER.  Well,  we  have  many  employees  tliat  liave  been  in 
the  union  or  perhaps  are  in  the  union  when  I  hire  them,  but  that  is  of 
no  importance  to  me. 

In  other  words,  we  do  not  question 

The  Chairman.  What  I  mean,  your  store  as  such  has  never  been 
organized,  except  the  two  that  went  in  ? 

Mr.  ScHWiMMER.  That  is  right. 

The  Chairman.  In  other  words,  that  was  the  deal,  if  you  would  put 
in  those  two,  they  would  leave  you  alone  ? 

Mr.  Schwimmer.  That  is  right,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  have  related  the  circumstances  preceding 
your  having  them  join  the  union  ? 

Mr.  Schwimmer.  That  is  right,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Are  there  any  further  questions? 

Senator  Goldwater.  There  is  one  thing  I  want  to  clear,  Mr.  Chair- 
man. 

Did  you  ask  them  to  join  the  union  or  did  they  do  it  of  their  own 
volition  ? 

Mr.  Schwimmer.  They  have  joined  on  their  own,  for  I  still  in- 
sisted at  that  time  that  I  would  not  want  them  to  join. 

Senator  Goldwater.  If  anybody  else  wanted  to  join  the  union, 
would  you  allow  them  to,  and  would  you  let  them  work? 

Mr.  Schwimmer.  Well,  if  it  was  more  than  the  two  employees,  I 
would  have  rather  not  at  that  time. 

Senator  Goldwater.  You  would  have  what  ? 

Mr.  Schwimmer.  I  would  have  not  had  them  join  the  union  if  it 
was  more  than  two  people. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Do  you  feel  that  your  pay  and  your  working 
conditions  and  hours  are  better  than  the  union  can  get  these  men  ? 

Mr.  Schwimmer.  My  men  are  earning  more  money  for  an  hour  less 
work  a  day  than  union  wages  require.  They  have  practically  all  the 
benefits  that  the  men  could  have.  I  would  say  offhand  that  they  are 
better  off  in  my  employment  than  if  they  went  any  place  else,  for  they 
already  have  a  lot  of  seniority,  which  is  to  their  benefit,  of  course. 
But  even  if  I  were  to  hire  a  new  man  as  of  today,  he  starts  out  with 
about  $7.50  a  day  more  than  union  scale  is. 

Senator  Goldwater.  If  you  wanted  to  get  a  replacement  bartender, 
where  could  you  find  an  experienced  bartender  other  than  in  a  hiring 
hall? 

Mr.  Schwimmer.  No  ;  I  never  turn  to  the  hiring  hall.  We  always 
put  an  ad  in  the  paper  and  get  it  through  an  ad  in  one  of  the  local 
newspapers. 

Senator  Goldwait:r.  You  don't  have  any  trouble  getting  them  ? 

Mr.  Schwimmer.  Never  have  so  far. 

Senator  Goldwater.  That  is  all. 

The  Chairman,  All  right.     Thank  you  very  much. 

The  committee  will  stand  in  recess  until  2  o'clock  and  we  will 
resume  here  in  this  room  at  that  time. 

(Whereupon,  at  12:  25  p.  m.  the  hearing  recessed,  to  reconvene  at  2 
p.  m.,  of  the  same  day,  with  tlie  following  ineinbtMs  present:  Senators 
McClellan,  Ervin,  and  Goldwater.) 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12837 

AFTERNOON    SESSION 

The  CiiAimrAX.  The  committee  will  be  in  order. 

(Members  of  tlie  committee  present  tit  the  convening  of  the  session 
were:   Senators  McClellan,  Church,  Goldwater,  and  Curtis.) 

The  Chairman,  (^all  the  next  witness. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Chris  Carson. 

The  CHAimiAN.  You  solennily  swear  that  the  evidence  given  before 
this  Senate  select  committee  shall  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and 
nothing  bu  the  truth,  so  help  you  God  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  I  do. 

TESTIMONY  OF  CHRIS  CARSON 

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

Mr.  Carson.  ]My  name  is  Chris  Carson,  I  live  at  2322  West  Fer- 
wakl,  Chicago,  and  I  am  a  restaurant  owner. 

The  Chair:man.  How  long  have  you  been  in  the  restaurant  business, 
Mr.  Carson  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  Since  about  1940  or  1941. 

The  Chair3Ian.  Do  you  waive  counsel ;  do  you  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  Yes ;  I  do. 

The  Chairman.  Where  is  your  restaurant  located  and  what  is  the 
name  of  it? 

Mr.  Carson.  Presently  I  have  one  restaurant  at  6162  North  Broad- 
way, known  as  Carson's,  and  another  at  5525  West  Lake  Street,  both 
in  Chicago. 

The  Chairman.  All  right,  proceed. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Xow,  prior  to  that  time,  Mr.  Carson,  did  you  own 
some  other  restaurant? 

Mr.  Carson.  Yes,  sir ;  I  did. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Wiat  were  they  named  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  Peter  Pan. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  many  of  those  were  there  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  Eight. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  they  were  in  the  Chicago  area  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  They  were  all  in  Chicago,  sir. 

Mr.  ICennedy.  How  long  had  you  owned  those  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  I  started  Mith  1  in  1945,  I  believe,  and  I  sold  them  in 
1953,  and  there  were  8  at  that  time. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Xow,  were  you  ever  approached  by  the  union  about 
making  any  of  your  employees  members  of  the  Restaurant  Union  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  Yes,  sir;  I  was. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Wien  was  that  ? 

iVIr.  Carson.  I  think  the  first  time  was  somewhere  around  1948  or 
1949. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  "\'\nio  came  to  see  you  at  that  time  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  I  think  his  name  was  Cinegram. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  join  the  union  at  that  time;  did  ;  ny  of 
your  employees  become  members  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  Well,  let  me  see.  I  really  didn't,  and  my  genei-al  man- 
ager did,  and  made  a  contract,  and  we  went  up  to  see  Mr.  Teitelbaum, 
and  we  joined  the  voluntary  fund,  or  whatever  it  was  called. 


12638  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  is  when  you  were  approached  in  1949,  was  it 
not? 

Mr.  Carson.  1948  or  1949. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Didn't  Mr.  Blakely  speak  to  you  ? 

Mr,  Carson.  I  never  spoke  to  him. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  never  spoke  to  Mr.  Blakely  or  Mr.  Albi  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  Albi  or  Cinegram  are  the  only  two  I  have  ever  talked 
to. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  were  their  positions  with  the  local  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  I  think  they  were  business  agents. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  is,  of  local  593,  is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  I  don't  know  what  it  is. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  were  then  a  member  of  the  restaurant  associa- 
tion, but  you  hadn't  contributed  to  the  voluntary  fund,  and  will  you 
tell  us  what  your  conversations  were  then  about  the  voluntary  fund  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  With  whom  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  When  you  went  to  see  Mr.  Kiesau  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  I  told  him  I  was  approached  by  Albi  or  Cinegram,  or 
whichever  it  was,  and  that  I  was  anticipating  some  labor  difficulties 
and  if  there  was  anything  he  could  do.  He  told  me  that  he  could 
do  for  me  the  same  as  he  was  doing  for  many  others;  that  I  would 
have  to  contribute  to  the  fund  X  number  of  dollars  per  month  per 
employee,  and  I  don't  remember  the  figures. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  About  $1  a  month  for  each  employee  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  That  is  right,  or  $1.25,  and  I  think  it  excluded  hostesses 
and  cashiers  and  management. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  was  the  purpose  of  this  voluntary  f mid  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  It  was  a  fund  that  the  Chicago  Restaurant  Associa- 
tion was  going  to  use  to  counteract  the  efforts  of  the  union. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  To  fight  the  unionization  of  the  employees? 

Mr.  Carson.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  meet  Mr.  Teitelbaum  at  that  time? 

Mr.  Carson.  I  think  that  I  went  up  to  Mr.  Teitelbaum's  office,  and 
I  waited,  and  he  didn't  come  in  that  day,  or  maybe  I  did  or  maybe 
I  don't,  and  I  really  don't  remember,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  meet  him  subsequently  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  don't  know  whether  you  ever  met  him  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  can't  remember  whether  you  had  any  conver- 
sations with  Mr.  Teitelbaum  about  this  problem  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  I  know  that  I  wns  up  to  his  office  on  Jackson  Boulevard, 
and  we  waited,  and  I  i-eally  can't  romomber  if  we  did  get  to  see  him 
or  not.  Maybe  we  did  and  maybe  we  didn't,  and  I  really  cannot 
remember.     I  was  witli  my  general  manager. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  happened  then  witli  tlie  union  efforts  to  or- 
ganize your  employees,  after  you  starting  contributing  to  the  volun- 
tary fluid? 

Mr.  Carson.  The  efforts  ceased. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  They  never  came  around  again  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  I  won't  say  never  came  around,  but,  at  least,  the  im- 
mediate problem  was  corrected. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  were  you  approached  again  in  1050  or  1051  ? 

Mr,  Carson.  Yes. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12639 

Mr.  Kexxedy.  By  whom  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  The  same  person,  and  I  think  it  was  Fred  Albi  again. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Are  you  sure  that  wasn't  from  local  450  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  What  is  local  450  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Hotel  and  Restaurant  Employees  and  Bartenders, 
and  the  other  union,  we  understand,  was  local  593. 

Mr.  Carson.  I  am  sorry.  I  recollect  now.  Yes,  when  the  Harlem 
Avenue  new  store  opened;  you  see,  I  had  7  stores  in  Chicago,  and  1 
was  across  the  street  from  Chicago,  but  it  was  in  Elmwood  Park. 
That  ])articular  restaurant  didn't  come  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Albi  union. 

So,  that  particular  restaurant,  I  suppose,  that  is  what  you  are 
referring  to? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  All  right. 

Mr.  Carson.  Yes;  it  was  more  than  an  approach.  Someone  from 
whatever  local  you  call  it  there. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Local  450. 

Mr.  Carson.  Yes;  local  450  went  to  the  store,  and  started  to  make 
attempts  to  unionize  them,  and  tlie  manager,  and  so  forth,  told  me 
about  it,  and  I  went  out  there  one  day  and  I  met  with  someone  from 
that  local. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Do  you  know  whom  you  met  with  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  No;  I  don't  remember  his  name.  He  was  a  big  man, 
big  a  man  as  I  am,  if  not  bigger  or  taller.  I  sat  down  and  reasoned 
with  him  and  tried  to  show  him  where  it  was  impossible  to  get  his 
demands,  and  I  would  appreciate  if  we  couldn't  find  some  happy 
medium  so  that  neither  one  of  us  would  be  particularly  hurt.  I 
finally  worked  out  a  contract  with  him,  that  he  took  a  certain  per- 
centage of  those  employees. 

Mr.  KJENNEDY.  How  many  employees  did  you  agree  to  give  him  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  Well,  it  is  10  years  ago,  Mr.  Kennedy,  but  I  would 
say  possibly  20. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  just  selected  any  20  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  No  ;  I  selected  the  ones  that  seemed  that  they  wouldn't 
migrate,  tlie  ones  that  had  been  with  me  for  a  while,  and  told  them 
about  it,  and  they  each  signed  a  card,  personally,  and  filled  it  out,  and 
made  tlieir  own  beneficiaries,  and  all  of  that,  and  then  I  gave  those  to 
the  union  and  they  knew  they  were  in  the  union. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  pay  the  initiation  fees  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  Yes ;  I  did. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  pay  the  dues  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  No  ;  I  don't  think  there  was  initiation  fee,  and  I  think 
that  I  just  ]iaid  tlie  dues. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  didn't  deduct  it  from  their  salaries  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  No  ;  I  paid  it  from  the  store. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  continue  to  pay  the  dues  each  month  then  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  Each  quarter. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  By  check  or  by  cash  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  By  check. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  did  you  write  those  payments  off  as  a  busi- 
ness expense  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  I  presume  so ;  yes. 

21243— 58— pt.  33 10 


12640  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  the  union  representatives  discuss  the  wages 
and  hours  and  conditions  of  the  employees  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  Quite  a  bit. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  they  ask  to  examine  the  books  to  find  out  how 
much  your  employees  were  being  paid  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  Yes ;  they  did. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Are  your  employees  being  paid  above  the  union 
scale  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  Everyone  except  the  waitresses. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Are  any  of  tlie  waiti-esses  in  the  union  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  I  don't  know,  sir,  and  I  don't  remember  if  some  of 
them  were  in  the  union  or  not,  but  the  bone  of  contention  between 
myself  and  the  union  has  always  been  the  waitresses. 

It  is  very  easy,  and  we  can  stay  in  business,  to  pay  at  least  union 
wages  to  the  men  employees  and  the  chefs  and  the  miscellaneous  help, 
but  the  part  of  the  union  contract  that  I  have  always  fought  was  the 
salary  that  they  designated  for  waitresses,  because  the  waitresses, 
naturally,  get  gratuities,  and  it  is  part  of  their  salary.  So,  it  is  always 
that  waitresses'  salary  that  I  fought,  personally. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Well,  when  they  examined  your  books  and  found 
out  you  weren't  paying  union  scale,  did  they  take  any  steps  to  enforce 
the  contract  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  Well  no,  because,  subject  to  that  misunderstanding, 
I  told  them  I  had  no  objection  to  anything  else,  and  if  they  wanted 
to  get  some  unionization  in  the  place  and  they  would  cooperate  with 
me,  and  not  make  me  get  involved  in  this  high  waitress  salary,  I 
would  go  along  with  them;  so,  we  more  or  less  bargained,  and  they 
took  the  20  people  that  would  satisfy  them,  and  I  benefited  in  not 
having  waitresses  in  the  union. 

]Mr.  Kennedy.  None  of  the  waitresses  went  in  the  union? 

Mr.  Carson.  I  don't  presume  so;  at  least,  that  is  the  thing  I  tried 
to  keep  out. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Do  you  know  if  you  kept  them  out  or  not  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  I  can't  remember  10  years  ago,  Mr.  Kennedy. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Well,  when  did  you  sell  the  restaurants? 

Mr.  Carson.  In  1953. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  is  not  10  years  ago ;  it  is  5  years  ago ;  did  you 
have  any  waitresses  in  the  union  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  I  have  to  repeat;  I  don't  remember,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  said  you  bargained  on  this  matter  with  the 
union,  and  I  am  trying  to  find  out  what  the  results  of  it  were. 

Mr.  Carson.  The  results  must  have  been  that  I  didn't  have  any 
waitresses  in  the  union,  or  I  Avouldn't  have  accepted  the  bargain. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  about  your  present  restaurant? 

Mr.  Carson.  It  is  the  same  thing. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Is  that  organized  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  On  the  same  basis. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Are  you  paying  union  scale  to  your  employees? 

Mr.  Carson.  Everyone  but  the  waitresses. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Are  any  of  your  waitresses  in  the  union  there? 

Mr.  Carson,  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  They  are  not  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  No. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  None  of  them  are  in  the  union  ? 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12G41 

Mr.  Carson.  No. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Why  hasn't  the  union  tried  to  organize  your 
waitresses? 

Mr.  Carson.  For  the  same  reason  1  just  told  you ;  I  bargained  with 
them  to  give  them  the  rest  of  the  help  if  they  would  leave  the 
waitresses  out. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  made  a  payment  to  them  so  that  they  would 
not  organize  your  waitresses;  is  that  right? 

Mr.  Carson.   I  didn't  (juite  understand  that  question. 

]Mr.  Kennedy.  You  made  a  payment  to  them  so  they  ^^ould  not 
organize  your  waitresses  ? 

]Mr.  Carson.  Xo  ;  I  bargained  with  them. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  you  made  a  payoff  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  gave  them  some  money  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  Xo,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  give  them  any  money  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  Never. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  never  gave  them  any  money  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  Outside  of  the  dues  that  I  told  you  we  paid  on  the  ones. 

Mr.  Kennedy'.  You  gave  them  some  money  at  this  time,  and  this 
didn't  come  out  as  a  checkoff,  and  it  is  forbidden  by  law  for  you  to 
make  any  payment  of  that  kind,  under  section  302. 

Mr.  Carson.  That  is  what  I  found  out  recently,  and  I  didn't  know 
it  at  the  time. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Then  you  made  a  payment  with  the  understanding 
that  they  wouldn't  organize  your  waitresses,  and  you  got  a  "sweet- 
heart" contract  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  I  don't  quite  accept  it  that  way,  Senator.  I  think 
that  I  bargained  because  what  I  didn't  want  in  the  restaurant  to  be 
unionized  was  the  waitresses. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  is  not  the  point.  The  point  is  that  the  em- 
ployees also  have  a  right.  Now  let  me  ask  you:  Did  you  have  on 
your  payroll  any  individual  with  a  criminal  record  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  Yes ;  I  did. 

Mr.  Kennedy'.  Who  did  you  have  on  your  payroll  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  Well,  I  had  many,  but  I  presume  the  man  you  are  ask- 
ing about  is  a  man  by  the  name  of  Charles  Gioe. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  do  you  spell  his  name  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  G-i-o-e. 

Mr.  IvENNEDY.  He  is  known  as  "Cherry  Nose"  Gioe? 

Mr.  Carson.  I  think  so ;  yes,  sir. 

ISIr.  IvENNEDY'.  How  loug  did  you  have  him  on  your  payroll? 

Mr.  Carson.  About  2  years. 

(At  this  point,  the  following  members  were  present:    Senators 
McClellan,  Church,  Goldwater,  and  Curtis.) 
Mr.  Kennedy.  What  was  he  doing  for  you  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  He  was  helping  me  in  many  respects.  He  was  closing 
some  of  the  stores.  I  would  call  him  a  supervisor,  if  you  want  to  call 
him  that. 

ISIr.  Kennedy'.  A  supervisor  of  your  employees  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  Supervisor  of  the  restaurants,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  know  of  his  long  criminal  record  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  It  was  made  very  clear  to  me  by  his  parole  officer. 


12642  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  were  aware  of  that? 

Mr.  Carson.  Positively. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  happened  to  "Cherry  Nose"  Gioe? 

Mr.  Carson.  He  was  murdered. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  When? 

Mr.  Carson.  In  1954. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  He  was  murdered 

Mr.  Carson.  In  gangland  style. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  was  he  murdered? 

Mr.  Carson.  He  was  machinegunned. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Could  you  tell  us  how  many  times  he  had  been 
arrested  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  I  don't  know,  sir.    I  didn't  know  Mr.  Gioe  that  well. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  He  visited  at  your  home ;  did  he  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  Mr.  Gioe  came  to  me  when  he  was  employed  by 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Just  answer  the  question.  Did  he  visit  at  your 
home  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  Yes ;  he  did. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  visit  at  his  home  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  Yes;  I  did. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Wliat  other  financial  interests  have  you  had  other 
than  your  restaurant  since  1950  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  I  went  into  the  automobile  business  for  a  short  time. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  was  the  name  of  that  company  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  6162  North  Broadway  Auto  Exchange. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Wliat  other  companies  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  I  can't  remember  of  anything  else  that  I  went  into.      _ 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Have  you  had  any  other  financial  interest  since     ■ 
1950  other  than  the  restaurant  and  this  auto  thing  ?  • 

Mr.  Carson.  I  haven't  been  in  anything  but  the  restaurant  business. 
I  am  trying  to  think.  Oh,  yes,  in  1957,  I  believe,  I  went  into  a  dis- 
tributing business  connected  with  the  restaurant  business. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Wliat  was  the  name  of  that  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  I  called  it  the  Carson  Distributing  Co.,  but  I  only 
operated  it  about  6  weeks  and  decided  to  get  out  of  it. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  ever  have  an  interest  or  work  for  the  Con- 
solidated Molding  Co.? 

Mr.  Carson.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  ever  hear  of  that  company  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  never  did  ?  You  never  had  a  financial  interest 
in  that? 

Mr.  Carson.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Do  you  know  a  Paul  Mann  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Have  you  had  any  other  financial  interests  since 
1950  other  than  your  restaurant  and  the  two  that  you  have  men- 
tioned ? 

Mr.  Carson.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  many  employees  do  you  have  in  your  present 
restaurant? 

Mr.  Carson.  About  50. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  many  are  members  of  the  union  ? 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12643 

Mr.  Carson.  Twenty. 

Mr,  Kennedy.  Do  you  know  what  interests  Cherry  Nose  Gioe  had  ? 
Did  you  know  of  any  other  financial  interests  that  he  had  ? 

Mr.  Cakson.  1  started  to  tell  you,  Senator,  but  you  told  me  not  to 
answer.    Do  you  want  me  to  answer  ? 

Mr.  IvENNEDY.  Yes. 

Mr.  Carson.  It  seems  that  Mr.  Gioe  had  an  interest  in  or  owned 
the  company  known  as  Calumet  Construction  Co.  When  I  was  build- 
ing one  of  my  stores,  he  came  in  to  bid  on  the  job.  That  is  how  I 
got  to  know  him.  He  didn't  do  the  job,  because  he  wasn't  competitive. 
Shortly  after  that  I  had  a  store  near  his  residence.  I  saw  him  a  few 
times,  and  one  day  he  approached  me,  if  I  had  any  opening  in  my 
organization  for  him,  that  he  had  discussed  it  with  Mr.  Condon.  Con- 
don came  in  and  saw  me,  and  I  thought  I  did.  Condon  thought  it  was 
a  good  idea  to  give  him  a  chance  to  rehabilitate  himself. 

I  think  that  this  Calumet  Construction  Co.  ceased  then.  It  was  not 
doing  so  well.    That  is  why  he  came  to  work  for  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Wlien  did  he  come  to  work  for  you  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  I  believe  it  was  1951. 

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

Senator  Curtis.  Mr.  Chairaian? 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Curtis. 

Senator  Curtis.  Did  your  waitresses  want  to  join  the  union  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  Yes ;  they  did. 

Senator  Curtis.  The  waitresses  wanted  to  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  Yes. 

Senator  Curtis.  This  controversy  about  paying  waitresses,  that  in- 
volved the  gratuity  or  tip  income  ?  I  mean,  in  what  should  be  a  proper 
pay,  most  restaurants  take  into  account  the  gratuities  the  waitresses 
get ;  is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  No,  sir;  they  don't. 

Senator  Curtis.  Here  is  what  I  have  in  mind :  Not  that  you  have  to 
consider  it,  but  is  that  one  of  the  considerations  in  determining  what 
a  restaurant  will  pay  a  waiter  or  waitress,  the  amount  of  tips  re- 
ceived ? 

Mr.  Carson.  No,  sir.  There  are  some  restaurants  that  we  term  as 
dinner  houses,  where  the  girls  will  work,  say  in  a  steak  house  or  some- 
thing, where  their  salaries  are  very  unimportant,  because  in  a  steak 
house  between,  sav  the  hour  of  5  and  9  that  girl  may  make  somewhere 
between  $10  and  $12  a  night. 

Therefore,  if  she  gets  a  $3  salary,  she  makes  $15  for  the  night.  On 
the  other  liand,  if  you  liave  a  short-order  restaurant,  like  Peter  Pan 
was,  where  the  tips  aren't  that  great,  then,  of  course,  you  have  to  pay 
them  a  little  more  mone3^ 

My  argument  with  the  union  alwaj'S  was  that  there  should  be  a 
separate  contract  where  the  gratuities  should  be  taken  into  con- 
sideration, because.  Senator,  I  would  like  to  point  out,  and  I  think 
it  would  be  of  interest  to  you  to  know,  that  the  restaurant  business 
is  a  partial-service  business,  a  partial-purchase  business,  and  a  certain 
amount  of  overhead. 

The  way  our  business  was  always  set  up,  our  food  cost  runs  some- 
where between  40  and  42  percent,  our  overhead  is  something  around 
20  or  22  percent,  and  our  payroll  cannot  go  beyond  30  percent. 


12644  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

I  do  not  believe  that  there  is  any  restaurant  operating  in  Chicago, 
even  though  they  are  paying  this  $3  a  day  or  whatever  it  liappens  to 
be,  that  can  show  a  payroll  that  is  much  less  than  that  30  percent. 

Now,  if  you  take  the  bulk  of  your  help,  which  happens  to  be  the 
waitresses,  and  you  take  and  pay  them  $36  a  week  instead  of  $18,  you 
are  doubling  your  payroll  amongst  the  most  employees.  Actually, 
they  are  not  the  ones  that  need  it,  because  they  do  get  these  gratuities. 

So  I  don't  see  how  anybody — at  least,  I  couldn't  find  a  way  to  stay  in 
business  and  pay  $36  a  week  which  the  union  felt  the  waitresses  should 
get. 

Yesterday,  I  heard  you.  Senator,  mention  to  someone  that  he  gained 
about  $16,000,  the  difference  between  what  he  should  have  paid  in 
help  and  what  he  did  not  pay  by  having  his  contract. 

Senator  Curtis.  I  heard  that  mentioned  here.  I  think  it  was  some- 
one else. 

Mr.  Carson.  I  don't  know.  It  was  someone.  I  would  like  to  point 
out  that  if  you  are  seeking  facts,  I  would  like  to  point  out.  Senator 
McClellan,  that  if  we  had  paid  the  actual  salary  the  union  wanted, 
there  would  not  have  even  been  the  7  or  8  percent  left  for  the  operator 
of  the  restaurant.  In  other  words,  there  was  never  an  attempt  made 
by  the  restaurant  to  take  advantage  of  the  employees.  It  was  just  a 
bad  setup  where  the  waitress'  salary  was  concerned. 

Senator  Curtis.  Are  there  some  eating  houses  in  this  country  where 
gratuities  are  sufficient  and  they  pay  no  salary  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  Yes,  there  are,  sir. 

Senator  Curtis.  What  type  of  eating  house  would  that  be? 

Mr.  Carson.  Well,  it  would  be  a  house  where  the  tips  were  known 
to  be  very  good. 

There  are  places  in  Chicago  where  girls  get  only  a  dollar  a  day. 
There  are  other  places  where  they  get  $10  a  day.  In  other  words,  if  a 
girl  works  in  an  industrial  factory  neighborhood,  where  a  working- 
man  comes  in  and  he  pays  the  price  of  the  food  and  leaves  maybe  a 
nickel  or  a  dime,  that  girl  you  have  to  pay  her  maybe  $10  a  day  to 
keep  her. 

But  if  she  is  working  in  a  place,  say — well,  I  will  take  Wolfie's,  in 
Miami  Beach,  where  it  is  a  resort  town  and  everybody  tips  so  well, 
those  girls  work  for,  maybe,  $3  a  day.     I  don't  know. 

Senator  Curtis.  I  don't  know  enough  of  tlie  facts,  and  I  am  not 
attempting  to  appraise  it  or  condone  it  or  condemn  it  either,  but  what 
would  have  happened  in  the  restaurant  situation  in  Chicago  if  they 
had  not  the  restaurant  association  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  Well,  in  my  opinion  they  never  would  have  needed  a 
restaurant  association  if  the  union  would  have  worked  out  a  contract 
like  I  am  telling  you.  I  think  every  restaurant  man  would  have  been 
happy  to  have  every  employee  in  tlie  union  if  they  would  take  and 
have  a  separate  contract  for  a  separate  type  of  business. 

When  T  argued  with  Cinegr-ani,  tliat  was  my  argument.  T  was  not 
opposed  to  iiaying — I  liave  a  chef  now  that  I  pay  $180  a  week.  I 
don't  have  anybody  working  in  the  kitclien  that  gets  less  than  $100. 
But  I  still  can'only  afford  to  pay  $18  a  week.  You  can  see  my  records. 
Even  by  paying  the  girls  $18  a  week,  my  percentage  of  labor  cost  in 
my  business  is  still  27  to  28  percent. 

You  can  understand  in  a  barber  shop,  he  sells  nothing  but  labor. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12645 

111  a  food  mart,  where  it  is  a  self-service  business,  the}^  have  a  small 
labor  percentage. 

But  in  the  restaurant  business,  we  have  it  combined.  The  only 
thing  we  can  control  is  the  labor  cost.  The  food  cost  is  more  or  less 
controlled  by  the  customer. 

If  we  cut  down  the  portions,  by  increasing  our  labor  cost,  then  we 
are  not  going  to  do  any  business.  As  far  as  our  operating  cost,  the 
electricity,  insurance,  and  things  like  that,  we  hardly  control  them, 
except  for  the  exception  where  you  might  make  a  bad  lease.  So  the 
only  thing  that  you  can  control  is  the  labor  percentage  of  cost,  and 
that  is  the  thing  that  I  fought. 

If  any  union  would  come  up  today  and  bargain  with  me  on  that 
basis,  I  would  be  very  happy  to  have  a  100-percent  union  shop. 

Senator  Curtis.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Goldwater.  ]\Ir.  Chairman  ? 

The  Chairmax.  Senator  Goldwater. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Mr.  Carson,  you  said  you  have  50  employees 
in  your  present  restaurant  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  Yes. 

Senator  Goldwater.  You  have  two  restaurants  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Goldwater.  You  have  50  in  each  or  50  total  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  No,  the  second  restaurant  has  only  opened  up  about  3 
months  ago  and  nothing  has  been  done  yet  about  the  labor  situation. 
When  I  spoke  of  the  50, 1  was  speaking  of  Broadway. 

Senator  Goldwater.  You  speak  of  negotiating  with  the  union.  Do 
the  negotiating  yourself? 

Mr.  Carson.  Yes,  I  did,  sir. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Did  you  have  a  lawyer  to  help  you  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Goldwwter.  You  did  it  all  by  yourself  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Do  you  ever  call  on  the  association  for  their 
help? 

Mr.  Carson.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Have  you  always  negotiated  yourself? 

Mr.  Carson.  Yes,  I  have. 

Senator  Goldwater.  I  want  to  get  to  one  other  subject  that  was 
mentioned  in  this  this  morning.  You  have  been  in  the  restaurant  busi- 
iiess  in  Chicago  since  1941  ? 

]\Ir.  Carson.  That  is  right,  sir. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Have  you  ever  had  occasion  to  use  the  police 
labor  detail  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Goldw^ater.  Do  you  know  about  it? 

Mr.  Carson.  I  didn't  even  know  that  one  existed. 

Senator  Goldwater.  When  did  you  first  hear  about  it? 

Mr.  Carson.  Now. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Today  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  That  is  right,  sir. 

Senator  Goldwater.  From  me? 

Mr.  Carson.  That  is  right,  sir. 


12646  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Senator  Goldwater.  If  you  ever  had  to  call  the  police,  would  you 
expect  a  member  of  the  labor  detail  or  would  you  expect  a  member  of 
the  regular  force? 

Mr.  Cakson.  I  would  expect  a  regular  policeman. 

Senator  Goldwater.  You  have  never  heard  of  this  detail? 

Mr.  Carson.  I  have  never  heard  of  it ;  no,  sir. 

Senator  Goldwater.  It  is  rather  amazing.  Have  you  ever  had  any 
labor  trouble,  where  you  have  had  strikes? 

Mr,  Carson.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Any  violence  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  Never,  sir. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Any  threatened  violence  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  Never,  sir. 

Senator  Goldwater.  That  is  all  I  have,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Church  ? 

Senator  Chtjech.  No  questions,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  just  like  to  have  the  witness 
remain  while  we  put  another  witness  on  regarding  the  advantages 
this  witness  obtained  through  the  deal  that  he  made  with  the  union. 
I  would  like  to  call  Mr.  Gotsch,  who  was  sworn  yesterday. 

TESTIMONY  OF  GERALD  GOTSCH— Resumed 

Mr.  Ejennedy.  Have  you  made  a  study  of  the  books  and  records 
of  Mr.  Carson's  former  interests  in  Peter  Pan  Restaurants  ? 

Mr.  GoTSCH.  No,  I  have  not,  sir.    6162  North  Broadway  store  is    jm 
ovmed  by  him  presently.  " 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  about  the  other  interests,  when  he  had  the 
interest  in  Peter  Pan  in  1953  ? 

Mr.  GoTSCH.  The  study  was  made  under  the  present  ownership. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  I  am  talking  about  when  Mr.  Carson  had  the  owner- 
ship. 

Mr.  GoTSCH.  No,  we  did  not. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Why  didn't  you  make  a  study  of  those  books  and 
records  ? 

Mr.GoTSCH.  Of  Peter  Pan? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Yes.   Are  the  books  and  records  available  ? 

Mr.  GoTSCH.  No,  they  aren't,  sir,  as  I  remember. 

The  Chairman.  Are  the  books  and  records  of  the  former  Peter 
Pan  Restaurant  available  ?  : 

Mr.  Carson.  No,  sir.  ^ 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Where  are  they  ? 

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

Mr,  Kennedy.  What  did  you  do  with  the  books  and  records  ?  J 

Mr.  Carson.  The  bookkeepers  would  know  what  they  did  witK      ^ 
them.    I  don't  know.  v 

Mr,  Kennedy.  You  have  no  idea  where  they  are  ?  ^ 

Mr.  Carson.  No,  sir.  | 

Senator  Goldwater.  Do  you  have  your  own  bookkeeper  ?  * 

Mr.  Carson.  I  have  a  bookkeeping  jfirm. 

Senator  Goldwater.  You  hire  them  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  We  hire  outside  C.  P.  A. 's. 

Senatoi-  Goldwater.  Are  books  kept  on  the  premises  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  Yes,  sir. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    EST    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12647 

Senator  Goldwater.  They  are  in  your  possession  ? 

Mr.  Carsox.  Yes,  sir.  I  jjave  ]Mr.  Gotsch  the  books  of  the  restau- 
rant I  operate, 

Mr.  Kexxedy.  We  will  oet  into  that — the  restaurant  3'ou  own  at 
the  present  time.  I  am  talkin<T  about  the  former  ownership.  We 
wanted  to  go  through  the  former  ownership. 

Mr.  Carson.  I  didn't  have  them ;  no,  sir. 

Senator  Goldwater.  When  was  that  restaurant  sold  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  1953. 

Mr.  IvENXEDY.  Did  you  make  a  study  of  the  books  and  records  of 
Mr.  Carson's  restaurant  at  the  present  time  ? 

Mr.  GoTSCH.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  3'ou  determine  how  many  employees  he  had,  how 
many  were  union  and  how  many  nonunion  ? 

Mr.  GoTSCH.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Tell  us  about  it. 

Mr.  GoTSCH.  This  is  the  restaurant  located  at  6162  North  Broad- 
way. He  has  a  total  of  32  employees.  The  only  union  employees  are 
three  bartenders  and  the  organist.  There  are  8  miscellaneous  kitchen 
workers,  all  of  whom  are  nonunion,  7  paid  lower  than  the  scale  and 
1  paid  above  the  scale.  There  are  3  cooks  who  are  nonunion;  2  are 
paid  below  union  scale  and  1  paid  above. 

There  is  one  hostess,  nonunion,  paid  above  the  union  scale.  Of 
course,  as  Mr.  Carson  pointed  out,  the  waitresses  are  all  paid  below 
the  union  scale. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  many  waitresses  are  there  ? 

Mr.  GoTSCH.  17  in  all. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  all  paid  below  the  union  scale  ? 

Mr.  GoTSCH.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  many  employees  does  he  have  ? 

Mr.  GoTSCH.  32. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  many  are  members  of  the  union  ? 

Mr.  GoTSCH.  In  the  restaurant  category,  only  three. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Only  three  ? 
Mr.  GoTSCH.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Carson.  That  cannot  be  right,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  is  what  your  books  and  records  show. 

What  is  the  total  saving  to  Mr.  Carson  in  not  having  to  pay  union 
scale? 

Mr.  GoTSCH.  Approximately  $13,500. 

Mr.  Carson.  Where  do  you  come  to  that  figure  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  He  will  tell  you,  if  you  want  to  know. 

Mr.  Carson.  I  would  like  to  know,  yes,  because  I  think  this  is 
stigmatizing  the  restaurant  business  in  Chicago. 

Sir.  Kennedy.  Not  the  restaurant  business  in  Chicago.  It  is  a 
question  of  your  restaurant. 

The  Chairman.  Give  a  breakdown  of  these  figures,  how  you  arrived 
at  the  total. 

Mr.  GoTSCH.  Senator,  that  is  based  on  the  union  scale  for  each 
craft.  The  miscellaneous,  for  example,  who  are  nonunion.  Let's  take 
the  waitresses.  There  are  17  waitresses  paid  $3  a  day  and  the  union 
scale  is  $5.33  per  day.  Therefore,  each  waitress  would  be  shorted, 
more  or  less,  from  the  miion  scale,  $2.33  per  day. 


12648  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

That  figure,  of  course,  is  multiplied  by  the  number  of  working  days 
in  the  year.  That  is  how  we  arrived  at,  for  instance,  the  amount  of 
money  from  the  waitresses. 

Tlie  Chairman.  In  other  words,  you  have  taken  the  union  scale 
and  then  taken  the  wages  as  reflected  by  his  records,  and  determine 
the  difference,  and  the  thirteen-thousancl-and-some-ocld  dollars  is  the 
difference  between  what  he  would  have  to  pay  out  if  they  were  all 
union  and  lived  up  to  the  union  standards  and  requirements  about 
wages,  and  that  wliicli  he  actually  does  pay  out  ? 

Mr.  GoTSCH.  That  is  correct. 

The  Chairman.  The  $13,000  plus  makes  the  difference? 

Mr.  GoTscH.  That  is  right. 

TESTIMONY  OF  CHEIS  CARSON— Resumed 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  any  other  ideas  about  it  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  Senator  McClellan,  yes.  I  would  like  to  ask  a  ques- 
tion. It  seems  to  me  that  of  that  $13,000  that  Mr.  Gotsch  is  talking 
about,  $12,000  of  it  is  waitresses.  Senator,  you  are  presuming  that 
the  $5.50  that  the  union  is  asking  as  a  salary  for  a  waitress  is  the 
proper  one. 

The  Chairman.  Is  it  what  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  Is  the  proper  salary.     If  you  are  to  presume  that 

The  Chairman.  I  don't  know  whether  it  is  proper  or  not.  I  don't 
know  wliether  it  is  too  high  or  too  low.  We  are  talking  about  your 
dealing  with  the  union.  That  is  what  the  union  says  they  should 
be  paid. 

Mr.  Carson.  That  is  right.  Senator. 

The  Chairman.  But  you  don't  put  them  in  the  union  and,  there- 
fore, the  union  does  not  tell  you  how  much  you  shall  pay  them. 

Mr.  Carson.  That  is  right,  but  may  I  tell  you  this :  You  are  looking 
for  facts,  and  I  hope  I  am  giving  you  some. 

I  think  I  am  giving  you  some  that  will  possibly  help  you.  The 
union  comes  along  and  says  that  a  man  that  works  behind  the  kitchen 
as  a  broiler  man  all  day  long  is  entitled  to  whatever  Mr.  Gotsch  says. 

I  don't  know.  If  he  will  tell  you  what  the  union  scale  is  for  a 
broiler  man — he  has  the  figures  there.  I  don't  know  what  it  is.  Is 
it  about  $90  a  week,  Mr.  Gotsch  ? 

Mr.  Gotsch.  The  salary  for  a  broiler  man  is  $14.58  a  day. 

Mr.  Carson.  If  we  are  to  presume  that  is  in  balance,  then  they  come 
along  and  say  they  want  $5.50  for  a  waitress,  and  the  waitress,  on  a 
Saturday  night — and  I  am  sure  there  are  other  restaurant  men  here 
who  will  bear  me  out— will  make  $15  in  tips.  Does  that  seem  to  you 
like  her  base  pay  is  a  fair  one  ?  Where  she  makes  $20  ?  She  makes 
$6  more  than  the  man  who  stands  behind  in  the  kitchen,  by  a  hot  stove  ? 

The  Chairman.  I  am  not  arguing  how  much  should  be  paid  for 
anything.     I  am  simply  talking  about  your  dealing  with  unions. 

They  have  a  scale.  They  make  a  contract  with  someone,  and  I 
assume  their  scale  is  supposed  to  prevail.  In  other  words,  if  the  \niion 
has  a  standard  scale  of  $5.50  for  waitresses,  it  would  hardly  be  proper 
for  it  to  go  out  and  make  different  contracts  with  dill'erent  restaurants. 

If  they  say  that  is  the  standard,  that  is  the  minimum  that  should 
be  paid.  You  do  not  put  your  employees  into  the  union.  I  am  not 
saving  vou  sliould  or  should  not,  but  I  am  talking  about  the  union. 


IMPROPER    ACTnaTIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12649 

If  it  is  one  the  job  and  trying  to  represent  the  people  whom  it  takes 
money  from,  tryini^;  to  do  a  job  for  their  benefit,  interest  in  their  wel- 
fare, I  think  it  would  be  the  union's  duty  to  try  to  see  that  they  were 
all  treated  alike. 

Mr.  Carson.  I  agree  with  you,  Senator. 

The  Chairman.  But  if  they  make  a  sweetheart  contract,  and  I  am 
not  saying  they  did  with  you,  but  I  am  pointing  out,  if  they  make  a 
sweetheart  contract  and  let  you  put  3,  4,  5,  6,  or  8  of  your  employees 
in  and  pay  for  them,  with  the  understanding  they  will  not  organize 
your  waitresses,  who  you  say  wanted  to  join 

Mr.  Carson.  That  is  right,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Then  I  can't  see  that  the  union  is  acting  in  good 
faith.     Maybe  you  can, 

Mr.  Carson.  I  didn't  say  that,  sir,  but  if  you  were  on  a  board  to 
negotiate  that  salary,  don't  you  think  you  would  adjust  that  waitress' 
pay? 

The  Chairman.  I  don't  know  what  I  would  do.  I  don't  know 
enough  about  your  business.  But  I  am  pointing  out  that  if  the 
union  is  in  good  faith,  it  ought  not  to  make  a  deal  with  you  to  leave 
the  waitresses  out,  and  at  the  same  time  exact  from  you  payment  of 
some  that  are  getting  the  union  wages. 

Mr.  Carson.  I  agree  with  that. 

The  Chairman.  We  are  looking  into  improper  practices. 

Mr.  Carson.  That  is  all  right,  Senator,  but  what  I  want  you  to 
know  is  that  there  have  been  some  inferences  made  here  that  the 
restaurant  men  were  making  these  deals  to  take  advantage  of  the 
employees.  I  say  that  the  waitress  problem  is  the  only  reason  that 
the  restaurant  men  fought  this  thing. 

The  Chairman.  I  think  the  real  inference,  or  if  not  the  inference 
the  facts  have  been,  according  to  the  testimony,  if  it  has  been  proved, 
and  I  assume  it  is,  that  restaurant  men,  many  of  them,  were  caught 
in  a  situation  where  they  were  compelled  to  make  some  kind  of  a 
deal  with  the  union,  to  put  their  employees  or  a  part  of  them  in  the 
union. 

In  other  words,  pay  tribute  to  keep  from  having  union  trouble,  from 
being  picketed  and  having  their  business  damaged,  which  I  think  is 
rackets. 

And  an  improper  one. 

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

Mr.  Carson.  What  is  your  opinion  of  the  restaurant  men  in  Chi- 
cago? 

The  Chairman.  I  don't  know  them.  I  don't  have  any  opinion  on 
them. 

Mr.  Carson.  It  is  important  to  us.  I  mean,  it  seems  to  me  when  some 
one  takes  a  figure  like  this  and  says  you  make  $13,000,  it  sounds  like 
you  are  running  a  sweat  jol).  We  have  never  done  that.  We  have 
had  a  bad  problem  here,  and  this  is  what  we  have  been  trying  to  do 
with  it. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  it  sounds  like  you  have  a  problem  there.  I 
can  appreciate  that  businessmen  sometimes  are  put  under  such  pressure 
and  are  threatened  with  such  injury  from  a  business  standpoint  or 
maybe  otherwise  that  they  will  enter  into  some  kind  of  a  contract 
against  the  will,  without  the  consent,  and  sometimes  without  the 


12650  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

knowledge  of  their  employees,  put  them  in  the  union,  where  they  have 
to  pay  dues,  or  where  the  employer  has  to  pay  the  dues  for  them. 

That,  in  my  judgment,  is  a  sweetheart  contract,  because  the  union 
is  not  primarily  interested  in  or  trying  to  serve  the  interests  and 
welfare  of  the  people  who  are  doing  the  work. 

The  businessman  may  do  it  voluntarily  or  he  may  do  it  under 
coercion  and  intimidation,  but  he  is  getting  an  advantage  by  forcing 
his  employees  into  the  union  or  putting  some  of  them  in  there  and 
paying  their  transportation  in,  so  to  speak,  out  of  his  own  income. 

There  is  something  w^rong  about  the  whole  thing  when  it  operates 
in  that  fashion.    That  is  what  we  are  interested  in. 

Mr.  Carson.  No  argument. 

Senator,  may  I  ask  you  one  thing?  I  came  down  here  to  cooperate 
and  give  you  whatever  information  I  had.  I  would  like  to  ask  Senator 
Kennedy  what  did  he  benefit  by  taking  a  businessman  like  myself  who 
tried  to  do  a  good  turn  for  someone  and  asking  me  whether  I  employed 
Charlie  Gioe. 

The  Chairman.  I  don't  know  what  the  connection  is  with  respect 
to  that,  except  we  are  undertaking  to  show,  and  I  think  we  are  making 
some  progress  in  that  direction,  that  people  of  underworld  sources  are 
infiltrating  into  labor  and  management  relations.  They  are,  there- 
fore, engaging  in  racketeering,  exploitation,  and,  in  some  instances,  in 
extortion  and  the  implication  could  very  well  be  that  you  were  required 
to  give  this  man  a  job,  to  satisfy  some  underworld  character. 

I  don't  know  whether  that  is  true  or  not.  But  it  would  be  a  proper 
matter  for  this  committee  to  interest  itself  in. 

Mr.  Carson.  Right,  and  I  want  this  committee  to  know,  and  any- 
body else  that  knows  me,  and  I  have  under  oath,  and  I  have  two  chil- 
dren who  mean  more  to  me  than  anyone  else  in  the  world,  I  will  take 
an  oath  to  them  that  Charlie  Gioe  was  an  employee  of  mine  that  I  tried 
to  help,  who  never  invested  one  dime  in  my  business,  and  by  trying 
to  be  a  good  fellow  Senator  Kennedy  may  liave  made  me  look  today 
like  I  don't  know  what. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Senator  Kennedy  is  not  here,  and  I  am  Mr.  Kennedy. 

Mr.  Carson.  I  am  sorry,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  I  would  just  like  to  say,  if  I  could  answer  that,  that 
Mr.  Gioe  is  a  notorious  underworld  figure,  and  he  was  killed  in  gang- 
land style.  He  was  mixed  up  in  many  of  the  rackets  in  Chicago,  and 
he  appears  on  your  payroll  for  a  period  of  2  years  under  unusual 
circumstances.  At  the  same  time  you  have  a  "sweetheart"  contract 
with  the  union. 

Mr.  Carson.  That  is  not  right,  Mr.  Kennedy,  and  my  union  prob- 
lems were  settled  before  Mr,  Gioe  ever  came  to  work  for  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Well,  you  had  a  "sweetheart"  contract  with  the  union 
during  the  period  of  time  Mr.  Gioe  worked  for  you,  and  at  this 
present  time  you  have  a  "sweetheart"  contract. 

Mr.  Carson.  And  Mr.  Gioe  is  dead  now  and  he  can't  be  negotiating 
that  one  for  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  The  relationship  that  arose  during  that  period  of 
time  is  very  interesting  to  us.  You  wanted  to  have  the  answer  as 
to  why  we  brouglit  it  up,  and  that  is  the  reason. 

Mr.  Carson.  You  discussed  it  with  me  in  privacy,  and  I  don't  think 
it  was  fair,  because  after  all  I  am  in  business  in  Chicago,  and  there 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12651 

are  a  lot  of  people  that  might  start  thinking  that  I  don't  run  a  legiti- 
mate restaurant. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  They  possibly  might  be  right. 

The  Chairman.  Let  the  Chair  say  this:  It  is  not  the  purpose  of 
this  committee's  function  primarily  to  hurt  people.  It  is  primarily  to 
get  facts  and  information  upon  which  we  may  legislate  for  the  good 
of  all  decent  Americans. 

"We  are  going  to  search  in  these  fields  to  find  out  practices  that  may 
])revail,  or  may  be  presently  or  in  the  past  have  been  engaged  in  with 
a  view  of  guidance  toward  legislation. 

Senator  Curtis.  Did  I  understand  you  employed  this  man  after 
discussion  or  arrangement  with  some  official,  a  parole  officer  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Curtis.  What  was  his  name  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  Mr.  Condon.  He  was  a  Federal  parole  officer.  Sena- 
tor, in  1948  Mr.  Kupcinet,  a  columnist  of  the  Chicago  Sun-Times, 
wrote  an  article  commending  me  for  helping  a  few  men  who  came 
out  of  prison  and  giving  them  a  start  in  life.  I  think  that  that  is 
where  this  connection  stemmed  from,  where  in  1951  Condon  came  to 
me.    But  it  looks  bad,  you  know,  to  6  million  people  in  Chicago. 

Senator  Curtis.  But  the  parole  officer  okayed  the  arrangement  you 
made  with  this  man  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  Absolutely. 

Senator  Curtis.  And  he  knew  what  his  duties  were,  and  about  what 
his  pay  would  be  and  so  on  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  Absolutely  he  came  there  every  month  and  checked  on 
Avhat  the  man  was  doing. 

Senator  Curtis.  I  am  very  much  interested  in  those  things,  and  I 
have  been  informed  from  reliable  sources  that  restaurant  people  more 
than  perhaps  any  other  business  have  given  a  chance  to  down  and 
outers  when  they  couldn't  get  jobs  many  other  places. 

Mr.  Carson.  Thank  you.  Senator. 

The  Chairman.  Are  there  any  further  questions  ? 

Senator  Curtis.  Maybe  some  of  them  are  wrong,  but  I  think  that 
that  should  be  said. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Now,  you  said  that  you  do  your  own  negotiat- 


ing 


Mr.  Carson.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Do  you  know  how  many  other  restaurants 
in  Chicago  have  the  same  kind  of  a  contract  where  they  exclude  the 
waitresses  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  I  would  think  that  most  of  them  have  that  contract, 
that  have  anj- thing  to  do  with  the  union. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Is  that  pretty  general  across  the  country,  to 
your  knowledge  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  It  is  general  in  Chicago  that  the  waitress'  salary  is 
too  high. 

Senator  Goldwater.  That  wasn't  the  question.  Is  it  general  in  Chi- 
cago that  the  waitresses  are  not  included  in  a  union  contract  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  I  would  say  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Does  that  come  about  as  a  result  of  your  nego- 
tiating  or  dees  it  come  as  a  suggestion  from  the  union  side  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  No,  sir.  Did  you  notice  of  this  $13,000  that  Mr.  Gotsch 
pointed  out,  $12,000  of  it  was  in  this  fictitious — what  I  call  fictitious — 


12652  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

"svaiti-esses'  pay,  and  it  should  never  be  based  on  that.  Tliat  is  what 
makes  it  look  bad.  That  is  what  I  have  always  fought.  If  they  will 
come  in  with  a  contract  and  I  don't  see  why  they  can't,  and  I  imagine 
every  union  has  a  right  to  negotiate  separate  contracts  for  separate 
businesses,  and  they  could  take  nightclubs  and  put  them  in  one  class, 
and  short-order  restaurants  in  another,  and  take  care  of  that. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Let  me  ask  you  a  question  there :  I  don't  know 
whether  or  not  tlie  Pump  Room  has  a  union  contract  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  I  would  say  they  do. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Would  their  waitresses  be  under  that  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  They  have  men  waiters,  and  I  would  say  that  their 
base  pay,  I  think,  is  around  $6  a  night. 

Senator  Goldwater.  That  is  what  I  w^as  getting  at.  Are  there 
different  scales  for  different  types  of  restaurants?  For  instance,  the 
same  as  the  Pump  Room '? 

Mr.  Carson.  The  only  difference  that  exists  today,  I  think  they  have 
a  different  scale  for  a  man  waiter  and  a  different  scale  for  a  woman 
waitress  but  they  have  never  broken  down  the  categories  of  waitresses, 
which  I  think  they  should  do. 

Senator  Goldwater.  So  $5.30  for  a  woman  would  be  the  same  re- 
gardless of  the  type  of  restaurant  it  was  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  That  is  right.  Senator. 

Senator  Goldwater.  A  drive-in  or  the  best  place  in  town  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  That  is  right,  sir. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Now,  do  you  go  into  the  bargaining  table  with 
the  purpose  in  mind  of  excluding  the  waitresses  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  Nothing  else.  I  will  accept  anything  else  but  that 
waitresses'  pay. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Do  you  think  then  that  the  union  is  doing  a 
conscientious  job  for  the  people  they  represent  when  they  allow  any 
restaurant  to  drop  a  segment  of  their  people  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  No  ;  I  don't. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Do  you  think  that  they  could  bargain  a  little 
harder  on  that,  and  possibly  come  to  some  terms  with  you  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  I  think  if  the  union  would  set  up  a  different  wage  scale 
for  the  waitresses,  I  believe,  I  have  heard  they  have  10,000  members, 
and  I  think  they  would  have  25,000  in  1  month,  and  I  will  personally  go 
out  and  get  them  all. 

Senator  Goldwater.  There  is  no  way  of  knowing,  I  imagine,  under 
the  investigating  income-tax  returns,  what  your  girls  make  as  a  total ; 
is  there  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  Well,  I  would  generally  say  that  it  would  be  safe  to 
presume  that  a  restaurant,  say  the  restaurant  does  in  the  dining  room 
about  $600,  and  if  I  were  representing  the  union  I  Avould  go  m  to  a 
restaurant  man,  and  if  I  saw  that  he  was  doing  $600  of  business,  I 
could  be  pi-etty  close  in  feeling  that  there  was  about  $60  in  tips  left 
in  that  establishment  that  night. 

Now,  if  the  man  had  7  girls,  I  could  almost  bet  my  life  that  they 
ax'eraged  somewhere  between  $8  and  $9  a  girl.  On  the  rare  occasion, 
one  may  make  a  couple  of  dollars  more  than  the  other,  but  the  hostess 
rotates  the  customers  as  they  come  in,  and  she  sits  one  party  to  one 
gii'l  and  the  next  one  to  the  other.  There  is  an  exception  where  a  party 
walks  in  and  said,  "I  want  Mable,"  and  that  one,  of  course,  may  get  an 
extra  party  that  night. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12653 

Senator  Goldwater.  "What  happens  in  these  restaurants  that  add  a 
10-percent  service  char<2:e  ^  Do  those  restaurants  pay  a  basic  salary 
or  do  they  depend  on  the  10  percent  ? 

Mr.  C'arson.  1  don't  think  that  there  is  one  operatin<j  like  that  in 
Chicago,  Senator.  1  have  paid  a  <>ratuity  tip  in  the  East,  and  I  don't 
remember  wliere  else  I  may  have  paid  it,  but  I  have  never  been  in 
a  restaurant  in  Chicao;o  where  anything-  was  added  to  the  check. 

Senator  GounvATEK.  Well,  to  sum  this  up,  then,  it  seems  to  me, 
and  I  apoloo;ize  for  not  liaving  been  here  during  the  earlier  part  of 
these  hearings,  from  just  the  testimony  today  that  the  unions  are 
doing  a  bad  job  in  negotiating. 

Mr.  Carson.  You  are  right,  sir. 

Senator  Goldwater.  If  they  feel  any  responsibility  at  all  toward 
(hose  peoi)le  in  your  establishment  and  others  whom  they  represent, 
then  they  should  attempt  to  represent  them  100  percent  and  not 
exclude  any  group. 

Mr.  Carson.  You  are  right,  sir. 

Senator  Goldwater.  I  don't  know  how  you  can  negotiate  when 
you  reach  the  impasse  of  their  refusing  to  set  less  than  $5.30,  and 
you  refusing  to  any  more  than  whatever  it  is  you  give,  $3  or  what- 
ever it  is  ? 

Mr.  Carson.  I  am  sure  you  have  a  pad  of  paper  there.  If  you  will 
please  mark  down  something  it  will  clarify  it  in  your  mind.  ^Vhen 
a  restaurant  takes  in  $1,  take  these  figures  and  check  them  with  internal 
revenue,  or  we  have  here  today  the  president  of  the  Chicago  Restau- 
rant Association,  who  operates  a  very  big  restaurant,  and  I  think 
he  can  stand  up  here  and  call  me  a  liar  if  I  am  lying,  and  our  operating 
expense  today  provided  we  don't  make  a  bad  lease — I  have  made  a  lot 
of  leases,  and  opened  up  a  lot  of  restaurants,  and  I  think  you  are 
talking  to  a  man  who  knows  his  business,  and  if  you  make  a  bad  lease 
you  anticipate  a  certain  amount  of  business  and  all  of  a  sudden  your 
percentage  of  rent  is  out  of  line. 

Now,  barring  that,  I  would  say  that  our  total  operating  expense 
which  takes  in  light,  gas,  linen,  insurance,  some  advertising  and  rent 
and  so  forth,  runs  around  22  percent. 

Now,  if  you  write  that  down,  that  is  22  cents  has  got  to  go  there. 
You  can't  operate  a  restaurant  in  this  town  competitively  and  have 
much  lower  than  a  42-percent  food  cost.  If  you  do,  the  customers 
are  going  to  come  in  and  say  "well,  I  am  getting  robbed  here,"  and 
never  come  back. 

So  we  add  42  cents  of  that  dollar. 

Now,  right  there,  we  are  now  at  64  cents,  and  I  bet  you  that  my 
friend,  the  man  that  bought  the  Peter  Pan  chain  from  you,  Mr. 
Sidney  Smith  back  there,  would  wish  that  he  was  running  those 
figures,  and  we  fight  to  maintain  those. 

But  surmising  everything  is  good,  it  is  64.  Now,  if  we  allow  about 
28  percent  for  labor,  we  are  at  92  percent.  Now,  this  is  a  small  busi- 
ness. Senator,  where  there  is  no  salaries,  and  there  is  no  officers  salaries, 
and  so  in  this  28  percent  we  haven't  allowed  anything  to  the  man 
operating  this  resaurant.  So  he  has  8  percent  left.  The  average 
restaurant  in  Chicago  if  it  does  around  $170,000  to  $200,000  a  year, 
gross  volume  is  a  good  business.  So  if  we  take  the  top  figure  of 
$200,000,  the  man  makes  $16,000. 


12654  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Now,  if  the  union  comes  in,  and  by  doubling  this  salary  on  wait- 
resses alone  that  Mr.  Gotsch  checked  my  books  for,  and  he  takes 
that  $13,000  away,  does  that  sound  fair  ? 

Senator  Goldwater.  It  depends  on  how  you  look  at  it.  You  are 
talking  percentages  on  one  side,  and  if  your  salary  costs  are  limited 
by  reason  of  negotiations  your  prices  go  up  also. 

Mr.  Carson.  But  you  can  price  yourself  out  of  the  market. 

Senator  Goldwater.  That  is  true,  and  we  see  that  happening  all 
over  America  today. 

Mr.  Carson.  That  is  the  thing  we  have  been  fighting.  The  only 
thing  wrong  with  this  union  contract  in  Chicago,  in  my  opinion,  there 
should  be  an  adjustment  made  in  the  waitress'  salary  and  that  union 
can  go  on  and  sign  up  a  lot  of  people  and  it  can  work  just  like  General 
Motors  does. 

It  doesn't  have  to  be  a  hidden  thing,  and  if  someone  sensible  sits 
down  and  comes  to  a  basic  rate  for  only  that  waitress.  Nobody  will 
argue  about  paying  the  chef  a  living  wage,  and  we  pay  our  hostesses 
$65  a  week.  We  pay  our  cashiers  $60  a  week  and  there  is  no  objection 
to  that.  We  know  an  employee  has  to  take  home  a  living  salary,  but 
when  we  know  a  girl  is  making  $10  or  $12  a  day  in  tips,  we  try  to  save 
that  $3  because  we  have  15  or  20  girls.  That  $3  is  $60  a  day  which 
is  $2,000  a  month. 

That  is  the  only  bone  of  contention  that  I  have  ever  had  with  the 
union. 

Senator  Goi-dwater.  I  don't  want  to  pursue  this  any  further,  Mr. 
Ch.".irman.     It  is  getting  into  arithmetic. 

The  Chairman.  Is  there  anything  further  ? 

All  right,  stand  aside,  and  call  the  next  witness. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Sidney  Smith. 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  be  sworn  ? 

You  do  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.  Smith.  I  do. 

TESTIMONY  OF  SIDNEY  SMITH 

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

Mr.  Smith.  My  name  is  Sidney  Smith,  I  am  a  general  manager  of 
the  Peter  Pan  Kestaurants,  in  Chicago,  and  my  address  is  188  West 
Randolph  Street. 

The  Chairman.  How  long  have  you  been  in  the  restaurant  bus- 
iness, Mr.  Smith  ? 

]\tr.  Smith.  I  was  in  the  restaurant  business  in  1942  and  1945,  in 
California.  I  left  it  for  a  while,  and  I  came  back  into  the  businesf' 
again  in  1948. 

The  Chairman.  In  Chicago? 

Mr.  Smith.  No,  in  Detroit. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  go  to  Chicago? 

Mr.  Smith.  In  1949. 

Tlie  Chaii:man.  All  right,  you  waive  counsel  ? 

Mr.  Smfih.  Yes,  sir. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12655 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Smith,  in  1953,  you  purchased  eight  Peter  Pan 
Kestaurants? 

Mr.  Smith.  Seven. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  then  you  built  one  since  that  time  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  We  have  built  four  more  since  then  in  Chicago. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  So  now  you  have  altogether  11  ? 

Mr.  Smith.    Eleven  in  Chicago. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Are  they  all  called  Peter  Pan  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Do  they  operate  under  the  Richard's  Drive-In 
Restaurant  ? 

JNIr.  Smith.  That  is  a  separate  group,  Mr.  Kennedy,  and  those  are 
drive-in  restaurants. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  It  has  nothing  to  do  with  Peter  Pan? 

Mr.  Smith.  Only  in  a  corporate  way. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Were  you  ever  approached  by  any  representative 
of  the  union  about  your  employees  becoming  members  of  the  union? 

Mr.  Smith.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Are  any  employees  of  your  restaurant  members 
of  any  restaurant-employees  union? 

JNIr.  Smith.  No,  with  one  exception,  and  that  is  the  unit  that  Mr. 
Carson  just  testified  about,  one  store  in  Elmwood  Park,  a  suburb  of 
Chicago. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  are  the  arrangements  on  that  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  Well,  when  we  were  negotiating  the  purchase  of  the 
Peter  Pan  chain,  at  some  point  in  the  prepurchase  negotiations,  Mr. 
Carson  informed  me  that  he  had  a  union  contract  or  agreement  at 
one  of  his  stores,  which  is  the  one  we  are  talking  about  now.  Upon 
inquiry,  asking  him  some  of  the  details,  it  was  revealed  to  me  that 
there  were  15  members  of  that  store  that  were  under  union  contract. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  So  did  you  decide  to  continue  to  pay  the  dues  for 
those  people  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  Yes ;  I  did. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  ever  sigTi  a  union  contract  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Has  there  ever  been  an  attempt  by  the  union  to 
organize  any  of  the  other  employees? 

Mr.  Smith.  At  that  particular  store,  you  mean  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Yes. 

Mr.  Smith.  I  don't  know. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Do  you  know  of  any  effort  to  organize  the  rest  of 
the  employees? 

Mr.  S:\riTii.  At  that  store  ? 

'^Ir.  Kennedy.  Yes. 

Mr,  Smith.  I  don't  know. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Have  there  been  any  efforts  at  any  of  the  other 
stores  to  organize  the  employees  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  From  time  to  time  there  have  been. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Successful  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  No. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Out  of  your  whole  operation,  there  are  only  these 
15  employees  who  are  signed  up? 

21243— 58— pt.  33 11 


12656  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Smith.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  just  continue  to  pay  the  dues  on  these  15 
individuals  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Has  the  union  come  around  at  all  to  find  out  about 
their  wages,  hours,  or  conditions  of  work  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  Not  that  I  know  of. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  according  to  the  records  of  your  restaurant 
that  we  have  studied,  of  the  15  employees  that  dues  have  been  paid 
on,  13  are  no  longer  working  at  the  restaurant ;  is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  That  was  revealed  to  me  when  one  of  your  investi- 
gators came  out. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  were  paying  dues  for  13  individuals  who 
were  not  even  employed  there? 

Mr.  Smith.  I  believe  that  is  tiTie. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  One  individual  actually  was  deported  from  the 
United  States  for  jumping  ship  over  Greece,  while  you  were  pay- 
ing dues  on  him,  did  you  know  that  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  I  didn't  know  anything  about  that. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  He  left  the  United  States  on  December  8  and  he 
was  deported  by  the  United  States  Government,  and  he  left  on 
December  8,  1957,  and  you  were  paying  dues  on  him  in  1958. 

The  Chairman.  Let  me  ask  you.  Do  you  just  pay  dues  on  a  name 
irrespective  of  whether  the  person  is  actually  in  your  employ  or  not  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  Well,  there  was  an  original  list  of  names  of  em- 
ployees at  the  time  th.at  Mi-.  Carson  owned  these  restaurants. 

The  Chairman.  Was  that  list  not  kept  current? 

Mr.  Smith.  It  is  not  current  now,  but  I  believe  that  the  union 
had  made  an  honest  attempt  to  keep  it  current,  because  I  received 
a  communication  from  them  not  too  long  ago  in  which  they  sent  me 
the  list  of  current  employees  on  their  list  and  made  the  statement 
that  if  this  list  was  not  correct  would  I  please  bring  it  up  to  date. 

Mr.  Kennedy,  Whose  place  is  it  to  keep  that  list  current,  if  you 
were  actually  paying  the  dues  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  1  don't  know,  and  I  am  under  the  impression  it  is 
up  to  the  union  to  keep  it  up  to  date. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Well,  you  are  collecting  the  dues  and  reporting  on 
who  you  are  collecting  them  for,  and  if  you  are  paying  them  your- 
self you  should  know  on  whom  you  are  paying,  and  whether  you  are 
paying  on  your  own  employees. 

Mr.  Smith.  We  don't  deduct  these  dues. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  just  pay  it  out  of  the  business  operation  as  an 
expense  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  neither  you  nor  the  union  has  been  very  much 
concerned  about  whether  you  are  paying  on  people  who  now  work 
for  you  or  people  who  may  have  worked  for  you  before  but  may  now 
be  working  somewhere  else. 

Mr.  Smith.  Except  as  I  just  said,  this  indication  in  the  communi- 
cation from  the  union  asking  me  to  bring  the  list  up  to  date. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  receive  that  communication? 

Mr.  SisiiTH.  In  AiH-il  1958. 

The  Chairman.  How  long  have  you  been  operating  under  this 
arraniiement? 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12657 

Mr.  Smith.  Since  we  purchased  the  restaurants  from  Mr.  Carson, 
in  1953. 

The  Ciiair:max.  All  right,  for  5  years  there  has  been  no  checkup 
eitlier  way,  by  you  or  by  them  ? 

Mr.  Smith. "^  I  believe  there  was  a  checkup  made  2  or  3  years  ago, 
and  I  think  they  have  been  trying,  and  I  may  have  been  remiss  if  it 
was  up  to  me  to  keep  this  thing  current. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  the  thing  I  am  interested  in,  in  the  first 
place  you  have  no  contract. 

Mr.  Smith.  No. 

The  Chairman.  There  is  no  contract? 

Mr.  Smith.  There  is  no  contract. 

The  Chairman.  The  follow  who  is  working  there  may  quit  to- 
morrow and  you  may  be  paying  out  of  your  business  on  someone 
who  is  not  your  employee  at  all. 

Mr.  Smith.  That  is  right. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  what  benefit  have  any  of  them  ever  received 
by  reason  of  the  fact  that  you  pay  that  money  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  I  don't  know. 

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

Tlie  Chairman.  You  know  of  none,  do  you  ? 

INIr.  S:mitii.  Not  to  my  knowledge. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  the  way  the  arrangement  with  the  union 
out  there  in  the  restaurant  business  operates  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  I  don't  know. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  of  any  employee  who  has  gotten  any 
benefit  from  one  of  these  arrangements  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  In  my  store  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Smith.  I  don't  know  of  any ;  no. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  This  is  a  deal  that  had  been  made  earlier  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  Yes.  As  I  say,  I  was  under  the  impression  that  a  union 
contract  or  agreement  was  negotiated  before  we  took  over  this  chain. 
T  have  gone  on  the  assumption  since  then  that  that  union  contract  has 
been  in  force. 

]\f  r.  Kennedy.  Do  j'ou  know  if  you  are  paying  your  employees  above 
or  below  union  scale  ? 

Mr.  S:mith.  I  don't  know  wliat  the  union  scale  is.  I  have  never 
seen  a  union  contract. 

Senator  Mundt.  When  you  make  your  payments  out  to  the  union 
for  these  employees,  do  j'ou  list  their  names  or  do  you  just  send  them 
a  lump  sum  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  Well,  there  is  a  list  of  names. 

Senator  ]\Iundt.  Do  you  list  the  names  or  does  your  bookkeeper  list 
the  names  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  Yes :  they  have  a  list  of  names. 

Senator  ^Mundt.  Twelve,  thirteen,  or  fourteen  names  ? 

INIr.  S:mith.  I  believe  tliere  are  15  there. 

Senator  Mundt.  And  every  time  you  send  a  check,  every  month, 
you  send  that  list  of  names  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  No.  I  don't  send  them  a  list  of  names;  no.  The  list 
of  names,  T  presume 

Senator  Mundt.  Do  j'ou  send  just  a  lump  sum  of  money  ? 


12658  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Smith.  Is  the  latest  list  of  names.  I  get  a  statement  for  the 
dues  every  3  months  of  so  much  money. 

Senator  Mundt.  Do  they  have  a  list  of  names  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  The  union  has  a  list  of  names ;  yes. 

Senator  Mundt.  Which  accompanies  the  statement? 

Mr,  Smith.  No  ;  it  does  not  accompany  the  statement.  I  receive  a 
statement  every  3  months. 

Senator  Mundt.  What  does  it  say  on  the  statement  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  I  believe — I  don't  know  for  sure.  I  don't  remember 
the  details  of  the  statement,  but  in  general  the  statement  calls  for  a 
payment  of  dues  for  3  months  covering  15  employees. 

I  believe  the  amount  is  $52.50. 

Senator  Mundt.  They  don't  list  the  names  of  the  employees  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  No;  not  each  time  they  send  the  statement. 

Senator  Mundt.  You  don't  have  a  list  of  the  names  of  the  employees 
that  you  send  them  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  Yes ;  I  do. 

Senator  Mundt.  You  send  a  check  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  No  ;  I  have  a  list  of  the  names. 

Senator  Mundt.  You  have  a  list  of  employees  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  That  is  right. 

Senator  Mundt.  There  must  be  a  gi'eat  difference  between  the  list 
of  employees  to  whom  you  make  your  weekly  paycheck  and  the  names 
of  the  employees  on  which  you  pay  the  union  dues? 

Mr.  Smith.  Yes ;  if  that  list  is  not  up  to  date,  that  is  true. 

Senator  Mundt.  It  can't  be  up  to  date  if  one  of  them  is  over  in 
Greece  some  place  and  has  not  worked  for  you  for  a  long  time. 

Mr.  Smith.  That  is  true. 

Senator  Mundt.  How  do  you  convince  Uncle  Sam's  tax  inspectors 
to  let  you  deduct  as  a  cost  of  doing  business  the  union  dues  for  a 
fellow  living  in  Greece  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  That  is  a  good  question. 

Senator  Mundt.  We  have  a  pretty  good  bunch  of  fellows  checking 
on  these  tax  returns.  Wliile  you  may  be  completely  innocent  about 
it,  perhaps,  it  seems  to  me  that  this  would  be  a  cause  of  considerable 
concern  to  the  income-tax  people.  Conceivably,  these  employees,  who 
move  around  from  place  to  place,  could  have  4  or  5  sets  of  dues  de- 
ducted every  week  on  the  same  employee  as  a  cost  of  doing  business, 
and  people  who  would  be  getting  hurt  on  that  would  be  the  general 
American  public  and  the  taxpayers. 

Mr.  Smith.  That  is  true. 

Senator  Mundt,  How  do  we  stop  that  sort  of  thing  ? 

Mr.  Smith,  I  don't  know. 

Senator  Mundt.  You  don't  know  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  How  do  we  stop  ? 

Senator  Mundt.  I  can  suggest  a  very  simple  way,  as  a  country  boy 
from  South  Dakota,  and  that  is  if  you  would  insist  that  they  send 
you  the  names  of  the  people  on  whom  you  pay  the  dues,  and  you 
looked  out  in  the  kitchen  and  say  "These  boys  belong  to  someone  else. 
One  of  them  is  in  Greece,  a  couple  of  them  are  in  Texas,"  and  then 
you  would  say  "I  am  not  going  to  pay  on  them." 

It  would  be  as  simple  as  that. 

There  are  probably  about  100  million  taxpayers  that  would  like 
to  see  it  stopped.     There  would  be  less  deductions  for  business  ex- 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12659 

penses,  and  that  would  mean  more  taxes,  and  tlie  more  taxes  that  you 
fellows  have  to  pay,  the  less  we  country  boys  have  to  pay. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

The  CuAiRMAN.  Senator  Goldwater. 

Senator  Goldwater.  With  respect  to  the  deduction  of  these  so- 
called  union  dues,  who  advised  you  to  take  that  as  a  tax  deduction? 

Mr.  Smith.  I  don't  know,  sir.  My  office  is  a  field  office  of  our  chain, 
and  none  of  those  transactions  are  carried  out  in  my  office. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Do  you  have  your  own  auditor? 

Mr.  Smith.  We  have  a  set  of  auditors,  yes. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Does  this  auditor  make  out  your  income-tax 
statements  or  do  you  have  an  outside  man  come  in  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  We  have  an  outside  firm  of  auditors. 

Senator  Goldwai-er.  Did  he  advise  you  to  take  this  as  a  business 
deduction  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  I  have  nothin<T  to  do  with  that,  sir. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Mr.  Chairman,  in  fairness,  if  this  item  ap- 
peared in  the  salary  column,  wliich  an  auditor  would  probably  put 
it  in,  I  would  think  that  any  auditor  would  advise  that  it  could  be 
deducted  as  a  business  expense. 

I  don't  agree  that  it  should  be,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  some  of  these 
payments  are  going  for  people  that  are  not  even  in  the  country.  But 
if  the  15  were  in  his  employ,  it  would  be  proper  in  my  opinion  for 
him  to  deduct  this  as  an  income-tax  deduction. 

Mr.  Smith.  I  imagine  the  auditors  assume,  not  knowing  anything 
about  the  details,  that  it  is  a  legitimate  expense,  not  knowing  whether 
those  employees  are  in  the  country  or  not. 

Senator  Muxdt.  There  would  be  no  argument,  of  course,  if  the 
people  were  working  in  your  place,  about  the  item  being  deductible. 
The  question  is  whether  or  not  they  are  working  in  your  place. 

]Mr.  Smith.  But  the  auditors  wouldn't  know,  I  don't  believe,  whether 
they  were  working  in  the  store  or  not. 

Senator  Mundt.  But  it  would  seem  to  me  some  place  between  Peter 
Pan  Restaurant  and  the  union,  somebody  ought  to  find  that  out. 

Senator  Goldwater.  I  wanted  to  correct  one  thing  here.  If  these 
employees  had  made  a  written  request  that  you  deduct  it  from  the 
salary,  you  would  be  in  conformity  with  the  law,  but  if  you  just  take 
money  without  asking  them  if  you  can  do  it,  you  are  not  in  conformity 
with  the  Taft-Hartley. 

Mr.  Smith.  Well,  I  was  not  familiar  with  that,  Senator.  I  don't 
know. 

Senator  Goldwater.  I  wanted  to  g;et  to  this  tax  deduction  because 
it  is  mentioned.  A  tax  auditor,  I  believe,  has  told  these  people  to  take 
this  as  a  tax  deduction.    I  don't  agree  that  it  is  a  correct  thing  to  do. 

Now,  does  the  union  keep  this  list  of  people  that  you  are  supposed  to 
pay  on,  or  do  you  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  I  believe  they  keep  the  list,  yes. 

Senator  Goldwater.  You  don't  keep  a  list  at  all? 

Mr.  Smith.  Yes,  I  have  a  list,  too. 

Senator  Goldavater.  How  many  years  have  you  had  this  Peter  Pan 
place  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  Five  years. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Have  you  ever  had  your  personnel  department 
check  to  see  that  these  people  were  still  on  the  employee  rolls  ? 


12660  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Smith.  I  don't  believe  I  have,  sir. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Did  it  ever  enter  your  mind  that  they  might 
not  be  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  I  never  gave  much  thought  to  it,  Senator.  We  have  a 
fairly  large  chain  and  we  have  great,  a  phenomenal  growth  in  the  res- 
taurant industry, 

I  have  been  very  busy  to  try  to  keep  on  top  of  all  of  this  growth, 
develop  it,  organize  it,  hire  personnel,  develop  manpower,  and  I  have 
not  paid  too  much  attention  to  that  particular  thing. 

Senator  Goldwater.  ^Vliat  form  does  the  vmion  request  this  pay- 
ment in  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  They  send  me  a  statement  every  3  months. 

Senator  Goldwater.  And  on  the  statement  are  the  names  of  the 
people  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  No,  there  are  no  names  on  the  statement,  just  the  dues 
for  the  3  months. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Suppose  they  send  you  a  bill  for  20.  Would 
you  pay  it  instead  of  15  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  No,  because  I  know  that  when  we  bought  the  restau- 
rants, and  when  I  talked  to  Mr.  Carson,  he  had  told  me  that  there  were 
15  members  in  the  union  for  that  particular  store.  It  is  the  only  store 
that  we  have  where  this  situation  exists,  so  I  would  remember  very 
clearly  that  there  were  15  members  there. 

Senator  Goldwater.  How  long  did  Mr.  Carson  say  that  that  con- 
tract ran  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  He  didn't  tell  me. 

Senator  Goldwater.  You  just  assumed  that  it  went  on  in  perpe- 
tuity ? 

Mr.  Smith.  Before  we  took  over  ? 

Senator  Goldwater.  No,  when  you  took  over. 

Mr.  Smith.  I  don't  think  I  gave  that  any  thought,  Senator. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Do  you  know  if  there  is  a  signed  contract  in 
existence  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  I  do  not  know. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Have  you  ever  asked  to  see  a  signed  contract? 

Mr.  Smith.  No,  sir,  I  have  not. 

Senator  Goldwater.  "V-NHiiat  do  you  think  would  happen  if  you  did 
not  pay  this  in  a  3  months'  period  ?     What  would  the  union  do  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  I  don't  know. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Why  don't  you  try  it?  In  view  of  what  you 
have  heard  here  today,  wouldn't  you  be  tempted  to  try  it? 

Mr.  Smith.  I  might. 

Senator  Goldwater.  You  don't  want  to  be  paying  for  a  fellow  in 
Greece. 

Mr.  Smith.  Do  you  mean  the  fellow  that  jumped  the  boat? 

Senator  Goldwater.  Yes. 

Mr.  Smith.  No,  I  don't  want  to  be  paying  for  him.  But  on  the 
other  hand,  they  have  asked  me  to  bring  the  list  up  to  date,  which 
I  have  not  done.  Now,  if  I  brought  that  list  up  to  date,  would  that 
in  your  opinion  constitute  a 

Senator  Goldwater.  When  did  they  ask  j'ou  to  bring  it  up  to  date? 

Mr.  Smith.  In  April  1958,  just  a  couple  of  months  ago. 

Senator  GoldwxVter.  Who  asked  you  to  bring  it  up  to  date  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  I  received  a  letter  from  the  union. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    EST    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12661 

Senator  Goldwater.  May  I  ask  the  counsel  about  when  you  started 
to  look  into  this? 

Mr.  Kexnedy.  About  January  of  1958. 

Senator  Goldwater.  They  have  requested  you  since  the  so-called 
heat  has  been  put  on  you,  they  requested  you  to  bring  it  up  to  date  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  I  don't  know.  I  don't  know  what  motivated  their 
actions. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Something  motivated  them. 

Mr.  Smith.  No,  I  think  they  asked  me  once  before  to  bring  the  list 
up  to  date,  too. 

Senator  Goldw^ater.  Have  you  ever  discussed  with  union  officials 
not  paying  this  sum  of  money  any  more? 

Mr.  Smith,  No,  I  haven't  talked  to  them. 

Senator  Goldwater.  You  don't  have  any  idea  what  might  happen? 

Mr.  Smith.  I  have  had  no  contact  with  them  at  all. 

Senator  Goldwater.  One  other  thing.  In  your  experience  in  Chi- 
cago, have  you  come  across  the  police  labor  detail,  of  the  police 
department? 

Mr.  Smith.  Have  I  come  across  them  ? 

Senator  Goldwater.  Do  you  know  what  it  is  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  Yes,  I  know  what  it  is. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Can  you  give  us  a  little  light  on  it? 

Nobody  from  Chicago  seems  to  have  heard  about  it. 

Mr.  Smith.  About  the  Cliicago  Police  labor  department  ? 

Senator  Goldwater.  Labor  detail. 

JSIr.  Smith.  I  have  read  about  them  in  the  paper. 

Senator  Goldwater.  What  do  they  do  ? 

]Mr.  Smith.  Well,  I  believe  they  are  detailed  to  answer  calls  by 
businessmen  who  may  be  in  trouble,  either  through  picket  lines  or 
some  other  means,  with  union  activities.  I  have  read  often  in  the 
paper  that  the  Chicago  labor  detail  answered  the  call,  went  to  the 
place  of  business  to  take  care  of  the  matter. 

Senator  Goldw^ater.  Have  you  ever  had  occasion  to  use  them  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Goldwater.  You  have  never  come  in  contact  with  them  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Goldwater.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Citrtis.  Mr.  Chairman? 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Curtis. 

Senator  Curtis.  Who  are  the  officers  of  this  union?  Is  this  the 
same  union  as  the  one  we  were  taking  testimony  on  yesterday? 

Mr.  Ivennedy.  Yes. 

Senator  Curtis.  Who  are  the  officers  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Dan  Leonardi  is  business  agent.  He  is  the  one  that 
operates  the  union. 

Senator  Curtis.  Leonardi? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Yes. 

Senator  Curtis,  Is  this  the  same  union  that  dealt  with  Mr.  Strang, 
mentioned  in  the  testimony  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Yes. 

Senator  Curtis.  That  might  happen  to  answer  Senator  Goldwater's 
question.  It  was  Strang's  testimony  about  slashing  tires,  letting  off 
the  heating  oil,  and  cooking  oil,  and  a  secondary  boycott  against 
Borden's  Dairy,  the  refusal  to  haul  out  the  garbage,  the  refusal  of 


12662  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

some  garbage  receiving  place  to  accept  it  after  he  hauled  it  to  them, 
and  so  on. 

This  is  a  payment  to  keep  that  from  happening,  is  that  right? 

Mr.  Smith.  I  don't  know. 

Senator  Cuktis.  It  seems  to  me  that  is  what  it  is. 

Mr.  Smith.  You  are  relating  this  to  Mr.  Strang's  testimony.  If 
you  will  remember,  sir,  he  was  testifying  about  a  physical  strike, 
where  pickets  were  in  front  of  his  restaurant. 

Senator  Curtis.  Yes. 

Mr.  Smith.  I  haven't  had  that  happen  to  me. 

Senator  Curtis.  But  he  refused  to  make  the  payments. 

Mr.  Smith.  Who  refused  ? 

Senator  Curtis.  Mr.  Strang. 

Mr.  Smith.  Whatever  he  said  in  testimony.  Yes,  I  believe  he 
did,  yes.     I  don't  think  it  was  the  same  situation  sir. 

Senator  Curtis.  No,  you  came  into  the  business  where  this  was 
going  on.  That  is  understandable.  But  I  think  there  is  a  serious 
question  of  whether  or  not  it  would  be  a  legitimate  union,  when  a 
union  is  following  such  practices. 

That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Church.  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Church. 

Senator  Church.  Mr.  Smith,  you  bring  a  picture  here  to  the  com- 
mittee and  it  seems  to  me  to  consist  of  these  components:  You  say 
in  1953  you  purchased  this  business.  You  inherited  a  situation  in 
which  the  seller  had  been  paying  on  15  memberships,  once  a  month. 

You  continued  to  pay  on  15  memberships  once  a  month  since  1953. 

Mr.  Smith.  That  is  correct. 

Senator  Church.  You  testified  that  ever  since  1953  you  have  not 
signed  a  union  contract;  you  don't  know  what  the  terms  of  tlie  union 
contract  are,  if,  in  fact,  one  exists;  that  no  attempt  has  been  made 
by  the  union  to  organize  the  other  employees  that  work  for  you. 

Mr.  Smith.  Correction.     There  have  been. 

Senator  Church.  But  no  successful  attempt.  That  the  union  has 
had  no  discussions  during  all  that  period  of  time  concerning  wages, 
working  conditions,  or  welfare  payments ;  that  you  paid  so  little  atten- 
tion to  the  people  for  whom  you  were  supposed  to  be  paying  these 
dues,  tliat  13  out  of  the  15  actually  had  left  your  business;  that  only 
recently,  other  than  one  other  time  that  you  have  alluded  to,  and 
several  months  after  the  committee  commenced  this  investigation, 
has  the  union  itself  asked  you  to  bring  the  list  up  to  date. 

And  all  during  this  period  of  time  you  liave  not  had  the  kind  of 
difficulty  that  Mr.  Strang  had.  You  have  not  had  pickets,  or  strikes, 
have  you,  at  your  places  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  No,  I  haven't. 

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

Senator  Church.  What  kind  of  a  picture  does  this  present  to  this 
committee?  It  presents  a  very  nice  pictuie  of  a  very  cozy  deal. 
What  are  you  paying  the  15  memberships  for,  when  13  of  the  em- 
ployees of  the  15  have  left  yoiu*  business,  and  Avhen  you  don't  even 
know  who  ought  to  be  on  the  list,  who  is  covered  ? 

Because  the  person  from  whom  you  bought  the  business  in  1953 
did  it,  is  that  the  reason  you  have  been  making  these  payments? 


IMPROPER    ACTR'ITIES    IN   THE    LABOR    FIELD  12663 

Mr.  Smith,  "Well,  let  me  explain,  sir,  that  at  that  particular  time, 
when  this  was  explained  to  me,  in  my  opinion  there  was  nothing  cir- 
cumspect about  the  situation  at  all.  There  was  nothing  underhanded 
about  it.  There  were  no  cash  payments  involved.  A  statement  was 
sent  regularly,  paid  by  check,  endorsed,  receipts. 

Senator  Church.  "Wliat  are  you  paying  for  ?  "Wliat  are  you  mak- 
ing these  15  membership  payments  for  if  in  the  whole  course  of  time 
you  have  not  even  bothered  to  keep  the  membership  up  as  to  who  you 
are  paying  these  payments  for,  if  the  union  never  enters  into  negotia- 
tion with  you,  if  you  don't  know  whether  you  have  a  union  contract 
or  not,  and  you  seem  to  care  less  ? 

^^Hiat  are  you  making  these  payments  for  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  We  assumed  and  honored  an  obligation  of  Mr.  Carson, 
along  with  many  other  obligations  that  were  outstanding  at  the  time. 
In  my  opinion,  this  was  a  minor  obligation.  It  did  not  require  a 
great  deal  of  thought  and  study  and  time  on  my  part.  I  had  more 
important  things  to  take  care  of.     It  sort  of  got  lost  in  the  shuffle. 

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

Senator  Church.  Now  that  you  have  had  an  opportunity  to  bring 
yourself  up  to  date  on  the  case,  and  to  have  this  case  to  focus  on  the 
details,  is  it  your  intention  to  continue  making  these  payments? 

Mr.  Smith.  I  can't  answer  that  now. 

Senator  Church,  It  is  not  your  present  intention  to  discontinue 
making  them  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  I  will  think  about  it,  and  give  it  some  thought  and  con- 
sideration. 

Senator  Church.  I  certainly  hope  you  do. 

Mr.  Smfth.  I  certainly  will. 

Senator  Mundt.  How  long  have  you  been  making  these  payments  ? 

Mr.  Smith,  Five  years. 

Senator  Mundt.  How  long  did  you  imagine  that  contract  ran? 

Was  it  a  continuous  commitment  Mr.  Carson  made  ?  Did  you  think 
it  had  been  made  for  100  years  ? 

Mr.  Smith,  I  have  never  been  told  when  it  would  end  or  how  long 
it  would  continue,     I  have  never  been  told  that. 

Senator  Mundt.  It  didn't  concern  you  at  all  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  No,  it  didn't,  really.  It  didn't  concern  me.  As  I  ex- 
plained to  the  Senator  there,  we  have  a  chain  of  55  units  in  our  chain. 
They  spread  from  Chicago  to  the  east  coast.  I  am  the  general  man- 
ager of  this  company.  I  am  hopping  around  all  the  time,  trying  to  do 
a  good  job.  It  is  quite  a  tough  one,  if  I  may  say  so.  It  is  a  rough 
business,  the  restaurant  business,  I  believe  the  mortality  figures  will 
show  that  it  has  the  highest  mortality  rate  of  any  business  in  the 
country.  You  have  to  be  with  it  all  the  time  or  you  will  find  yourself 
losing  out.     As  I  say,  in  my  opinion 

Senator  Mundt.  You  have  55  stores,  did  you  say  ? 

Mr,  Smith,  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Mundt.  Eestaurants? 

Mr.  Smith.  Well,  we  have  22  Peter  Pan  Restaurants;  we  have  22 
drive-in  restaurants  and  we  have  11  Aimee  Joy  Donut  shops.  One  of 
them  just  opened  up  here  in  Washington  a  few  weeks  ago. 

Senator  jSIundt.  And  is  this  the  only  one  on  which  you  make  these 
payments  ? 


12664  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Smith.  Yes,  sir ;  it  is  the  only  one. 

Senator  Mundt.  You  have  no  idea  whether  yon  are  going  to  have 
to  make  them  as  long  as  you  live,  or  maybe  the  contract  lasted  only 
10  years,  5  years,  or  3  years  ?  You  have  no  idea  at  all  about  liow  long 
this  commitment  is  going  to  endure  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  No,  I  don't,  at  the  present  moment. 

Senator  Mundt.  And  no  curiosity  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  Well,  I  have  some  curiosity  now,  yes. 

Senator  Mundt.  Didn't  you  know  you  were  making  the  paj'ments 
before  you  appeared  before  the  committee  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  Yes. 

Senator  Mundt.  You  mean  you  didn't  know  what  tlie  payments 
implied  in  that  until  you  came  before  the  committee  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  As  I  explained,  we  assumed  an  obligation  of  the  pre- 
vious owner.  I  honored  that  obligation  and  continued  the  obligation 
without  question,  after  I  was  satisfied  that  there  was  nothing  circum- 
spect about  it  in  the  first  place. 

Senator  Mundt.  Plow  did  Mr.  Carson  explain  the  obligation  to  you  ? 

What  did  he  say  when  he  got  to  that  particular  point  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  Well,  he  told  me  about  this  one  store  in  which  he  had 
made  a  union  agreement,  and  would  I  leave  it  the  way  it  was  and 
accept  it  and  pay  the  dues,  just  as  he  had  been  doing. 

Senator  JNIunevt.  Did  he  explain  how  he  happened  to  have  an  agree- 
ment with  just  one  little  store  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Mundt.  Coming  in  from  the  East,  to  the  Midwest,  would 
you  have  some  interest  as  to  why  a  man  would  have  some 

Mr.  Smith.  I  didn't  come  in  from  the  effete  East.  I  come  from 
the  Wild  West. 

Senator  Mundt.  I  thought  I  read  Boston  somewhere  in  your  name. 

Mr.  Smith.  Well,  I  get  lost  in  Boston,  but  out  in  Chicago  or  Cali- 
fornia, I  get  around. 

Senator  Mundt.  Well,  wherever  you  come  from,  even  if  you  grew 
up  on  Michigan  Avenue,  it  would  seem  to  me  j'ou  would  be  curious, 
when  you  buy  a  business,  8  units,  and  the  fellow  says  "We  have  a  com- 
mitment on  1  and  we  would  like  you  to  continue  it." 

You  don't  ask  how  long  you  are  to  continue  it,  but  it  may  be  as  long 
as  you  live. 

It  seems  it  would  be  rather  strange  to  be  on  1  and  not  on  all  8. 

Mr.  Smith.  Perhaps  I  just  did  not  have  curiosity  aroused  in  me. 
We  had  many  others  at  tlie  time  the  negotiations  for  the  Peter  Pan 
Restaurant  were  taking  place.  I  was  still  working.  I  didn't  have 
enough  time  to  delve  into  the  intricate  details  of  his  previous  arrange- 
ments and  previous  business  experience. 

I  had  plenty  to  do  myself  in  running  the  business  we  had  in  existence 
at  that  particular  time. 

The  C'hatkman.  That  is  a  signal  for  a  rollcall  vote  in  the  Senate. 
The  committee  will  have  to  be  in  recess  for  a  little  while,  until  we  can 
vote  and  return.  We  will  resume  as  soon  as  a  quorum  returns  from 
the  Senate  Chamber. 

(Brief  recess.) 

(At  the  recess,  the  following  membei-s  were  present:  Senators  Mc- 
Clellan,  Church,  Gold  water,  Mundt,  and  Curtis.) 


IMPROPER   ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12665 

(x\t  the  reconvening  of  the  committee,  after  the  brief  recess,  the 
followino;  members  are  present :  Senators  McClellan  and  Church.) 

The  CiiAiRMAx.  The  committee  will  come  to  order. 

Proceed,  Mr.  Kennedy. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Smith,  how  many  employees  do  you  have  at 
this  one  Peter  Pan  Restaurant,  where  the  deal  was  made  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  I  don't  know  for  sure,  Mr.  Kennedy. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Approximately. 

Mr.  Smith.  Approximately,  t  imagine  there  are  between  30  and  40. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  how  many  do  you  have  altogether  in  the  Peter 
Pan  Eestaurant  in  Chicago  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  In  Chicago? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Yes. 

Mr.  Smith.  I  would  make  an  educated  guess  of  about  250. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  250? 

Mr.  Smith.  I  believe. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  much  money  do  you  pay  each  month  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  Each  month  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Yes. 

Mr.  Smith.  $52.50. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  is  all. 

The  Chairman.  Are  there  any  other  questions  ? 

Mv.  Kennedy.  I  want  to  ask  Mr.  Gotsch,  again,  about  this  point. 

The  Chairman.  If  you  can  stay  a  minute  or  two  longer,  you  might 
be  interested  in  the  testimony  of  this  next  witness. 

;Mr.  Kennedy.  I  might  say  Mr.  Smith  has  been  very  cooperative  in 
the  course  of  the  investigation. 

Mr.  Smith.  Thank  you. 

TESTIMONY  OF  GEEALD  GOTSCH— Resumed 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Gotsch,  have  you  made  a  study  of  the  books  and 
records  of  the  Peter  Pan  Restaurant  where  the  payments  are  made  in 
the  name  of  the  15  individuals  ? 

Mr.  GoTSCH.  Yes,  sir,  I  have. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Can  you  tell  us  what  the  breakdown  is  as  far  as 
the  employees  receiving  union  scale  wages  ? 

Mr.  GoTSCii.  There  are  a  total  of  34  employees  at  this  restaurant. 
There  are  19  waitresses  and  they  are  nonunion.  They  are  below  union 
scale. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  All  19  are  below  union  scale  ? 

Mr.  GoTSCH.  Yes,  sir.  There  are  a  total  of  15  workers  in  the  mis- 
cellaneous categories,  and  1  is  union.  The  other  14  are  nonunion. 
The  one  union  employee  is  being  paid  scale,  but  he  is  not  being  com- 
pensated for  overtime  as  in  the  union  contract.  He  works  a  54-hour 
week. 

Mr.  Kennp:dy.  '\^niat  about  the  others  ? 

Mr.  GoTSCH.  The  other  14  are  being  paid  below  scale.     Excuse  me. 

Of  the  employees,  3  are  being  paid  above  union  scale  and  11  below. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  ^AHiat  is  the  saving  to  the  employer  per  year?  How 
much  more  would  he  have  to  pay  if  he  paid  the  union  scale  ? 

Mr,  GoTSCH.  The  yearly  saving  is  approximately  $10,900. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  much  is  that  for  the  kitchen  employees  and 
how  much  for  the  waitresses  ? 


12666  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR   FIELD 

Some  $5,000? 

Mr.  GoTSCH.  $3,000  for  miscellaneous,  and  the  majority  of  them, 
the  waitresses,  would  be  about  $7,800. 

Mr,  Kennedy.  As  I  understand  your  answer  to  an  earlier  question, 
you  never  knew  what  the  union  scale  would  be  in  the  first  place  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  I  never  knew. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  no  one  ever  approached  you  or  discussed  with 
you  whether  you  paid  union  wages  ? 

Mr.  SMira.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  All  right.     Thank  you  very  much. 

Call  the  next  witness. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Marienthal. 

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.  Marienthal.  I  do. 

TESTIMONY  OF  GEOEGE  MARIENTHAL 

The  Chairman.  State  you  name,  your  place  of  residence,  and  busi- 
ness or  occupation. 

Mr.  Marienthal.  My  name  is  George  Marienthal.  I  reside  at  442 
Wellington  Avenue,  Chicago.  I  am  coowner  of  the  London  House 
and  Mr.  Kelly's  restaurant  in  Chicago. 

The  Chairman.  You  waive  counsel,  Mr.  Marienthal  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  I  do. 

The  Chairman.  How  long  have  you  been  in  the  restaurant  business  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  Since  1945. 

The  Chairman.  In  this  same  business  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  At  this  same  location  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  The  London  House  has  been  in  existence  since 
1945.     Mr.  Kelly's  is  but  3  years  old. 

Mr,  Kennedy.  Would  you  bring  the  microphones  closer,  please,  so 
we  can  hear  you  ? 

How  many  employees  are  at  the  London  House  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  There  are  approximately  100  employees. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  at  Mr.  Kelly's  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  About  30. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  In  the  late  1940's,  Mr.  Marienthal,  did  you  under- 
stand or  learn  here  that  the  union  was  interested  in  organizing  your 
employees  ? 

Mr.  Marienthai.,  Yes,  I  did, 

Mr.  Kennedy,  At  which  restaurant  was  that '? 

Mr.  Marienthal,  The  London  House, 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  did  you  do  after  you  heard  that?  Did  they 
approach  you  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  They  approached — in  the  first  place,  when  we 
opened  up  London  House,  and  during  the  first  2  years  of  operation, 
the  employees  were  hard  to  get.  It  didn't  make  any  difference 
whether  a  man  was  a  union  employee  or  not.  We  had  in  quite  a  few 
instances  union  employees  working  right  alongside  of  nonunion  em- 
ployees. As  long  as  they  paid  their  union  dues  to  their  unions,  it 
didn't  make  any  difference  to  us.     We  always  had  union  bartenders. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    EST   THE    LABOR   FIELD  12667 

We  had  a  few  union  cooks  and  a  few  union  waitresses.  But  as  you 
say,  at  the  end  of  1949,  the  union  business  agents  came  around  to  our 
employees,  particularly  the  miscellaneous  imion,  and  attempted  to 
interest  them  in  joining  their  union. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  did  you  do  then  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  We  did  everything  we  could  to  dissuade  the 
union  agents  from  coming  around  the  place. 

Mr.  I^NNEDY.  You  were  anxious  to  keep  your  employees  from  join- 
ing the  union,  were  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  Yes.  We  had  heard  of  other  union  houses  and 
hotels  who  had  particularly  tough  union  contracts. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  go,  then,  to  the  Chicago  Restaurant  Associa- 
tion? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  I  have  always  been  a  member  of  the  Chicago 
Restaurant  Association. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  have  conversations  with  Mr.  Kiscau,  of  the 
Chicago  Restaurant  Association? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  Yes,  I  spoke  to  Mr.  Kiscau. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  About  this  situation  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  Yes. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Would  you  relate  what  he  suggested  to  you  at  that 
time? 

Mr.  ]\L\rienthal.  He  suggested  that  the  restaurant  association  had 
a  voluntary  contribution  fund,  where  we  would  contribute  so  much 
per  employee  into  a  fund  that  was  used  for  labor  relations,  attorney's 
fees,  and  to  protect  our  restaurant  in  the  event  of  a  strike  and  so  forth. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  understand  from  his  conversation  that  the 
money  in  this  voluntary  fund  was  used  in  order  to  keep  the  unions 
out  of  restaurants  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  Not  necessarily,  no.     There  was  no  assurance. 

Mr.  KJENNEDY.  I  am  not  asking  you  whether  there  were  any  assur- 
ances, but  that  was  the  purpose  of  the  voluntary  fund,  was  it  not? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Well,  did  you  understand,  from  the  conversation, 
that  that  was  the  purpose  of  the  voluntary  fund,  to  keep  the  unions 
out? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  No ;  I  did  not ;  no. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Well,  did  you  have  any  idea  what  the  purpose  of  the 
voluntary  fund  was,  as  far  as  unionization  of  the  employees? 

Mr.  ISIarienthal.  The  voluntary  fund,  as  I  understood  it,  was  to 
have  funds  to  hire  an  attorney  for  labor  relations,  to  help  member 
restaurants  in  the  event  they  had  a  strike,  or  had  troubles. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Didn't  you  understand,  Mr.  Marienthal,  that  one 
of  the  purposes  of  the  voluntary  fund  was  to  prevent  unionization  or  to 
keep  the  unions  out  ?     You  understood  that  at  that  time,  did  you  not? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  Possibly.  We  all  felt  that  we  did  not  want  the 
unions  to  unionize  our  restaurants. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  I  am  not  saying  that  there  is  anything  wrong  with 
it.  All  I  am  saying  is  that,  at  that  time,  you  understood  the  voluntary 
fund  was  for  this  purpose.   Isn't  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal,  That  was  one  of  the  purposes. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  then  decide  to  contribute,  when  you  started 
having  these  difficulties?  Did  you  then  decide  to  contribute  to  the 
voluntary  fund  ? 


12668  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Marienthal.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  you  started  at  this  time ;  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  In  1950,  did  a  picket  line  appear  in  front  of  your 
restaurant,  the  London  House  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  I  believe  that  was  the  date ;  yes. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Then  did  you  get  in  touch  with  Mr.  Kiscau  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  Yes ;  I  did. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Then  did  he  in  turn  get  you  in  touch  with  Mr. 
Teitelbaum  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  Yes ;  he  did. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  Mr.  Teitelbaum  come  out  to  j'our  restaurant  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  I  don't  recall  whether  he  came  out  to  our  restau- 
rant or  whether  he  handled  the  transactions  from  his  office.  I  do  not 
know  that. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Wliat  steps  were  taken  then,  after  Mr.  Teitelbaum 
was  brought  in  on  the  scene  ? 

Mr.  IVIarienthal.  I  do  not  know  what  steps  Mr.  Teitelbaum  took, 
other  than  the  fact  that  the  pickets  were  removed  from  our  restaurant 
before  the  end  of  the  day. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Teitelbaum  came  in,  and  the  picket  line  disap- 
peared on  that  same  day ;  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  The  picket  line  disappeared. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  learn,  subsequently,  any  of  the  steps  that  Mr. 
Teitelbaum  had  taken  to  get  the  picket  line  removed? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  Some  time  later  I  was  requested  to  submit  names 
of  about  40  employees,  something  around  that,  to  Mr.  Teitelbaum, 
and  found  out  that  he  had  agreed  to  pay  the  dues  on  this  number  of 
employees. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  understand  that  he  had  already  paid  some 
of  the  dues  on  the  employees  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  I  do  not  know  whether  he  had  already  paid  it,  or 
whether  he  did  it  at  the  time  I  gave  him  the  names. 

Mr.  Ivennedy.  What  steps  did  you  take  then  ?  Did  you  give  him 
the  40  employees,  the  names  of  40  employees  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  Yes;  I  did.  I  picked  40  names  at  random  and 
gave  them  to  him. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Then  who  paid  the  initiation  fees  and  dues  on  those 
40  employees  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  As  far  as  I  know,  they  were  paid  by  Mr.  Teitel- 
baum's  office. 

Mr,  Kennedy.  They  were  not  paid  by  you  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  They  were  not  paid  by  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  they  were  not  paid  by  the  employees  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  They  were  not  paid  by  the  employees. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Were  the  employees  ever  informed  that  they  were,  in 
fact,  made  members  of  the  union  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  They  possibly  were,  indirectly.  There  was  no 
direct  notification  given  to  the  employees,  either  by  ourselves  or  by  the 
unions. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  long  did  Mr.  Teitelbaum  continue  to  pay  this 
money,  that  you  know  of  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  I  would  only  be  guessing,  but  I  know  it  was,  per- 
haps, quite  a  few  months. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12669 

Mr.  Kennedy.  "Why  did  it  cease? 

Mr.  Marientjial.  I  c;in't  answer  that.  My  only  recollection  is  that 
the  union  agents  came  to  me  and  said  they  were  not  getting  their  money 
from  Mr.  Teitelbaum,  and  wliat  was  I  going  to  do  about  it;  that  they 
were  tired  of  getting  the  runaround  from  Mr.  Teitelbaum's  office. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  So,  what  did  you  do  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  T  called  Mr.  Teitelbaum's  office,  and  I  was  prom- 
ised that  he  would  take  care  of  it.  He  also  called  the  restaurant  as- 
sociation office,  and  they  said  that  they  would  call  Mr.  Teitelbaum. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Whom  did  you  talk  with  in  the  restaurant  associa- 
tion ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  Mr.  Kiscau. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  He  said  that  he  would  contact  Mr.  Teitelbaum 
about  it  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  He  said  that  he  would  contact  Mr.  Teitelbaum 
about  the  trouble  we  were  having.    There  was  no  mention 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Didn't  you  mention  to  him  that  Mr.  Teitelbaum 
was  not  paying  the  dues  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  I  don't  recall  that,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Well,  didn't  you  describe  to  him  what  the  difficulty 
was  and  why  the  business  agents  were  getting  in  touch  with  you? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  No,  other  than  the  fact  that  they  were  still  being 
bothered  by  the  union  agents,  and  Mr.  Teitelbaum  could  not  be  located, 
and  would  Mr.  Kiscau  assist  in  locating  Mr.  Teitelbaum  to  answer  to 
the  union  agents. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  never  discussed  the  fact  at  all  about  the  dues 
with  Mr.  Kiscau  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  I  don't  think  so. 

Mr.  Ivennedy.  All  right.    Then,  what  occurred  after  that? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  I  had  several  conversations  Avith  Mr.  Teitelbaum, 
and  he  mentioned  that  he  was  in  quite  a  bit  of  trouble  and  was  busy 
and  financially  embarrassed,  and  asked  me  to  pay  these  dues  that 
he  had  been  paying,  and  he  would  reimburse  me  at  his  earliest  con- 
venience. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  So,  did  you  start  paying  the  money,  yourself? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  I  paid  the  dues  for  a  matter  of  a  couple  of 
months. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Wlien  was  this? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  I  don't  recall  the  date. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  did  you  do  then  ?  Did  you  send  him  a  bill  for 
the  dues  that  you  had  paid  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  At  his  request,  after  a  conversation  that  I  had 
had,  I  sent  him  an  itemized  statement  showing  the  amount  of  money 
that  I  had  advanced  to  the  unions  that  he  had  promised  to  reimburse 
me. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  write  him  a  letter  about  it? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  I  believe  I  did,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Is  this  a  copy  of  the  letter  that  you  wrote  him  ? 

(The  document  was  handed  to  the  witness.) 

Mr.  Marienthal.  Yes ;  it  is. 

The  Chairman.  That  letter  may  be  made  exhibit  No.  19. 

(The  document  referred  to  was  marked  "P^xhibit  No.  19"  for  ref- 
erence and  will  be  found  in  the  appendix  on  p.  12860.) 


12670  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

The  Chairman.  The  letter  is  dated  May  1,  1952.  In  the  letter  you 
state : 

I  am  enclosing  receipt  for  payments  made  to  the  Waitress  and  Cooks  Union 
totaling  $587  in  accordance  with  our  conversation.  I  would  appreciate  a  check 
as  soon  as  possible. 

Is  that  what  you  wrote  him  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  Yes,  sir.  > 

The  Chairman.  All  right. 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  happened  after  that?  Did  he  send  you  the 
check  for  $587? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  I  don't  believe  I  did ;  no,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  So,  what  did  you  start  doing  then  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  I  finally  decided  I  was  not  going  to  get  the  money 
from  Mr.  Teitelbaum,  and  the  unions  were  insisting  upon  their  money 
each  month.  We  officially  enlisted  our  employees  into  the  union 
and  notified  them  that  they  would  be  paying  their  own  union  dues  from 
that  time  on. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  brought  the  employees  into  the  union  yourself, 
then  ?     You  said,  "We  officially" 

Mr.  Marienthal.  We  officially  told  the  employees.  I  shouldn't  say 
the  employees.  I  should  say  the  waitresses  and  the  miscellaneous 
workers.  There  were  several,  about  a  half  dozen,  cooks  and  one  pantry 
girl  that  had  been  in  our  employ  for  quite  a  number  of  years,  and  we 
paid  their  dues. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  consider  that  part  of  your  job,  part  of 
your  responsibilities,  to  bring  these  people  into  the  union,  to  tell  them 
that  they  should  start  deducting  dues  from  their  salaries  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  I  had  no  other  choice.  They  were  already  union 
members. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  start  then  deducting  dues  from  their  salary  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  Yes;  I  did. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  increase  their  salary  to  make  allowance  for 
the  dues  that  were  being  deducted  at  that  time  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  We  had  always  paid  union  scales  or  higher. 
Whether  I  increased  it,  I  perhaps  had  increased  it  in  several  instances, 
but  I  don't  think  it  was  general. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  In  other  words,  what  it  meant,  as  far  as  the  individ- 
ual employees  were  concerned,  meant  actually  a  reduction  in  wages, 
did  it  not,  once  the  dues  were  deducted  from  their  salaries  ? 

JNIr.  Marienthal.  Yes ;  I  would  say  so. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  continue  to  pay  into  the  voluntary  fund  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  I  don't  believe  I  did ;  no,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Why  did  you  quit  tlie  voluntary  fund  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  I  quit  at  that  time  because  I  did  not  feel  that  I 
needed  any  further  labor  counsel. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Tliat  they  weren't  performing  the  task  that  they 
were  supposed  to  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  But  I  will  say  that,  at  a  later  date,  I  did  resume 
contributing  to  the  voluntary  fund  in  a  group  of  unionized  restaurants 
under  the  association. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Is  Mr.  Kelly's  restaurant  union  or  nonunion  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  That  is  a  union  restaurant. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    EST   THE    LABOR    FIELD  12671 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  is  union  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  Yes ;  it  is. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  London  House ;  is  that  union  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  Both  phices  are  practically  100-percent  union. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  leave  the  voluntary  association  at  that  time, 
or  discontinue  contributing  to  the  voluntary  fund  at  that  time,  because 
they  had  not  been  able  to  produce  what  you  expected  them  to  pro- 
duce? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  Not  necessarily;  no.  I  think,  in  all  fairness  to 
the  association,  and  Mr.  Teitelbaum  and  the  other  attorneys  that  the 
association  had,  they  did  the  best  job  they  could  do  under  the  cir- 
cumstances. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  But  they  obviously  did  not  produce  what  you  ex- 
pected. You  quit  at  the  same  time  you  started  making  the  payment 
yourself  ?     Wasn't  that  the  reason  that  you  quit  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  I  quit,  perhaps,  because  I  was  not  happy  with 
the  fact  that  I  became  a  union  house. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  you  had  expected  the  voluntary  fund  to  prevent 
that,  had  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  Well,  I  had  not  been  promised  that,  although  I 
would  have  been  happy  had  it  been  that  way. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Well,  I  will  not  say  promised.  You  had  expected 
it? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  That  is  correct. 

The  Chairman.  You  got  into  the  union  when  you  were  paying  to 
stay  out  of  the  union,  but  they  arranged  to  get  you  into  the  union? 

Mr.  ]\Iarienthal.  That  is  correct.  Senator ;  yes. 

The  Chairman.  You  got  in  there  before  you  knew  it. 

Mr.  Marienthal.  That  is  right. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  hooked  and  had  not  felt  it  until  the 
fellow  quit  paying  the  dues ;  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  That  is  correct. 

The  Chairman.  Then  it  fell  upon  you.  So,  in  turn,  then,  you  just 
put  your  employees  into  the  union  ? 

]Mr.  IMarienthal.  In  turn,  then,  I  felt  I  would  make  the  most  of  it 
and  be  a  good  union  house. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  began  to  take  the  money  out  from  their 
wages  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  That  is  right. 

The  Chairman.  So,  your  employees  did  not  join  the  union  volun- 
tarily, did  they  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  Well,  there  would  be  some  question  there.  The 
union  agent  said  that  they  had  X  numbers  of  employees  signed  up. 

The  Chairman.  Your  employees  never  came  to  you  and  said,  "We 
want  to  join  a  union"  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  Never. 

The  Chairman.  You  never  had  that  expression  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairinian.  So  they  got  into  the  union  without  their  knowledge 
and  consent  in  the  first  place;  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  That  is  correct. 

21243—58 — pt.  33 12 


12672  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

The  Chairman.  Or,  rather,  should  I  say  you  got  them  in  the  union, 
or  those  representing  you,  your  association  and  its  hiwyer  Teitelbaum, 
got  your  employees  into  the  union,  when  you  were  trying  to  keep  them 
out ;  is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Marientiial,  I  had  no  objections  at  any  time  to  them  belonging 
to  the  union.  My  only  objection  was  that  we  did  not  want  to  be  a 
union  house. 

The  CiiAiRMAX.  If  they  got  into  the  union,  you  would  be  a  union 
house ;  wouldn't  you  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  That  is  correct. 

The  Chairman.  And  it  amounts  to  the  same  thing;  doesn't  it? 
You  can  say  the  same  thing  either  way ;  can't  you  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  Except  we  always  had  some  union  employees. 

The  Chairman.  Here  is  the  only  thing  about  it.  In  the  first  place, 
you  did  not  want  your  place  organized.  You  joined  this  restaurant 
association  and  paid  the  voluntary  contribution  to  that  fund;  isn't 
that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  I  paid  a  contribution  to  the  fund  so  that  I  could 
be  properly  represented  for  good  labor  relations. 

The  Chairman.  But  you  wanted  to  be  represented  to  keep  out  of  a 
union  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  If  possible ;  yes. 

The  Chairman.  If  possible. 

Mr.  Marienthal.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  So  the  first  thing  you  know,  the  fellow  who  is 
representing  you,  or  the  attorney  for  the  association,  had  gotten  you 
into  the  union. 

Mr.  Marienthal.  There  is  no  doubt  about  it. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  were  in  there  before  you  knew  it. 

Mr.  Marienthal.  That  is  right. 

The  Chairman.  And  then  when  the  burden  fell  upon  you  to  either 
keep  up  those  dues  or  have  trouble  with  the  union,  you  turned  on  the 
employees  and  put  them  in  and  began  deducting  their  salaries;  isn't 
that  correct? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  That  is  right. 

The  Chairman.  That  is,  deducting  their  dues.  Do  you  call  that 
voluntary  unionism  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  No. 

The  Chairman.  I  don't  either. 

Senator  Mundt.  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Mundt. 

Senator  Mundt.  Wliat  reaction  did  you  get  from  the  employees 
when  you  called  them  in  and  told  them  they  were  about  to  become  union 
members  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal,  As  I  stated  before,  we  continued  to  pay  the  union 
dues  for  about  6  key  employees — cooks  and  1  pantry  girl — that  had 
been  with  us  for  a  long  time.  Those  are  the  only  ones  that  I  would 
have  had  any  objection  from.  The  others  did  not  object.  They  made 
no  comment  wliatsoever. 

Senator  Mundt.  That  was  to  them  a  reduction  of  net  take-liome 
pay? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  Yes ;  that  is  correct. 

Senator  Mundt.  They  did  not  object  to  that  ? 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    EST    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12673 

Mr.  ]\L\RiENTiiAL.  They  might  have  volunteered  a  question  of 
"What  is  this  all  about  V  They  got  their  receipts  for  their  union  dues, 
and  the  union  agent  came  to  our  office,  and  during  the  succeeding 
months  or  year,  duly  informed  them  of  their  union  membership,  and 
had  them  sign  the  necessary  papers,  and  so  forth. 

Senator  Muxdt.  At  the  time  you  called  them  in  and  said,  "Now,  we 
have  been  getting  along  fine.  You  have  been  getting  satisfactory  pay. 
Everybody  seems  to  be  happy. 

"But  I  have  some  rather  bad  news  for  you.  You  are  going  to  have 
to  belong  to  the  union.  You  are  going  to  have  to  pay  your  dues.  You 
will  get  a  reduction  in  pay,  with  less  take-home  money  for  your 
family.*' 

Didn't  any  of  them  say,  "Well,  we  are  kind  of  satisfied  the  way 
it  is.   We  don't  want  to  belong  to  a  union." 

Mr.  IVLvRiENTHAL.  Ycs.    They  had  no  choice.    I  had  no  choice. 

Senator  Mundt.  In  other  words,  they  were  really  being  forced  into 
the  union  by,  let's  say,  circumstances  over  which  they  had  no  control 
and  perhaps  over  which  you  had  no  control,  but  they  were  being 
forced  into  the  union  to  their  own  detriment,  because  they  were 
getting  not  higher  pay  as  a  consequence  of  union  membership  but 
actually  getting  less  take-home  pay  than  they  were  getting  before 
the  bad  news  broke ;  is  that  correct  5 

Mr.  Marienthal.  That  is  correct,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Church  ? 

Senator  Church.  Mr.  Marienthal,  you  testified  that  the  first  time 
you  had  troubles,  Mr.  Teitelbaum  came  out  and  that  the  picket  line 
was  withdrawn,  and  that  you  later  learned  that  Mr.  Teitelbaum  had 
made  an  arrangement  with  the  association  and  the  union,  or  Mr.  Teitel- 
baum had  made  the  arrangement,  and  you  were  to  pay,  or  he  was  to 
pay,  for  40  memberships. 

And  when  he  advised  you  of  this,  he  asked  you  for  a  list,  and  I 
believe  you  testified  that  you  selected  40  names  at  random;  is  that 
correct  ? 

So  it  was  acceptable  to  you,  the  arrangement  which  he  had  made 
wliich  resulted  in  the  removal  of  the  picket  line,  that  was  acceptable 
to  you  even  though  it  involved  40  union  memberships,  providing  that 
he  pay  the  dues.     That  was  your  first  understanding,  wasn't  it? 

It  was  acceptable  to  you,  because  you  then  proceeded  to  give  him 
the  40  names  he  asked  for;  is  that  not  right? 

Mr.  ]\Iarienthal.  Yes.  As  I  could  see  it  or  understand  it,  he 
made  the  best  possible  arrangement  he  could. 

Senator  Church.  Under  the  terms  of  that  arrangement  it  was  your 
understanding  that  he  was  going  to  pay  the  dues  and  you  were  going 
to  furnish  the  names  at  random  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  I  did  not  have  that  understanding.  I  did  not 
know  how  or  by  what  means  he  removed  the  pickets. 

Senator  Church.  At  that  time,  you  did  not  understand  that  you 
were  to  pay  them  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  I  knew  nothing  about  any  dues-paying  at  the 
time.     The  pickets  were  removed. 

Senator  Church.  All  you  knew  was  that  you  were  to  furnish  them 
the  40  names? 

Mr.  IVIarienthal.  That  came  at  a  later  time. 


12674  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Senator  Church.  Then  later,  too,  it  developed  that  he  was  paying 
the  dues,  and  when  he  failed  to  pay  the  dues,  you  had  to  pick  up  the 
five-hundred-and-eighty-some-odd-dollar  tab,  did  you  not? 

Mr,  IVIarienthal.  Yes. 

Senator  Church.  Then  when  it  became  apparent  that  he  was  not 
going  to  pay  the  dues  any  longer,  you  began  deducting  the  dues  from 
the  40  employees  that  you  had  selected  at  random  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  That  is  correct ;  yes. 

Senator  Church.  That  is  correct.  What  local  were  you  dealing 
with  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  Well,  the  two  locals  that  I  remember  best  are  the 
waitresses  union  and  the  miscellaneous  union. 

Senator  Church.  Do  you  remember  the  numbers  of  those  locals? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  I  remember  the  miscellaneous  is  593.  I  don't 
recall  the  waitresses. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Eighty-eight. 

Senator  Church.  Locals  88  and  593  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  Local  484. 

Senator  Church.  Very  well,  I  will  accept  that ;  484. 

Tell  me,  after  you  began  deducting,  after  you  had  become  a  union 
shop  and  accepted  as  such,  and  began  to  deduct  these  memberships  for 
these  dues  each  month  for  the  40  members  you  selected,  and  after  you 
advised  the  members  that  the  deductions  were  to  be  made  henceforth, 
did  you  have  any  further  troubles  with  picket  lines? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Church.  Have  you  ever  had  any  further  trouble  with 
picket  lines  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Church.  Did  you  enter  into  a  contract,  a  union  contract, 
with  these  locals  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  We  were  under  a  blanket  contract  that  I  perhaps 
signed  the  power  for  under  the  restaurant  association  contract,  which 
was  the  last  contract  we  have  had  from  the  unions,  which  is  now  at 
least  several  years  old. 

Senator  Church.  The  contract  is  at  least  several  years  old.  Can  you 
give  us  an  idea  of  how  many  years  old  it  is  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  I  believe  the  last  contract  was  1955. 

Senator  Church.  1955.    Have  there  been  any  further  negotiations  ? 

Have  these  locals  negotiated  with  you  about  wages  or  working  con- 
ditions for  any  of  these  employees  since  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Church.  Are  you  still  continuing  this  arrangement? 

Mr.  Marientpial.  TSHiat  arrangement  do  you  refer  to  ? 

Senator  Church.  Do  you  still  make  deductions  for  40  employees 
and  pay  these  locals  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  We  have  upward  of  over  100  employees  now, 
and  they  are  all  union,  with  the  exception  of  a  very  few.  Hostesses 
and  cashiers  are  not  union.  All  our  waitresses,  waiters,  cooks,  bar- 
tenders, and  miscellaneous  workers  are  unionized.  We  are  what  is 
considered  a  union  restaurant  in  Chicago. 

Senator  Church.  Are  you  paying  union  scale  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  We  are  paying,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge, 
union  scale  or  more  in  all  instances. 


IMPROPER    ACTR'ITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12675 

Senator  Chttrcit.  To  the  best  of  your  knowledge  you  are  paying 
union  scale.    Do  you  know  what  the  union  scale  is  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  I  am  not  up  on  every  bit  of  it.  I  could  volunteer 
pretty  well,  knowing  what  we  are  supposed  to  pay  a  cook  and  what 
we  are  supposed  to  pay  a  waitress  and  a  waiter,  as  there  have  not  been 
any  changes  in  several  years. 

I  know  what  to  pay  a  bartender.  I  am  sure  that  our  payroll,  which 
T  do  not  examine  on  every  person  and  every  bit,  I  only  get  gross  figures 
on  the  payroll  each  week 

Senator  Church.  To  the  best  of  your  knowledge  and  information, 
you  are  paying  union  scale  or  better ;  is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  Yes,  definitely. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  do  you  pay  your  waitresses  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  My  waitres-ses,  I  believe,  get  66  or  67  cents  an 
hour. 

The  Chairman.  Does  that  amount  to  at  least  $5.30  a  day  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  Yes.  I  think  that  is  a  division  of  that  divided 
by  8. 

The  Chairman.  \  ou  are  unionized,  all  except  a  very  few  of  your 
employees.     Your  waitresses  are  unionized  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  Waitresses  and  waiters. 

The  Chairman.  You  pay  an  hourly  wage  that  equals  the  union 
scale  of  $5.30  a  day? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  If  you  could  pay  those  waitresses  $3  a  day,  you 
would  be  saving  money,  wouldn't  you  ? 

Mr.  ]VL\rienthal.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman,  We  had  some  other  testimony  here  from  another 
operator,  a  Mr.  Carson,  another  restaurant  operator,  who  claimed 
that  there  was  not  any  particular  savings  in  the  $3  a  day. 

Mr.  Marienthal.  My  arithmetic  shows  me  that  3  from  5  is  2. 

The  Chairman.  It  shows  me  the  same  thing,  plus  30  cents.  It  is 
$6.30.     So  the  union  contract — I  assimie  this  is  the  same  union. 

Well,  I  was  trying  to  rationalize  his  theory  that  there  was  actually 
no  saving  in  his  $3  a  day  for  waitresses  and  the  union  scale  of  $5.30 
a  day. 

If  you  only  had  to  pay  under  that  contract  or  if  you  could  avoid 
paying  a  full  union  scale  and  only  pay  $3  a  day,  you  would  make  a 
saving  of  $2.30  a  day  on  each  waitress  you  have,  wouldn't  you? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  That  is  right. 

The  Chairman.  Your  competitor  or  some  of  your  competitors  are 
making  that  saving,  are  they  not  ? 

Mr.  AIarientiial.  Yes,  they  are. 

The  Chairman.  And  the  waitresses  are  all  in  the  same  union  or  the 
shops  in  the  same  union  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  Well,  let's  say  that  the  city  of  Chicago  is  a  large 
city. 

The  Chairman.  Let's  say  the  waitresses  in  the  other  place  are  not 
in  the  same  union,  though  the  same  union  does  have  a  contract  or  an 
arrangement  whereby  they  pay  on  so  many  employees. 

I  guess  that  is  to  leave  the  waitresses  alone  and  not  organize  them. 
I  mean  that  is  the  way  it  looks  on  the  face  of  it.  I  don't  see  why  the 
same  local,  the  same  union,  would  be  interested  in  going  over  and 
organizing  and  collecting  dues  from  your  waitresses  and  requiring 
you  to  pay  $5.30  a  day,  and  then  go  into  a  restaurant  who  is  a  com- 


12676  IMPROPER    ACTmTIES    IN    THE    LABOR   FIELD 

petitor  of  yours  and  only  organize  a  part,  or  have  the  management 
organize  for  them  a  part  of  its  employees,  and  pay  so  much,  deducting 
it  out  of  the  business,  and  not  taking  it  out  of  the  wages  of  the  em- 
ployee, and  pay  that  in  each  month  for  the  privilege  of  not  having 
that  waitress  group  organized,  so  they  can  escape  the  paying  of  $2.30 
a  day  for  each  waitress  that  they  would  have  to  pay  under  the  union 
scale. 

Is  that  the  way  this  thing  is  operating  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  I  really  don't  know. 

The  Chairman.  You  know  how  it  has  operated  against  you. 

Mr.  Marienthal.  I  know  by  my  own  problems  and  what  we  pay 

The  Chairman.  You  heard  the  testimony  of  one  of  your  competitors 
in  the  same  area,  didn't  you  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  He  is  not  in  the  same  area  and  he  is  not  a  com- 
petitor. 

The  Chairman.  He  is  not  a  competitor  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  I  thought  any  two  businesses  in  the  same  line  were 
competitive. 

Mr.  Marienthal.  His  businesses  are  located  5  to  10  miles  away. 

The  Chairman.  What  else  about  them  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  They  are  different  type  restaurants. 

The  Chairman.  What  types  are  yours  ? 

Mr.  ]\Iarienthal.  We  specialize  in  steaks  and  good  entertainment, 
and  we  are  located  in  the  business  area. 

The  Chairman.  According  to  his  testimony,  where  you  specialize 
in  high-priced  food,  and  you  get  the  customers  that  patronize  such 
places,  he  said  that  at  some  places  the  waitresses  are  paid  even  less 
than  $3,  and  just  $1  a  day  because  their  tips  are  so  much  better. 

Mr.  Marienthal.  I  have  heard  stories  like  that,  too,  but  I  would 
not  know. 

The  Chairman.  It  has  not  happened  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  I  have  heard  of  some  people  paying  to  get  jobs 
in  places. 

The  Chairman.  But  it  has  not  happened  in  your  case  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Is  there  anything  further  ? 

Senator  Church. 

Senator  Church.  Mr.  Marienthal,  you  have  indicated  that  your 
restaurant  is  the  kind  where  generous  tips  would  be  given.  That  is, 
it  is  a  restaurant  that  specializes  in  steaks  and  provides  entertainment, 
so  that  tipping  represents  a  substantial  part  of  the  waitress'  pay,  does 
it  not  ?     Her  compensation  that  she  gets  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  Yes.  I  would  say  my  waitresses  make  perhaps 
as  much  or  more  than  waitresses  in  any  other  establishment  in  the  city. 

Senator  Church.  They  make  their  tips,  and  in  addition  you  are 
paying  them  union  scale,  67  cents  an  hour  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  That  is  correct ;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Church.  For  a  comparable,  com]-)etitiA'e  restaurant  busi- 
ness in  your  area,  wouldn't  it  be  a  great  com])etitive  advantage  if,  in 
your  area,  a  similar  type  restaurant  were  able,  by  virtue  of  one  of  these 
cozy  arrangements  witli  a  local  union,  to  pny  dues  on  15  members  each 
month  and  in  return  not  have  their  waitresses  organized,  so  that  they 
only  have  to  pay  $3  a  day  ? 


ESIPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12677 

Wouldn't  that  give  them  quite  a  competitive  advantage  on  you  ? 

Mr.  Marientiial.  I  would  say  so. 

Senator  Church.  I  would  say  so,  too.  So  I  think  that  we  have  a 
factor  here  that  not  only  goes  to  legitimate  representation  of  the 
interest  of  the  waiters  and  waitresses,  but  also  goes  to  the  legitimate 
interests  of  business. 

Therefore,  I  think  the  inquiry  is  relevant  in  the  direction  of  both 
objectives  of  this  committee,  as  to  improper  practices  in  the  field  of 
both  labor  and  management.  I  think  your  testimony  has  been  very 
heljjful  today. 

Mr.  Marienthal.  I  might  add  that  in  spite  of  our  union  scales  and 
high  tips,  we  still  find  it  difficult  to  get  good  employees.  We  also 
have  a  profit-sharing  system  in  our  restaurant,  where  our  employees 
get  15  percent  of  our  payroll  eacli  year. 

Senator  Church.  Is  that  the  result  of  the  union  contract? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  No,  the  unions  have  nothing  to  do  with  it. 

Senator  Church.  That  is  something  you  have  offered  your  em- 
ployees. 

Mr.  Marienthal.  In  fact,  I  had  trouble  getting  the  plan  approved 
by  the  Treasury  Department  because  of  the  fact  that  we  are  a  union 
house.  But  finally  they  approved  it,  as  long  as  all  employees  of  all 
classes  were  included. 

Senator  Church.  Thank  you  very  much. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Just  how  much  was  being  paid  at  the  time?  Back 
in  1949  or  1950?  How  much  was  being  paid  by  Mr.  Teitelbaum  and 
then  by  you  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  How  much? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  For  these  dues  payments.    How  much  was  involved  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  I  really  don't  know.  The  dues,  if  I  can  guess, 
were  about  $3  a  month  per  employee. 

]Mr.  Kennedy.  And  how  many  members  were  there,  about  140 
employees  ? 

ISIr.  Marienthal.  About  40, 1  think. 

Mr.  Ivennedy.  So  it  was  about  $120  a  month  being  paid  to  the 
union  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  That  would  be  purely  a  guess  on  my  part. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Approximately  $120  a  month. 

Mr.  Marienthal.  I  think  in  that  letter  I  wrote  $587  was  a  period  of 
3  months. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  that  lasted  for  a  period  of  about  a  year  and  a 
half,  did  it? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  I  don't  recall  the  dates,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Until  about  July  of  1952  ? 

Mr.  Marienthal.  I  think  so.    You  can  check  the  record  on  that. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Well,  about  a  year  and  a  half,  according  to  our 
records. 

The  Chairman.  Are  there  any  further  questions? 

If  not,  thank  you  very  much. 

The  committee  will  stand  in  recess  until  tomorrow  morning  at  10 
o'clock,  and  we  will  resume  hearings  at  that  time  in  the  caucus  room. 
(At   the   recess   the   following   members   were   present:  Senators 
McClellan,  Church,  and  Mundt.) 

{Whereupon,  at  4:40  p.  m.  the  hearing  recessed,  to  reconvene  at 
10  a.  m.,  Thursday,  July  10, 1958.) 


INVESTIGATION  OF  I3IPR0PER  ACTIVITIES  IN  THE 
LABOR  OR  MANAGEMENT  FIELD 


THUBSDAY,   JULY   10,    1958 

United  States  Senate, 
Select  Committee  on  Improper  Activities 

IN  THE  Labor  or  Management  Field, 

Washington^  D.  G. 

The  select  committee  met  at  10  a.  m.,  pursuant  to  Senate  Resolution 
74,  agreed  to  January  30, 1957,  in  the  caucus  room,  United  States  Sen- 
ate, Senator  John  L.  McClellan  (chairman  of  the  select  committee) 
presiding. 

Present :  Senator  John  L.  McClellan,  Democrat,  Arkansas ;  Senator 
John  F.  Kennedy,  Democrat,  Massachusetts ;  Senator  Sam  J.  Ervin, 
Democrat,  North  Carolina ;  Senator  Frank  Church,  Democrat,  Idaho ; 
Senator  Barry  Goldwater,  Republican,  Arizona;  Senator  Karl  E. 
Mundt,  Republican,  South  Dakota,  and  Senator  Carl  T.  Curtis,  Re- 
publican, Nebraska. 

Also  present :  Robert  F.  Kennedy,  chief  counsel ;  John  J.  McGovern, 
assistant  counsel ;  LaVern  J.  Duffy,  investigator ;  James  P.  Kelly,  in- 
vestigator ;  James  Mundie,  investigator ;  and  Ruth  Young  Watt,  chief 
clerk. 

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

The  Chairman.  The  committee  will  come  to  order. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Chairman,  we  have  had  some  background  in- 
formation and  evidence  presented  on  the  various  restaurant  unions, 
in  Chicago,  and  also  some  background  information  on  the  restaurant 
association  and  some  information,  testimony  yesterday  afternoon,  on 
the  purpose  of  the  restaurant  association,  with  particular  emphasis  on 
the  voluntary  fund  of  the  restaurant  association. 

Today  for  the  first  two  witnesses,  I  would  like  to  develop  some  more 
information  regarding  the  activities  of  the  restaurant  association. 
For  that  purpose  I  would  like  to  call  for  the  first  witness  Mr.  Ralph 
J.  Gutgsell. 

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.  Gutgsell.  Yes,  sir. 

TESTIMONY  OF  EALPH  J.  GUTGSELL 

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

Mr.  Gutgsell,  My  name  is  Ralph  J.  Gutgsell.  My  residence  is 
1208  Douglas,  Illinois,  and  I  am  an  attorney  at  law. 

12679 


12680  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

The  Chairman.  I  assume  you  waive  counsel  ? 

Mr.  GuTGSELL.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  long  have  you  been  a  practicing  attorney  ? 

Mr.  GuTGSELL.  I  have  been  practicing  since  the  fall  of  1916. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Gutgsell,  did  you  do  some  work  for  the  restau- 
rant association  in  Chicago  ? 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  I  did,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  When  did  you  begin  that  ? 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  I  was  employed  by  the  restaurant  association  in 
Chicago  in  November  of  1954. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  long  did  you  remain  with  them  ? 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  I  remained  with  them  until  October  of  1955. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Could  you  tell  us  what  you  had  to  do  with  the  strike 
that  took  place  in  the  Nantucket  Restaurant  ? 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  Well,  the  strike  of  the  Nantucket  Restaurant  arose 
after  I  had  completed  the  full  negotiations  for  the  union  restaurants 
of  Chicago,  and  had  a  contract  agreed  upon,  and  right  after  that,  I 
would  say  about  a  month  or  so  after  that,  the  Nantucket  Restaurant 
problem  came  up  in  this  way — if  you  want  me  to  go  on  and  tell  you, 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Please  do. 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  I  was  called  by  the  union  office,  Mr.  Cullerton  who 
is  the  president. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr,  James  Cullerton  ? 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  John  Cullerton,  I  believe  it  is.   Isn't  it  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  John,  yes, 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  And  he  stated  that  they  had  been  organizing  the 
help  at  the  Nantucket  Restaurant,  and  then  he  had  cards  signed  by  the 
individual  workers,  and  that  they  had  a  majority  of  them,  and  wanted 
to  know  whether  I  represented  the  Nantucket  Restaurant.  I  said  I 
was  still  the  attorney  for  the  restaurant  association,  and  I  stated  I 
thought  I  was. 

So  he  suggested  that  I  come  and  look  at  the  cards,  which  I  did.  As 
I  remember  them,  or  at  least  my  count  was  that  he  had  19  names  on 
cards. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Out  of  how  many  employees  ? 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  Out  of  how  many  ?  Well,  I  understood  there  were  30 
employees  in  the  restaurant. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  So  it  would  appear  that  he  had  a  majority  of  the 
employees  signed  up? 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  The  union  so  claimed  that  they  had  a  majority. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  at  least  he  showed  you  the  cards  that  they  did 
have,  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  indicated  that  they  were  true  cards  and  that 
they  had  a  majority  of  the  employees  signed  ? 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  lie  so  stated.  He  wanted  to  know  what  I  was  going 
to  do  about  it,  and  I  stated  I  would  confer  with  Mr.  Reade,  the  owner 
of  the  Nantucket  Restaurant.  That  evening  I  drove  over  to  INIr. 
Reade's  restaurant  and  had  dinner  there  at  the  restaurant,  and  so 
advised  Mr.  Reade  of  what  1  had  just  told  you  about  the  talk  with  Mr. 
Cullerton. 

I  said  tliat  they  claimed  that  "they  have  a  majority  of  your  em- 
ployees.    I  have  no  way  of  verifying  the  names.     I  do  not  know  your 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    EST    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12681 

employees.  But  you  certainly  could  find  that  out  quickly,  Mr.  Cul- 
lerton  has  indicated  that  he  would  send  someone  out  with  the  cards  or 
you  could  go  down  to  the  place  and  examine  them.'' 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Cullerton  was  not  trying  to  keep  the  cards  secret 
or  quiet  ? 

Mr.  GuTGSELL.  No ;  he  was  not. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  He  said  he  would  be  glad  to  have  the  cards  examined 
with  the  signatures  ? 

IMr.  Gutgsell.  Yes,  sir.  And  with  that,  Mr.  Keade  said  to  me,  he 
said,  well,  lie  was  satisfied  that  they  had  contacted  some  of  his  em- 
ployees, because  he  had  noticed  the  representatives  of  the  union  talking 
to  the  employees  coming  and  going  from  his  place  of  business.  Out- 
side of  that,  that  is  as  far  as  he  stated,  whether  they  had  a  majority  or 
whether  they  did  not  have  a  majority. 

I^Ir.  Kennedy.  Did  you  feel  at  that  time  that  what  Mr.  Cullerton 
told  you  was  correct,  that  the  Nantucket  Restaurant  should  go  ahead 
and  sign  a  contract  ? 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  I  didn't  quite  understand  you. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  feel  that  what  Mr.  Cullerton  said  was  cor- 
rect, that  the  Nantucket  Restaurant  should  then  go  ahead  and  sign  a 
contract  ? 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  Well,  I  felt  that  they  should.  During  all  the  time 
that  I  represent  the  restaurant,  I  could  see  the  situation  that  the  chair- 
man pointed  out  clearly,  where  w^e  were  drifting  into  a  situation  where 
the  union  was  trying  to  get  the  majority  of  the  employees  signed  up, 
or  they  would  make  a  survey  of  the  restaurant.  But  they  w^ould  reach 
a  place  where  they  could  not  operate  any  further  because  they  had  no 
•way  of  forcing  the  employer  to  unionize  the  restaurant,  if  they  did 
have  the  majority  of  the  people  working  there.  Their  only  redress, 
apparently,  was  to  put  the  pickets  out. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  they  then  put  pickets  out  ? 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  Mr.  Reade  refused  to  recognize  the  union? 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  have  some  conversations  or  discussions  with 
Mr.  Kiscau,  head  of  the  restaurant  association  ? 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  I  did,  sir.  After  my  contact  with  the  union  joffice, 
and  my  contact  with  Mr.  Reade  at  the  restaurant,  I  advised  Mr.  Kiscau 
that  I  would  be  unable  to  do  anything  for  Mr.  Reade  in  the  way  of 
keeping  the  pickets  olf  of  his  restaurant. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  tell  him  that  Mr.  Cullerton  indicated  that 
he  had  a  majority  of  the  employees  signed  up  ? 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  I  did,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Was  he  interested  in  that  ? 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  Well,  he  didn't  demonstrate  it  to  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  So  the  union  was  ultimately  forced  to  place  pickets 
in  front  of  the  Nantucket  Restaurant  ? 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Wliat  was  your  role  after  that  ? 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  I  was  charged — at  least,  they  fired  me  the  day  that 
the  pickets  went  on. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Why  did  they  fire  you  ? 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  Well,  when  I  was  employed,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  signed 
a  letter  stating,  or  an  agreement  between  us,  that  they  could  revoke 


12682  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

my  services  in  30  days.  It  was  sort  of  a  general  understanding  when 
the  pickets  went  on  the  place  that  I  was  through  as  the  attorney  for 
the  association.  I  was  primarily  hired  to  negotiate  the  contract  with 
the  union  restaurants. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Your  role,  then,  was  just  to  have  the  pickets  removed 
or  not  allow  pickets,  and  when  you  were  not  able  to  do  that,  the  restau- 
rant association  fired  you  ? 

Mr.  GuTGSELL.  That  was  the  net  result ;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  was  the  restaurant  association  interested  in? 

Was  it  interested  in  just  preventing  unionization  of  the  restaurants, 
the  members,  the  membership  ? 

Mr.  GuTGSELL.  Well,  Mr.  Kennedy,  it  seemed  to  me  that  they  had 
sort  of  a  dual  setup.  One  portion  of  the  restaurant  association  cer- 
tainly was  interested  in  not  having  the  restaurants  unionized,  while 
the  union  people  naturally  wanted  to  remain  as  union  restaurants.  So 
I  would  say  that  a  portion  of  them  certainly  were  against  unionizing 
the  restaurants. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Wliat  proportion  were  union  and  what  nonunion  ? 

Mr.  GuTGSELL.  That  was  never  disclosed  to  me,  Mr.  Kennedy. 

But  I  understand,  from  hearsay  and  what  have  you,  that  the  ma- 
jority of  them  were  nonunion. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  were  the  nonunion  people  paying  into  a  so- 
called  voluntary  fund  ? 

Mr.  GuTGSELL.  I  was  so  advised ;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  the  purpose  of  that  voluntary  fund  was  to 
avoid  unionization  ? 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  this  was  to  avoid  unionization  not  only  where 
the  union  acted  improperly,  but  in  a  case  such  as  this  where  they  had 
a  majority  of  the  employees  signed  up  ? 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  you  were  fired  because  you  could  not  do  that  ? 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  That's  not  the  statement  that  came  out  in  the  press, 
but  that  I  am  sure  was  the  reason. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  But  shortly  after  the  picket  line  came  out,  you  were 
fired,  were  you  not,  by  the  restaurant  association  ? 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  They  felt  you  were  not  able  to  serve  them  as  Mr. 
Teitelbaum  had  served  them,  and  Mr.  Champaign,  who  was  the  as- 
sociate of  all  of  these  gangsters  and  hoodlums  in  Chicago  ? 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  They  wanted  an  individual  such  as  that  ? 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  Well,  apparently  they  didn't  want  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Do  you  Imow  Tony  Accardo  and  Paul  "The  Waiter" 
Rioca? 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  No,  sir ;  I  don't  know  the  gentlemen. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  you  were  not  the  attorney  for  Al  Capone  ? 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  Never  in  my  life. 

Senator  Curtis.  Mr.  Chairman. 

Tlie  Chairman.  Senator  Curtis. 

Senator  Curtis.  Mr.  Gutgsell,  you  have  been  practicing  labor  law 
for  some  time  ? 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  I  have  had  some  experience  in  that,  yes,  with  one 
client. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12683 

Senator  Curtis.  Does  a  citizen  have  a  right  to  oppose  unions  ? 
Mr. GuTGSELL.  Sir? 

Senator  Curtis.  Does  a  citizen  have  a  right  to  oppose  unions? 
Mr.  GuTGSELL.  I  would  think  that  they  have  some  right  to  do  that ; 

yes. 

Senator  Curtis.  Yes.  He  has  just  as  much  right  to  oppose  or 
favor. 

Mr.  GuTGSELL.  Yes.  I  believe  Mr.  Reade  had  his  rights  under  the 
circumstances. 

Senator  Curtis.  I  am  asking  you  hypothetically.  Does  an  em- 
ployee have  a  right  to  oppose  unions  ? 

Mr.  GuTGSELTv.  Would  you  say  that  again,  please  ? 

Senator  Curtis.  Does  an  employee  have  a  right  to  oppose  unions  ? 

Mr.  GuTGSELL.  I  would  say  that  they  did  have. 

Senator  Curtis.  And  if  they  have  a  right  to  do  so,  every  right 
should  be  protected ;  isn't  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  GuTGSELL.  That  is  correct.  I  think  you  have  to  specify  it  a 
little  more  than  that.  I  think  if  an  employee  is  employed  in  an  indus- 
try or  a  place  where  it  is  90  percent  unionized,  I  think  he  either  ought 
to  join  the  union  or  not  work  there.  I  mean,  I  think  it  either  should 
be  one  or  the  other.     I  think  it  should  be  nonunion  or  union. 

Senator  Curtis.  You  mean  as  a  practical  proposition  you  say  that? 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Curtis.  But  as  a  legal  proposition,  anyone  has  a  right  to 
oppose  any  organization  they  want  to. 

]Mr.  Gutgsell.  Well.  I  would  go  along  with  that;  yes. 

Senator  Curtis.  And  an  employer  has  a  right  to  oppose  unions  ? 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  I  would  say  so ;  yes. 

Senator  Curtis.  And  he  is  not  in  violation  of  law  because  he  does 
that. 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  I  think  they  should  have  in  the  State  of  Illinois 
something  similar  as  I  understand  exists  in  the  State  of  New  York, 
that  they  should  have  a  fair  labor  relations  law,  and  then  everybody 
can  take  their  grievances  and  have  a  fair  and  impartial  decision  of 
whether  the  particular  business  should  be  union  or  nonunion. 

Senator  Curtis.  I  was  asking  you  an  abstract  question,  not  applying 
to  ^he  Chicago  situation  at  all.  But  I  wanted  the  record  to  show  that 
at  least  it  is  my  opinion  that  it  is  not  a  violation  of  law  for  someone 
to  oppose  any  particular  organization  that  he  chooses. 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  I  have  to  go  along  with  you  on  that.  Senator. 

Senator  Curtis.  He  could  oppose  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  or  any- 
body else  that  he  wants  to. 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  That  is  right. 
^  Senator  Curtis.  Were  at  least  part  of  these  unions  that  were  nego- 
tiating with  restaurant  owners  in  Chicago  dominated  by  an  element  of 
hoodlums  or  similar  type  people  ? 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  Well,  in  my  regime  I  didn't  see  any  evidence  of  it. 

Senator  Curtis.  Xo;  I  am  asking  you  just  as  a  citizen  of  Chicago 
and  what  you  observed. 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  Well,  all  I  know,  really,  about  that  is  what  T  read  in 
the  papers.  I  have  no  general  knowledge  of  the  hoodlum  element.  I 
have  no  concrete  proof  that  any  of  them  are  hoodlums. 


12684  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Senator  Curtis.  I  think  tlie  committee  here  has  established  quite  a 
record  in  that  regard  in  identifying  the  leaders  of  some  of  these 
unions. 

Mr.  GuTGSELL.  I  was  quite  impressed  during  the  last  couple  of 
days  at  that;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Curtis.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Goldwater. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Mr.  Gutgsell,  as  an  attorney,  is  it  your  opinion 
that  the  action  that  Mr.  Reade  took  in  effect  refusing  to  recognize 
this  union  in  violation  of  section  8  (a)  1  of  the  Taft-Hartley? 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  No  ;  I  do  not,  because  I  think  that  that  implies  inter- 
state business,  and  this  is  purely  an  intrastate  business. 

I  don't  believe  the  Taft-Hartley  law  applied.  As  a  matter  of  fact. 
Senator  Goldwater,  that  seems  to  be  the  complaint  of  the  union  people 
that  I  contacted  with,  that  they  had  no  law  that  would  adequately 
answer  their  problem,  once  they  felt  that  they  had  a  majority  of  the 
place  organized. 

Senator  Curtis.  Let's  assume  that  this  restaurant  was  in  interstate 
commerce.  Then  do  you  feel  Mr.  Reade  would  have  been  in  violation  ? 
Would  Mr.  Reade  have  been  in  violation  of  section  8  (a)   (1)  ? 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  I  think  he  would  then. 

Senator  Curtis.  Do  you  think  tlie  association  would  have  been  in 
violation  of  8  (a)  (1),  had  this  restaurant  been  in  interstate  com- 
merce ? 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  Do  you  mean  the  Restaurant  Association  ? 

Senator  Curtis.  Yes. 

Mr.  Gutgsell,  Well,  assuming  that  they  had  carried  out  all  the  re- 
quirements of  that  section,  which  I  assume  that  you  have  assumed, 
1  would  say  they  would  be  in  violation,  if  they  were  fostering  this 
restaurant  not  to  recognize  the  union  at  that  time. 

Senator  Curtis.  The  reason  I  am  asking  is  that  these  associations 
are  very  common,  as  you  know,  around  the  country,  and  represent  noi. 
only  restaurants  but  all  types  of  businesses.  I  have  always  been  inter- 
ested in  the  legal  question  as  to  whether  or  not  the  individual  would  be 
held  in  violation  of  the  Taft-Hartley  or  the  association. 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  Well,  it  would  be  my  opinion,  and  I  may  be  wrong, 
but  I  would  think  that  anybody  that  would  carry  out  what  you  have 
just  said,  in  view  of  that  law,  I  think  they  would  both  be  in  violation. 

Senator  Curtis.  I  have  one  other  question  relative  to  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  association.  Do  you  know  what  the  average  size  of  the 
restaurant  is  that  belongs  to  that  association? 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  Well,  that  varies,  Senator.  There  are  small  sand- 
wichshop  restaurants  and  there  are  restaurants  of  the  tvpe  of  tlie  Lon- 
don House,  Mr.  Marienthal's  restaurant,  who  testified  here  yesterday. 
They  have  certainly  a  mixed  crowd  of  people  and  a  diversified  restau  • 
rant  business  in  Chicago. 

Senator  Curtis.  Take,  for  example,  the  restaurant  we  were  talking 
about  here,  Mr.  Reade's  restaui'ant.  Would  that  restaurant  be  of  a 
sulliciont  size  to  enable  it  to  hire  an  attorney  to  help  them  in  labor 
negotiations? 

Mr.  (tutsiiell.  No  ;  I  would  say  not.  Mr.  Reade  runs  what  I  would 
classify  as  the  tearoom  restaurant.  Mr.  Reade  sells  no  liquor  in  his 
restaurant,  which  presents  a  problem  immediately  of  how  to  make  a 
profit  on  food  today.     Pie  operates,  I  believe,  just  a  few  hours,  and 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12685 

closes  around  9  or  9:  30  at  the  latest  at  ni<^lit.  He  really  has  just  a 
lunch  business  and  an  early  dinner  business. 

Mr.  Reade,  I  am  sure,  has  to  watch  his  business  very  closely  to  stay 
in  business. 

Senator  Curtis.  As  a  labor  lawyer  practicing  labor  law,  have  you 
ever  represented  labor  ? 

Mr.  GuTGSELL.  Never. 

Seiuitor  Curtis.  You  never  have  represented  a  union  ? 

Mr.  GuTGSELL.  No,  sir.  I  have  had  several  sessions  with  the  same 
union  by  another  client  that  I  represent,  where  we  don't  encounter 
any  sweetheart  contracts  or  clauses  or  anything  else.  It  was  strictly 
a  union,  100  percent. 

Senator  Curtis.  Did  you  find  in  your  practice  in  Chicago  in  this 
field  that  the  type  of  contract  we  were  discussing  yesterday  was  a 
pretty  general  one,  where  parts  of  the  restaurant  would  be  organized, 
but  the  waitresses  were  not? 

Mr.  GuTGSELL.  I  don't  quite  follow  you.  Senator. 

Senator  Curtis.  Where  the  union  would  organize,  let's  say,  all  of 
the  restaurant  except  the  waitresses. 

Mr.  GuTGSELL.  "Wliat  is  it  you  want  to  know  about  it  ? 

Senator  Curtis.  Is  that  a  general  type  of  contract,  to  your  experi- 
ence in  Chicago  ? 

Mr.  GuTGSELL.  Well,  I  know  that  there  are  quite  a  number  of  res- 
taurants operating  under  that  situation.  When  I  took  over  the  at- 
torneyship of  the  Restaurant  Association,  I  quickly  was  advised  of 
that  situation,  and  I  did  not  think  it  was  a  very  good  situation.  As 
the  chairman  pointed  out  yesterday,  even,  for  instance,  the  40  em- 
ployees of  Mr.  Marienthal,  that  he  was  paying  dues  on,  the}^  were  get- 
ting no  benefits  at  all.  Now,  after  I  had  negotiated  my  contract  with 
the  union  restaurants,  there  was  a  health  and  welfare  clause  that  would 
go  into  effect  the  following  December,  and  if  we  could  get  the  par- 
ticular 40  as  Mr.  Marienthal  did  and  put  them  in  the  union,  today 
they  would  have  the  benefits  of  the  health  and  welfare,  which  is  a 
thing  that  should  exist.  I  think  health  and  welfare  should  be  in  all 
the  restaurants  in  Chicago.     They  should  have  them. 

Senator  Curtis.  Where  would  you,  as  a  person  interested  in  labor 
law,  put  the  blame  for  the  fact  that  waitresses  would  be  excluded  from 
these  contracts  while  bartenders,  cooks,  and  helpers  would  be  in  the 
contracts? 

Mr.  GuTGSELL.  Well,  the  waitress  question  has  presented  a  problem 
with  the  restaurant  owner  for  a  long  time.  In  the  contract  that  I 
negotiated,  on  the  gratuities  help  they  didn't  get  the  raise  that  the 
other  part  of  the  business  received.  I  say  that  the  w^aitresses  should 
have  a  lesser  pay  for  the  reason  that  they  do  get  the  tips,  and  the 
waiters  the  same  way. 

It  is  a  very  difficult  problem.  But  I  think  once  they  get  either  on 
one  side  of  the  fence  or  the  other,  then  the  question  of  the  waitresses 
would  be  easily  handled,  because  I  believe  the  union  recognizes  the 
fact  that  the  waitresses,  the  people  that  receive  gratuities,  should  be 
at  a  different  level  than  the  fellow^  that  is  broiling  the  steak  in  the 
backroom. 

Senator  Curtis.  Do  the  waitresses  in  the  contracts  3-011  were  nego- 
tiating receive  union  scale? 

Mr.  GuTGSELL.  Yes,  sir. 


12686  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Senator  Curtis.  They  all  did  ? 

Mr.  GuTGSELL.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Curtis.  Even  though  they  weren't  members  of  the  union  ? 

Mr.  GuTGSELL.  I  only  represented  union  restaurants. 

Senator  Curtis.  I  misunderstood  you. 

Mr.  GuTGSELL.  I  only  had  about  52,  actually,  that  gave  me  the  power 
of  attorney  to  represent  them.  I  never  at  any  time  brought  up  a 
question  in  any  of  the  restaurants  that  you  heard  about  yesterday, 
where  1  fellow  was  paying  for  10  and  another  for  40.  They  were 
nonunion  restaurants. 

Senator  Curtis.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman.   Thank  you. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  learn  that  the  association  financed  Nan- 
tucket Restaurant  during  the  strike  ? 

Mr.  GuTGSELL.  I  was  so  advised ;  yes,  sir.  I  understand  it  cost  both 
the  union  and  the  Restaurant  Association  a  vast  sum  of  money,  because 
it  went  on  for  pretty  near  2  years. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Would  you  have  any  suggestions  or  ideas  for  legis- 
lation to  deal  with  this  problem  or  the  problems  that  exist  both  for 
the  union  and  for  management  ? 

Mr.  GuTGSELL.  Yes ;  I  feel  that  I  have  a  suggestion  to  the  committee 
here.  I  really  believe  that  the  State  of  Illinois  should  quickly  enact 
a  law  along  the  lines  of,  I  would  say,  the  Taft-Hartley,  or  the  Labor 
Relations  Act,  and  make  it  a  law  and  have  a  committee  or  commission 
appointed;  we  will  take  the  case,  in  all  probability  which  you  will 
hear  later  this  morning,  of  Mr.  Reads'  question. 

That  presents  an  ideal  problem  to  solve.  Mr.  Reade  claimed  they 
did  not  have  a  majority  while  the  union  claimed  that  they  did.  So 
the  union — assuming  that  we  have  the  law,  now,  on  the  books — they 
could  appeal  to  the  committee,  the  commission,  and  state  that  they 
feel  that  they  have  the  majority,  and  that  they  would  want  the  com- 
mittee or  commission  to  conduct  an  election  of  the  employees  of  Mr. 
Reade's  restaurant.  I  think  then  if  it  developed  that  the  union  had 
the  majority  of  them,  I  would  feel  confident  that  both  Mr.  Reade  or 
any  other  restaurant  in  a  like  situation  would  go  along,  or  naturally 
would  have  to  go  along,  with  the  law. 

I  think  that  would  solve  the  problem.  That  would  solve  the  check- 
off that  they  are  talking  about,  the  sweetheart  contracts,  or  any  fellow 
walking  in  and  trying  to  organize  a  few  people  in  a  particular 
restaurant. 

I  think  the  chairman  yesterday  certainly  put  his  finger  on  the 
pulse  when  he  cited  the  problem  of  a  union  restaurant  on  one  side 
of  the  street  paying  union  wages  and  then  a  restaurant  across  the 
street,  with  half  of  the  people  not  paying  union  scale. 

I  cannot  see  how  the  union  fellow  can  stay  in  business,  with  the 
present  situation  on  the  price  of  food  and  the  history  of  the  restaurant 
business  in  the  last  few  years. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Do  you  have  any  suggestions  at  the  Federal  level? 

Mr.  GuTGSELL.  Well,  of  course,  the  restaurants  in  Chicago  are  intra- 
state, and  as  I  told  Senator  Goldwater,  I  feel  that  it  requires  some 
State  action. 

Senator  Goldwater.  You  would  not  suggest,  then,  that  the  Federal 
Government  extend  its  activities  down  into  this  field,  as  has  been 
suggested  by  others  ? 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    EST    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12687 

Mr.  GirrGSELL.  "Well,  I  think  they  would  be  hampered  to  some 
extent,  but  I  think  that  this  committee  could  very  easily  make  a 
recommendation  that  such  a  thing  should  take  place  in  the  State  of 
Illinois. 

I  mean  that  is  within  the  purview  of  this  committee. 

Senator  Goldwater.  If  it  would  work  for  Illinois,  it  would  work 
for  all  of  the  States. 

Mr.  GuTGSELL.  They  tell  me  that  it  works  for  New  York  very  fine. 

Senator  Goldwater.  We  have  this  developed  earlier  in  the  hearings. 
"We  called  it  no  man's  land,  that  it  would  not  apply  particularly  in 
intrastate. 

Mr.  GuTGSELL.  That  is  my  feeling. 

Senator  Goldw^ater.  Have  you  every  had  experience  with  cases 
in  the  so-called  no  man's  land  field  ? 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  "Well,  years  ago  I  represented  quite  a  number  of 
dairies  in  Chicago,  and  I  thought  I  was  on  real  solid  ground  because 
I  had  one  dairy — and  you  might  consider  this  as  an  answer  to  your 
question  just  now — I  had  one  dairy  in  Chicago,  after  the  Govern- 
ment had  passed  order  41,  regulating  the  price  of  all  milk  coming  into 
Chicago,  under  order  41,  and  I  had,  as  I  say,  one  dairy  that  operated 
exclusively  in  Cook  County,  or  in  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  received  all 
of  its  milk  from  farmers  in  the  State  of  Illinois. 

I  was  associated  with  a  lawyer  that  tried  it  in  a  Federal  court  in 
Chicago.  The  district  court  agreed  that  it  was  purely  in  intrastates. 
They  got  up  to  the  Suprem^  Court  with  it  and  they  decided  that  it 
had  a  tendency  to  interfere  with  interstate  commerce,  and  that  covers 
a  big  blanket. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  is  what  I  was  going  to  say.  As  far  as  the 
restaurants,  you  say  they  are  completely  intrastate.  It  has  been  held 
in  a  number  of  States,  in  instances,  that  the  restaurants  are  inter- 
state. Perhaps  the  National  Labor  Relations  Board  will  not  assume 
jurisdiction  over  the  matter,  but,  still,  the  Federal  law  and  the  other 
provisions  of  the  Taft-Hartley  Act  apply.  Of  course,  this  gets  into 
the  middleman  area,  because  the  State  then  says  because  it  might  be 
interstate,  we  cannot  assume  jurisdiction. 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  You  are  pressing  my  memory  about  that  case.  I 
think  I  might  have  to  say  to  you.  Senator  Goldwater,  that  there  is  a 
pcssibility  that  your  committee,  on  interstate  phases  of  this  situation, 
would  be  able  to  do  something. 

Senator  Goldwater.  That  was  my  feeling. 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  I  stand  a  little  bit  corrected  on  that,  yes. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Under  the  interpretations  starting  back  with 
the  Jones-McLaughlin  case  in  1930,  it  is  pretty  hard  to  imagine  any 
business  in  the  "United  States  which  is  not  interstate  commerce,  in- 
cluding the  fellow  polishing  shoes,  because  he  has  to  bring  his  polish 
across  State  lines. 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  Because  of  that  tendency  to  interfere. 

Senator  Goldwater.  And  "interfere"  is  a  big  word.  That  is  all 
I  have. 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  Senator,  I  would  like  to  say  one  thing  in  conclusion, 
if  I  may.  I  have  been  practicing  law  in  Chicago,  as  I  stated,  since 
1916.  I  felt  pretty  badly  this  morning  in  looking  at  the  morning 
press  of  our  paper,  that  Chicago  is  getting  a  very  bad  name  here  with 

21243— 58— pt.  33 13 


12688  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    EST    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

what  is  taking  place  here,  and  what  have  you.  I  think  it  doesn't  de- 
serve that  for  this  reason,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  we  don't  have  the 
adequate  law  at  the  moment  to  solve  the  problem  that  we  have  been 
talking  about  between  the  union  restaurant  and  whether  they  have  a 
majority  to  recognize. 

I  feel  at  the  moment  that  Chicago's  hands  to  some  extent  are  tied 
until  they  get  some  adequate  legislation  whereby  they  can  go  out  and 
enforce  the  situation  and  do  away  with  the  situation  that  now  exists, 
apparently,  in  the  restaurant  industry  of  Chicago. 

As  a  good  citizen  of  Chicago,  I  didn't  like  to  see  them  get  that  sort 
of  a  name  out  of  this  hearing. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  feel  that  the  committee  is  in  any  way  being 
unfair  to  Chicago? 

Mr.  GuTGSELL.  No ;  you  are  very  fair.  You  are  very  fair,  and  I  am 
hopeful  that  the  committee  will  recommend  some  legislation,  either 
Federal  or  State,  to  solve  the  problem  for  us,  because  I  think  it  would 
put  us  in  a  very  much  finer,  healthier  situation.  I  just  want  to  say 
this,  because  Chicago  has  been  pretty  good  to  me. 

The  Chatrman.  I  wish  to  say  this  to  you  and  to  the  people  of 
Chicago:  That  this  committee  is  not  interested  in  trying,  and  it  is 
not  its  purpose  to  give  any  community  a  bad  name.  That  we  have  no 
desire  to  do.  This  was  an  unpleasant  task.  Wlien  you  go  into  an 
area  to  expose  some  condition  that  may  exist  that  the  decent  citizens 
abhor  just  as  much  as  we  do,  it  is  not  with  the  intent  or  purpose  to 
smear  that  community  or  to  develop  necessarily  derogatory  evidence 
against  the  community.  It  is  simply  to  ferret  out  these  practices  and 
these  conditions  wherever  they  may  obtain  in  order  that  the  Congress 
may  be  guided — first  this  committee  guided  in  its  recommendations 
to  the  Congress  and  the  Congress  in  turn  guided  in  the  direction  of 
remedial  legislation. 

Mr.  GuTGSELL.  I  feel  that  way. 

The  Chairman.  I  am  sure  that  millions  of  people  in  Chicago  are 
just  as  decent  and  law-abiding  citizens  as  is  the  chairman  of  this 
committee  or  any  other  member  of  it. 

It  is  not  to  cast  reflections  upon  them,  but  we  do  seek  their  coop- 
eration as  well  as  the  cooperation  of  the  decent  citizenship  all  over 
the  country  in  helping  us  to  ferret  out  these  evils,  wherever  they  pre- 
vail, and  finding  a  solution  to  the  problem  in  order  that  the  whole 
country,  not  just  one  community  but  the  whole  country  may  profit 
by  it,  and  it  may  serve  the  welfare  of  all  the  people. 

Mr.  GuTGSELL.  I  am  sure,  Mr.  Chairman,  you  understand  I  am 
not  critical  of  the  committee  by  any  means.  I  am  just  hoping  that  out 
of  this  situation  we  will  get  something  that  will  solve  the  problem 
between  the  association  and  the  union. 

The  Chairman.  Yes,  sir.  Well,  that  is  what  we  are  trying  to  do. 
I  did  not  think  you  were  critical  of  the  committee.  I  may  say  to  you 
that  this  assignment,  the  assignment  the  committee  has,  is  often  very 
unpleasant  to  perform. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Could  I  add  something  to  that?  What  you  men- 
tioned hits  home  particularly,  as  I  received  a  telegram  today  from 
the  Chamber  of  Commerce  of  Scranton,  Pa.  We  have  been  in  Scran- 
ton,  Pa.,  twice  in  the  last  18  months.  They  feel  that  we  liave  made 
them  appear  to  the  public  to  be  a  very  evil  city.  Unfortunately,  this 
might  be  the  situation  that  is  created.     It  is  a  very  small  minority  in 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12689 

this  city,  as  it  is  a  very  small  minority  in  Chicago.  Unfortunately, 
this  committee  deals  with  the  evil  rather  than  particularly  with  the 
good,  as  we  also  deal  with  labor  unions.  It  is  really  a  very  small 
minority  that  we  deal  with.  It  is  most  unfortunate  if  it  reflects  on 
the  vast  numbers  who  are  decent  and  live  up  to  the  law. 

Mr.  GuTGSELL.  I  was  just  citing  that  at  the  end,  JSIr.  Kennedy,  for 
the  reason  of  urging  something  to  be  passed  here,  or  a  recommenda- 
tion or  something  to  be  passed,  that  would  be  helpful. 

I  believe  that  both  have  been  remiss  to  some  extent  in  not  solving 
the  problem  among  themselves. 

Senator  Goldwatkr.  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Goldwater. 

Senator  Goldw^ater.  Have  you  ever  made  a  recommendation  to  the 
State  legislature  ? 

Mr.  GuTGSELL.  No,  sir ;  I  have  not. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Has  the  bar  association  in  Illinois  ? 

Mr.  GuTGSELL.  Not  to  my  knowledge.  Senator  Goldwater. 

Senator  Goldw^ater.  Do  you  think  it  would  be  a  good  idea  for  you 
people  to  institute  this  action  ? 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  I  have  that  in  mind,  and  when  I  get  back  to  Chicago 
I  am  going  to  talk  with  the  proper  committee  of  the  Chicago  Bar 
Association  and  get  busy  on  some  sort  of  legislation  on  this  point. 

Senator  Goldwater.  The  reason  I  suggest  that  is  that  I  have  no 
confidence  in  the  Federal  Government's  ever  being  able  to  help  the 
States.     I  think  the  States  can  help  themselves. 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  And  I  think  they  should. 

Senator  Goldwater.  I  think  your  situation  in  Illinois  is  no  dif- 
ferent than  we  have  in  other  States  of  the  Union.  It  should  be  solved 
or  at  least  attempted  to  be  solved  first  by  the  State  legislature  and  the 
Governor,  and  if  they  can't  do  it,  and  I  see  no  reason  why  a  State 
can't,  then  you  might  fall  on  the  feeble  crutch  of  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment. But  I  don't  w^ant  to  see  the  Federal  Government  get  any  more 
into  labor  legislation  than  it  is.  In  fact,  I  would  like  to  see  them  get 
out  of  it  as  much  as  they  could,  and  get  out  of  everything  else  they 
have  meddled  with. 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  I  think  that  is  the  way  we  should  try  to  do  it  and 
all  States  should  try  to  solve  their  own  problems,  if  they  possibly  can. 

The  Chairman.  All  right ;  thank  you  very  much. 

Mr.  Gutgsell.  Thank  j^ou  for  your  courtesy. 

The  Chahjman.  Call  the  next  w^itness. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Harold  Reade. 

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.  Eeade.  I  do. 

TESTIMONY  OF  EDWAED  HAROLD  READE,  ACCOMPANIED  BY 
COUNSEL,  WILLIAM  J.  LANCASTER 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Reade,  state  your  name,  your  place  of  residence, 
and  your  business  or  occupation. 

Mv.  Reade.  My  name  is  Edward  Harold  Reade.  I  live  at  1617  West 
80th  Street,  Chicago,  111.  I  have  a  restaurant  at  10437  South  Western 
Avenue,  Chicago. 


12690  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you,  sir.  You  have  counsel  present  to  repre- 
sent you  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Counsel,  identify  yourself  for  the  record. 

Mr.  Lancaster.  William  J.  Lancaster,  111  West  Washington  Street, 
Chicago  2,  111. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you  very  much.    Proceed,  Mr.  Kennedy. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Reade,  how  many  employees  do  you  have  at  the 
Nantucket  Restaurant,  approximately  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  Approximately  27  employees. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Were  you  approached  early  in  1950  by  a  union  of- 
ficial about  making  your  employees  union  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Who  was  that  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  In  1950, 1  was  approached  by  Frank  Trungale. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  A  union  official  of  local  394 ;  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  Yes,  sir.  Also,  James  O'Connor,  of  the  same.  They 
both  contacted  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  they  wanted  you  to  place  your  employees  in  the 
union ;  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  refuse  to  do  that  at  that  time  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  did  they  make  any  statement  to  you  at  that 
time? 

Mr.  Reade.  Yes,  sir.  They  threatened  me  with  a  picket  line  un- 
less I  did  place  my  employees  in  their  union. 

The  Chairman.  Let  me  ask  you  at  this  point :  At  that  time,  did  they 
claim  they  had  the  authority  from  the  union  members — I  mean  from 
your  employees  ?  Did  they  have  cards  signed  by  them,  expressing  a 
desire  to  have  this  union  as  their  collective-bargaining  agent  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  No,  sir ;  they  did  not. 

The  Chairman.  They  made  no  claim  at  that  time  of  having  the 
authority  to  represent  any  majority  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  No.  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And,  without  having  that,  they  were  actually  in- 
sisting that  you  place  your  employees  in  the  union  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  when  you  declined  to  do  that,  then  they 
threatened  you  with  a  picket  line  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  That  is  correct. 

Senator  Curtis.  Mr.  Chairman,  we  cannot  hear  very  well. 

Mr.  Lancaster.  If  I  may  interrupt,  the  witness  is  somewhat  hard 
of  hearing,  also,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  want  you  to  be  humane  and  un- 
derstand that,  too. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you  very  much.  We  will  all  try  to  be  gov- 
erned accordingly.  .    ,      ^i  . 

Mr.  Kennedy.  At  that  time,  you  were  a  member  of  the  Chicago 
Restaurant  Association? 

Mr.  Reade.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  then  go  and  have  a  conference  with  Mr. 
Kiesau,  of  the  Chicago  Restaurant  Association  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  Yes,  sir.  I  had  a  conference  with  him  by  phone  and  in 
person  down  at  the  Chicago  Restaurant  Association  office. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12691 

Mr.  Kennedy.  ^\Tiat  arrangements  did  he  make  then? 

Mr.  Reade.  He  made  arrangements  for  Mr.  Teitelbaum  to  contact 
me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Teitelbaum  at  that  time  was  labor-relations  con- 
sultant for  the  association ;  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Then  did  you  have  a  conference  with  Mr.  Teitel- 
baum? 

Mr.  Reade.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  he  come  to  your  restaurant? 

Mr.  Reade.  He  did. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  meet,  then,  with  any  union  officials? 

Mr.  Reade.  Mr.  Teitelbaum  first  came  in  and,  shortly  afterward, 
Mr.  Trungale  came  in. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Would  you  tell  the  committee  what  transpired  at 
that  time  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  Yes,  sir.  I  invited  them  back  into  a  private  dining 
room  which  was  not  being  used  at  that  time,  and  Mr.  Trungale  re- 
fused to  meet  inside  the  building  and  said  we  would  have  to  take  a 
walk.  We  went  out  of  the  building,  walked  down  along  the  side- 
walk where  there  were  no  buildings  and  no  improvements  whatever. 
This  happens  to  be  out  in  an  area  that  was  not  built  up  at  that  time. 
On  this  walk,  Mr.  Teitelbaum  and  Mr.  Trungale  carried  on  a  con- 
versation relating  to  whether  I  should  be  put  into  the  union  or  how  it 
should  be  worked  out. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  Mr.  Trungale  at  that  time  demand  a  payoff 
from  you  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  In  the  course  of  this  conversation,  in  trying  to  arrive  at 
a  figure,  Mr.  Trungale  made  the  statement  that  "I  expected  nothing 
less  than  the  price  of  a  new  Cadillac  out  of  the  Nantucket." 

After  much  bickering  between  Mr.  Trungale  and  Mr.  Teitelbaum, 
they  agreed — I  was  listening;  I  was  the  third  party,  but  they  were 
transacting  this  as  my  attorney  and  the  union — they  agreed  that  I 
would  pay  a  $500  penalty  or  initiation  fee — I  don't  know  just  exactly 
what  you  would  call  the  figure — it  was  to  be  in  cash,  and  I  would  put 
10  of  my  employees  into  the  union  and  continue  to  pay  for  10  employees 
from  that  point  on. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Originally,  he  had  demanded  the  price  of  a  Cadillac 
car,  and  that  was  to  be  paid  in  cash  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  Well,  he  made  this  statement.  I  don't  believe  I  have 
ever  made  the  statement  that  he  demanded.  He  said  he  expected 
nothing  less  than  the  price  of  a  new  Cadillac  out  of  the  Nantucket. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And,  ultimately,  between  the  discussions  of  Mr. 
Teitelbaum  on  your  behalf  and  ISIr.  Trungale,  it  was  agreed  that  you 
would  pay  $500  in  cash ;  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  make  an  \-  payment  at  that  time  ?  And  also 
put  10  employees  into  the  imion  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  Yes,  sir;  I  was  also  to  put  10  employees  into  the  union. 
At  that  time,  I  did  not  have  $500  in  cash  on  my  person.  I  did  have  a 
fairly  large  amount  of  cash,  and  I  at  that  time  paid  out  $150  in  cash, 
which  was  later  returned  to  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  did  you  do  with  the  $150  in  cash  ? 


12692  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Reade.  I  paid  it  out  to  Mr.  Trungale,  on  the  instructions  of 
Mr.  Teitelbaum. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  was  it  agreed  at  that  time  that  you  would  pay 
the  other  $350  at  a  later  time  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  At  a  later  time,  and  also  would  start  paying  on  the  10 
employees  at  a  later  time. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  After  this  meeting  and  this  discussion,  did  some 
question  arise  in  your  own  mind  as  to  the  propriety  of  making  this 
payment  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  Yes,  sir;  there  was  a  question  in  my  mind  from  the 
beginning  on  the  propriety  of  paying  the  whole  thing,  but,  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  counsel  had  been  recommended  to  me,  and  I  am  not  a 
lawyer,  I  didn't  think  it  was  right,  but,  on  the  advice  of  counsel,  I 
proceeded  on  it,  and  then  the  more  I  thought  about  it  the  more  dis- 
turbed I  became  over  it.  I  then  contacted  Mr.  Kiesau  at  the  Chicago 
Restaurant  Association  and  explained  to  him  just  what  had  happened. 
He  was  quite  disturbed  over  the  fact  that  this  transaction  had  been 
handled  in  that  manner.  He  asked  me  to  come  down  to  the  association, 
which  I  agreed  to  do  as  soon  as  he  could  make  arrangements  for 
Mr.  Drake  to  come  in  and  meet  with  me. 

The  Chairman.  May  I  ask  you  at  this  point  if,  at  that  time,  you 
were  a  member  of  the  Chicago  Restaurant  Association  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  Yes,  Mr.  McClellan.  My  brother  originally  signed  up 
the  Nantucket  Restaurant  Association,  as  my  partner.  He  was  oper- 
ating it,  and  operated  it  the  first  3  years.  He  was  killed,  and  at  that 
time  I  went  and  took  over.  Prior  to  my  going  in,  we  were  a  member 
of  the  Chicago  Restaurant  Association,  and  I  continued  my  member- 
ship and  used  their  services  whenever  I  felt  that  I  needed  them. 

The  Chairman.  May  I  inquire  whether  you  were  also  a  contributor 
to  the  so-called  voluntary  fund  at  that  time  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  I  don't  believe  at  that  time,  prior  to  that  time,  I  had 
ever  known  of  this  voluntary  contribution.  As  soon  as  I  heard  about 
it,  I  asked  to  participate  in  it. 

The  Chairman.  But  up  until  then  you  had  not  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  No  ;  I  had  not  known  of  it,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  had  conversations  with  Kiesau,  and  then  was 
it  arranged  for  you  to  meet  with  Mr.  Teitelbaum  again  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  I  was  asked  to  come  down  to  the  office  to  meet  with  Mr. 
Drake,  and,  when  I  arrived,  I  met  with  Mr.  Kiesau  and  Mr.  Drake. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  is  George  Drake  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  George  Drake,  who  was  president  of  the  Chicago  Res- 
taurant Association  at  that  time. 

Mr.  Kiesau  asked  me  to  repeat  for  Mr.  Drake  exactly  what  had 
transpired,  and  they  both  appeared  to  be  quite  amazed  tliat  such  an 
arrangement  had  been  worked  out.  They  had  also  arranged  to  have 
Mr.  Teitelbaum  in  the  office,  and,  after  I  had  explained  the  entire  story 
to  Mr.  Drake,  Mr.  Teitelbaum  was  called  into  the  office,  and  at  that 
point  Mr.  Drake,  in  my  presence,  explained  to  Mr.  Teitelbaum  just 
what  I  had  told  him.  At  that  point,  Mr.  Teitelbaum  confirmed  the 
fact  that  he  had,  and  Mr.  Drake  and  Mr.  Kiesau  both  told  him  that 
that  was  absolutely  contrary  to  any  arrangement  the  association  had 
ever  made  with  him,  and  asked  him  what  he  was  going  to  do  about  it. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    EST   THE    LABOR   FIELD  12693 

He  agreed  to  correct  the  matter,  and,  about  2  weeks  later,  I  don't 
remember  the  exact  time,  Mr.  Teitelbaum  called  me.  I  went  down 
to  his  office  and  picked  up  the  $150  in  cash  from  Mr.  Teitelbaum. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  This  was  back  in  1950-51  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  In  that  area ;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  the  restaurant  association,  after  Mr.  Kiesau  and 
Mr.  Drake  found  out  about  this,  fire  Mr.  Teitelbaum  right  then  and 
there? 

Mr.  Eeade.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Curtis.  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Curtis. 

Senator  Curtis.  Mr.  Eeade,  you  told  us  about  this  request;  first, 
they  talked  about  a  Cadillac,  and,  later  on,  $500,  and  then  that  you 
pay  dues  for  10  of  your  members.  Did  that  have  the  appearance  of 
a  demand  upon  you  for  a  payment  direct  to  the  union  bosses  ? 

Mr.  Keade.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Curtis.  And  it  did  not  carry  any  implication  that  you 
were  making  a  payment  that  would  really  benefit  your  own  employees  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Curtis.  Did  they  indicate  what  might  happen  if  you  didn't 
make  a  payment  to  them  ? 

Mr.  Eeade.  I  had  been  advised  on  many  jirevious  occasions  and  also 
was  advised  at  this  time,  unless  I  did  their  bidding,  I  would  be  faced 
with  a  picket  line. 

Senator  Curtis.  Had  knowledge  come  to  you  as  to  how  those  picket 
lines  operated  around  some  of  the  restaurants  ? 

Mr.  Eeade.  Yes,  sir.  I  was  familiar  with  the  fact  that  there  had 
been  many  picket  lines  in  Chicago  and  had,  personally,  visited  the 
situation  up  at  the  Howard  Johnson  Eestaurant  during  the  time  they 
had  their  picket  line. 

Senator  Curtis.  That  Mr.  Strang  told  about? 

Mr.  Eeade.  Yes,  sir.  Because  they  had  been  threatening  me  for  a 
long  time  previous  to  this  with  a  picket  line. 

Senator  Curtis.  Mr.  Strang  testified  not  only  to  the  picket  line, 
but  the  difficulty  of  getting  goods  in,  the  secondary  boycott  against 
the  dairy  people;  he  told  how  they  blocked  him  in  removing  his 
garbage  from  the  premises,  and  the  slicing  of  tires  of  employees 
and  management  around  there.  You  were  given  to  understand  that 
that  is  probably  what  would  happen  to  you  if  you  didn't  make 
settlement  ? 

Mr.  Eeade.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Curtis.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Actually,  Mr.  Teitelbaum  remained  with  the  asso- 
ciation for  another  couple  of  years,  did  he  not  ? 

Mr.  Eeade.  I  believe  he  did. 

Mr.  KJENNEDY.  In  1955,  was  another  attempt  made  to  unionize  the 
Nantucket  Eestaurant  ? 

]Mr.  Eeade.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  October  21,  1955,  or  thereabouts,  Mr.  Jolm  Cul- 
lerton,  of  the  joint  executive  board  of  local  593,  contacted  you,  did 
he  not  ? 

Mr.  Eeade.  Yes,  sir. 


12694  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  informed  you  that  he  had  a  majority  of  your 
employees  signed  up  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  He  claimed  that  he  represented  a  majority  of  my  em- 
ployees ;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  he  threatened  to  put  a  picket  line  if  you  did 
not  recognize  the  union  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  was  your  reaction  to  that  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  Well,  do  you  mean 

Mr,  Kennedy.  Did  you  refuse  to  recognize  the  union  at  that  time? 

Mr.  Reade.  Well,  yes.  The  first  contact  he  made,  I  was  down  in 
Georgia.  I  had  gone  down  to  Georgia  for  just  a  few  days  on  a  little 
vacation,  and  when  I  came  back  I  received  this  registered  letter  from 
the  union.  It  had  been  opened  at  the  time  I  received  it.  I  could  never 
ascertain  who  opened  it,  but  it  notified  me — I  believe  the  letter  noti- 
fied me  that  they  represented  my  employees. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  refused  to  recognize  the  union  and  went  to  see 
Mr.  Kiesau ;  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  he  put  you  in  touch  with  Mr,  Gutgsell? 

Mr.  Reade.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Then  Mr.  Gutgsell  met  with  Mr.  Cullerton,  did  he 
not,  representing  the  union?    He  had  meetings  with  Mr.  Cullerton? 

Mr.  Reade.  He  talked  to  Mr.  Cullerton,  yes,  sir.  He  explained  to 
me  that  he  had  talked  to  Mr.  Cullerton. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  he  came  back  and  reported  to  you  that  Mr. 
Cullerton  stated  that  he  had  the  cards  for  a  majority  of  your  em- 
ployees ? 

Mr.  Reade.  Yes,  sir.  He  came  back  to  me  and  stated  that  Mr.  Cul- 
lerton claimed  that  he  had  a  majority  of  my  employees  signed  up. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  still  refused  to  recognize  the  union,  did  you  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  I  did,  because  to  my  knowledge,  and  by  him  checking, 
I  was  thoroughly  convinced  that  this  was  no  more  than  their  pre- 
vious claims  that  they  could  not  verify. 

Mr.  Kennedy'.  Did  you  make  arrangements  to  check  the  cards? 
Mr.  Cullerton  evidently  was  willing  to  have  the  cards  checked  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  He  never  so  indicated  to  me  that  he  was.  I  at  this 
point  would  like  to  state  that  Mr.  Gutgsell  never  so  indicated  to  me 
that  Mr.  Cullerton  was  willing  to  have  me  check  the  cards. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  ask  to  have  the  cards  checked  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  No,  sir.  I  did  not.  I  did  not  feel  it  was  my  responsi- 
bility to  have  the  cards  verified. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  If  you  were  willing  to  have  your  employees  signed 
up  if  they  had  selected  the  union  as  their  representative,  why  didn't 
you  just  say,  "I  want  to  check  the  cards''  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  I  had  and  still  have  a  lot  of  very  fine,  loyal  employees. 
I  am  very  close  to  my  employees.  I  have  talked  to  my  employees.  In 
my  own  mind  I  felt  I  knew  that  my  employees  had  not  signed  the 
cards.  For  that  reason  I  could  see  no  reason  why  I  should  accept  the 
word  of  people  who  had  conducted  the  t5^pe  of  business  and  the  type 
of  operations  that  they  had  been  conducting. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  This  wasn't  a  question  of  your  taking  anybody's 
word.    These  were  the  cards.    We  have  them  right  here.    You  could 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12695 

have  just  taken  the  cards  and  had  the  signatures  compared  with  the 
signatures  of  your  employees.  It  was  very  simple.  You  didn't  have 
to  take  anybody's  word  for  it,  Mr,  Reade. 

Mr.  IvEADE.  I  realize.  But  I  was  never  offered  that.  I  did  ask  Mr. 
Cullerton  at  one  point  in  our  conversation,  and  the  only  statement 
that  he  ever  made  to  me  was  when  I  asked  him  how  many  he  claimed 
that  he  represented,  he  said  about  25. 

He  never  came  any  closer  than  to  a  general  statement  as  to  how  many 
of  my  employees  he  represented. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Gutgsell  had  examined  the  cards  and  found 
that  there  were  approximately  19,  which  was  a  majority  of  your 
employees. 

Mr.  Reade.  Mr.  Gutgsell  never  so  informed  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  mean  the  testimony  that  Mr.  Gutgsell  has  just 
given  to  the  committee  that  he  examined  the  cards  and  found  a  ma- 
jority of  the  cards.  No.  1,  and  that  Mr.  Cullerton  was  willing  to  show 
them  to  you  is  untrue  ^ 

Mr.  Reade.  I  will  still  make  the  statement  that  Mr.  Gutgsell  never 
so  informed  me  that  he  had  examined  those  cards  and  ascertained  that 
they  represented  my  employees. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Then  Mr.  Gutgsell's  testimony  before  this  committee 
is  untrue ;  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  I  would  rather  not  accuse  Mr.  Gutgsell  of  anything. 
I  would  rather  just  state  what  I  know  as  facts. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  is  in  conflict  to  what  Mr.  Gutgsell  testified  to. 
He  said  he  went  and  examined  the  cards  and  came  back  and  informed 
you,  and  that  Mr.  Cullerton  was  willing  to  have  you  examme  the 
cards.    But  moving  on,  did  the  union  then  call  a  strike  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  the  strike  occurred  when  ?    Starting  when  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  October  21, 1955. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  lasted  until  when  ? 

Mr,  Reade.  Until  November  1957. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  during  that  period  or  afterward,  did  you  ever 
sign  up  with  the  union  ^ 

Mr.  Reade.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Your  employees  never  became  union  members  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Was  there  violence  of  any  kind  during  the  period 
of  the  strike  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Would  you  relate  that  to  the  committee  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  There  were  many,  many  repetitions  of  the  same  thing 
that  Mr.  Strang  reported  here,  only  on  a  much  greater  scale.  They 
stopped  me  from  removing  my  garbage.  I  was  fortunate  that  having 
a  fairly  large  house  out  in  the  rear  where  we  keep  our  garbage  cans, 
and  after  I  had  the  house  filled  to  the  roof  and  couldn't  get  any  more 
in  there,  I  made  an  arrangement  through  the  Chicago  Restaurant 
Association,  through  the  Illinois  Detective  Agency,  to  arrange  for  a 
truck  to  come  in  and  remove  this  garbage. 

The  police  department  were  notified  that  there  would  be  a  special 
movement  that  afternoon.  Normally  we  were  bringing  in  our  mer- 
chandise all  in  the  morning.     On  the  instructions  of  the  police  depart- 


12696  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

ment,  we  called  them  and  tliey  escorted  in  every  load  of  merchandise 
that  we  brought  in,  and  escorted  out  every  load  of  merchandise  that 
we  took  out. 

Before  our  truck  arrived  to  pick  up  this  garbage,  there  was  a  road- 
block placed  in  our  alley  at  both  ends  of  the  building,  blocking  the 
alley  so  no  one  could  get  through  and  no  one  could  get  to  the  garbage. 

This  roadblock  was  placed  by  people  known  to  me  as  being  union 
people,  because  I  had  seen  them  around  the  place  of  business  in  many 
occasions  conducting  their  business.  I  talked  with  the  sergeant  on 
duty  at  the  Nantucket  Restaurant,  and  he  was  unable  to  do  anything 
about  it.  I  called  the  Morgan  Park  police  station.  They  sent  up 
two  private  detectives,  and  they  were  unable  to  do  anything  about  it. 
The  cars  were  kept  there  and  the  alley  was  kept  blocked. 

The  Chairman.  How  was  it  blocked  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  By  parking  a  car  in  the  alley  at  each  end  of  the  build- 
ing where  nobody  could  get  through. 

The  Chairman.  Whose  cars  were  they  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  They  belong  to  the  union  people. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  During  this  period 

Senator  Goldwater.  Excuse  me.  Did  you  ever  call  the  police  and 
ask  them  to  get  the  cars  removed  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  Yes,  sir,  I  called  the  Morgan  Park  police  station,  and 
they  sent  up  two  private  detectives,  Officer  Judd  and  Officer  Finn,  and 
these  two  officers  came  up  and  they  talked  to  these  union  officials  for 
quite  a  long  time.  About  2  hours  later,  Frank  Trungale,  who  is  known 
to  me  as  the  top  man  in  this  union,  this  South  Chicago  union  local, 
went  over  and  very  graciously  gave  the  sergeant  on  duty  permission 
to  let  our  garbage  truck  come  in  and  remove  the  garbage. 

In  the  meantime,  the  man  that  was  driving  the  garbage  truck  got 
so  upset  over  the  whole  thing  that  he  left.  By  the  time  he  left,  then 
Mr.  Trungale  went  over  and  gave  permission  to  the  sergeant  on  duty 
to  let  the  truck  remove  the  garbage.  But  we  had  no  truck  to  remove 
it.     For  that  reason,  we  naturally  could  not  remove  it  at  that  time. 

Also,  during  the  time  this  alley  was  blocked,  in  my  presence,  James 
O'Connor  threatened  to  kill  the  man  that  was  operating  this  truck,  in 
my  presence  and  in  the  presence  of  these  policemen  that  were  stationed 
in  the  alley. 

I  went  over  to  the  police  officers  and  asked  them  to  please  make  a 
notation  of  the  fact  that  "this  gentleman  threatened  this  gentleman's 
life,"  and  at  a  later  date  when  I  tried  to  get  someone  to  come  into  court 
and  testify  to  his  fact  I  was  never  able  to  find  any  policeman  that 
knew  anything  about  that  affair. 

The  Chairman.  This  threat  was  made  to  the  truckdriver,  the  one 
driving  the  truck  to  remove  the  garbage,  and  he  left  the  scene  after 
his  life  was  threatened ;  am  I  correct  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  Excuse  me,  sir.     I  didn't  quite  get  your  question. 

The  Chairman.  This  truckdriver  that  you  say  left  the  truck,  he 
was  the  driver  of  the  truck  that  had  come  to  remove  the  garbage? 

Mr.  Reade.  The  man  whose  life  was  threatened,  his  name  was 
Richard  Jasky,  and  he  worked  for  the  Illinois  Detective  Agency.  He 
was  the  one  that  had  arranged  to  have  this  other  truck  and  a  driver  to 
come  there  to  remove  the  garbage.  He  was  still  there  at  the  time  the 
truck  left.   But  he  did  not  have  a  truck. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12697 

He  could  not  use  the  truck  that  we  hauled  food  in  to  haul  garbage. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  confusing  me  more  now. 

Mr.  Reade.  I  am  sorry. 

The  Chairman.  I  understood  you,  and  if  I  am  wrong  correct  me. 
I  am  trying  to  get  the  record  so  that  we  can  understand  it  when  it 
is  read.   There  was  a  threat  made  by  whom  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  By  James  O'Connor. 

The  Chairman.  By  James  O'Connor,  against  a  man  by  the  name 
of 

Mr.  Reade.  Richard  Jasky. 

The  Chairman.  That  he  would  take  his  life ;  that  he  would  kill  him  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Was  Jasky  the  driver  of  the  truck  that  had  come 
to  remove  the  garbage  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Wliat  was  he  ? 

Mr,  Reade.  Jasky  was  the  driver  of  the  truck  that  hauled  in  and 
out  all  of  my  merchandise,  and  he  was  the  man  who  had  hired  the 
truck  and  was  going  to  help  the  man  who  was  driving  the  truck 
remove  the  garbage. 

The  Chairman.  All  right.  Now  we  have  the  record  straight.  Was 
the  man  who  was  driving  the  truck  that  was  going  to  remove  the 
garbage  present  when  this  threat  was  made  against  Jasky? 

Mr.  Reade.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  He  had  already  left  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  No,  sir ;  he  had  not  arrived. 

The  Chairman.  We  are  finally  getting  the  record  straight.  He 
hadn't  got  there  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  That  is  correct. 

The  Chairman.  All  right.    Proceed. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Did  the  police  ever  get  that  roadblock  out  of 
there  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  Yes,  sir;  after  Mr.  Frank  Trungale  gave  the  sergeant 
in  charge  permission  to  remove  the  garbage,  they  then  removed  their 
cars  from  the  alley. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Did  they  put  them  back  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Goldwater.  They  left  them  out  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  No,  sir.  The  following  day  I  went  down  to  see  Com- 
missioner O'Connor  downtown,  and  from  that  day  on  they  never 
attempted  to  stop  us  from  moving  our  garbage. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Let  me  ask  you :  You  mentioned  the  Morning- 
side  police  station  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  Morgan  Park. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Is  that  part  of  the  Chicago  police? 

Mr.  Reade.  Yes,  sir.  Chicago  has  a  number  of  police  districts, 
and  they  have  a  captain  in  each  district.  This  is  the  district  in  which 
the  Nantucket  is  located  and  is  way  out  on  the  far  South  Side  of 
Chicago. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Let  me  ask  you :  Were  the  police  assigned  to 
you  members  of  the  labor  detail? 

Mr.  Reade.  No,  sir.  They  don't  work  it  quite  that  way.  Mr. 
Barnes,  Captain  Barnes,  I  should  say,  who  is  the  head  of  the  labor 


12698  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

detail,  had  arranged  for  different  stations  out  in  that  area,  each  one 
to  contribute  a  few  men  to  this  detail  during  the  strike  activity  at 
the  Nantucket. 

Senator  Curtis.  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Curtis. 

Senator  Curtis.  Who  was  it  that  gave  permission  to  let  the  garbage 
go  through  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  Frank  Trungale. 

Senator  Curtis.  Is  he  a  police  officer  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  No,  sir.   He  is  the  top  man  in  this  union  activity. 

Senator  Curtis.  He  was  a  union  man  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  Yes,  sir 

Senator  Curtis.  The  police  didn't  remove  the  blockade  until  the 
union  man  agreed  to  it? 

Mr.  Reade.  That  is  correct,  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Curtis.  Could  your  competitors  block  the  entrances  to 
your  business  and  be  free  of  police  action,  do  you  think  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  No,  sir.    No,  sir. 

Senator  Curtis.  "What  would  happen  if  mischievous  boys  engaged 
in  such  activity?    The  police  would  deal  with  them? 

Mr.  Reade.  They  would  be  promptly  arrested  and  put  in  the  jail. 

Senator  Curtis.  In  this  country  of  ours,  I  just  don't  think  the 
principle  of  equality  before  the  law  needs  to  be  defended.  But  it  is 
certainly  not  applied.  The  unions  are  granted  immunities  both  in 
the  law  and  in  the  administration  of  it.  I  just  do  not  believe  that  it 
can  be  defended.  I  think  that  when  they  are  permitted  to  do  unlawful 
acts,  that  we  would  prosecute  young  boys  and  brand  them  for  life,  that 
it  is  an  outrage. 

What  union  was  this  that  was  carrying  this  on,  do  you  know  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  It  is  the  South  Chicago  local.  I  have  the  number. 
That  is  local  394.    It  is  commonly  known  as  the  South  Chicago  local. 

Senator  Curtis.  May  I  ask  of  the  staff  who  were  the  officers  of  this 
local? 

Mr.  Duffy.  Mr.  O'Connor  and  Mr.  Trungale. 

Senator  Curtis.  Did  either  one  of  them  have  any  connection  or 
record  with  the  hoodlum  element? 

Mr.  Duffy.  We  have  no  direct  connection  with  these  individuals. 

Senator  Curtis.  Not  this  particular  one. 

At  the  time  this  controversy  was  going  on  about  the  signing  of 
the  cards,  and  you  felt  it  was  not  the  expression  of  a  majority  of  your 
employees  and  the  union  contended  that  it  was,  did  you  know  your 
employees  pretty  well  at  that  time  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Curtis.  Is  it  your  opinion  that  some  of  them  were  in  fear 
of  the  union  and  intimidated  by  it? 

Mr.  Reade.  I  have  been  told  that  they  were. 

Senator  Curtis.  In  that  regard,  do  you  think  that  a  fairer  and 
more  objective  tabulation  on  the  views  of  workers  could  be  had  if  the 
unions  were  required  in  all  instances  to  hold  a  secret  election,  and  let 
them  vote  in  secret  whether  or  not  they  wanted  the  union?  Would 
that  be  fairer  to  the  workers  than  a  union  representative  telling  them 
to  sign  something  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  Yes,  sir. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12699 

I  think  that  a  secret  ballot  should  be  taken  before  any  picket  line 
should  be  put  up,  at  any  and  all  times. 

Senator  Curtis.  I  can  understand  that  a  well-run  union,  one  where 
the  officers  conducted  themselves  according  to  law  and  abstained  from 
unfair  practices,  that  they  could  very  well  explain  their  proposition 
to  workers  and  have  them  sign  up  cards  to  ascertain  whether  they 
wanted  to  belong. 

But  I  do  believe  that  so  long  as  that  method  is  permitted  by  law,  that 
it  invites  a  great  many  abuses  on  the  part  of  that  minority  of  unions 
which  are  not  run  as  they  should  be  and  which  are  in  the  hands  of 
wrong  people.   It  is  not  a  free  expression  of  the  workers. 

Mr.  Reade.  That  is  correct.  I  would  like  to  say  that  in  one  particu- 
lar case,  one  of  the  people  who  walked  the  picket  line  for  2  years  and 
2  weeks,  as  soon  as  the  picket  line  went  down  came  back  to  me  and 
begged  for  his  job  back,  and  told  me  that  the  stories  that  had  been 
written  about  him  in  the  papers  were  not  true,  that  he  had  no  part  of 
them,  didn't  know  anything  about  it,  and  that  he  liked  to  work  for  me 
and  he  would  like  to  come  back  to  work  for  me. 

I  naturally  could  not  take  the  man  back,  although  I  have  always 
considered  him  an  honest  man. 

Senator  Curtis.  I  have  just  one  more  question. 

This  threat,  where  a  man  was  going  to  kill  the  other  man,  did  any 
police  officers  hear  that  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  They  were  close  enough  to  the  man  to  have  heard  him, 
unless  they  purposely  turned  their  hearing  devices  out  so  they  couldn't 
hear  him. 

Senator  Curtis.  You  heard  it  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Curtis.  You  heard  then  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Curtis.  And  they  were  as  close  to  the  threat  as  you  were  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  And  when  I  asked  the  police  officers  on  duty  to  please 
make  a  note  of  the  fact  that  this  man  had  threatened  this  man's  life, 
not  one  of  them  objected  to  the  fact  that  his  life  had  been  threatened. 
They  looked  at  me  and  made  no  comment  whatever. 

Senator  Curtis,  That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  You  cleared  it  up  in  part,  but  I  had  in  mind  to  ask 
you  regarding  the  picket  line,  who  composed  it  ?  Did  your  own  em- 
ployees picket  your  place  of  business  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  Some  of  the  people  that  had  worked  for  me  walked  the 
picket  line.  I  am  not  sure  whether  any  of  them  went  on  it  the  first 
day,  but  within  the  first  2  or  3  days.  And  some  of  my  former  em- 
ployees were  on  the  picket  line  up  until  the  time  that  it  ended ;  yes, 
sir. 

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

Mr.  Reade.  I  would  also  like  to  comment  on  the  fact  that  during 
that  time  they  were  able  to  buy  new  automobiles  and  new  clothes  that 
looked  to  me  as  though  they  were  prospering  quite  well  on  the  picket 
line. 

The  Chairman-.  Well,  that  could  be  true  or  not  true.  I  have  some 
ideas,  and  I  wouldn't  say  they  are  all  together  firmed  up,  regarding 
the  importing  of  pickets  to  a  place  of  business,  with  none  of  the 
employees  participating  in  the  picketing.     I  think  it  gives  greater 


12700  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN   THE    LABOR   FIELD 

validity  to  the  picketing  where  the  employees  of  the  plant  that  is 
being  picketed  do  the  picketing.  It  would  carry  with  it  some  indica- 
tion, at  least,  that  the  employees  actually  want  a  union  and  are  willing 
to  strike,  and  are  willing  to  endure  whatever  inconveniences  there  are 
in  a  picket  line  in  order  to  win  a  victory  for  a  union  plant. 

I  just  wanted  the  record  to  be  clear.  As  I  understand  you  now, 
after  the  first  day  or  two,  at  least,  some  of  your  employees  continued 
to  help  picket  your  plant,  up  until  the  time  the  picket  line  was  finally 
withdrawn. 

Mr.  Reade.  Yes,  sir.  I  would  like  to  state  that  I  have  always  hired 
both  union  people  and  nonunion  people.  I  have  never  discriminated 
against  anyone  whether  they  belonged  to  a  union  or  did  not  belong 
to  the  union. 

In  my  efforts  to  ascertain  what  activity  the  union  was  doing  on  this 
drive  that  they  were  putting  on,  there  were  three  people  that  defi- 
nitely told  me  they  had  signed  up  for  the  union,  and  as  far  as  I  was 
concerned,  those  people  continued  to  work  for  me  and  enjoy  the  same 
benefits  as  anybody  else  in  the  place. 

I  have  never  discriminated  against  them.  I  had  a  chef  that  worked 
for  me  for  many  years,  who  was  a  union  man,  and  during  the  early 
part  of  this  effort  on  their  part  to  force  me  to  push  my  people  into  the 
union,  I  got  information  from  him  that  they  had  not  made  any  effort, 
to  his  knowledge,  to  organize  anyone,  had  not  talked  to  anyone,  about 
becoming  a  member  of  the  union. 

The  Chairman.  All  right,  Mr.  Kennedy. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Reade,  just  a  few  things  I  would  like  to  clear 
up.  First  you  talked  about  the  barricade  in  front  of  your  driveway, 
was  it  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  you  said  that  the  police  official  came  out  to  get 
the  permission  of  Trungale  to  remove  it  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  No,  sir;  I  did  not  state  it  that  way.  I  said  that  Trun- 
gale came  over  to  the  sergeant  and  gave  him  permission.  The  ser- 
geant was  stationed  back  in  the  alley,  in  between  where  the  two  cars 
were  sitting  that  had  the  alley  blocked.  Actually,  he  was  nearest 
the  north  end  of  the  parking  lot  when  Trungale  gave  him  permission 
to  let  the  garbage  be  removed. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Had  somebody  in  turn  given  Trungale  instructions, 
told  him  that  the  barricade  should  be  removed  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  It  is  quite  possible,  and  it  is  my  opinion  that  someone 
contacted  him  and  told  him. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  It  seems  to  me  that  is  the  reasonable  way  of  going 
about  it. 

Mr.  Reade.  I  would  assume  that  someone  had  contacted  Trungale 
and  told  him  that  he  would  have  to  remove  the  roadblock,  and  about 
2  hours  after  it  was  put  up  it  was  removed. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  I  think  that  that  whole  picture  should  be  told,  not 
just  the  fact  that  the  union  official  told  the  police  official  that  the 
barricade  should  be  removed,  but  the  police,  within  2  hours  of  the 
time  that  the  barricade  was  put  up,  made  arrangements  to  have  it 
removed. 

The  proper  way  to  do  it  is  not  to  just  come  along  and  remove  it, 
•but  to  discuss  it  with  the  union  official  and  get  it  removed.    You  don't 


IMPROPER   ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12701 

have  any  information  that  it  was  done  in  other  than  that  way,  do 
you? 

Mr.  Reade.  Mr.  Kennedy,  I  believe  you  and  we  are  both  assuming 
that  that  is  the  way  it  happened.  I  don't  know  how  it  happened. 
And  I  don't  know  Avhether  Frank  Trungale  talked  to  anybody  before 
he  gave  the  sergeant  permission  to  remove  it. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  is  correct.  I  think  we  should  get  the  full  facts 
in  here, 

Mr,  Reade.  I  am  not  trying  to  hide  any  facts,  sir.  My  records  and 
everything  are  open, 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  that  question  we  have  found  you  less  than  co- 
operative and  less  than  truthful  in  our  interviews  we  have  had  with 
you. 

You  have  made  these  statements  regarding  the  number  of  people. 

1  wasn't  there,  I  don't  know  whether  it  is  correct  or  incorrect,  but 
there  have  been  serious  reflections  on  a  number  of  individuals,  I 
want  to  put  in  the  record  the  fact  that  our  experience  with  you  has 
found  you  less  than  truthful  in  the  questions  and  answers  that  you 
have  given  to  us. 

Mr,  Reade,  Mr.  Kennedy,  I  have  been  an  honest  man,  and  I  resent 
anyone  calling  me  a  liar  over  the  television  and  in  public.  I  would 
consider  it  a  great  favor  if  you  would  care  to  restate  that.  It  is 
possible  that  there  could  have  been  a  misunderstanding ;  I  would  like 
to  relate  that  on  the  same  subject  that  we  had  this  controversy  in  your 
office  on,  that  I  made  the  statement  that  we  never  completed  the 
conversation,  because  we  reached  a  point  where  the  gentleman  that 
was  interrogating  me  wanted  me  to  produce  a  list  of  employees,  a 
list  of  people  who  received  the  money  in  question,  and  left  with  the 
instructions  that  I  was  to  prepare  a  list,  and  that  he  would  come  back 
later  and  get  that  list. 

The  rest  of  the  conversation  was  never  completed,  and  he  never 
came  back  to  get  the  list,  I  would  like  that  cleared,  I  would  con- 
sider it  a  great  favor  if  you  would  care  to  state  that  there  is  a 
possibility  of  a  misunderstanding,  because  I  am  known  as  an  honest 
man  in  my  community,  and  I  am  known  as  an  honest  man  in  my  home 
State  where  I  was  born  and  raised,  I  consider  it  a  great  injustice 
to  accuse  me  of  being  a  liar  here  on  this  network. 

Mr.  Kennedy,  I  just  wanted  to  make  sure  that  the  complete  situa- 
tion was  told.  If  you  want  to  go  into  the  facts  involved  in  the  matters 
that  we  have  discussed,  I  would  be  glad  to  have  you  do  so.  Do  you 
want  to  go  into  all  of  those  things,  and  the  basis  of  the  controversy? 
Did  you  want  to  go  into  that  ? 

The  CHAIR3IAN,  Let's  proceed  with  the  interrogation  of  the  wit- 
ness, 

Mr.  Kennedy.  I  am  asking  the  witness  if  he  wants  to  o-o  into  all  of 
that.    Do  you? 

Mr.  Reade.  I  recognize  the  Chair. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  the  association  finance  you  during  this  strike 
by  the  union  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  much  money  did  they  advance  you  during  the 

2  years  of  the  strike  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  I  have  never  made  an  accurate  tabulation  of  it.  I 
believe  Mr.  Mundie  did.     If  you  would  care  to  use  Mr.  Mundie's 


12702  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

figures.  I  authorized  my  bookkeeper  to  work  with  Mr.  Mundie  and 
cooperate  with  him  in  every  way  possible  in  furnishing  any  figures 
that  he  needed  or  cared  to  have. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Chairman,  could  we  call  Mr.  Mundie  at  this 
time? 

The  Chairman.  Come  forward,  Mr.  Mundie. 

Do  you  solemnly  swear  the  evidence  you  shall  give  shall  be  the 
truth,  the  whole  tioith,  and  nothing  but  the  truth,  so  help  you  God? 

Mr.  MuNDEE.  I  do. 

TESTIMONY  OF  JAMES  P.  MUNDIE,  INVESTIGATOR  ON  THE  STAFF 
OF  THE  SELECT  COMMITTEE 

The  Chairman.  State  your  name,  your  residence,  and  your  present 
occupation  or  employ. 

Mr.  Mundie.  My  name  is  James  F.  Mundie ;  I  reside  at  3803  Silver 
Hill  Road  SE.,  Washington,  D.  C.  I  have  been  a  member  of  this 
staff  on  detail  since  March  1956. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  examine  the  books  of  the  Nantucket  Res- 
taurant, Mr.  Reade's  restaurant  ? 

Mr.  Mundie.  I  examined  the  tax  returns  of  Mr.  Reade's  partnership. 
However,  the  disbursements  were  made  from  the  Chicago  Restaurant 
Association  to  Mr.  Reade. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  examined  the  records  of  the  Chicago 
Restaurant  Association  with  respect  to  the  advances  made  to  Mr. 
Reade's  restaurant  during  the  period  of  the  strike  ? 

Mr.  Mundie.  I  have,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  those  figures  ? 

Mr.  Mundie.  I  do. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  have  a  compilation  of  them  ? 

Mr.  Mundie.  I  do. 

The  Chairman.  Give  us  the  total,  and  over  what  period  of  time. 

Mr.  Mundie.  Starting  in  1955,  the  Chicago  Restaurant 

The  Chairman.  What  date  ? 

Mr.  Mundie.  In  November,  1  month  after  the  strike  started. 

The  Chairman.  November  1955.    And  through  what  date  ? 

Mr.  Mundie.  November  1957. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  a  period  of  2  years. 

Mr.  Mundie.  They  disbursed  then  $118,998.41. 

The  Chairman.  $118,998.41. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  is  what  the  association  advanced  to  the  Nan- 
tucket Restaurant  ? 

Mr.  Mundie.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  financed  them  during  the  course  of  this  strike? 

Mr.  Mundie.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  ultimately  the  union  capitulated;  is  that  right? 

Mr.  Mundie.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  this  include  just  their  expenses,  or  did  this 
include  also  a  salary  and  profit  for  the  officials  that  owned  the  Nan- 
tucket Restaurant  ? 

Mr.  Mundie.  This  included  the  expenses  of  the  restaurant,  a  salary 
to  Mr.  Reade,  a  salary  to  his  partner,  also  funds  which  were  disbursed 
by  Mr.  Reade  to  an  undisclosed  source,  and  also  rental  income  to  Mr. 
Reade,  on  the  property  which  he  owns  himself. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12703 

The  Chairman.  That  compilation,  if  you  have  it  prepared  so  it  may 
be  submitted  as  an  exhibit,  may  at  this  point — do  you  have  it  so 
prepared  ? 

Mr.  MuNDiE.  I  do,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  It  may  be  made  exhibit  No.  20,  for  reference. 

(The  document  referred  to  was  marked  "Exhibit  No.  20"  for  ref- 
erence and  may  be  found  in  the  files  of  the  select  committee.) 

Mr.  Lancaster.  Mr.  Chairman,  do  you  have  a  copy  of  the  exhibit 
that  we  might  look  at  ? 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  have  an  extra  copy  ? 

Mr.  MuNDiE.  I  do  not. 

The  Chairman.  A  copy  will  be  prepared.  You  may  pass  it  over 
to  Mr.  Reade  at  this  time,  to  his  attorney,  for  their  inspection. 

If  you  later  desire,  a  copy  of  it  will  be  made  available  to  you. 

Mr.  Lancaster.  As  long  as  Mr.  Mundie  says  this  is  a  result  of 
checking  of  the  books,  we  are  satisfied. 

Mr.  Meade.  I  am  willing  to  accept  Mr.  Mundie's  figures. 

The  Chairmx\n.  You  are  entitled  to  see  an  exhibit,  of  course. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  I  have  just  one  more  matter,  Senator. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Go  right  ahead. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Was  it  arranged  during  the  middle  of  the  strike  to 
pay  a  sum  of  money  for  the  rent  for  the  Nantucket  Restaurant? 

Mr.  Mundie.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Could  you  tell  us  how  that  was  set  up  in  the  books? 

Mr.  Mundie.  During  the  month  of  June  1956,  the  Chicago  Res- 
taurant Association  disbursed  through  a  check  a  sum  of  money  in  the 
amount  of  $8,400  for  rent  for  the  period  November  1955  to  June  1956. 
Thereafter,  and  including  in  June,  there  was  a  check — I  mean,  there 
was  included  in  the  check  the  amount  of  money  of  $1,200  each  month 
for  rent. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  was  the  rent  for  the  Nantucket  Restaurant! 

Mr.  Mundie.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  The  restaurant  association  was  paying  the  rent ;  is 
that  right? 

Mr.  Mundie.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  For  the  Nantucket  Restaurant.  Who  was  the  rent 
being  paid  to  ? 

Mr.  Mundie.  The  rent  was  then  disbursed  to  Mr.  Reade  and  his 
partner,  $8,400  each. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  They  received  the  rent;  is  that  right? 

Mr.  Mundie.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  For  the  Nantucket  Restaurant,  which  they  owned  ? 

Mr.  Mundie.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  is  what  made  up  the  profit  which  they  received 
that  year  of  $16,800?  _ 

Mr.  Mundie.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  But  it  was  listed  in  the  books  as  rent  ? 

Mr.  Mundie.  Yes. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  no  rent  had  been  paid  prior  to  that  time  ? 

Mr.  Mundie.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Reade.  $1,600,  I  believe,  was  what  was  paid  to  me.  But  my 
partner  only  received  the  rent  and  such  salary  as  she  earned  when 

21243— 58— pt.  33 14 


12704  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    EST    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

she  worked.  Her  figure  is  a  little  different,  the  amount  that  she  drew 
is  a  little  different,  than  the  amount  I  drew,  for  that  reason. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  We  can  put  those  figures  in. 

Mr.  Mundie,  did  Mr.  Reade  make  more  money  actually  during  the 
strike  than  he  had  made  prior  to  the  strike  ? 

Mr.  Mundie.  About  $600  more. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  About  $600  more. 

Senator  Goldwater.  For  the  year  ? 

Mr.  Mundie.  Yes. 

Mr.  Reade.  For  which  year  was  that,  Mr.  Mundie  ? 

Mr.  Mundie.  In  1955,  the  partnership  return  showed  $16,125.88. 
In  the  year  1956,  it  showed  $16,800. 

Mr.  Reade.  I  believe  to  get  an  accurate  picture,  you  would  have 
to  go  back  1  year,  because  that  first  year  that  you  used  there  is  a  mixed 
year  between  prior  to  the  picket  line  and  mcluding  the  picket  line; 
is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Mundie.  I  have  gone  back  another  year. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Go  ahead. 

Mr.  Mundie.  In  the  year  1954 

Mr.  Reade.  I  thought  you  said  1955  and  1956. 

Mr.  Mundie.  The  partnership  return  showed  $16,732.16  for  the 
year  1954. 

Mr.  Reade.  What  was  the  other  year  ? 

Mr.  Mundie.  $16,800. 

Mr.  Reade.  What  year  ? 

Mr.  Mundie.  1956. 

Mr.  Reade.  1956. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  So  1956  he  made  the  most  of  any  year ;  is  that  right? 

Mr.  Reade.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  would  like  to  receive  the  salary  you  received  in 
addition  to  that.    That  was  $7,800  ? 

Mr.  Mundie.  In  1955,  the  Nantucket  Restaurant  paid  Mr.  Reade 
$6,100  as  salary.  For  the  balance  of  the  year  $1,700  was  paid  by  the 
Chicago  Restaurant  Association,  making  a  total  of  $7,800  for  the  year 
1955. 

In  1956,  the  total  salary  was  $7,800. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  about  Mrs.  Mischnick,  what  did  she  receive  ? 

Mr.  Mundie.  In  1955,  before  the  strike,  she  received  nothing.  After 
the  strike  she  received  $990. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  about  1956  ? 

Mr.  Mundie.  In  1956,  she  received  $2,530. 

Mr.  Reade.  May  I  explain  that  the  reason  for  those  variations  are 
that  when  we  are  short  of  help,  Mrs.  Mischnick  comes  in  and  works, 
and  I  might  state  she  is  in  Chicago  running  the  Nantucket  Restaurant 
by  herself  and  very  badly  in  need  of  me  back  there  to  help  her. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  We  are  almost  through. 

The  Chairman.  The  picture  that  presents  itself  to  me  is  that  you 
have  an  association  here  of  employers  who  are  collectively,  apparently, 
resisting  unionization.  As  a  member  of  the  association,  the  associa- 
tion in  time  of  strike  came  to  the  assistance  of  Mr.  Reade  and  helped 
him  finance  his  resistance  to  unionization ;  is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Mundie.  That  is  correct. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  checked  the  same  figures  for  the  same 
period  of  time  with  regard  to  the  union,  how  much  it  spent  ? 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12705 

Mr.MuNDiE.  I  have,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  give  us  that  figure  ? 

Mr.  MuNDiE.  I  will.  The  records  of  394  disclose  during  the  period 
of  strike,  from  October  1955  to  1957,  they  disbursed  $111,620.80. 

The  Chairman.  $111,620.80. 

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

The  Chairman.  And  the  other  figure  by  the  association  was  what  ? 

Mr.  MuNDiE.  $118,998.41. 

The  Chairman.  So  there  was  an  economic  struggle  or  battle  between 
the  two  the  same  as  the  other  efforts,  each  to  maintain  their  position. 

Mr.  MuNDiE.  That  is  correct. 

Senator  GoLDWATER.  Mr.  Chairman? 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Goldwater. 

TESTIMONY  OF  EDWARD  H.  READE— Resumed 

Senator  Goldwater.  Mr.  Eeade,  what  has  been  your  annual  volume  ? 
Let's  take  1954.    What  was  your  volume  in  this  restaurant  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  I  believe  it  ran  a  little  over  $200,000  for  the  year. 

Senator  Goldwater.  This  strike  ended  in  1957.  In  the  months  since 
that  time  with  no  picket  line,  has  your  volume  come  back  up  to  the 
$200,000  level? 

Mr.  Reade.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Goldwater.  About  what  do  you  think  it  will  run  for  the 
12  months  from  November  to  November  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  It  will  run  much  smaller  than  that,  but  there  is  one 
thing  to  take  into  consideration,  that  I  am  operating  6  days  a  week 
now  instead  of  7  days  a  week.  Although  if  we  compensated  for  that, 
my  volume  would  be  down,  I  would  guess,  in  the  neighborhood  of 
25  percent.  I  am  talking  off  the  cuff.  I  don't  have  sufficient  figures 
with  me  to  actually  verify  that. 

Senator  Goldwater.  The  strike  started  in  November  of  1955.  How 
soon  after  the  pickets  were  placed  outside  did  you  begin  to  feel  your 
volume  going  off  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  It  had  an  effect  immediately,  and  it  varied  from  time 
to  time.  I  had  overcome  a  great  deal  of  the  effect  of  the  strike  up 
until  March  18,  when  the  union  brought  out  a  large  number  of  people 
and  put  on  a  big  demonstration  out  there. 

At  that  time  they  threatened  customers,  they  cut  tires,  they  broke 
windshields,  and  they  did  generally  anything  they  saw  fit  to  do,  in- 
cluding assaulting  one  of  my  customers  because  he  objected  to  them 
breaking  his  windshield. 

Senator  Goldwater.  How  low  did  your  volume  get  during  the 
strike  as  a  result  of  the  strike  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  It  got  down  under  $100,000  for  the  year.  And  I  am 
still  talking  off  the  cuff,  sir.  I  am  not  exactly  accurate.  But  it  is 
under  $100,000. 

Senator  Goldwater.  What  was  your  profit  running,  if  you  care  to 
say,  in  1954,  say,  before  the  strike  ? 

Mr.  Lancaster.  Mr.  Mundie  just  gave  the  figure  of  $16,000. 

Mr.  Reade.  That  was  the  figure.  It  was  right  around  $16,000  to 
$17,000,  and  I  think  it  ran  in  some  years  higher  than  that.  Getting 
back  to  those  figures  that  Mr.  Mundie  used,  I  believe  that  he  stated 
that  there  was  a  large  figure  picked  up  in  1956  that  distorted  that 
picture,  but  was  compensation  for  the  rent  for  the  tail  end  of  1955. 


12706  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    EST    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

I  believe  if  that  amount  of  money  were  taken  out  of  the  figures  that 
he  used,  it  would  reduce  that  figure  under  what  I  was  earning,  al- 
though that  figure  was  never  arrived  at  on  the  basis  of  our  previous 
earnings.  It  was  arrived  at  on  the  basis  of  the  market  value  of  the 
property  at  the  time. 

It  was  not  based  on  any  previous  earnings. 

Senator  Goldwatee.  Your  profit,  then,  is  between  $16,000  and 
$17,000  on  a  $200,000  volume,  and  your  volume  fell  off  to,  you  say, 
under  $100,000.  What  would  your  profit  picture  have  been  on  that 
much  loss  in  volume  ? 

You  would  not  have  made  a  profit  ? 

Mr.  Eeade.  I  would  have  gone  into  the  red. 

In  fact,  I  have  run  into  the  red  every  winter — that  is,  we  have 
gone  into  the  red  every  winter  since  we  have  been  in  business  with 
the  exception  of  one  winter,  when  our  volume  drops  down.  In  the 
summer,  our  volume  picks  up.  It  usually  peaks  in  July  and  August, 
and  then  it  will  start  a  gradual  decline.  I  usually  run  into  red  fig- 
ures in  December,  January,  and  February,  and  at  that  point  I  begin 
to  pull  back.  In  most  years  I  will  get  back  and  make  up  enough 
to  get  out  of  the  red  some  time  during  the  month  of  May. 

Then  from  May  on  I  usually  operate  at  a  profit  due  to  the  much 
greater  volume  of  business. 

Senator  Goldwater.  How  long  could  you  and  your  partner  have 
withstood  this  strike  economically  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  We  could  not  have  stood  it  at  all.  We  would  have 
had  to  close  our  doors  immediately,  without  assistance  of  the  Chicago 
Restaurant  Association. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Is  it  a  part  of  the  restaurant  owners'  agree- 
ment with  the  restaurant  association  in  Chicago  that  this  type  of  joint 
action  will  be  taken  in  the  event  of  a  strike  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  I  didn't  quite  understand  that  question,  sir. 

Senator  Goldwater.  Is  it  part  of  your  agreement,  if  there  is  an 
agreement,  written  or  verbal,  with  the  restaurant  association,  that 
this  type  of  economic  assistance  will  be  given  to  you  in  the  case  of 
a  strike  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  It  is  the  understanding  that  they  will  furnish  you  with 
any  assistance  that  is  arrived  at  by  the  committee  that  handles  that. 
Each  situation  is  voted  on  and  handled  individually  by  the  committee 
that  handles  that  particular  activity. 

I  don't  believe  that  there  is  any  cut  and  dried  rule  for  handling  it  that 
would  apply  in  every  case.    That  is  my  understanding  of  it. 

Senator  Curtis.  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

Senator  Goldwater.  I  am  finished. 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Curtis. 

Senator  Curtis.  During  the  2  years  that  the  strike  was  going  on^ 
with  tlie  picket  lines  and  other  activities  around  there,  did  the  union 
at  any  time  request  an  election  of  your  employees  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  No,  sir. 

Senator  CuitTis.  That  is  all. 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair  would  make  this  observation :  Accord- 
ing to  my  calculation,  the  association  and  the  union  spent  a  total  of 
$230,619.21  in  this  conflict  over  whether  your  plant  should  be  a  union, 
plant  or  whether  the  union  should  not  be  recognized. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12707 

That,  of  course,  does  not  take  into  account  losses  or  damages  that 
may  have  occurred  by  reason  of  vandalism,  I  suppose,  and  maybe 
other  intangible  losses  that  were  sustained  or  expenses  incurred  by 
either  side. 

It  presents  a  problem  that  I  think  is  pretty  well  common  through- 
out the  whole  management-labor  relationship.  "Wlien  such  an  issue 
is  so  firmly  drawn  as  to  whether  a  plant  should  be  organized  or  not, 
I  think  the  proper  thing  would  be  to  provide  for  an  early  election, 
supervised  by  some  proper  authority  established  by  law.  Thus,  eco- 
nomic loss  would  be  held  to  the  minimum,  and  relations,  in  my  judg- 
ment, would  be  enhanced  and  benefited.  It  would  be  better  than  to 
resort  to  these  economic  struggles. 

I  therefore  feel  that  in  most  instances  these  things  could  very  well 
stop  bitter  strikes,  which  involve  such  great  economic  loss  to  both 
sides.  They  could  well  be  avoided  if  unions  of  good  faith  and  man- 
agement of  good  faith  would  simply  do  what  I  consider  the  proper 
thing  in  democratic  processes  and  submit  to  an  honest  election  of  the 
employees  to  express  their  will  as  to  whether  they  want  to  belong  to 
a  union,  a  majority  of  them,  or  whether  they  do  not. 

That  is  not  in  criticism  of  either  side.  It  is  just  one  of  those  things 
that  we  run  into  as  we  investigate  this  area  of  economic  activity  in 
our  country. 

I  do  believe  that  the  worker  himself  has  a  right,  as  well  as  the 
union  officials  and  the  owners  or  management  of  a  business.  Wliere  a 
majority  of  the  employees  want  to  belong  to  a  union,  I  feel  they  have 
a  right  to  do  it  and  a  right  to  express  themselves  free  of  any  intimida- 
tion or  coercion,  just  as  the  American  people  do  in  choosing  their 
public  officials. 

I  am  hopeful  that  as  a  result  of  these  hearings.  Congress  will,  in 
its  wisdom,  find  some  way,  enact  some  law,  that  will  go  along  a  long 
way  toward  eliminating  these  economic  conflicts,  actually  from  which 
no  one  really  profits. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Mr.  Chairman? 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Kennedy. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Were  you  paying  union  wage  scale  at  the  time 
this  matter  came  before  you  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  Mr.  Kennedy,  I  don't  believe  that  there  has  ever  been 
a  union  contract  negotiated  out  in  my  neighborhood.  I  understand 
that  there  is  a  printed  list  that  has  been  copied  from  some  prior  con- 
tract that  is  being  passed  around  as  a  union  contract.  But  to  my 
knowledge,  there  has  never  been  a  union  contract  negotiated  out 
there.  For  that  reason,  I  don't  believe  that  there  is  a  union  wage 
scale  established  out  in  that  area. 

Senator  Kennedy.  You  don't  know  what  the  union  wage  scale  is? 

Mr.  Eeade.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Does  the  committee  have  any  information  on 
that? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  According  to  the  booklet  that  is  put  out  by  the 
restaurant  union,  the  restaurant  agreement  that  I  think  was  nego- 
tiated by  Mr.  Gutgsell,  from  August  1, 1955,  to  May  31,  1956,  this  is  a 
breakdown. 

Senator  Kennedy.  It  says  there  were  4  miscellaneous  workers 
whom,  we  can  compute  from  the  information  at  hand,  were  paid  below 
scale  at  a  savings  of  $1,700,  and  12  waitresses  paid  below  the  scale,  at  a 


12708  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN"   THE    LABOR    FIELD 

savings  of  $1000,  and  the  yearly  saving  of  the  16  employees  was  $2,700, 
according  to  the  information  of  the  staff,  secured  by  paying  below  the 
union  wage  scale. 

Mr.  Reade.  I  believe  Mr.  Gutgsell  established  the  fact  that  he  was 
the  one  that  negotiated  that  particular  contract  that  you  are  using. 

I  believe  that  was  negotiated  for  some  of  the  downtown  places  that 
have  an  entirely  different  problem  and  an  entirely  different  situation 
than  I  have.  If  we  are  put  in  the  same  bracket  as  an  operation  of  that 
type,  we  will  be  put  out  of  busmess.  We  cannot  compete  with  the 
London  House  on  any  basis.  The  London  House,  I  believe,  gets  25  to 
50  cents  for  a  cup  of  coffee. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Wait  a  minute.  What  were  you  paying  your 
waitresses  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  Sixty  cents  an  hour. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  It  says  for  local  394  and 

Mr.  Reade.  That  is  a  printed  copy.  But  to  my  knowledge  there  has 
never  been  any  contract  negotiated.  And  anybody  can  print  a  copy  of 
a  wage  scale  and  that  does  not  establish  it  as  a  proper  and  legal  instru- 
ment. For  that  reason,  I  do  not  consider  that  a  legal  and  proper 
instrument. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Do  you  have  30  employees  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  At  the  present  time  I  have  about  27,  and  it  is  rang- 
ing in  that  neighborhood;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Kennedy.  How  many  cards  were  signed  by  the  employees 
for  a  union  ?    19  ? 

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

Senator  Kennedy.  Did  you  ever  examine  these  cards  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Kennedy.  You  have  never  seen  them  before  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Kennedy.  The  lawyer  for  the  restaurant  association  did  not 
tell  you  that  they  represented  a  majority  of  your  employees? 

Mr.  Reade.  Mr.  Gutgsell,  the  lawyer  for  the  Chicago  Restaurant 
Association,  told  me  that  they  claimed  representation.  That  is  the 
entire  extent  of  what  he  told  me. 

Senator  Kennedy.  What  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  That  is  the  entire  extent  of  what  he  told  me. 

Senator  Kennedy,  Mr.  Gutgsell  testified  before  this  committee  that 
he  informed  you  htat  a  majority  of  your  employees  signed  the  cards 
desiring  union  recognition. 

Mr.  Reade.  I  also  believe  that  Mr.  Gutgsell  released  a  statement  to 
the  Chicago  papers  that  he  conducted  an  election  at  the  Nantucket 
Restaurant,  which  was  printed  in  the  Chicago  papers,  which  was  very 
detrimental  to  my  business,  and  to  my  knowledge  he  has  never 
retracted  that  statement. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Did  anybody  ever  tell  you  that  they  had  a  major- 
ity of  the  signatures  of  your  employees?     No  one  ever  told  you  that? 

Mr.  Reade.  I  made  the  statement  earlier,  before  you  arrived,  that 
Mr.  Cullerton  told  me  over  the  phone  that  lie  represented  about  25  of 
my  employees,  and  never  made  any  more  of  a  specific  statement  to  me 
than  that. 

Senator  Kennedy.  I  think,  as  previous  witnesses  have  testified,  what 
is  needed,  of  course,  is  a  mechanism  in  the  State  of  Illinois  that  can 
take  care  of  these  matters.     That  is  all. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12709 

Senator  Mundt.  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Mundt. 

Senator  Mundt.  I  notice  that  during  the  2  years,  Mr.  Reade,  that 
your  restaurant  was  under  strike,  that  the  Chicago  Restaurant  Asso- 
ciation paid  you  $118,000  plus,  almost  $119,000,  to  compensate  you  for 
your  losses ;  is  that  correct  ( 

]\f  r.  Rex\de.  That  is  correct ;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Muxdt.  As  a  quid  pro  quo  against  that,  you  having  paid 
into  the  restaurant  association,  I  suppose — for  how  many  years  prior 
to  that  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  Well,  we  opened  for  business,  I  believe,  a  little  over  17 
years  ago.  My  brother  was  killed  toward  the  end  of  the  third  year. 
Prior  to  his  death,  he  had  signed  up  the  Nantucket  Restaurant  as  a 
member  of  the  Chicago  Restaurant  Association. 

Senator  Mundt.  Are  those  payments  to  the  Chicago  Restaurant 
Association  on  an  annual  basis,  fixed  fee,  so  much  per  year? 

Mr.  Reade.  We  have  regular  association  dues. 

Senator  Mundt.  Based  on  the  size  of  the  restaurant  or  the  amount 
of  business  you  do  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  It  is  broken  down  into  brackets  of  numbers  of  em- 
ployees. 

Senator  Mundt.  About  what  would  your  annual  membership  fee  be 
in  the  Nantucket  Restaurant  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  I  am  sorry,  sir,  I  cannot  answer  that  question.  I  believe 
maybe  Mr.  Mundie  might  have  the  figures  there.  I  am  perfectly 
willing  to  accept  his  figures  of  what  we  paid  out. 

Senator  Mundt.  Do  you  have  those  figures  ? 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Mundie  advises  the  Chair  that  he  did  not 
check  those  figures.     We  do  not  have  them. 

Senator  Mundt.  You  have  a  rough  idea,  of  course,  Mr.  Reade,  how 
much  you  pay  per  year  into  the  Chicago  Restaurant  Association. 

Mr.  Reade.  I  would  say  it  is  in  the  neighborhood  of  $50  or  $100  a 
year  membership  dues,  and  then  we  pay  to  the  voluntary  contribution, 
and  that  figure  has  varied  from  time  to  time. 

It  is  based  on  the  number  of  employees,  and  goes  up  and  down  in 
amounts.     But  I  could  not  give  you  those  figures. 

Senator  Mundt.  Does  it  go  up  and  down  in  amounts  something  the 
way  a  mutual  insurance  company  would?  I  mean,  if  there  are  a 
lot  of  payouts  to  make,  you  get  an  assessment? 

Mr.  Reade.  Yes,  sir.  When  conditions  necessitate  additional  funds, 
the  board  of  directors  vote  to  raise  the  amount. 

Senator  Mundt.  I  am  advised  by  a  member  of  the  staff,  and  this 
may  be  just  an  educated  guess,  maybe  not  too  well  educated,  that  in 
the  last  14  years  you  have  paid  in  dues  just  about  $5,000.  Maybe 
$5,200.     Would  that  seem  to  be  roughly  correct? 

Mr.  Reade.  That  could  quite  possibly  be  in  the  neighborhood. 

Senator  Mundt.  In  the  neighborhood  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Mundt.  Could  you  give  us  any  educated  guess  as  to  the 
amounts  you  have  paid  in  assessments  or  the  voluntary  contributions  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  No,  sir ;  I  could  not. 

Senator  Mundt.  This  has  to  me,  Mr.  Reade,  been  a  rather  con- 
fusing picture  as  it  has  unfolded.  In  trying  to  visualize  what  is 
happening  in  Chicago,  I  want  to  present  one  hypothesis,  which  occurs 


12710  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    EST    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

to  me  as  possibly  being  the  picture.  It  may  be  far  off  base.  It  may 
be  accurate.  But  as  this  thing  unfolds,  it  would  seem  to  me  that  you 
have  on  the  one  hand  these  unions,  and  the  union  leaders,  trying  either 
to  organize  your  employees,  or,  two,  to  utilize  the  fact  that  you  have 
employees  to  make  you  pay  assessments  to  them  so  that  the  union 
leaders  have  good  plush  jobs  for  themselves. 

And,  that  they  create  by  picketlines,  vandalism,  threats,  and  in- 
timidation, an  area  of  fear  and  unrest  and  uncertainty  on  the  part  of 
the  restaurant  owners. 

So  as  a  defensive  mechanism  against  that,  you  have  what  is  called 
the  Chicago  Restaurant  Association,  into  which  you  pay  contributions, 
more  or  less  the  way  you  would  pay  insurance  against  fire,  theft,  or 
casualty.  It  is  insurance  against  being  put  out  of  business  by  a  labor 
disturbance.  Your  fees  and  assessments  vary  in  accordance  with  the 
property  involved,  and  the  losses  of  the  association  the  way  a  farm 
mutual  tornado  company  might  operate  out  in  South  Dakota. 

Sometimes  you  don't  have  an  assessment  for  several  years.  Then 
Old  Man  Weather  goes  on  the  caprice,  knocks  out  a  couple  of  build- 
ings, and  you  get  a  big  assessment  for  a  couple  of  years. 

Is  that  a  reasonable  hypothesis  or  not  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  Yes,  sir,  that  is  a  very  reasonable  analysis  of  the  way 
it  works.  It  is  in  the  form  of  a  mutual  group  insurance  protection 
against. 

(At  this  point.  Senators  Gold  water  and  Curtis  withdrew  from  the 
hearing  room.) 

Senator  Mundt.  Either  because  Congress  has  failed  to  pass  the 
appropriate  legislation,  which  seems  to  be  a  reasonable  hypothesis  to 
me,  because  twice  this  year  the  Senate  has  failed  to  seize  the  opportun- 
ity to  correct  the  situation,  or  because  law  enforcement  has  broken 
down  in  Chicago  or  for  some  other  reason,  the  pressures  continue  to 
mount  on  the  part  of  labor,  and  the  resistance  tactics,  consequently, 
have  to  expand  on  the  part  of  management. 

But  in  between,  it  seems  to  me,  the  workers  and  the  restaurants 
of  Chicago,  instead  of  being  benefited  are  being  hurt.  Mr,  Marienthal 
testified  yesterday  that  when  the  pressures  got  to  a  certain  extent  in 
his  shop,  he  capitulated.  Pie  made  all  the  employees  join  the  union. 
But  instead  of  their  getting  better  wages,  it  simply  meant  that  they 
got  the  same  wages  they  got  before,  less  the  union  dues. 

So  their  take-home  pay  was  less  after  they  joined  the  union  than 
before.   Is  that  what  is  happening  out  there  ? 

Mr.  Reade.  I  would  like  to  state  that  to  my  knowledge  the  union 
in  question  has  never  operated  as  a  union,  and  that  there  should  be 
some  proper  certification  of  anyone  operating  under  the  guise  of  a 
union  before  they  are  allowed  to  go  out  and  prey  on  the  public  or 
business  people. 

Senator  Mundt.  I  agree  with  you  100  percent.  If  you  can  wear 
the  label  of  union,  you  get  certain  immunity  under  the  law,  and  certain 
exemptions.  It  is  a  very  convenient  name  to  be  called,  as  a  union, 
if  you  are  operating  as  an  activity  or  an  association. 

Some  attention  should  be  paid  to  answering  the  question  of  what  is 
a  union  and  when  is  a  union  legitimate,  and,  can  you  have  a  union 
which  does  not  even  pretend  to  serve  the  so-called  members,  but  is 
sort  of  used  as  a  whiplash  to  make  collections,  which  it  sort  of  looks 
to  me  in  the  instant  case  to  be  what  is  occurring  out  there. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12711 

Let  me  ask  you  this  in  conclusion.  This  is  a  bad  situation  any  way 
you  look  at  it.  The  responsibility  of  this  committee  is  to  try  to  find 
some  answer  to  it  if  we  can.  Would  you  have  any  suggestions,  out  of 
the  abundance  of  your  own  experience,  as  to  anything  that  could  be 
done,  legislatively,  or  through  law  enforcement,  to  correct  the  kind 
of  situation  which  exists  in  Chicago  in  this  connection  ? 

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

Mr.  Reade.  As  I  stated  before,  I  think  that  one  of  the  greatest  things 
that  we  need  is  to  have  any  labor  organization  properly  certified  as  a 
union,  and  that  they  conduct  themselves  in  the  proper  manner,  and 
that  anyone  deviating  from  that  should  be  prohibited  from  partici- 
pating in  union  movement. 

I  think  that  anyone  whose  reputation  is  questionable,  beyond  a  point 
of  reason — and  I  don't  mean  because  somebody  happened  to  get  in 
one  little  trouble  that  they  should  be  banned  for  life  from  doing  any- 
thing, but  people  who  have  established  themselves  as  criminals  and 
repeated  criminals  and  repeated  criminals,  to  be  able  to  go  in  and  take 
over  these  unions  and  force  their  wishes  upon  the  union  membership  is 
the  most  terrible  thing  that  ever  happened  in  this  country,  in  my  opin- 
ion. I  believe  you  have  established  from  your  hearings  down  here  that 
those  things  are  going  on  all  the  time.  The  only  way  it  can  ever  be 
corrected  is  to  prohibit  it.  I  would  rather  say  that  in  my  opinion  had 
I  made  any  agreement  with  this  local  394,  I  would  have  been  more  in 
violation  of  the  law  than  I  was  to  resist  making  an  arrangement  with 
them,  because  they  are  not  running  a  union,  have  never  run  a  union, 
and  evidently  don't  intend  to  ever  run  a  union.  The  records  stand  on 
that  fact. 

Senator  Mundt.  Is  the  basic  reason  that  you  have  formed  an  organ- 
ization called  the  Chicago  Restaurant  Association,  and  developed  this 
collective  resistance  to  unionism,  the  fact  that  in  Chicago  the  Restau- 
rant Union  has  fallen  into  the  hands  of  thugs  and  people  with  whom 
you  simply  cannot  deal  at  arm's  length  on  a  legitimate  basis? 

Mr.  Reade.  I  think  the  happenings  at  the  Nantucket  Restaurant 
for  2  years  and  2  weeks  perfectly  demonstrate  the  fact  that  it  is  im- 
possible for  me  to  get  any  relief  from  anybody  under  any  conditions, 
and  the  only  help  that  I  was  able  to  get  was  the  support  of  my  fellow 
restaurant  people  who  participated  in  this  voluntary  contribution. 
There  is  no  other  way  to  stop  these  people  at  the  present  time  which 
has  been  explained  to  me  as  because  we  are  in  a  no  man's  land.  I  be- 
lieve that  is  the  way  it  has  been  explained.  We  neither  are  protected 
by  the  local  government  or  the  Federal  Government,  or  we  are  not 
given  relief  by  the  local  government  or  the  Federal  Government. 

We  might  be  protected  but  we  are  not  given  relief. 

Senator  Mundt.  And  without  this  so-called  insurance  benefit  pay- 
ment of  $118,998.71  in  2  years,  I  suppose  your  restaurant  business 
would  have  been  broke? 

Mr.  Reade.  No,  sir;  it  would  not  have  been  broke,  because  I  realize 
the  seriousness  of  the  situation,  and  I  would  have  closed  my  place  of 
business  and  liquidated  what  little  assets  I  had,  and  probably  gone 
back  down  to  Georgia  where  I  came  from. 

Senator  Mundt.  Well,  that  is  one  way  to  escape  going  broke.  You 
would  have  been  put  out  of  business. 


12712  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Reade.  I  would  not  have  dissipated  what  little  assets  I  had, 
and  practically  everything  I  had  was  tied  up  in  the  Nantucket 
Restaurant. 

Senator  Mundt.  I  think  my  statement  would  stand.  I  didn't  mean 
that  Harold  Reade  would  be  broke  but  his  business  would  be  broke. 

Mr.  Reade.  Yes,  sir ;  that  is  correct.  And  every  other  businessman 
faces  the  same  problem. 

The  Chairman.  Is  there  anything  further? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  is  all. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you  very  much. 

Call  the  next  witness. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Teitelbaum. 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  Senator  Kennedy,  may  I  make  a  statement  prior 
to  being  sworn  in  this  matter  ? 

May  I  be  given  permission  by  the  committee?  I  would  like  to 
make  a  statement. 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair  has  called  you  as  a  witness.  You  are 
under  subpena.  The  first  tiling  you  will  do  will  be  to  be  worn  as  a 
witness. 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  would  still  like  to  renew  my  request.  Senator 
McClellan,  and  Senators.  If  you  will  listen  to  my  statement,  it  wiU 
only  take  a  few  minutes.     I  promise  not  to  unduly  delaj^  you. 

The  Chairman.  I  do  not  know  what  your  statement  is. 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  think  it  is  very  important  and  pertinent  to  the 
issues. 

The  Chairman.  We  require  all  witnesses  to  be  sworn.  Then  if 
you  want  to  make  a  statement,  we  will  hear  you.  If  you  wish  to  make 
a  request  to  the  committee  about  anything  that  comes  under  the  rules, 
that  request  may  be  made. 

But  we  are  not  here  to  just  hear  speeches  made.  We  are  here  to  get 
evidence.     You  are  under  subpena. 

The  Chair  suggests 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  Senator  McClellan,  I  have  a  high  regard  for  this 
committee  and  for  its  purposes,  but  1  would  like  to  go  ahead  and  still 
make  this  statement,  because  I  feel  that  this  statement  will  be  pertinent 
to  a  lot  of  things. 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair  is  perfectly  willing  for  you  to  make  a 
statement  under  oath.  After  you  are  sworn,  you  may  make  your 
statement.  I  do  not  want  to  hear  a  statement  that  is  not  under  oath, 
that  pertains  to  the  matter  the  coimnittee  is  investigating. 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  That  is  your  prerogative.  If  the  committee  feels 
that  way,  I  will  abide  by  the  committee. 

Senator  Mundt.  What  is  there  about  your  statement  that  you  don't 
want  to  make  it  under  oath  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  It  is  unusual,  but  I  have  had  previous  experience 
with  the  committees,  and  notably  one  was  the  King  committee  in 
1951,  and  as  a  direct  result  of  testifying  voluntarily,  I  became  an 
innocent  victim,  and  as  a  result  of  jeopardy  assessment  by  the  Internal 
Revenue  Department  was  made  against  me,  which  I  fully  paid,  and 
thereafter  I  went  through  two  indictments  for  income  tax. 

Senator  Mundt.  There  is  this  distinction,  may  I  suggest  to  the 
witness,  that  the  statement  is  your  own,  and,  consequently,  you  can't 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12713 

place  yourself  in  jeopardy  by  the  statement  under  any  other  law  ex- 
cept perjury.  If  you  are  to  tell  us  the  truth,  which  I  presume  you 
want  to  do,  you  will  lose  nothing  by  making  it  under  oath.  I  can't 
understand  why  you  don't  want  to  make  it  under  oath. 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  For  over  15  years,  the  Internal  Kevenue  Depart- 
ment has  been  hounding  me. 

Senator  Mundt.  You  don't  have  to  talk  about  your  finances  unless 
you  want  to.     It  is  your  statement. 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  understand  that.  That  is  the  reason  why  I 
want  to  explain  to  the  committee  why  I  am  taking  the  procedure  that 
I  am  going  to  in  this  matter. 

Senator  Mundt.  I  think  the  Chair  is  eminently  correct.  The  state- 
ment should  be  under  oath,  unless  j^ou  can  f)rovide  some  good  reason 
why  it  should  not  be. 

The  Chairman.  We  can't  establish  a  precedent  here. 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  am  not  looking  for  a  special  immunity. 

The  Chairman.  Just  a  moment.  We  cannot  establish  a  precedent 
here  in  this  committee  of  calling  people  up  here  as  witnesses  and  then 
let  them  make  a  speech  or  make  statements  relevant,  possibly  relevant, 
to  the  subject  matter  the  committee  is  inquiring  into,  and  not  make  it 
under  oath. 

AVe  have  tried  to  keep  the  integrity  of  this  record  since  the  com- 
mittee began.  I  have  not  placed  telegrams  in  the  record  unless  they 
are  placed  there  under  oath,  letters  or  anything  else. 

Senator  Mundt.  May  I  say  for  your  comfort  and  convenience,  Mr. 
Teitelbaum,  that  this  committee  has  quite  a  record  of  putting  people 
under  oath.  At  one  time  when  I  was  serving  as  acting  chairman,  we 
put  tlie  committee  members  under  oath. 

This  is  nothing  unusual. 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  But  I  understand  also  like  when  a  witness  testifies 
voluntarily,  as  I  did  before  the  King  committee,  I  am  entitled  to  cer- 
tain immunities  and  protection,  too,  which  I  did  not  receive.  That  is 
the  reason  I  wanted  to  make  the  statement.  However,  I  will  abide  by 
this  committee 

The  Chairman.  That  relates  to  the  activities  of  another  committee. 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  Some  of  the  members  of  that  committee  are  the 
members  of  this  committee. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  it  is  not  the  same  chairman. 

Senator  Mundt.  Not  I. 

The  Chairman.  I  believe  with  the  cooperation  of  the  other  members 
of  the  committee,  I  believe  we  will  give  you  a  fair  hearing. 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  have  a  high  regard  for  your  committee,  and  a 
high  regard  for  Mr.  Kennedy  and  his  associates.  I  might  say,  I  will 
abide  by  your  ruling. 

However,  I  wanted  to  make  a  statement  which  I  felt  was  fair  to 
everybody  concerned. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  hand  your  statement  out  to  the  press,  if 
you  want  publicity  on  it,  that  is  your  privilege.  Do  you  solemnly 
swear  the  evidence  you  shall  give  before  this  Senate  select  committee 
shall  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  so  help  you  God  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  Yes,  sir. 


12714  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    m    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

TESTIMONY  OF  ABRAHAM  TEITELBAUM 

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

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  My  name  is  Abraham  Teitelbaum.  Further  than 
that,  I  refuse  to  answer  on  the  grounds  enumerated  as  follows : 

First,  I  claim  protection  under  the  first  amendment  to  the  United 
States  Constitution,  and  which  protects  me  and  protects  every  citizen 
from  unlawful  search  and  seizure. 

My  second  ground  is  under  the  fifth  amendment,  that  anything  I 
may  testify  may  tend  to  incriminate  or  degrade  me.     That  is  second. 

Third,  I  claim  protection  under  the  sixth  amendment  to  the  United 
States  Constitution  on  the  ground  that  everybody  is  entitled  to  coimsel, 
the  right  of  counsel,  and  the  people  that  I  have  represented  and  who 
have  retained  me  as  counsel  are  entitled  to  their  privileges  and  im- 
munities and  as  guaranteed  every  citizen  of  the  United  States,  notably 
the  right  to  keep  their  testimony  in  a  confidential  capacity,  simihir  to 
a  priest  and  parishioner,  and  doctor  and  patient,  as  well  as  attorney 
and  client. 

I  also  claim  the  privileged  immunities  as  guaranteed  me  under  the 
16th  amendment  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  which  is 
known  as  the  income-tax  amendment,  which  has  been  in  force  in  our 
country  since  1913,  under  which  I  gave  testimony  before  the  King 
committee  in  the  year  1951,  and  as  a  result  of  such  testimony  I  received 
a  jeopardy  assessment  and  thereafter  I  was  indicted  twice  by  the 
United  States  Government  for  income-tax  evasion. 

As  a  result  of  that,  I  faced  two  disbarment  proceedings  in  the  State 
court,  as  well  as  in  the  Federal  courts,  in  which  I  defended  them  suc- 
cessfully pro  se.  I  have  pending  in  the  United  States  Tax  Court  two 
tax  cases  in  which  I  am  the  petitioner,  seeking  a  refmid  of  my  taxes. 
My  testimony  here  may  tend  to  embarrass  those  proceedings,  and, 
therefore,  I  feel  that  my  testimony  might  prejudice  me  for  the  reasons 
heretofore  enumerated. 

I  will  refuse— 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  concluded  now  your  objections  to  testi- 
fying? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  Yes,  I  have. 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair  overrules  all  objections  interposed  by 
the  witness  save  and  except  the  fifth  amendment. 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  duly  except  to  your  ruling,  respectfully. 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair  will  ask  you  if  you  have  counsel  or  if 
you  waive  counsel. 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  don't  think  I  need  any  counsel. 

The  Chairman.  Then  I  assume  you  waive  counsel  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  waive  counsel.  And  I  resent  tlie  fact  that  in 
the  papers  of  both  Washington  and  in  Cliicajro  it  was  stated  that  I 
was  looking  for  counsel  or  representation.  They  printed  stories  of 
what  I  have  already  testified  to.     I  already  said  that. 

The  CiLMRMAN.  The  resentment,  as  T  understand  you,  is  directed 
against  the  press  and  not  against  the  committee. 

Mr.  Teitet.baum.  T  liave  the  Idghest  regard  for  this  committee. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you  very  much.  Are  you  an  attorney  at 
law? 


IMPROPER    ACTrVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12715 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  have  given  my  objections  and  it  will  be  the  same 
objection  to  that  question,  too. 

The  CiiAiRMAx.  The  question  is,  Are  you  an  attorney  at  law? 

Do  you  wish  to  answer,  or  do  you  wish  to  object? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  claim  my  rights  and  privileges  under  the  1st, 
the  5th,  the  6th,  and  16th  amendments. 

The  Chairman.  Your  objections  are  overruled  except  as  to  the  fifth 
amendment.  I  will  ask  you  this  question:  Do  you  honestly  believe 
that  if  you  answered  the  question  truthfully,  the  question  of  whether 
you  are  a  practicing  attorney,  if  the  answer  to  that  question  might 
tend  to  incriminate  you  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  Yes.    The  same  answer. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed,  Mr.  Kennedy. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Teitelbaum,  could  you  give  us  a  little  of  your 
background  ?    Wliere  you  were  born  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  Same  objections,  Mr.  Kennedy,  with  all  due  re- 
spect to  you. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Tell  us  the  date  you  were  born. 

The  Chairman.  If  you  are  going  to  say  "Same  objection,"  let  the 
record  show  in  response  to  each  question  and  answer  such  as  it  may 
be,  if  that  objection  is  interposed,  that  the  Chair  overrules  all  of  the 
objections,  save  and  except,  if  and  when  the  witness  properly  invokes 
the  fifth  amendment.   All  right. 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  Senator  McClellan,  I  will  hereafter,  in  order 
to  save  my  voice  and  save  your  voice,  save  the  idea  of  being  repetitious, 
I  am  going  to  stand  mute  after  every  question.  I  am  interposing  the 
same  objections  that  I  have  heretofore  noted. 

The  Chairiman.  Let  the  record  show  that.  "We  will  have  that  un- 
derstanding. The  record  will  reflect  that  upon  the  asking  of  each  ques- 
tion, the  witness  interposes  all  of  the  objections  he  has  stated  hereto- 
fore. The  Chair  has  overruled  all  of  those  objections  save  and  except 
the  objection  based  upon  the  fifth  amendment,  which  is  the  witness 
shall  not  be  required  to  give  testimony  against  himself,  or  testimony 
that  might  tend  to  incriminate  him. 

The  Chair  will  not  recognize  all  of  the  objections  as  to  each  ques- 
tion asked  save  and  except  the  fifth  amendment.  That  is  the  only  one 
recognized  as  a  valid  objection,  or  a  valid  reason  for  declining  to 
answer  questions.  As  the  questions  are  asked,  the  witness  will  be 
required,  if  he  so  desires,  to  invoke  the  fifth  amendment. 

Proceed,  Mr.  Kennedy. 

Mr.  EJENNEDY.  Could  you  just  tell  us  the  date  of  your  birth,  Mr. 
Teitelbaum  ?    You  can  tell  us  that. 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  am  standing  mute. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  are  not  standing  mute. 

Mr.  Teitelbautvi.  I  am  sitting  mute. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  have  to  answer  something  so  that  I  know  that 
you  hear  the  question. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  hear  the  question  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  heard  the  question. 

The  Chairman.  You  understood  it  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  understood  it. 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair  directs  you  to  answer  the  question: 
Where  were  you  born  ? 


12716  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    EST    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  TeiteixBATjm.  I  claim  the  immunities  as  I  have  heretofore  stated. 

Senator  Mundt.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  think  the  witness  started  out  by 
saying  he  was  not  looking  for  trouble.  He  had  trouble  with  the 
King  committee.     But  he  is  now  hunting  for  it. 

There  is  a  grave  doubt  as  to  whether  any  court  is  going  to  sustain 
the  use  of  the  fifth  amendment  concerning  the  fact  that  you  were 
born,  or  where  you  were  born  and  when  you  were  born. 

The  fifth  amendment  is  not  something  that  you  can  just  use 
frivolously  as  part  of  a  TV  show. 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  did  not  bring  this  TV  show,  Senator  Mundt. 

Senator  Mundt.  Just  a  moment.  It  is  something  that  you  can 
only  use  seriously  in  order  to  protect  yourself  against  self-incrimina- 
tion, and  this  committee  recognizes  that  right.  But  it  does  not  recog- 
nize a  right  that  you  can  simply  flash  a  card  that  you  will  take  the 
fifth  amendment  on  any  question,  when  it  is  clearly  obvious  that  an 
honest  answer  could  not  in  any  way  incriminate  you. 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  Evidently,  Senator  Mundt,  you  are  not  acquaint- 
ed with  the  fact  that  once  I  testify  as  to  any  particular  subject,  it 
will  open  the  door  to  a  lot  of  things. 

Senator  Mundt.  I  am  acquainted  with  that  fact. 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  If  you  want  to  take  the  privilege  upon  yourself 
to  protect  me 

Senator  Mundt.  That  fact  is  not  involved  in  asking  you  where 
you  were  born,  or  when  you  were  born,  because  there  is  nothing  in- 
volved that  is  relevant  in  these  hearings  that  could  in  any  way  in- 
criminate you  by  virtue  of  the  fact  that  you  were  born  in  any  country 
in  the  world,  I  don't  know  where  it  was,  or  that  you  were  born  in  any 
year. 

I  quite  agree  that  if  we  would  ask  a  leading  question  and  say,  "Did 
you  know  Mr.  Romano,"  for  example,  and  you  said  "Yes,"  and  then 
took  the  fifth  amendment  on  the  next  question,  then  you  would  be 
destroying  your  immunity. 

But  you  are  not  destroying  your  immunity  when  you  answer  a 
question  as  to  where  you  were  born. 

You  are  moving  in  the  direction  of  requesting  a  citation  for  con- 
tempt of  Congress. 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  am  not  looking  for  a  citation  from  anybodj', 
contempt  or  otherwise.  However,  I  want  you  to  know,  Senator, 
that  after  29  years  of  practice  of  law,  I  feel  that  once  I  testify 
as  to  any  particular  subject  that  all  goes  into  a  line  of  questioning 
which  is  endless. 

The  Chairman.  Let  the  record  show  the  witness  states  that  he  has 
practiced  law  for  29  years.     Proceed,  Mr.  Kennedy. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  wouldn't  answer  that  question  ? 

Just  where  were  you  born  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  No. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  I  can't  hear  you. 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  No. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  ground  ? 

The  Chairman.  Just  a  moment.  Well,  all  right.  On  what 
grounds  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  grounds  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  First,  fifth,  sixth,  and  sixteenth  amendments  to 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 


LMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    EST    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12717 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Could  you  tell  us  how  old  you  are  ? 

The  CHAIR3IAN.  Let  the  Chair  ask  a  question.  Do  you  honestly 
believe  that  if  you  answered  the  question  truthfully  as  to  where  you 
were  born,  a  truthful  answer  to  such  question  might  tend  to  incrimi- 
nate you  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  think  so. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed. 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  It  might. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed,  Mr.  Kennedy. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  were  with  the  Cliicago  Restaurant 

Senator  Mundt.  I  would  like  to  ask  a  question.  When  were  you 
born? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  would  have  to  make  that  same  objection.  I 
think  the  same  question  was  propounded  to  me  by  Mr.  Kobert  Ken- 
nedy, Senator  Mundt,  with  due  respect  to  you. 

Senator  Mundt.  You  can  do  anything  you  want  to.  I  am  asking 
you  the  question :  IVlien  were  you  born  ? 

]Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  refuse  to  answer  that  question,  Senator. 

Senator  Mundt.  On  what  ground  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  On  the  1st,  5th,  6th,  16th  amendments. 

Senator  ^Iundt.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  suggest  that  you  order  the  wit- 
ness to  answer  that  question. 

The  Chairman.  Just  a  moment,  let  me  get  his  answer  clear. 

On  what  amendments  do  you  refuse  to  answer  the  question  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  On  that  particular  one,  on  the  fifth  amendment. 

The  Chairman.  On  the  fifth  amendment. 

Do  you  honestly  believe  that  if  you  gave  a  truthful  answer  to  the 
question,  that  a  truthful  answer  might  tend  to  incriminate  you  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  It  might. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed. 

Senator  Mundt.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  suggest  that  you  insert  into  the 
record  at  this  point  that  he  be  ordered  to  answer  that  question.  I 
think  we  should  find  out  sooner  or  later  whether  the  witnesses  can 
make  a  complete  public  mockery  out  of  the  fifth  amendment  or  not. 
This  obviously  is  an  attempt  to  do  that.  Ma3^be  the  courts  will  so 
hold.  But  let's  get  it  buttoned  down  in  these  hearings  so  we  can  test 
it  out. 

We  can  just  as  well  close  up  shop  and  quit  this  investigating  busi- 
ness if  we  let  witnesses  show  contempt  for  the  committee  in  that 
way  and  use  what  is  obviously  a  capricious  and  frivolous  use  of  the 
fifth  amendment,  either  for  the  entertainment  of  television  viewers  or 
some  other  reason. 

I  think  we  should  button  this  down  and  insist  that  he  answer.  If 
he  refuses,  the  committee  will  have  the  evidence  on  which  we  can  act 
in  executive  session.  The  question  is  simple  and  cannot  in  any  way 
incriminate  him  when  we  ask  the  question,  "When  were  you  born?" 

He  is  not  up  for  draft  evasion,  he  is  not  up  for  any  conceivable  kind 
of  question  which  in  any  way  at  all  could  incriminate  him  by  telling 
us  the  date  of  his  birth. 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair  will  make  this  observation:  As  our 
official  record,  the  transcript  of  our  proceedings,  will  repeatedly  reflect, 
we  have  a  number  of  instances  where,  in  the  view  of  the  Chair,  and 
I  am  sure  in  the  view  of  the  committee,  witnesses  have  capriciously 
refused  to  answer  questions  that  are  at  least  preliminary  to  laying  a 


12718  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

foundation  for  the  real  meat  of  the  information  sought  by  the  com- 
mittee. 

We  have,  on  a  number  of  occasions,  ordered  witnesses  to  answer. 
We  have  a  number  of  instances  where,  in  my  judgment,  the  committee 
is  wholly  justified  in  asking  the  United  States  Senate  to  approve  a 
charge  of  contempt  before  this  committee.  I  am  hopeful  that  at  some 
early  date — the  committee  has  been  tremendously  busy  and  occupied, 
as  we  all  know — that  we  can  hold  an  executive  session  and  have  the 
staff  prepare  for  us  the  instances,  give  us  a  list  of  them,  and  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  testimony  or  the  refusal  to  testify,  so  that  the  com- 
mittee can  give  serious  consideration  to  citing  those  witnesses  for 
contempt. 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  Senator  McClellan  ? 

The  Chairman.  Just  a  moment. 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  Pardon  me. 

The  Chairman.  Since  this  witness  is  even  refusing  to  state  where 
he  was  born  or  when  he  was  born  and  invoking  the  fifth  amendment 
on  them,  and  since  there  are  many  questions  that  the  committee  desires 
to  ask  on  matters  of  importance,  of  definite  relevancy  and  pertinency 
to  the  subject  matter  of  this  committee's  inquiry,  and  to  the  carrying 
out  of  its  function,  the  mandate  given  it  by  the  United  States  Senate, 
the  Chair  at  this  point,  with  the  approval  of  the  committee,  orders  and 
directs  the  witness  to  answer  two  questions : 

First,  where  were  you  born  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  refuse  to  answer  that  question. 

The  Chairman.  Second,  when  were  you  born  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  give  the  same  answer  to  that. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed,  Mr.  Kennedy. 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  Mr.  McClellan,  I  would  like  to  make  this  state- 
ment before  you  certify  any  statement. 

You  come  from  the  great  State  of  Arkansas,  or  some  people 
call  it 

The  Chairman.  Where  I  come  from  does  not  particularly  matter. 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  That  is  what  I  am  trying  to  make  out,  the  same 
objection. 

The  Chairman.  Just  a  moment.  The  Chair  is  not  ashamed  of 
where  he  came  from,  where  he  was  born,  or  when  he  was  born.  I 
would  be  very  glad  to  answer  any  question 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  Do  you  see  any  relevancy  to  what  that  question  is 
to  my  matter  ?    That  has  no  relevancy  here. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  a  lawyer. 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  Yes.  I  respect  you.  I  think  you  should  respect 
my  rights. 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair  is  not  going  to  tolerate  very  much  diver- 
sionary tactics. 

Proceed,  Mr.  Kennedy,  with  the  question. 

The  witness  wants  to  know  how  to  take  care  of  himself,  if  he  wants 
to  invoke  the  fifth  amendment. 

Senator  Mundt.  May  I  say,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  doubt  very  much  the 
desirability  or  advisability  of  proceeding  further  with  a  witness  of 
this  type.  If  he  will  not  answer  a  question  to  identify  himself  as  the 
Teitelbaum  in  question  by  giving  the  date  and  place  of  his  birth, 
which  are  completely  relevant  to  establish  the  identity  of  the  witness, 
it  does  not  make  much  difference. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12719 

We  have  the  case  buttoned  down.  We  can  cite  him  for  contempt 
and  let  the  Senate  act  on  it,  and  then  let  the  courts  decide  on  it.  He 
has  been  a  lawyer  for  29  3^ears.  I  have  not  been  a  lawyer  for  29  min- 
utes. All  I  want  to  do  is  to  prevent  this  committee  from  beino;  held  up 
to  public  scorn,  because  it  stands  here  and  asks  questions  which  are 
completely  relevant,  which  cannot  possibly  incriminate  him,  and  the 
man  makes  frivolous  use  of  the  fifth  amendment. 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  Senator  Mundt,  evidently  you  did  not  hear  my 
first  statement.  I  have  a  high  regard  for  the  aims  and  purposes  of  this 
committee.  I  don't  care  to  go  ahead  and  elaborate  more  than  to  say 
that  its  aims  and  purposes  are  wonderful, 

I  tried  to  make  a  statement  before  I  was  sworn  in  as  a  witness. 
The  CuAiiuviAN.  I  think  the  committee  will  agree  with  you  on  that 
statement. 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  There  is  no  argument  on  that. 
The  Chairman.  But  the  Chair,  unless  he  is  overruled  by  the  com- 
mittee, is  going  to  proceed  to  have  this  witness  interrogated  regard- 
ing the  subject  matter  that  we  are  now  inquiring  into.  He  has  infor- 
mation, so  we  are  advised,  that  would  be  of  great  value  to  the  com- 
mittee. 

I  assume  he  is  a  citizen  of  the  United  States.  He  owes  a  duty  to 
his  country  to  cooperate.  Of  course,  if  a  witness  honestly  believes 
that  if  he  answers  a  question  truthfully  a  truthful  answer  might  tend 
to  incriminate  him,  he  has  the  privilege  of  invoking  the  fifth  amend- 
ment for  his  protection. 

Senator  Mundt.  Mr.  Chairman,  that  is  a  very  happy  thought. 
The  Chairman.  I  certainly  want  this  witness  interrogated  about 
those  things,  some  of  which  have  already  been  testified  to  here.  The 
witness,  in  all  fairness  to  him,  should  be  given  an  opportunity  to 
explain.  And  if  he  takes  the  position  he  cannot  explain,  comment, 
or  give  testimony  on  these  matters,  because  such  testimony  miglit  tend 
to  incriminate  him,  that  is  a  matter  then  that  is  a  privilege  he  has, 
unless  he  abuses  that  privilege. 

And  if  he  does  abuse  it,  I  do  not  know  what  the  Supreme  Court 
will  hold.  I  know  what  I  think  it  sliould  hold.  I  don't  tliink  the 
fifth  amendment  was  ever  intended  to  be  a  device,  and  to  be  arbitrarily 
and  capriciously  used,  simply  to  refuse  to  give  testimony  before  a 
duly  authorized  tribunal. 

I  think  it  meant  when  it  said  that  a  witness  shall  not  be  compelled, 
in  effect,  to  give  testimony  against  himself.  But  I  am  quite  confident 
that  we  can  ask  this  witness  many  questions  that  he  can  very  well 
answer,  and  answer  truthfully,  without  giving  testimony  against 
himself.  I  want  to  make  that  record.  I  want  to  give  the  witness 
the  opportunity  to  do  so.  If  he  declines,  or  persists  in  what  he  may 
be  intended  to  persist  in  at  the  moment,  then  he  makes  the  record 
accordingly. 

Senator  Mundt.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  listen 
to  the  questions  by  counsel  on  that  basis.  Before  doing  so,  there 
is  a  question  I  would  like  to  ask  the  witness  and  have  you  order  and 
direct  him  to  answer  it,  in  the  event  he  declines. 

Before  asking  it,  Mr.  Teitelbaum,  I  would  like  to  say  that  while 
I  am  not  a  lawyer,  I  have,  through  the  process  of  osmosis  down  here, 
learned  some  things  about  law. 

21243— 58— pt.  33 15 


12720  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  That  doesn't  make  you  a  doctor,  either. 

Senator  Mundt.  And  as  a  consequence,  I  think  I  recall  a  decision 
by  the  courts  that  to  resort  to  the  fifth  amendment  in  answer  to  the 
question  of  "Are  you  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,"  cannot  be  taken 
by  a  person  who  is  a  citizen  of  the  United  States. 

If  you  are  not  a  citizen,  you  can  take  the  fifth  amendment  with 
complete  immunity.  I  believe  if  I  ask  you  the  question  which  I  am 
going  to  ask  you,  are  you  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  and  jon  are 
in  fact,  a  citizen,  the  courts  have  ruled  that  that  is  not  a  proper  use  of 
the  fifth  amendment. 

With  that  prelude,  Mr.  Teitelbaum,  I  ask  the  question:  Are  you 
a  citizen  of  the  United  States  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  am  going  to  invoke  the  1st,  5th,  6th,  and  16th 
amendments.  The  reason  I  am  doing  that.  Senator  Mundt,  is  not  for 
the  purpose  of  embarrassing  or  hindering  this  committee;  but,  once 
I  open  the  door,  if  you  will,  give  me  your  personal  assurance  and 
guaranty  of  this  committee  that  once  I  talk  about  one  particular  phase 
as  to  preliminary  matters  that  I  can  successfully  invoke  the  1st,  the 
6th,  the  Gth,  and  the  16th  amendments  and  whatever  guaranties  and 
immunities  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  guarantees  me 
as  well  as  other  citizens, 

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

Senator  Mundt.  The  more  I  hear  from  you,  Mr.  Teitelbaum,  the 
less  inclined  I  am  to  grant  you  any  assurances  of  immunity  at  all, 
and  so  I  couldn't  do  that.  But  I  am  going  to  ask  you  the  question 
again,  and  I  will  ask  the  Chair  to  order  and  direct  you  to  answer 
the  question  if  you  refuse :  Are  you  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  When  I  made  that  objection  or  request  of  you, 
I  inferred  essentially  that  I  answered  your  question  when  I  said  I 
am  entitled  to  the  privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  of  every 
State. 

Senator  Mundt.  We  don't  want  to  liave  the  fifth  amendment  used 
by  inference.  Let  us  get  it  out  in  the  open  because  this  probably  is 
going  to  be  a  very  interesting  test  case,  and  ably  defended  by  a  lawyer 
of  29  long  years  of  experience. 

I  want  to  ask  you  the  question.  I  want  to  get  a  direct  answer.  Are 
you  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  am  invoking  the  privileges  and  immunities  as 
citizen  of  the  United  States  ? 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair,  with  the  approval  of  the  committee, 
orders  and  directs  the  witness  to  answer  the  question.  Are  you  a 
citizen  of  tlie  United  States  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  duly  accept  your  thought,  and  I  claim  my  privi- 
leges under  the  fifth  amendment. 

The  (^haihman.  The  Chair  again  orders  and  directs  you  to  answer 
the  question. 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  have  answered  the  question. 

The  Chairman.  The  record  will  stand  as  it  is,  and  the  committee 
will  stand  in  recess  until  2 :  15. 

(Whereupon,  at  12 :  35  p.  m.,  the  committee  recessed,  to  reconvene 
at  2 :  15  p.  m.  the  same  day.) 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    EST    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12721 

AFTERXOON    SESSION 

(At  the  reconvenino;  of  the  session,  the  following  members  are 
present:  Senators  McClellan,  Ervin,  and  Goldwater.) 
The  Chairman.  The  committee  will  come  to  order. 

TESTIMONY  OF  ABRAHAM  TEITELBAUM— Resumed 

The  Chairman.  All  right,  ISIr.  Kennedy,  proceed. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Teitelbaum,  you  were  with  the  Chicago  Restau- 
rant Association  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  Mr.  Kennedy,  I  plead  the  1st,  5th,  the  Gtli,  and 
the  16th  amendments  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  that 
the  answer  may  tend  to  incriminate  me  and  degrade  me.  I  prefer  the 
questions  that  you 

The  Chairman.  As  I  understand,  you  invoke  the  fifth  amendment  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  Yes;  as  one  of  them. 

The  Chairman.  All  right.  I  think  we  have  made  the  record  clear 
that  all  of  the  original  objections  interposed  by  the  witness  to 
answering  these  questions,  save  and  except  the  fifth  amendment, 
have  been  overruled.  The  record  will  so  reflect  until  such  time  as  the 
Chair  directs  otherwise. 

Proceed,  Mr.  Kennedy. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Could  you  tell  us  why  the  Chicago  Restaurant  Asso- 
ciation hired  you,  Mr.  Teitelbaum  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  invoke  the  same — the  same  answer  that  I  gave 
you. 

The  Chairman.  If  you  want  to  invoke  the  fifth  amendment,  all 
right.   But  invoke  it.    Don't  say  "Same  answer." 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  want  to  invoke  all  the  various  reasons. 

The  Chairman.  I  agreed  to  let  the  record  show  that  you  were 
invoking  all  of  the  others  that  you  stated  originally. 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  Including  the  fifth  amendment. 

The  Chairman.  Yes ;  but  I  want  the  fifth  amendment.  That  is  the 
only  one  the  Chair,  the  committee,  is  honoring  that  you  are  presenting, 
and  if  you  want  to  invoke  it,  invoke  it  each  time.  If  you  want  to 
repeat  all  of  them  over  again  each  time,  that  is  your  privilege,  and 
the  Chair  will  not  stop  you.  But  I  was  trying  to  expedite  it  by 
letting  the  record  show  that  they  were  invoked  each  time.    Proceed. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Teitelbaum,  could  you  tell  us  how  much  money 
the  Chicago  Restaurant  Association  was  paying  you  ^ 

Mr.  Teitelbaltm.  I  invoke  the  fifth  amendment. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  According  to  our  records,  Mr.  Teitelbaum,  you  were 
retained  by  the  Chicago  Restaurant  Association  in  1939 ;  that  initially 
you  were  receiving  $20,000  a  year,  plus  a  Christmas  bonus.  Your  sal- 
ary was  increased  to  $25,000  with  the  Christmas  bonus  adding  any- 
where from  two  to  eight  thousand  dollars.  In  1949,  your  salary  went 
up  to  $54,000. 

In  1950,  you  were  receiving  $125,000  a  year,  or  $10,400  a  month. 

Is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  am  invoking  the  fifth  amendment,  besides  the 
other  amendments,  the  16th,  particularly. 


12722  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Your  being  retained  by  the  Chicago  Restaurant 
Association,  did  they  know  that  you  had  been  an  associate  or  attorney 
for  AlCapone? 

Mr.  Teitelbauivi.  I  invoke  the  fifth  amendment. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  know  Al  Capone? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  still — ^same  answer. 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair  will  ask  you :  Do  you  honestly  believe 
that  if  you  answered  these  questions  that  have  been  asked  you  truth- 
fully, that  a  truthful  answer  thereto  might  tend  to  incriminate  you  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  Tend  to  incriminate  or  degrade  me.  It  may  hold 
me  up  for  public  ridicule  or  contempt. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Teitelbaum,  when  I  was  talking  to  you  when 
you  were  not  under  oath  in  the  office  yesterday,  you  said  that  you  did 
know  Al  Capone.  You  told  me  and  spoke  very  highly  of  him  and  said 
what  a  fine  gentleman  he  was.  If  he  was  such  a  fine  gentleman,  why 
would  it  incriminate  you  to  say  whether  you  know  him  here  under 
oath? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  The  same  answer,  Mr.  Kennedy. 

The  Chairman.  Let  me  ask  you :  Did  you  make  the  statement  yes- 
terday in  conference  with  counsel  of  the  committee  that  you  knew  Al 
Capone  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  invoke  the  fifth  amendment  and  sixth  amend- 
ment on  that. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Teitelbaum,  according  to  our  information  yoti 
also  know  Tony  Accardo.    Is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  invoke  the  fifth  amendment  on  that. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Tony  Capezio  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  Fifth  amendment  on  that. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Paul  Eicca  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  Fifth  amendment  on  that. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  knew  the  Guzik  brothers  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  invoke  the  fifth  amendment. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  The  Fishetti  brothers  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  invoke  the  fifth  amendment. 

The  Chairman.  The  Guzik ;  is  that  the  one  called  "Greasy  Thumb"  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  invoke  the  fifth  amendment  on  that. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  give  us  any  information  at  all  how  the 
name  became  attached  to  him,  "Greasy  Thumb"  ?  Could  you  enlighten 
us  on  that  any  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  invoke  the  fifth  amendment. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  think  it  would  tend  to  incriminate  you  if 
you  spoke  the  truth  about  what  you  know  about  these  characters? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  think  it  would ;  yes. 

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

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  invoke  the  fifth  amendment  to  not  answer,  Mr. 
Kennedy. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  James  Weinberg  ?     Did  you  know  him  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  invoke  the  fifth  amendment  on  that. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  Paul  Labriola  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  invoke  the  fifth  amendment  on  that. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  know  of  any  plan  by  James  "Weinberg  and 
Paul  Labriola  to  throw  you  out  the  window  of  your  office  ^ 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  invoke  the  fifth  amendment. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12723 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  they  have  an  intention  to  kill  you  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  invoke  the  fifth  amendment. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Do  you  know  what  the  reason  for  that  was  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  The  same  answer,  Mr.  Kennedy. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  they  want  to  take  over  the  restaurant  associa- 
tion? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  invoke  the  fifth  amendment. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  do  you  Imow 

The  Chairman.  Can't  you  be  helpful  to  us  in  dealing  with  an  un- 
derworld gang,  possibly  as  vicious  as  any  the  country  has  ever  laiown. 

You  said  of  the  committee  this  morning  that  it  was  doing  a  noble 
job,  with  its  objective,  and  its  purposes  were  worthy  and  worthwhile. 

Can't  you  be  a  little  helpful  and  tell  us  what  you  know  about  this 
element  that  we  feel  has  infiltrated  into  the  economic  lifestream  of 
the  Nation  and  into  management-labor  relations  to  an  extent  to  where 
it  endangers,  actually,  the  security  of  our  country  and  the  liberties 
that  we  all  enjoy  ? 

Can  you  not,  as  a  citizen  and  as  one  who  is  a  member  of  a  highly 
I'ecognized  and  distinguished  profession,  the  law  itself,  can  you  not 
be  cooperative  and  helpful  with  this  committee  in  its  effort  to  carry 
out  the  mandate  the  Senate  has  given  it  in  this  area  ? 

Mr.  Teitei^aum.  Senator  McClellan,  I  have  a  high  regard  for  you, 
I  have  a  high  regard  for  this  committee,  its  purpose  and  aims.  I  have 
been  terribl}^  mistreated  by  a  committee. 

The  Chairman.  By  what? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  By  a  committee,  which  sat,  known  as  the  King 
committee,  in  1951,  and  as  a  result,  I  have  been  vilified,  maligned, 
lost  my  position,  and  everything  else,  so,  therefore,  to  that  question  I 
plead  the  fifth  amendment. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  if  I  or  anyone  else  developed  and  practiced 
and  exercised  the  resentment  against  all  humanity  because  one  person 
may  have  mistreated  him,  if  that  became  the  way  of  life  and  habit  and 
conduct  of  our  people,  civilization  could  not  long  endure. 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  Senator  McClellan,  as  a  result  of  my  testifying 
before  the  King  committee,  I  was  indicted  for  income  tax.  I  had  to 
stand  trial  on  two  cases. 

I  also  had  to  stand  trial  for  disbarment  before  the  Federal  court  and 
the  State  courts,  in  which  I  was  vindicated,  as  far  as  disbarment  was 
concerned. 

The  Chairman.  I  think  you  ought  to  be  thankful  enough,  then, 
and  grateful  enough,  that  you  live  in  a  country  where  you  can  be 
vindicated,  when  you  cooperate  with  your  Government,  when  it  seeks 
to  ferret  out,  expose,  and  legislate  against,  the  nefarious  underworld 
element  that  we  know  exists  and  which  is  doing  great  harm  and 
injury  to  all  of  us. 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  Senator  McClellan,  there  is  an  old  proverb :  "If 
you  fool  me  once,  shame  on  you.  If  you  fool  me  twice,  shame  on  me." 
I  don't  want  to  have  that.     I  plead  the  fifth  amendment  to  that. 

Senator  Ervin.  "We  have  not  fooled  you  yet. 

]Mr.  Teitlebaum.  No  ;  not  yet. 

Senator  Ervin.  Xo. 

The  Chairman.  I  think  there  is  shame  on  anyone  who  takes  the 
position  that  he  can't  cooperate  with  his  Government,  if  you  want  my 
retort  to  what  you  just  said. 


12724  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Proceed,  Mr.  Kennedy. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  The  information  that  we  have  is  that  you  know 
Marty  "The  Ox"  Ochs,  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  plead  the  fifth  amendment  on  that. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  As  well  as  Claude  Maddox  ? 

Do  you  know  him  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum,  I  plead  the  fifth  on  that. 

Mr.  Ivennedy.  He  ]ust  passed  away  10  days  ago.  Did  you  know 
that? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  plead  the  fifth  amendment  on  that. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  well  did  you  know  him  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  will  plead  the  fifth  amendment  on  that  question. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  Cowboy  Mirro,  did  you  know  him  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  plead  the  fifth  amendment  on  that. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Do  you  know  how  he  got  his  name,  Cowboy? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  plead  the  fifth  amendment. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  wouldn't  help  us  on  that.  We  understand 
that  you  hired  this  man  to  help  you  and  assist  you  in  your  representing 
of  the  restaurant  association,  and  that  you  hired  Louis  Romano. 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  plead  the  fifth  amendment. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  hire  him  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  am  invoking  the  fifth  amendment. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  that  he  is  also  mixed  up  with  Al  Capone's 
syndicate,  and  that  he  helped  you  in  representing  these  various  res- 
taurants.    Is  that  correct  ? 

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

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  will  take  the  fifth  amendment. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  paid  him  $18,000  a  year.  Would  you  tell  us 
what  he  did  for  that  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  will  take  the  fifth  amendment. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  He  had  been  the  head  of  one  of  the  unions  out  in 
Chicago,  and  had  been  expelled  for  his  associations,  and  then  you 
hired  him  to  help  you  in  your  work  with  the  restaurant  association. 

Could  you  explain  that  to  the  committee  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  will  take  the  fifth  amendment  on  that. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  all  of  the  officials  of  the  restaurant  association 
know  that  this  was  going  on  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  will  take  the  fifth  amendment  on  that. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  I  can't  hear  you  very  well. 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  will  take  the  fifth  amendment. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Speak  right  up,  will  you  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  will  talk  loud. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Thank  you.  Can  you  tell  us  about  the  work  that  you 
did  for  Lond(m  House  for  1949,  1950,  and  1951?  According  to  the 
testimony  before  the  committee,  you  made  a  payoff  to  certain  union 
officials,  and  put  in  a  certain  number  of  the  employees  unbeknownst  to 
them,  put  them  in  the  union.   Is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  will  take  the  fifth  amendment  on  that. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  that  you  did  that  for  a  period  of  about  2  years. 
Is  that  correct  ?  * 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  Fifth  amendment. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  would  you  tell  us  about  the  Nantucket  Restau- 
rant, about  which  we  had  testimony  this  morning,  in  a  meeting  that 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12725 

you  had  with  Frank  Trungell  and  Mr.  Davis,  of  the  Nantucket 
Restaurant? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  The  same  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  According  to  Mr.  Davis'  testimony  this  morning — 
Mr.  Reade,  I  meant.    Is  it  Mr.  Reade  or  Mr.  Davis  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  take  the  fifth  amendment. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  It  is  Mr.  Reade,  I  believe.  You  made  arrangements 
to  give  the  union  official  $500  in  cash.    Is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  will  take  the  fifth  amendment. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  that  actually  it  was  discussed  first  that  he 
would  get  the  price  of  a  Cadillac,  but  ultimately  it  was  lowered  to 
$500  in  cash,  and  Mr.  Reade  actually  did  pay  $150  in  cash;  is  that 
right? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  will  take  the  fifth  amendment. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Can  you  tell  us  about  the  Rupcich  Restaurant,  in 
1950,  when  you  made  arrangements  to  put  7  of  the  waitresses  into 
the  union  ?    Do  3- ou  remember  that  ? 

Mr.  Teitlebaum.  I  will  take  the  fifth  amendment. 

Mr.  KJENNEDY.  Did  you  arrange  that  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  will  take  the — same  answer. 

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

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  The  same  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Tell  me  what  the  same  answer  is  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  The  fifth  amendment. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  that  you  put  those  employees  into  the  union 
unbeknownst  to  them ;  is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  will  take  the  fifth  amendment  on  that. 

Mr.  ICennedy.  "What  about  Esrig's  Restaurant  in  1949?  Did  you 
make  a  similar  kind  of  arrangement  for  them  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  will  take  the  fifth  amendment. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  work  that  out  with  Mr.  Louis  Romano,  on 
the  Esrig  Restaurant  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  will  take  the  sixth  amendment  on  that  as  well 
as  the  fifth. 

(At  this  point,  Senator  McClellan  entered  the  room.) 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  about  the  Howard  Johnson  Restaurant  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  will  take  the  sixth  and  the  fifth. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  We  heard  some  ver}'  bad  things  about  the  situation 
at  the  Howard  Johnson  Restaurant,  and  that  you  suddenly  came  along 
and  settled  the  strike  by  paying  off  $2,240 ;  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  will  take  the  fifth  and  sixth  amendments. 

Mr.  I^NNEDY.  And  that  the  $2,200  was  supposed  to  have  been  paid 
to  you  as  legal  fee  and  you  actually  passed  that  money  on  to  the 
union ;  is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  will  take  the  fifth  and  sixth  amendments. 

The  Chairman.  Let  the  Chair  ask  you.  Which  side  were  you 
representing  as  a  lawyer  in  that  transaction  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  will  take  the  fifth  and  sixth  amendments, 
Senator. 

The  Chairman.  Don't  you  want  to  take  some  others,  too  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  could  take  some  others,  but  I  just  want  those 
two  at  the  present. 

The  Chairman.  As  a  lawyer,  are  you  taking  the  position  here  be- 
fore this  Committee  that  if  you  answered  the  question  truthfully  as 


12726  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

to  which  side  you  represented  when  you  received  this  check,  which 
is  exhibit  No.  16,  a  check  in  the  amount  of  $2,240,  June  11,  1952, 
signed  by  Bar-Don  Corp.,  D.  W.  Strang — are  you  taking  the  position 
that  if  you  testified  truthfully  and  stated  which  side  you  represented, 
whether  the  union  or  Mr.  Strang  and  his  group,  a  truthful  answer  to 
that  question  might  tend  to  incriminate  you  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  In  addition  to  that 

The  Chairman.  Not  in  addition.    Do  you  or  don't  you  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  All  right.    Now  you  can  add  your  "in  addition." 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  In  addition  to  that,  I  claim  the  16th  amendment, 
for  the  reason  that  my  matter  is  pending  in  Tax  Court  covering  that 
particular  incident,  and  that  particular  check  which  was  disallowed. 

The  Chairman.  I  can't  see  that  the  Tax  Court  would  have  any  in- 
terest in  which  side  you  represented.  It  might  have  an  interest  in 
the  amount  of  money  involved,  but  as  to  whether  you  received  the 
money  by  representing  the  management  side  or  labor  union  side,  I 
don't  think  it  would  have  a  great  interest. 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  With  all  due  respect  to  the  Senator  that  would 
open  the  door,  in  my  opinion. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  open  it  a  little  further,  and  give  you  the 
opportunity  to  keep  it  closed. 

I  present  to  you  exhibit  No.  16  that  is  pending  before  this  com- 
mittee, which  is  part  of  the  record  of  this  hearing,  and  I  ask  you  to 
examine  it  and  state  if  you  identify  it. 

(The  document  was  handed  to  the  witness.) 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  claim  the  privilege  of  the  fifth  amendment. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  examined  it,  have  you  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  have  examined  it. 

The  Chairman.  All  right.    Proceed,  Mr.  Kenedy. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  I  would  like  to  get  explained,  and  what  I  think 
is  the  big  point,  Mr.  Teitelbaum,  is  the  retention  of  you  over  that 
period  of  time  when  you  had  all  of  these  associations,  the  retention  of 
you  by  the  restaurant  association  for  about  14  years,  and  then  the 
retention  by  the  association  of  Mr.  Louis  Romano,  who  also  had  these 
criminal  associates. 

Can  you  explain  that  to  us — why  the  restaurant  association  did 
that? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  will  invoke  the  fifth  and  sixth  amendments. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  The  association  retained  Mr.  Romano  on  your  recom- 
mendation, did  they  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  claim  the  privilege  and  immunities  under  the 
fifth  and  sixth  amendments. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Why  would  the  restaurant  association  want  to  re- 
tain somebody  with  such  a  background  ? 

Can  you  tell  us  that  ? 

:Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  claim  the  privileges  under  the  fifth  amendment 
and  sixth  amendment. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Why  would  they  want  to  retain  somebody  such  as 
yourself  ?     Can  you  tell  us  that,  Mr.  Teitelbaum  ? 
Mr.  Tefi-elbaum.  I  resent  the  question. 
Mr.  Kennedy.  You  what? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  resent  the  question. 


EMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12727 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Would  you  tell  us  about  it  ?  I  thought  maybe  you 
would  tell  us  about  that. 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  claim  the  privilege  of  the  fifth  and  sixth  amend- 
ments. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  about  Mr.  Champagne?  After  you  left,  they 
retained  IVIr.  Champagne,  who  also  had  many  criminal  associates. 
Can  you  explain  to  the  committee  why  the  restaurant  association 
would  do  that  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  claim  the  privileges  of  the  fifth  and  sixth 
amendments. 

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

The  ChairmaNo  I  would  like  to  ask  a  question  on  that  point.  I 
assume  you  are  not  going  to  answer  it,  but  I  can  show  the  relevancy 
of  it.  It  would  be  helpful  to  us  if  we  can  get  the  truthful  answer 
to  it,  of  course.  Did  the  officials  and  management  of  the  restaurant 
association  know  at  the  time  that  they  employed  this  Romano  and 
Champagne  of  their  past  criminal  records? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  am  invoking  the  5th  amendment  and  the  16th 
amendment  and  the  6th  amendment. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  inconceivable  to  me  that  a  legitimate  associa- 
tion, one  that  is  operating  with  proper  motives  and  purposes  would 
knowingly  employ  underworld  characters  to  carry  out  the  performed 
duties  for  them. 

I  am  not  casting  any  aspersions  at  the  moment,  in  any  sense  upon 
this  association  or  its  management.  I  can  appreciate  it  may  have  em- 
ployed some  people  without  knowing  their  background,  and  maybe 
didn't  use  due  diligence  in  trying  to  find  out,  or  it  may  well  have 
relied  upon  the  recommendation  of  this  witness  or  upon  others  as 
to  the  desirability  of  their  employment  and  their  suitableness  to  per- 
form the  services. 

But  it  would  be  quite  shocking  to  me,  at  least,  if  an  association 
representing  a  group  of  business  interests,  such  as  this  association  did, 
would  resort  to  the  employment  of  known  criminals  to  help  carry  out 
its  purpose. 

I  don't  want  to  reflect  upon  the  association.  I  do  not  know.  But 
this  witness,  I  feel,  could  be  helpful  to  the  committee  in  giving  an- 
swers to  these  questions. 

All  right,  proceed,  Mr.  Kennedy. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Is  it  also  correct  that  in  addition  to  these  individ- 
uals that  we  have  mentioned,  Louis  Eomano  and  Champagne,  the 
association  also  retained  a  man  by  the  name  of  Sam  Englisli? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  will  take  the  fiftli  amendment  on  that. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Sam  English — didn't  he  work  with  Mr.  Champagne  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  will  take  the  fifth  amendment  on  that,  Mr. 
Kennedy. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Sam  English  has  a  very,  very  long  criminal  record, 
does  he  not? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  will  take  the  fifth  amendment. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  He  was  a  close  associate  of  "Golf  Bag"  Hunt,  who 
recently  passed  on  ? 

He  used  to  carry  machineguns  around  in  his  golf  bag  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  will  take  the  fifth  amendment. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  know  "Golf  Bag"  Hunt? 


12728  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Teitelbaum,  I  will  take  the  fifth  amendment. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Is  that  how  he  got  the  name,  he  carried  machineguns 
around  in  his  bag  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  will  take  the  fifth. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  But  they  did  employ  Sam  English  as  well  as  Cham- 
pagne and  Louis  Romano,  did  they  not  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  will  take  the  fifth  amendment. 

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

The  Chairman.  Is  there  anything  further  ? 

Are  there  any  questions  from  any  member  of  the  committee  ? 

Senator  Ervin.  Where  are  you  licensed  to  practice  law  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  will  take  the  fifth  amendment  on  that,  Senator 
Ervin. 

Senator  Ervin.  Do  you  mean  to  tell  me  that  it  would  tend  to  in- 
criminate you  to  answer  questions  as  to  where  you  were  licensed  to 
pi-actice  law  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  think  so. 

Senator  Ervin.  Do  you  honestly  believe? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  believe  so. 

Senator  Ervin.  Well,  you  did  not  get  your  bar  license  by  some  kind 
of  chicanery,  did  you  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  didn't  hear  you. 

I  didn't  hear  you. 

Senator  Ervin.  You  don't  know  what  chicanery  means  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  Yes,  I  know  what  chicanery  means.  Senator. 

Senator  Er\^n.  You  are  not  intimating  to  the  committee  that  if  you 
gave  a  truthful  answer  to  that  question,  that  it  would  tend  to  incrimi- 
nate you  on  account  of  the  method  by  which  you  got  your  law  license, 
are  you  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  Senator  Ervin,  you  weren't  here  this  morning. 
You  didn't  hear  all  the  questions.  You  came  in  here  on  the  last  end 
of  it.  I  asked  Senator  Mundt  a  question.  I  said  "Would  you  give  me 
the  privilege  of  immunity  ?  The  moment  I  go  ahead  and  answer  two 
questions  as  far  as  my  birth  and  whether  I  am  a  citizen,  can  I  still 
invoke  the  amendments  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  as 
guaranteed  me  by  my  forefathers?" 

He  refused  to  do  that. 

Senator,  I  think  it  is  an  unfair  question  for  you  to  ask  me  that 
question. 

Senator  Ervin.  Do  you  mean  to  tell  me  it  is  an  unfair  question  to 
ask  you  where  you  got  your  law  license  ?     How  will  that  be  unfair  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  It  will  open  the  door. 

Senator  Ervin.  That  is  making  an  absurdity  of  the  fifth  amendment 
and  the  Constitution  and  also  our  forefathers. 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  pleaded  more  than  the  fifth  amendment,  Sena- 
tor.  I  plead  the  1st,  5th,  6th,  and  16th  amendments. 

I  don't  know  whether  I  pleaded  the  14th  amendment  yet,  as  far  as 
the  right  of  due  process  of  law. 

The  Chairman.  Just  a  moment.  The  Chair  will  repeat  the  ques- 
tion :  Where  did  you  obtain  n  license  to  practice  law,  by  what  authority 
are  you  now  licensed  to  practice  law  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  refuse  to  answer  that  question. 

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


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    EST    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12729 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  For  the  reason  that  I  don't  feel  it  has  any  rele- 
vancy, I  still  refuse  to  answer  tliat  question. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  testified  heretofore  during  your  exami- 
nation that  you  have  been  in  the  practice  of  law  for  29  years.  I  will 
now  ask  that  question  and  order  and  direct  you  to  answer  it,  with  the 
approval  of  the  committee. 

Mr.  Teitelbaum:.  I  will  still  refuse  to  answer  the  question. 

The  Chairman.  All  right. 

Let  the  record  stand  as  it  is. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Just  on  that  matter,  you  are  suspended  from  prac- 
ticing law,  are  you  not? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  refuse  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  have  been  for  the  last  3  years  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  refuse  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  have  been  suspended  for  3  years,  a  couple  of 
weeks  ago ;  is  that  correct  ? 

Could  you  straighten  that  part  out  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  refuse  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  is  in  the  State  of  Illinois,  is  it? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  refuse  to  answer  that  question. 

The  Chairman.  All  right,  Senator  Curtis. 

Senator  Curtis.  Mr.  Teitelbaum,  were  you  present  in  the  hearing 
room  this  morning  w^hen  Mr.  Reade  of  the  Nantucket  Resaurants  in 
Chicago  was  testifying  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  refuse  to  answer  that  question.  Are  you  Senator 
Mundt? 

Senator  Curtis.  No  ;  I  am  not  Senator  Mundt. 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  Who  are  you  ? 

Senator  Curtis.  I  will  answer  that,  too. 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  Pardon  me,  Senator  Curtis,  the  light  was  reflect- 
ing on  you  there. 

Senator  Curtis.  You  wouldn't  tell  us  whether  you  heard  Mr. 
Reade's  testimony  or  not. 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  I  am  taking  the  fifth  amendment  on  that. 

Senator  Curtis.  Well,  I  think  that  your  performance  is  rather 
ridiculous.    That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Are  there  any  further  questions  ? 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  Am  I  excused,  sir  ? 

The  Chairman.  If  there  are  no  further  questions,  the  Chair  will 
make  this  observation :  I  do  not  undertake  to  tell  the  bar  association 
and  the  court  authorities  in  Illinois  what  to  do  or  what  not  to  do,  but 
I  would  simply  invite  their  attention  to  this  record  for  their  proper 
consideration  and  action  under  there. 

All  right,  you  mnj  stand  aside. 

Mr.  Teitelbauim.  Can  I  make  another  observation,  Senator? 

The  Chaieman.  Call  your  next  witness,  INIr.  Counsel. 

Mr.  Teitelbaum.  Before  you  do  that,  may  I  make  an  observation, 
Senator,  that  you  read  the  case  of  People  v.  Holland,  in  which  a  judge 
of  the  municipal  court  of  Chicago  invoked  the  fifth  amendment,  and 
in  which  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State  of  Illinois  said  he  had  a 
perfectly  legitimate  right  to  do  it. 

The  Chairman.  I  don't  have  any  more  respect  for  him  than  I  do 
for  you,  under  the  circumstances.     All  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Lt.  Joseph  Morris  and  Patrolman  Duffy. 


12730  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  be  sworn  ?  You  do  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.  Morris.  I  do. 

Mr.  Duffy.  I  do. 

TESTIMONY  OF  IT.  JOSEPH  MORRIS  AND  PATROLMAN  WILLIAM 

DUITY 

The  Chairman,  State  your  name,  beginning  on  my  left,  your  place 
of  residence,  and  your  business  or  occupation. 

Mr.  Duffy.  William  Duffy.  I  live  at  5746  North  Moody  Avenue, 
Chicago,  111.     I  am  employed  as  a  Chicago  city  police  officer. 

Mr.  Morris.  My  name  is  Joseph  Morris.  I  live  at  1639  West  83d 
Street,  Chicago,  and  I,  too,  am  a  police  officer  of  Chicago. 

The  Chairman.  All  right,  gentlemen.  Thank  you  very  much.  Do 
each  of  you  waive  counsel  ? 

Mr.  Duffy.  We  do. 

Mr.  Morris.  We  do. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  long  have  you  been  with  the  police  department  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  Twenty-six  years. 

Mr.  Duffy.  Thirteen  years. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  For  a  period  of  time,  Lieutenant,  you  were  with  the 
intelligence  section  of  the  Chicago  Police  Department  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  When  that  particular  unit  was  organized,  in  September 
of  1952, 1  was  the  first  commanding  officer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  many  policemen  did  you  have  working  mider 
you  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  About  25. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  received  your  instructions  and  your  orders 
from  the  commissioner  of  police,  did  you  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  was  your  task,  and  what  were  you  to  be 
working  with  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  We  were  instructed  to  try  and  keep  a  surveillance  on 
some  of  the  prominent  criminals,  and  hoodlums  and  syndicate  mem- 
bers around  Chicago,  and  report  to  the  commissioner  on  their 
r.otivities. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Could  you  speak  a  little  louder,  it  is  rather  difficult 
to  liear. 

Mr.  Morris.  All  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  were  to  make  a  study  and  examination  of  the 
criminals  in  the  Chicago  area,  and  keep  the  commissioner  advised  as 
to  their  activities  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  In  the  course  of  that  study  and  investigation,  were 
you  assigned  to  do  some  work  on  a  man  by  the  name  of  James  Wein- 
berg ? 

Mr.  Morris.  Yes,  sir.  About  October  of  1952,  the  commissioner 
of  police.,  Tim  O'Connor,  told  me  he  had  information  that  Weinberg, 
James  Weinberg  and  Paul  Labriola  were  very  active  in  syndicate 
affairs.    He  wanted  us  to  look  into  it.    I  assigned  Detective  Duffy  and 


EVIPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12731 

his  partner  to  investigate  these  two  men.  With  the  investigation 
progressing,  we  learned  a  lot  of  interesting  information. 

Labriola  and  Weinberg  were  considered  up  to  that  time  minor 
hoodlums,  and  they  both  had  long  criminal  records  for  robbery,  and 
burglary,  and  larceny,  and  things  like  that.  Duffy  and  his  men  found 
out  that  they  had  been  given  an  O.  K.  to  go  ahead  with  a  couple  of 
associations,  and  one  was  a  restaurant  association,  and  another  was 
an  association  group  Avhich  would  encompass  the  taverns  and  liquor 
dealers  around  the  Chicago  area. 

JNIr.  Kennedy.  That  was  an  association  separate  and  apart  from 
the  Chicago  Restaurant  Association  that  we  have  been  discussing  over 
the  last  few  days? 

jMr.  Morris.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  I  want  to  make  sure  that  that  is  understood,  and 
they  had  in  mind  forming  a  rival  restaurant  association,  is  that 
correct  ? 

]Mr.  Morris.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  also  a  tavern  association? 

Mr.  Morris.  That  is  right.  AVe  learned  through  Labriola  and 
Weinberg  that  Teitelbaum  was  in  bad  graces  with  the  syndicate 
powers. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  were  you  able  to  learn  these  facts?  Is  this 
after  they  had  started  to  create  the  association? 

Mr.  Morris.  When  we  first  picked  them  up,  they  had  an  office  on 
Washington  Boulevard. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  do  you  mean  when  you  say  "pick  them  up"? 

Mr.  Morris.  When  we  first  started  our  investigation,  we  learned 
that  they  were  going  to  move  into  new^  quarters  at  10  North  Clark 
Street,  in  Chicago,  and  we  were  very  fortunate  in  being  able  to  obtain 
quarters  in  the  same  building  and  very  close  proximity  to  their  suite 
which  enabled  us  to  make  a  very  close  surveillance  of  all  of  their 
activities  and  their  visitors,  and  in  some  cases  even  the  conversations 
that  they  took  part  in. 

Mv.  Kennedy.  You  were  able  to  put  an  instrument  in.  their  room, 
in  other  words,  is  that  right? 

Mr.  ]\IoRRis.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  did  not  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  We  never  invaded  the  privacy  of  their  office. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  But  you  were  able  to  make  a  recording  at  least  of  the 
conversation  ? 

Mv.  Morris.  In  some  instances,  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Of  the  conversations  that  took  place  in  the  room? 

Mi\  Morris.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  But  you  never  bugged  their  telephones,  for  in- 
stance ? 

Mr.  Morris.  We  never  invaded  their  privacy  or  violated  the  law  in 
making  this  investigation. 

jNIr.  Kennedy.  When  they  moved  into  this  suite,  did  you  learn 
then  what  they  were  doing,  or  in  addition  to  that,  getting'this  suite 
close  to  theirs,  were  you  able  to  get  a  man  into  their  organization? 

Mv.  Morris.  I  had  a  man  working  for  Weinberg. 

Mv.  Kennedy.  You  had  a  man  actually  in  their  organization  ? 

INIr.  Morris.  Yes,  sir. 


12732  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN   THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Who  could  report  back  as  to  what  was  going  on  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  So  you  were  able  to  keep  a  very  close  contact  and 
know  almost  everything  that  was  going  on  among  this  group? 

Mr.  Morris.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  what  did  they  discuss  and  what  did  they  say 
and  what  was  their  position  toward  Teiteibaum  and  the  other  restau- 
rant associations? 

Mr.  Morris.  As  I  mentioned  earlier,  we  learned  that  Teiteibaum 
was  in  bad  grace  with  the  syndicate  powers,  and  the  union  would  not 
cooperate  with  Teiteibaum  in  his  efforts  to  adjust  labor  difficulties, 
and  Weinberg  formed  this  association  and  he  had  a  man  by  the  name 
of  Bernberg  as  a  front,  and  his  title  was  executive  officer  of  the 
association,  and  they  had  an  attorney  by  the  name  of  Robert  Green- 
field, who  was  the  counsel  for  this  Metropolitan  Restaurant  Associa- 
tion.   That  is  what  they  called  it. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Who  was  Robert  Greenfield  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  He  was  a  Chicago  attorney  at  one  time  employed  by  a 
bank  in  Chicago,  and  he  has  no  criminal  record  or  any  other  previous 
criminal  associations,  as  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  determine. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Nor  did  Bernberg  have  a  record  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  No,  sir.  Bernberg  was  a  former  petty  officer  or  clerk 
in  the  probate  court,  and  at  the  time  we  were  investigating  he  was 
employed  by  the  recorder  of  Cook  County.  He  was  a  politician  of 
sorts,  and  he  seemed  to  know  his  way  around  the  city  hall,  and  the 
country. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  did  they  explain  that  Teiteibaum  was  out  of 
the  graces  of  the  syndicate  as  well  as  of  the  union  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  Well,  the  unions  would  not  cooperate  with  Mr.  Teitei- 
baum, so  therefore  his  effectiveness  was  nullified  in  settling  labor 
disputes. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  Weinberg  indicate  they  were  going  to  get  rid 
of  him  or  throw  him  to  the  wolves  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  In  conversations,  Mr.  Greenfield  was  complaining  he 
was  receiving  anonymous  calls,  and  he  was  very  upset  about  them, 
and  bitter,  and  he  blamed  Teiteibaum  and  he  said  he  got  one  par- 
ticularly bad  call.  He  wasn't  home  and  his  wife  answered  the  phone, 
and  the  wife  was  told  by  this  anonymous  caller  that  her  husband  was 
fooling  around  with  a  bunch  of  hoods  and  don't  be  surprised  if  there 
would  be  a  bomb  left  on  your  doorstep,  and  he  thought  it  was  a 
terrible  thing  for  anybody  to  pick  on  a  man's  family,  to  threaten  the 
lives  and  physical  well-being  of  their  family. 

Mr.  Greenfield  in  the  course  of  the  conversation  remarked  that  he 
would  like  to  see  somebody  kill  that  so-and-so.  Well,  after  Green- 
field left  the  office,  I  just  don't  recall  who  he  was  talking  to,  but  he 
said  that  they  had  plans  afoot. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Wlio  said  that? 

Mr.  Morris.  Pardon  me,  Weinberg  said  that  they  had  ]i]ans  afoot 
to  dispose  of  Teiteibaum.  Labriohi  Avho  at  one  time  was  employed  by 
Teiteibaum  was  seeing  him  i-eguhirly  about  this  time  and  visiting 
Teitelbaum's  office,  and  the  office  he  used  in  the  Fine  Arts  Building 
on  Michigan  Avenue  had  large  french  windows,  from  the  floor  almost 
up  to  the  ceiling,  and  the  plan  was  at  a  propitious  time  when  Teitei- 
baum happened  to  be  looking  out  the  window  to  enjoy  the  view  of 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12733 

Lake  Michigan,  Labriola  would  give  a  little  push.  lie  figured  with 
all  of  his  troubles  with  the  Government  and  tax  difficulties,  and  he 
was  having  marital  troubles  also,  that  people  might  figure  that  there 
was  a  clear  case  of  suicide,  and  he  would  get  away  with  it  that  way. 

Of  course,  I  reported  this  information  to  the  commissioner  of  the 
police. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Just  there,  were  there  any  alternative  suggestions 
made  at  that  time  if  they  didn't  push  him  out  of  the  window  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  I  just  don't  follow  you. 

iNIr.  Kennedy.  Was  there  any  alternative  suggestion  made  rather 
than  killing  him? 

Mr.  Morris.  Well  somebody  mentioned  they  would  push  acid  in 
his  girl  friend's  face  or  something  of  that  nature;  and,  like  I  said, 
we  didn't  know  whether  these  plans  were  sincere  or  whether  it  was 
a  lot  of  idle  talk.  I  reported  the  incident  to  the  commissioner  of  police, 
and  when  he  decided  we  couldn't  sit  on  information  like  that,  and  so 
he  told  me  to  contact  Teitelbaum.  I  made  it  my  business  to  meet 
him  in  an  out-of-the-way  place;  and,  when  I  told  him  about  the  in- 
formation we  had,  then  I  really  believed  there  might  be  something  to 
it  and  it  really  upset  him,  and  Mr.  Teitelbaum  actually  believed  that 
they  fully  intended  to  kill  him. 

For  about  2  or  3  months  after  that  he  became  one  of  my  particular 
responsibilities,  and  we  were  assigned  to  guard  him  and  see  that  noth- 
ing happened  to  him. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  was  it  shown  or  demonstrated  during  this 
period  of  time  that  this  group  was  backed  by  the  syndicate  in  Chicago, 
this  new  group  of  Weinberg  and  Labriola  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  Everything  that  we  saw  and  heard  pointed  to  that 
fact,  Mr.  Greenfield,  the  attorney,  before  he  accepted  the  position  as 
counsel,  wanted  to  make  sure  that  Labriola  wasn't  just  telling  him 
and  he  wanted  to  make  certain  Labriola  had  tlie  backing  of  the  right 
people. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  "Wliat  was  meant  by  "the  right  people"  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  Well,  Accardo  seemed  to  be  the  final  authority,  and 
the  fijial  say. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Tony  Accardo  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  Joe  Batters,  and  that  is  an  alias.  One  afternoon,  after 
Weinberg  and  Bernberg  returned  from  Imich,  they  told  Greenfield 
that  they  had  lunch  with  Accardo,  and  Bernberg  was  satisfied  then. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Who  was  satisfied  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  Bernberg ;  he  was  satisfied,  and  that  seemed  to  satisfy 
Mr.  Greenfield. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  They  related  the  fact  that  they  had  this  lunch  with 
Tony  Accardo  and  they  related  it  to  Greenfield.  Weinberg  and  Bern- 
berg related  it  to  Greenfield  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  they  all  seemed  satisfied  that  this  association 
had  the  backing  of  the  syndicate  in  Chicago  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  was  it  explained  as  to  how  the  syndicate  was 
going  to  operate,  and  what  the  relationship  with  the  labor  unions  was 
going  to  be  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  All  along  in  their  conversations,  they  indicated  that 
Lardin's  group  was  going  to  cooperate  with  them  and'  Blakely. 


12734  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN   THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Who  are  they  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  They  were  officers  of  the  miscellaneous  imion,  and  I 
just  don't  know  the  number  and  I  think  it  is  593.  They  fifjured  that 
by  starting  labor  trouble  Teitelbaum  would  be  called  upon  to  try  to 
smooth  it  out  and  when  he  would  fail  somebody  would  recommend 
the  new  association,  and  after  the  owner  or  the  manao;ement  of  the 
restaurant  talked  to  the  new  labor  counsel,  Mr.  Greenfield,  every- 
thing would  be  straightened  out  and  people  would  understand  then 
that  the  right  people  to  deal  with  would  be  the  new  association,  the 
Metropolitan  Restaurant  Association. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  "WHiile  you  were  conducting  your  surveillance,  did 
they  have  any  conversations  or  telephone  conversations  or  call  up 
Lardino  or  any  other  union  official  ? 

]\fr.  Morris.  Weinberg  at  times  talked  to  a  person  whom  he  iden- 
tified as  Lardino,  and  we  followed  Weinberg  and  Bernberg  on  occa- 
sions to  the  office  of  the  miscellaneous  union  over  on  Wells  Street. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  who  else  other  than  Lardino  was  mentioned 
as  playing  a  role  in  this  situation  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  Well,  the  restaurant  association  didn't  seem  to  get  off 
the  ground.  I  guess  Mr.  Teitelbaum  was  the  reason  for  it.  They 
realized  that  he  would  be  able  to  expose  Weinberg's  connection  with 
the  new  association  and  for  that  reason  Weinberg  was  told  to  sit 
tight  on  the  restaurant  association  and  to  go  ahead  and  create  more 
or  less  of  a  diversion  or  smokescreen  by  going  ahead  with  the  organi- 
zation of  the  tavern  association. 

In  doing  that,  the  setup  or  the  physical  setup  of  the  syndicate 
operation  in  Chicago  was  pointed  up.  For  instance,  Weinberg  made  it 
very  clear  that  without  the  cooperation  and  help  of  the  local  bosses 
he  couldn't  get  very  far.  Of  course,  they  had  to  be  assured  that  Wein- 
berg had  the  O.  K.  from  the  top.  For  instance,  in  trying  to  organize 
the  North  Side,  Weinberg  had  a  deal  with  Ross  Prio  and  Monk  Gal- 
lagrette  and  Joey  Ceaser,  and  those  people  were  represented. 

Now,  I  don't  recall  that  they  ever  visited  the  office,  but  a  represent- 
ative of  those  people,  I  believe,  Eddy  Sterch,  who  is  an  ex-convict 
and  has  been  in  the  42d  ward  there  for  quite  a  long  time,  visited 
Weinberg's  office  on  numerous  occasions,  and  they  talked  over  organi- 
zational problems  about  the  North  Side. 

On  the  West  Side  it  was  Tough  Tony  Capessio  and  Teets,  and 
Smokes  Alosro. 

And  on  the  South  Side  they  m.entioned  a  Bruno  Gotte,  a  person  who 
up  to  that  time  wasn't  very  well  known  and  we  found  out  later  that 
he  was  quite  an  influential  gentleman.  In  fact,  Weinberg  referred  to 
him  as  one  of  the  mustang  boys,  and  in  the  conversation  implied  he 
was  a  Mafia  member. 

INTr.  Kennedy.  Were  these  discussed  continuously,  and  the  arrange- 
ment with  them  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  Weinberg's  associates  would  drop  in,  and  Weinberg 
was  an  ex-convict  and  the  office  generally  contained  somebody  with  a 
very  unsavory  past,  and  people  whom  he  hung  with  at  one  time,  and 
thev  Avere  talking  about  deals  that  they  were  taking  up  or  planning, 
and  thei'c  was  one  amusing  incident  regarding  a  felloAv  by  the  name  of 
Joe  Lonibai-di,  an  ex-convict  who  ajijiarently  served  time  with  Wein- 
berfr.  Lombai-di  came  into  the  office  one  morning,  and  he  had  a  lx)x, 
and  in  the  box  a  vei-y  valuable  mink  coat,  a  full-length  ranch  mink  coat 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12735 

and  he  implied  to  Weinberg  and  Bernberg  and  another  party  in  there, 
whom  I  can't  recall,  that  the  coat  was  ''hot,"  stolen  merchandise. 

None  of  these  people  had  any  idea  how  to  get  rid  of  it  and  they 
referred  him  to  a  lawyer,  Xorman  Creatsy,  a  lawyer  who  had  trouble 
and  he  served  time,  and  I  think  Federal  Government  con\  icted  him  of 
a  Federal  statute.  Joe  went  over  to  Norman's  office  to  get  rid  of  the 
coat,  and  I  got  a  hold  of  a  couple  of  detectives  who  know  Joe,  and  they 
happened  to  be  out  in  the  street  when  they  came  out  with  the  coat,  and 
they  stopped  him  and  talked  to  him,  and  brought  him  in,  and  he 
admitted  that  the  coat  was  not  stolen  at  all. 

It  belonged  to  a  girl  friend  of  Mr.  Greenfield,  and  she  wanted  to  get 
rid  of  it,  and  I  suppose  they  figured  that  the  value  of  the  coat  would 
be  enhanced  by  passing  it  oil'  as  a  stolen  coat. 

Mr.  Kexxeuy.  Did  they  ever  produce  any  guns  ? 

JNIr.  MoKRis.  Lombardi  had  another  incident  where  he  had  an  auto- 
matic that  he  didn't  know  much  about  and,  in  showing  it  off,  tlie  gun 
went  off  accidentally,  and  it  created  quite  a  furor  in  the  office.  Of 
course,  they  were  afraid  that  it  might  attract  the  police,  and  they  all 
became  scared. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Was  the  name  of  "Golf  Bag"  Hunt  ever  brought  up  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  As  the  investigation  progressed,  we  learned  that  Wein- 
berg was  notliing  more  than  a  salaried  employee  of  the  association. 

Mr.  Kennedy,  Of  whom  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  Of  this  new  restaurant  association,  and  that  same 
Hunt,  same  "Golf  Bag"  Hunt,  a  more  or  less  senior  member  of  the 
syndicate  around  Chicago,  was  the  real  boss,  and  any  problems  that 
'\Veinberg  ran  into  he  would  have  to  take  them  up  with  Hunt  through 
and  from  mediary,  Ben  Warner. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Was  he  supposed  to  be  an  important  figure  in  this 
"Gold  Bag"  person  ? 

Mr.  iMoRRis.  Very  important. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  about  James  "Cowboy"  Mirro  ? 

Mr.  MoKRis.  jNIirro  was  an  associate  of  Weinberg  and  Labriola, 
another  minor  hoodlum,  who  had  a  criminal  record. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  he  visit  this  office  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  He  did  on  occasions,  yes,  but  they  wanted  to  keep 
Labriola  and  Mirro  in  the  background  as  much  as  possible.  In  fact, 
the  miscellaneous  union,  Blakely  and  Lardino  and  those  fellows  had  a 
party  at  their  office,  and  they  invited  Weinberg  and  his  associates  to 
attend  the  party,  but  in  a  discussion  in  the  office  they  decided  it  would 
be  better  for  Weinberg  to  stay  away  from  the  party.  Bernberg  and 
Greenfield  attended  the  party. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Was  Greenfield  present  and  did  he  participate  in 
these  conversations  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  On  occasion ;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Was  he  aware  of  the  nature  of  the  proceedings  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  These  things  I  have  been  mentioning  were  discussed 
in  his  presence  and  with  him.  He  wanted  to  make  certain  that  these 
fellows  had  tlie  proper  backing  from  tlie  top,  so  that  they  would 
operate  freely. 

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

21243— 58— pt.  33 16 


12736  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  could  you  be  sure  that  an  individual  was 
present  or  that  they  were  participating  in  the  conversation  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  We  could  see  who  entered  and  left  the  office,  and  we 
also  got  to  know  their  voices. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  they  start  to  move  in  on  any  of  these  restaurants, 
or  any  of  these  taverns?  Did  they  actually  put  the  plan  into 
operation  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  The  tavern  association,  yes.  They  had  some  members. 
There  was  a  case  in  Chicago,  a  tavern  down  around  25th  and  Michigan, 
the  Red  Wheel  Tavern,  I  think  was  the  name  of  the  place.  The 
licensee  was  a  gentleman  named  LaPietra,  I  think,  to  the  best  of  my 
recollection.  A  Government  agent  was  in  the  tavern  taking  part  in 
the  investigation,  the  narcotics  investigation,  and  a  shooting  occurred. 

Of  course,  the  Government  agent  had  to  identify  himself.  As  a 
result  of  the  shooting,  the  police  captain  of  the  district  recommended 
that  the  license  of  the  tavern  be  revoked,  and  it  was.  Weinberg, 
Greenfield,  and  Bernberg  decided  that  this  would  be  an  ideal  case  for 
them  to  take  up,  and  if  they  could  have  this  license  restored  it  would 
make  a  very  good  impression  on  other  tavern  owners. 

With  that  in  mind,  they  framed  a  case  against  the  Government 
agent.  They  secured  witnesses  some  place,  the  witnesses  had  visited 
the  office  two  times  that  I  know  of,  and  on  these  occasions  ]Mr.  Green- 
field and  another  attorney  by  the  name  of  Wiley,  a  friend  of  Wein- 
berg, coached  these  witnesses  in  the  story  to  tell  the  liquor  commission, 
the  story  implicating  the  agent. 

The  story  tended  to  show  that  the  agent  was  drunk,  and  that  he 
provoked  the  trouble,  and  that  he  was  posing  as  a  truckdriver,  and  he 
pulled  a  gun  and  they  had  to  defend  themselves. 

Incidentally,  all  this  information  was  passed  onto  the  proper 
authorities  at  the  time. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  is  what  I  was  going  to  ask  you.  After  each 
day,  or  after  these  conversations  took  place  and  you  learned  this 
information,  did  you  make  a  memorandum  on  it  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  We  made  records  and  written  reports  on  most  of  it. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  was  all  given  to  the  police  department? 

Mr.  Morris.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  The  memorandum  that  you  made  at  the  time  is 
available  to  you,  is  that  right? 

Mr.  Morris.  They  should  be,  yes. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  But,  I  mean,  you  have  reviewed  them,  the 
memorandums. 

Mr.  Morris.  Yes,  sir,  I  have.     I  have  not€S  on  them. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  Mr.  Duffy  was  one  of  those  who  was  working 
with  you  on  the  case  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  were  actually  conducting  some  of  the  sur- 
veillances? 

Mr.  Duffy.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  the  testimony  that  tlie  lieutenant  litis  given  is 
correct  as  you  know  it  ? 

Mr.  Duffy.  Yes,  sir,  it  is. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  wrote  some  of  the  reports  at  the  time? 

Mr.  Duffy.  I  did.     My  specific  job  was  to  compile  summary  reports. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    EST    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12737 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  these  various  individuals  that  have  been  dis- 
cussed were  actively  engaged  in  setting  up  this  association,  both  the 
restaurant  and  the  tavern,  is  that  right? 

Mr.  Duffy.  Yes,  sir.  They  were  the  top  ones,  and  are  disclosed  in 
the  various  summary  reports  of  the  officers  who  conducted  the 
investigation  at  the  time. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Chairman,  we  have  examined  those  reports 
which  the  staff  of  the  conmiittee  received  from  the  police  department. 
The  pol  ice  department  has  been  very  cooperative. 

Did  they  start  out  to  make  an  approach  to  any  of  these  restaurants? 
Would  you  tell  the  committee  what  happened  about  that? 

Senator  IMundt.  Mr.  Cliairman,  you  left  us  in  the  middle  of  a 
"Wliodimit."  I  would  like  to  see  if  they  succeeded  in  framing  the 
•Government  agent  or  succeeded  in  getting  the  license  restored. 

Mr.  MoRius.  Xo.  As  I  mentioned,  Senator,  we  reported  the  infor- 
mation to  the  proper  authorities,  and  the  license  was  not  restored. 
The  Government  agent  was  cleared. 

Senator  MuNDT.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  I\JENNEDY.  A\'hat  I  was  asking  was:  When  they  started  to  go 
out,  did  Weinberg  or  Labriola  start  to  use  some  of  the  big  boys'  names 
and  get  into  difficulty  ? 

Mr.  jMorris.  I  told  you  that  we  learned  through  Weinberg  that  Hunt 
was  actually  the  boss,  but  Hunt  insisted  that  his  name  be  kept  out 
•of  it.  If  Labriola  had  any  trouble  he  was  not  to  contact  Hunt  or 
mention  Hunt's  name  in  any  manner,  but  to  contact  the  Ben  Warner, 
•who  was  more  or  less  of  a  lieutenant  or  a  messenger  for  Hunt.  In  deal- 
ing witli  Bruno  Roti,  on  the  South  Side,  however,  Hunt,  in  an  effort  to 
impress  Roti,  I  imagine — or,  rather,  Weinberg  in  an  effort  to  impress 
Roti  did  mention  that  Hunt  was  the  boss,  that  he  was  behind  all  of 
this. 

That  so  infuriated  Hunt  that  Weinberg  was  in  real  hot  water.  I 
think  it  had  a  lot  to  do  with  the  failure  of  their  operation. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Was  it  afterward  discussed  as  to  whether  they  were 
in  hot  water  or  not  ? 

Mr.  ]MoRRis.  Yes.  In  fact,  Greenfield  thought  it  was  the  end  of  the 
■association.  He  made  that  remark  on  occasion.  Then,  too,  these  fel- 
lows had  internal  trouble.  They  were  not  getting  along  among  them- 
selves. We  made  every  effort  we  could  to  keep  them  from  becoming 
too  strong. 

For  instance,  in  the  tavern  association  deal,  there  are,  and  at  that 
time  there  were,  a  number  of  other  tavern  associations  around  the 
Chicago  area,  some  of  them  that  were  organized  on  real  sound  prin- 
ciples, and  for  the  benefit  of  everybody  concerned,  with  no  protection 
racket  or  any  other  kind  of  a  racket  involved. 

Where  we  knew  this  to  be  a  fact — you  see,  this  Federated  Liquor 
Dealer  joined  an  association  of  taverns.  Their  idea  was  to  get  into 
the  association  and  by  rigging  an  election  gain  control  of  the  council 
of  the  association.  So  where  we  thought  it  was  prudent,  we  talked 
to  people  we  thought  we  could  trust,  told  them  the  background  of  the 
federated  association,  and  in  most  instances  we  were  able  to  prevent 
Weinberg  and  his  cohorts  from  getting  very  far. 

Of  course,  sometimes  it  backfired.  On  1  or  2  occasions  we  told  the 
wrong  people  and  the  information  got  back  to  Weinberg  and  Green- 
field ;  in  fact,  I  received  a  telephone  call  from  Mr.  Greenfield  in  which 


12738  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

he  threatened  to  brmg  some  kmd  of  legal  action  against  me  because 
I  was  maligning  his  character. 

Someone  who  I  talked  to  had  told  him  just  what  I  had  told  them. 
They  never  had  any  idea  that  we  were  as  close  as  we  were.  Thej^  didn't 
know  that  we  knew  their  activities. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  ultimately  happened  with  the  association  in 
their  attempts  to  organize  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  They  left  the  offices  at  10  North  Clark. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Why  did  they  do  that  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  Well,  they  had  failed. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Why  had  they  failed  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  Because  of  our  harassment  and  the  internal  trouble. 
Bernberg  realized — Bernberg  is  not  the  criminal  type.  You  see,  he 
is  just  a  smart  guy  that  thought  he  had  a  chance  to  make  some  money. 
He  is  not,  in  my  opinion,  the  criminal  type,  he  is  just  a  fellow,  an 
opportunist  looking  for  an  easy  buck.  He  fell  out  with  Weinberg. 
Greenfield  also  fell  out  with  Weinberg  and  Bernberg. 

Weinberg  and  Labriola  moved  out  to  the  county,  out  to  Elmhurst, 
I  think  it  was;  Elmwood  Park.  They  formed  another  association 
which  operated  out  in  the  country.  Of  course,  that  was  out  of  our 
jurisdiction. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  The  same  kind  of  operation  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  That  is  right.  They  apparently  had  some  kind  of 
success  out  there.  They  became  important  enough  to  get  killed.  They 
were  both  found  dead. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  were  they  killed  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  They  were  poisoned.  It  is  a  new  wrinkle  in  gang 
killing. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  did  you  find  them  ?     Wliere  were  they  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  They  were  dumped.  They  were  placed  in  the  trunk  of 
an  automobile  and  dumped  in  one  of  the  districts  on  the  far  North- 
west Side. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Both  of  them  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  Both  in  the  trunk  of  an  automobile. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Then  in  the  course  of  the  conversation  there,  did 
they  say  that  there  were  disputes  going  on  amongst  the  syndicate  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  We  learned  in  listening  to  Weinberg  talk  to  the  repre- 
sentatives of  different  factors  of  the  city  that  there  was  apparently 
some  internal  dissension  in  the  syndicate.  They  talked  particularly 
about  a  group  that  they  identified  as  the  "Young  Bloods,"  who  were 
not  satisfied  with  what  they  were  getting. 

They  said  "These  old  fellows,"  meaning,  I  suppose,  Accardo,  Guzik, 
Prio,  some  of  the  old  established  hoods,  had  things  pretty  well 
wrapped  up ;  they  didn't  want  any  violence  because  it  brought  a  lot 
of  heat  on  their  operations.  They  were  hoping  that  some  kind  of 
trouble  would  flai'e  up  among  the  gang  cliieftains  and  they  wouhl  kill 
each  other  oil",  so  it  would  make  it  better  foi-  the  youngei'  follows.  The 
Young  Bloods  in  j)artieular  were  supposed  to  be  responsible  for  a  lot 
of  violence. 

Tliere  was  a  Negro  policy  operator,  an  independent  policy  operator 
on  the  South  Side.     His  name  Avas  Hoe. 

An  attempt  was  made  to  kidnap  him.  In  the  attempt,  Marshall 
Caifano's  brother,  a  person  known  as  "Fat  Lenny"  Caifano,  was  killed 
either  by  Roc  or  somebody  with  Koe. 


IIMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12739 

Shortly  after,  all  within  a  matter  of  months,  Roe  was  killed.  Ac- 
cording to  the  conversations  we  had  heard  Weinberg  and  his  asso- 
ciates taking  part  in,  the  Young  Bloods,  that  is,  Marsliall  Caifano, 
"Teets"  Bataglia,  "Smokes"  Solosio,  were  responsible  for  the  Roe 
killing,  and  the  higher  authorities,  the  older  fellows  in  the  outfit,  did 
not  like  that  at  all.     They  did  not  like  that  violence. 

Mr.  Kexnedt.  Was  "Mooney"  Giancana  also  one  of  them? 

Mr.  Morris.  He  was  another  one.     I  omitted  his  name. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  He  was  considered  amongst  the  Young  Bloods? 

Mr.  Morris.  He  is  considered  now  next  to  Accardo. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Specifically,  do  you  have  memoranda  showing  the 
conversations  that  took  place  while  Robert  Greenfield  was  present? 
Were  there  a  number  of  conversations  about  these  activities  while 
Greenfield  himself  was  present? 

jNIr.  Morris.  Yes.  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Could  you  just  give  us  some  examples  of  that? 

He  is  going  to  be  a  witness,  I  expect,  this  afternoon.  In  the 
informal  interviews,  he  has  denied  everything  to  do  with  this,  as  far 
as  these  names  being  discussed.  I  want  to  find  out  whether  your 
memoranda  show  to  the  contrary.  I  think  you  testified  that  he  would 
take  the  position,  as  labor  consultant  for  this  group,  until  he  had 
assurance  that  the  group  was  backed  by  the  syndicate  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  that  he  was  told  about  the  dinner  with  Accardo, 
the  contact  that  was  made  with  Accardo? 

Mr.  IMoRRis.  That  is  right.  This  is  an  excerpt  from  one  of  the 
reports — 

Prior  to  Greenfield  accepting  the  position  as  labor  counsel  for  these  associations, 
Greenfield  was  anxious  to  learn  whether  Weinberg  had  ti  e  proper  connections 
with  the  underworld  elements,  and  Weinberg  assured  Greenfield  that  the  neces- 
sary arrangements  had  been  made  with  the  proper  people. 

On  one  occasion,  on  returning  from  lunch,  Weinberg  and  Bernberg  informed 
Greenfield  that  they  had  dined  with  Tony  Accardo,  who  had  given  them  the 
official  go-ahead. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Were  there  occasions  where  Weinberg  was  heard  to 
caution  Greenfield  and  Bernberg  never  to  mention  the  names  of  certain 
individuals  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Amongst  whom  were  Labriola  and 

Mr.  Morris.  Tony  Mirro. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  James  Cowboy  Mirro? 

Mr.  Morris.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  it  was  Greenfield  that  reported  about  the  threats 
to  his  wife? 

Mr,  Morris.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  was  Teitelbaum  present  when  it  was  discussed 
as  to  how  they  were  killed  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  I  don't  think  he  was ;  no.  I  don't  think  he  was  present 
when  the  fact  that  Labriola  had  intended  to  push  liim  out  the  window. 
Greenfield  was  not  present  on  that  occasion. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Was  he  present  when  it  was  discussed  about  taking 
over  the  tavern  associations,  the  other  rival  tavern  associations? 

Mr.  ^loRRis.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Ivennedy.  "Wlio  else  was  present  during  that  conversation  ? 


12740  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Morris.  Bemberg  and  a  fellow  by  the  name  of  Bartolo.  Bar- 
tolo,  I  think,  was  head  of  another  association,  a  liquor  association. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  how  did  they  say  they  were  going  to  do  it? 

Mr.  Morris.  By  joining  the  council  of  associations  and  rigging  an 
election  and  getting  their  own  people  at  the  head  of  all  these  associa- 
tions, and  thereby  taking  it  all  over. 

Mr,  Kennedy.  And  was  Greenfield  then  going  to  be  installed  as 
the  counsel  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  That  is  right.  He  would  be  the  general  counsel  for  all 
of  the  associations. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  Bernberg  was  also  to  have  a  position  with  that 
group  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  He  was  going  to  have  the  position  of  what  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  His  position  was,  I  think,  the  same,  as  general  man- 
ager or- 


Mr.  KJENNEDY.  Executive  director? 

Mr.  Morris.  Executive  director,  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  Greenfield  was  one  of  those  that  participated 
in  coaching  these  witnesses  in  order  to  frame  the  Government  agent  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  So  Greenfield  played  a  prominent  role? 

Mr.  Morris.  A  very,  very,  very  important  role ;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  knew  everything  that  was  going  on  in  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  syndicate  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  said  you  did  not  feel  that  Bernberg  was  closely 
involved  with  these  kinds  of  people,  but  was  he  also  aware  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  He  knew  what  was  going  on.  He  did  not  hesitate  at 
all  to  deal  with  anybody.  In  fact,  he  was  just  as  anxious  as  anybody 
to  have  the  right  backing. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Was  he  actually  present  when  Ross  Prio,  when  there 
was  discussion  about  Ross  Prio  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  Yes ;  I  think  when  Eddie  Sturch  was  there,  Bernberg 
was  present. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  There  is  a  notation  here  of  a  meeting  with  Ross  Prio 
at  which  Weinberg  and  Greenberg  were  present,  and  he  insisted  that 
if  he  came  into  the  deal,  he  would  insist  on  placing  one  of  his  men 
in  Weinberg's  office. 

Mr.  Morris.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  So  Prio  also  was  well  aware  of  the  whole  arrange- 
ment? 

Mr.  Morris.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  It  was  indicated  that  some  of  these  young  bloods, 
Caifono  and  this  other  group,  were  also  aware  of  what  was  going  on 
in  these  various  areas  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  They  would  have  to  be,  if  they  hoped  to  get  any  place 
with  any  kind  of  an  association,  in  their  territory.  They  would  have 
to  be  in  on  it. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  specifically  "Teets"  Bataglia  was  aware  of  it, 
because  he  was  holding  the  situation  up  on  the  West  Side  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  That  is  right. 

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


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12741 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Are  there  any  other  parts  of  this  that  we  should 
cover  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  No;  I  think  as  far  as  the  information  we  covered,  it 
encompasses  about  all  I  know  of  this  particular  incident,  or  this  effort 
on  their  part  to  form  a  new  association. 

The  Ciiair:m^\n.  Just  by  way  of  information,  are  any  of  these  mur- 
ders referred  to  solved  ? 

Has  anyone  been  convicted  or  punished  for  them  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  Tlie  murders  for  Weinberg  and  Labriola  have  never 
been  solved ;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  All  right. 

Senator  JMundt.  From  your  background  of  contacts  in  this  whole 
operation  and  what  you  heard  and  saw  and  what  you  learned,  what 
would  you  say  was  the  motivating  factor  that  induced  these  fellows  to 
try  to  form  this  new  restaurant  association  ?  Were  they  going  to  shake 
down  the  restaurant  people? 

Were  they  going  to  shake  down  the  union  ?  Were  they  going  to  be 
in  collusion  with  either  the  union  or  management? 

What  was  the  overall  target  that  they  had  in  mind  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  From  what  we  learned,  Senator,  they  would  have  to 
have  the  cooperation  of  the  union  to  operate. 

Senator  ]\Iundt.  They  would  have  to  have  that? 

Mr.  Morris.  That  is  right. 

Senator  Mundt.  And  what  were  they  going  to  do  ?  Were  they  going 
to  go  into  collusion,  then,  with  disreputable  union  officials,  I  presume? 
Were  they  going  to  shake  down  the  employees,  or  were  they  going  to 
shake  down  the  restaurant  owners  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  I  imagine  the  same  principle  on  which  the  other  as- 
soication  operated.  There  would  be  funds  available  for  labor  relations 
work.  If  a  person  had  labor  trouble,  it  could  be  settled  if  you  talked  to 
the  right  people. 

Senator  Mundt.  Was  it  a  racket  established  on  the  basis  that  they 
would  be  sure  that  there  would  be  labor  troubles  that  needed  to  be 
settled  ?  Were  they  going  to  use  the  union  contacts  to  create  the  labor 
difficulties  artificially,  and  then  go  to  the  owner  of  the  restaurant  and 
say  "Look,  Brother,  you  are  in  trouble,  and  we  can  get  you  out."  Is 
that  what  they  were  going  to  do? 

Mr.  Morris.  That  was  the  original  idea,  to  gain  attention  and  sup- 
port from  individual  managements. 

To  promote  trouble.  Teitelbaum  would  not  be  able  to  settle  it, 
but  they  would.  That  would  hurt  Teitelbaum's  prestige  and  build 
them  up. 

Senator  Mundt.  Was  Teitelbaum's  outfit  operating  on  the  selfsame 
formula?  Did  they  have  contacts  also  with  union  officials  where  they 
went  out  and  created  trouble  and  then  found  an  answer  to  their 
trouble,  collected  some  money,  and  created  more  trouble,  so  you  have 
sort  of  a  self -perpetuating  mechanism  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  I  couldn't  speak  with  any  degree  of  authority  about 
Teitelbaum  and  the  Chicago  Restaurant  Association.  Teitelbaum  was 
about  out  of  the  picture  when  I  came  into  it. 

Senator  Mundt.  I  see. 

But  this  was  nothing  more  or  less  than  a  shakedown  racket  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  A  protection  racket,  I  think,  would  be  the  best  way 
to  describe  it. 


12742  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Senator  Mundt.  Define  what  you  mean  by  a  protection  racket. 

Mr.  Morris.  Well,  a  person  could  conduct  his  business  if  he  belonged 
to  the  right  association  without  any  fear  of  union  trouble  or  any  other 
type  of  violence. 

Senator  Mundt.  But  apparently  the  union  trouble  that  you  are 
talking  about  was  the  union  trouble  that  was  inspired  by  the  people 
who  were  supposed  to  fix  it  up. 

Mr.  Morris.  To  gain  recognition,  originally,  that  was  the  plan.  But 
after  that,  after  they  got  enough  members,  I  suppose  they  would  take 
care  of  routine  labor  troubles  that  might  arise. 

Of  course,  their  members  would  have  to  pay  the  regular  dues  to 
keep  them  going. 

Senator  Mundt.  What  motivation  was  there  for  the  disreputable 
union  officials  ? 

Did  they  get  cut  in  on  the  take  from  this  racket  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  Well,  I  suppose.  I  don't  know,  not  having — I  never 
got  a  chance  to  listen  in  on  the  union  officials,  like  we  did  AYeinberg 
and  his  group. 

Senator  Mundt.  I  mean,  there  would  have  to  be  motivation  from 
them. 

Mr.  Morris.  But  from  the  experience  in  other  fields,  the  prime 
motive  seems  to  be  money.    They  don't  do  anything  for  nothing. 

Senator  Mundt.  You  are  a  pretty  wise  old  law-enforcement  official, 
and  you  certainly  did  a  fine  job  of  penetrating  this  apparatus.  If  you 
were  going  to  put  on  your  hat  now  as  a  lobbyist  instead  of  a  detective, 
how  would  you  suggest  that  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  act  or 
legislate  to  make  less  likely  the  kind  of  racket  that  your  investigation 
helped  to  solve  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  To  be  perfectly  frank.  Senator,  I  think  that  question 
is  entirely  out  of  my  field.  It  involves  labor  and  management.  I  do 
not  profess  any  knowledge  or  enough  knowledge  to  even  attempt 
to 

Senator  Mundt.  We  have  to  find  a  better  answer.  After  all  of  your 
diligence  and  hard  work,  about  all  you  succeeded  in  doing  was  driving 
them  out  of  the  jurisdiction  in  which  you  had  competency,  over  into 
the  county  jurisdiction. 

Mr.  Morris.  I  think  we  performed  a  very  useful  police  function. 
We  prevented  a  lot  of  crime. 

Senator  Mundt.  I  do,  too;  after  all,  you  got  them  out  of  the  city 
and  got  them  into  the  county.  There  are  fewer  people  in  tlie  county 
so  fewer  people  got  hurt.  That  isn't  the  ultimate  answer.  I  am  trying 
to  find  something  that  is  a  little  more  successful  than  to  just  make 
gypsies  out  of  the  racketeers. 

Mr.  Morris.  I  couldn't  advise  you  on  it. 

Senator  Mundt.  How  about  you,  Mr.  Duffy,  have  you  any  ideas  ? 

Mr.  Duffy.  No,  sir.     I  am  in  agreement  with  the  lieutenants. 

Senator  Mundt.  Well,  we  find  mobsters,  Avho  are  naturalized  citi- 
zens, creating  crimes.  AVliy  don't  we  deport  them  ?  Something  hap- 
pens. We  find  out  that  you  have  a  racket  of  this  kind,  and  when  it  is 
exposed,  what  do  we  do  to  correct  it  ?  I  am  interested,  as  you  are,  to 
cure  this. 

I  recognize  this  is  out  of  your  field.  You  have  done  a  fine  job  in  the 
field  in  which  you  do  work.  However,  I  thought  that  maybe  you 
could  think  of  some  scheme  that  the  Congress  could  legislate  on.    We 


IMPROPER    ACTnaTIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12743 

are  a  legislative  body.  "We  are  going  to  run  out  of  money  and  out  of 
investigators  after  a  while  from  exposing  these  things.  We  have  to 
think  of  some  kind  of  legislation  to  stop  this. 

Mr.  Morris.  If  I  think  of  anything,  I  will  be  happy  to  let  you  know, 
Senator. 

Senator  Mundt,  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  I  believe  you  wrote  a  summary  of  what  you  felt  in 
conclusion. 

Mr.  Morris.  I  didn't  write  it.   In  fact.  Detective  Duffy  did. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Would  you  read  what  you  wrote  about  it  at  the 
time? 

Mr.  Morris.  I  think  it  sums  it  up  very  well. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Do  you  agree  with  what  it  states  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  I  certainly  do. 

Mr.  Duffy.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Morris.  Would  you  read  that  ? 

Mr.  Duffy.  Yes,  sir. 

In  conclusion,  it  might  be  well  to  note  that  it  is  quite  evident  that  these  associa- 
tions were  instigated  by  the  underworld  elements  to  act  in  collusion  with  the 
union  and  that  the  ultimate  intention  of  these  associations  was  to  seize  control 
of  the  liquor  industry. 

The  overall  plan  was  to  eventually  take  over  the  wholesalers  and  distributors' 
associations  and  to  form  a  statewide  association  representing  all  levels  of  the 
industry.  Once  this  was  accomplished,  it  would  then  be  possible  to  extort  a  cer- 
tain percentage  of  every  barrel  and  case  of  beer  distributed  in  the  State. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  wrote  that,  did  you  ? 

Mr.  Duffy.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  When  was  that  written  ?    How  long  ago  ? 

Mr.  Duffy.  In  1953. 

The  Chairman.  1953. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Could  you  just  tell  us  as  a  general  situation,  then 
is  this  modus  operandi  that  you  feel  is  followed  by  some  of  these 
racketeers  and  gangsters,  that  this  is  way  that  they  operate? 

Mr.  Morris.  Well,  it  was  in  this  instance. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  From  your  experience  with  them,  would  this  be  the 
way  that  they  would  try  to  take  over  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  That  is  right,  there  is  no  independent  operation.  If 
they  operate  as  a  syndicate  unit,  they  have  to  have  the  O.  K.  from 
the  proper  source. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  they  move  in  on  these  associations  and  make 
a  collusive  arrangement  with  the  labor  union;  is  that  part  of  the 
operation  ? 

Mr.  JMoRRis.  In  my  experience  in  these  kind  of  investigations,  it 
has  been,  Mr.  Kennedy. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  So  you  were  able  to  get  a  good  example  or  a  close 
look  at  operations  such  as  this  while  it  was  actually  going  on,  and 
you  were  able  to  move  in  and  break  it  up.  You  are  no  longer  with  the 
intelligence  section  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  long  have  you  been  gone  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  The  unit  was  disbanded  in  the  early  part  of  1955. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  you  have  not  been  working  in  that  ? 

Mr.  IMoRRis.  No.  I  have  another  investigation  equally  tough;  the 
murder  of  the  three  boys  whose  bodies  were  found  outside  of  Chicago 
in  1955. 


12744  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Do  you  think  that  an  intelligence  division  such  as 
you  were  operating  is  a  helpful  organization  in  a  city  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  I  don't  see  how  a  police  department  could  operate  ef- 
ficiently without  it. 

Senator  Mundt.  Is  wiretapping  legal  in  Chicago  ? 

Mr.  MoRRi§.  I  didn't  get  the  question. 

Senator  Mundt.  Is  wiretapping  legal  in  Illinois  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  No,  sir.  Now  it  is  illegal  in  Illinois  now  to  record  any 
type  of  conversation  unless  the  person  whose  voice  is  being  recorded 
agrees  to  it. 

Senator  Mundt.  Do  you  think  it  would  be  helpful  in  law  enforce- 
ment if  proper  law  enforcement  officials  were  given  the  right  to  en- 
gage in  wiretapping  and  to  produce  it  as  evidence  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  I  think  it  would  be  very  beneficial  to  law  enforcement 
officers.  Law  enforcement  officers  never  attempt  to  injure  innocent 
people.  Innocent  people  have  nothing  to  hide.  With  this  new  law 
that  was  passed  by  the  last  legislature,  it  deals  with  electronic  listen- 
ing devices.  It  is  illegal  to  record  any  type  of  conversation,  unless 
the  person  whose  voice  is  being  recorded  permits  it.  I  had  a  case 
not  too  long  ago  where  a  woman  was  being  extorted.  She  had  paid 
off  a  certain  amount  and  the  extortioner  was  coming  back  for  more. 
She  lived  in  a  very  small  apartment  where  it  was  impossible  to  put 
somebody  into  the  apartment  to  overhear  the  conversation  of  the 
extortionist. 

We  could  not  use  a  recorder  to  record  his  voice  for  evidence  pur- 
poses, because  it  was  a  violation  of  the  law. 

Senator  Mundt.  On  that  point,  it  seems  to  me  that  this  trying  to 
exterminate  these  rackets  that  we  are  talking  about,  that  if  properly 
identified,  authorized  representatives  of  the  law  could  collect  this 
evidence,  which  you  can  collect,  but  could  use  it  in  court,  that  it  would 
be  a  big  step  in  protecting  the  public. 

Mr.  Morris.  Absolutely. 

Senator  Mundt.  In  saying  that,  I  am  not  trying  to  legalize  wire- 
tapping by  congressional  committees.   That  would  be  bad. 

Senator  Ervin.  Lieutenant,  have  you  ever  thought  that  the  human 
mind  works  in  a  peculiar  way  on  these  things  ?  For  example,  under 
the  law,  if  you  can  listen  with  your  ear  and  hear  something  with  your 
ear,  that  is  admissible  in  court.  But  if  you  hear  something  by  means 
of  an  instrument,  that  is  inadmissible.  If  one  of  them  is  so  bad,  why 
isn't  the  other  so  bad  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  That  is  what  I  can't  figure  out.  It  is  the  same  as  using 
fieldgl asses  to  improve  your  vision. 

Senator  Ervin.  The  human  mind  works  in  wonderful  ways.  It  is 
wrong  to  kill  a  man  with  poisonous  gas  but  it  is  all  right  to  kill  him 
with  a  blockbuster  or  kill  him  with  a  bayonet.  We  have  very  good 
people  who  get  so  solicitous  about  tlie  rights  of  privacy  that  they  are 
against  these  laws  of  wiretapping. 

But  it  has  never  occuiTed  to  them  that  there  is  really  no  funda- 
mental difference  between  wiretapping  with  an  instrument  and  hearing 
it  with  your  ear. 

One  is  perfectly  all  right  and  the  other  is  all  wrong. 

Mr.  Morris.  That  is  right. 

Senator  Mundt.  Actually,  Senator,  wouldn't  it  seem  to  you  as  it 
would  to  me,  that  between  the  two,  even  the  crook  who  has  been  con- 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12745 

victed  by  his  own  wiretap  would  be  safer  than  if  someone  could  frame 
him  and  say  that  he  heard  it  over  his  ear  ? 

Senator  Ervin.  That  is  right.  The  use  of  the  instrument  would 
minimize  the  danger  of  not  getting  an  accurate  recording. 

Senator  Mundt.  Precisely. 

The  Chairman.  Is  there  anything  further  ? 

Senator  Mundt.  JSIy  address  is  248  Senate  Office  Building,  if  you 
decide  to  write  me  your  suggestions. 

Mr.  Morris.  I  will,  sir. 

Mr,  Kennedy.  I  would  like  to  say  that  the  lieutenant  has  been  most 
helpful  in  the  course  of  this  investigation  in  Chicago,  and  Mr.  Duffy, 
also. 

We  are  very  appreciative  of  the  assistance  you  have  given,  as  well 
as  the  rest  of  the  Chicago  Police  Department. 

Mr.  Morris.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Greenfield  is  the  next  witness. 

The  Chairman,  Be  sworn,  please. 

Do  you  solemnly  swear  the  evidence  you  shall  give  before  this  Sen 
ate  committee  shall  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the 
truth,  so  help  you  God  ? 

Mr,  Greenfield.  I  do. 

TESTIMONY  OF  ROBERT  S.  GREENFIELD,  ACCOMPANIED  BY 
COUNSEL,  STANFORD  CLINTON 

Mr.  Clinton,  Mr.  Chairman,  at  the  proper  time  I  would  like  to 
make  a  very  brief  statement. 

The  Chairman.  All  right. 

Mr.  Greenfield,  will  you  state  your  name,  your  place  of  residence, 
and  3'our  business  or  occupation  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Robert  S.  Greenfield,  9  East  Huron  Street,  attor- 
ney specializing  in  insurance. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  counsel  present  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Yes ;  I  do. 

The  Chairman.  Identify  yourself  for  the  record,  Mr.  Counsel. 

Mr.  Clinton.  My  name  is  Stanford  Clinton.  I  am  an  attorney  at 
law,  licensed  to  practice  in  the  State  of  Illinois.  My  office  is  in  Chi- 
cago, 111. 

The  Chairman.  I  believe  you  said  you  had  a  brief  statement  you 
wished  to  make  ? 

Mr.  Clinton,  Yes,  Mr,  Chairman,  I  do.  INIay  I  say  immediately 
that  this  witness  will  respond  fully  and  responsively  to  the  questions  of 
the  committee  and  its  distinguished  counsel.  However,  as  a  matter  of 
fairness,  I  want  to  say  at  the  very  beginning  that  it  would  be,  I  think, 
a  very  simple  thing  to  demonstrate  to  any  reasonable  group  of  men 
that  Lieutenant  Morris,  who  preceded  Mr.  Greenfield  on  the  stand,  is 
utterly  incapable  of  belief  on  the  stand. 

The  Chairman.  Utterly  what  ? 

Mr.  Clinton,  He  is  not  worthy  of  credit  on  the  stand. 

The  Chairman,  Just  a  moment  now.     Just  a  moment, 

Mr,  Clinton,  He  said 

The  Chairman,  "Wait  a  minute.  That  may  be  your  opinion  of  it, 
and  you  are  entitled  to  judge  him  as  you  care  to, 

Mr,  Clinton.  That  is  right. 


12746  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

The  Chairman.  But  that  is  not  a  proper  statement  for  counsel  to 
make  here. 

Mr.  Clinton.  May  I  just  add  two  other  things  and  I  will  depart 
from  it. 

Mr.  Greenfield  earned,  may  I  say,  the  enmity  of  Lieutenant  Morris 
because  of  his  activities  in  obtaining  passage  in  the  State  of  Illinois 

of  legislation  which 

Senator  Ervin.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  respectfully  suggest  that  the  coun- 
sel is  testifying  rather  than  raising  any  legal  question. 

Mr.  Clinton.  This  man  has  been  very  badly  attacked  on  the  stand, 
Senator. 

Senator  Ervin.  I  don't  believe,  Mr.  Chairman,  it  is  the  function  of 
counsel  to  testify. 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair  has  so  ruled.  Counsel,  I  am  sure,  recog- 
nizes the  impropriety  of  such  statements.  I  want  to  be  tolerant  and 
understanding.  The  witness  himself  is  a  lawyer.  The  witness  can 
testify  himself  as  to  any  motive  he  may  think  that  the  lieutenant  may 
have  had  for  his  testimony. 

If  he  disagrees  with  it  and  says  it  is  not  rue,  he  may  very  well  state 
his  reasons  for  such  belief.  But  those  reasons  and  any  comment  in 
that  regard,  so  far  as  this  record  is  concerned,  should  be  made  under 
oath.  If  counsel  wants  to  give  out  a  statement  to  the  press,  or  if  he 
wants  to  make  a  radio  speech  or  something  else  to  talk  about  it,  that 
would  be  quite  all  right.  It  is  quite  different  from  a  recording  of  such 
views  in  a  hearing  like  this. 

The  witness  will  testify,  and  we  will  observe  his  testimony.  If 
there  is  any  place,  any  point,  where  he  wishes  to  make  an  expression  of 
opinion  as  to  any  testimony  that  was  given  against  him  that  he  may 
regard  as  derogatory,  if  he  feels  that  there  was  some  reason  for  such 
derogatory  testimony,  some  ulterior  motive  in  the  giving  of  such 
testimony,  he  can  speak  for  himself.     He  will  be  speaking  under  oath. 

Mr.  Clinton.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  then  hand  you,  so  that  it  will, 
I  think,  make  his  testimony  more  understandable,  an  exhibit  which 
contains  an  editorial  in  the  Chicago  Daily  Sun-Times  of  Monday, 
February  9, 1953, 1  have  six  copies  of  the  document. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  hand  it  to  the  Chair  for  the  committee's 
inspection  and  observation.  What  you  pass  to  the  Chair  is  not  testi- 
mony, nor  is  it  an  exhibit.  It  is  simply  a  matter  for  the  committee's 
information  at  present. 

Proceed. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Greenfield,  you  have  been  an  attorney  for  how 
long? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  About  25  years. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  you  are  licensed  to  practice  in  Illinois  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Since  October  1933. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  do  you  do  now  ?     For  whom  do  you  work  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  am  associated  in  the  insurance  field. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  With  whom  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Mr.  Allan  Dorfman. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Allan  Dorfman  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Yes. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  do  you  do  for  Allan  Dorfman  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  handle  the  State  analysis  business  insurance, 
corporation  insurance. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12747 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  long  have  you  been  associated  with  him  ? 
Mr.  Greenfield.  Four  years. 

Mr.   Kennedy.  Plave  you  ever  been  associated  with  Mr.  James 
Weinberg  or  Paul  "Needlenose''  Labriola? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  No,  I  have  not. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Do  you  know  either  one  of  those  gentlemen? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Yes. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Which  one  do  you  know  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  know  Mr.  Weinberg  and  I  met  Labriola  once. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Have  you  ever  had  any  dealings  with  them  whatso- 
ever ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Xot  in  the  sense  that  you  are  asking  the  question. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  have  any  dealings  whatsoever! 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Not  in  tlie  sense  that  you  are  asking  the  question. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  "Wliat  sense  do  you  think  I  am  asking  the  question  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  In  the  sense  that  I  was  associated  with  them  in 
any  common  economic  enterprise. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Were  you  associated  with  them  in  any  kind  of  an 
enterprise  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  No, 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  never  were  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  No. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  never  had  any  common  interest  of  any  kind? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  No,  I  did  not. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  never  associated  with  them  in  any  restaurant 
association,  or  in  any  liquor  association,  tavern  association? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  never  associated  with  them  in  any  restaurant 
association. 

]\Ir.  Kennedy.  You  never  associated  with  them  in  any  tavern  asso- 
ciation ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  was  associated  with  Nate  Bemberg  in  the 
Tavern  Association. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  But  not  with  Weinberg  or  Labriola  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  They  injected  themselves  into  the  picture. 

Mr.  Ivennedy.  What  did  they  do  when  they  injected  themselves? 
Describe  it. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  They  succeeded  in  wrecking  the  association. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Were  you  opposed  to  them  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  certainly  was. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  tried  to  keep  them  out  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  In  a  manner  of  speaking,  I  tried  very  much  to 
keep  them  out,  enough  to  be  threatened  with  my  life. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  "WHien  they  become  associated  with  the  association, 
did  you  withdraw? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Not  immediately. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  stayed  with  it  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  was  there  in  the  entire  deal  for  about  10  weeks. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  were  they  able  to  get  into  the  association  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  don't  know  how  they  got  in.  Mr.  Bernberg  had 
known  ]\Ir.  Weinberg  ever  since  they  were  boys.  Mr.  Weinberg  used 
to  hang  around  the  office.  Mr.  Weinberg  is  what  is  known  in  the 
vernacular  as  a  two-bit  bum,  not  any  great  big  syndicate  leader  in  that 
sense. 

I  mean  to  my  observation. 


12748  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    EST   THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Kennedy.  When  they  started  to  come  in  and  become  interested 
in  your  association,  you  tried  to  withdraw ;  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  first  wanted  to  find  out  who  was  threatening  my 
family. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  you  stayed  around  the  association  to  find  that 
out? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  No;  I  didn't  just  stay  around  the  association  to 
find  that  out ;  it  was  very  important  to  find  out  who  was  calling  up  a 
10-year-old  girl  and  telling  her  they  were  going  to  kill  her. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Who  did  you  think  it  was  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  thought  it  was  some  of  the  hoodlums. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Why  did  you  think  it  would  be  hoodlums  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Because  they  knew  that  I  was  opposed  basically 
to  any  injection  of  any  syndicate  or  hoodlum  elements. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Who  was  they  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Weinberg. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  I  don't  understand.  Wliy  did  you  have  to  stay 
around  and  work  with  Weinberg  to  find  that  out  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  didn't  work  with  Weinberg. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Why  did  you  have  to  stay  around  then  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  wanted  to  find  where  the  calls  were  coming 
from. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  were  you  going  to  find  that  out  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  figured  in  time  somebody  would  drop  something 
and  I  would  find  out. 

I  have  a  report  here ;  would  you  like  to  read  it  ?  It  is  not  by  me.  It 
is  by  the  police. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  I  just  want  to  ask  you  questions. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Then  ask  questions. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  According  to  the  information  that  has  come  to  the 
committee,  before  you  even  became  associated  with  the  Tavern  Asso- 
ciation, you  wanted  to  make  sure  it  was  backed  by  the  syndicate;  is 
that  correct? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  That  is  not  correct. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  say  that  testimony  is  false ;  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield,  That  testimony  is  semif  alse. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  is  it  correct  and  how  is  it  false  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  received  a  call  on  January  5,  1953,  at  my  home. 
That  is,  my  wife  received  a  call.  I  first  met  these  people,  when  I  got 
involved  with  the  association,  2  weeks  previously.  In  this  call,  my 
wife  was  told  that  if  I  did  not  stop  interfering,  I  would  be  found 
dead  in  the  back  of  a  trunk. 

That  same  call  came  that  night  and  it  was  told  to  my  10-year-old 
daughter  at  that  time.  I  reported  this  incident  to  the  Glencoe 
police.  I  asked  them  after  several  calls  to  put  a  watch  on  my  phone, 
to  see  if  they  could  trace  where  the  calls  were  coming  from. 

Tliis  they  did.  This  is  a  report  of  the  police  dated  January  25, 
1953.    May  I  read  it? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  I  don't  think  that  that  answers  the  question  as  to 
why  you  were  being  associated  with  this  group  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  After  these  calls  came,  I  wanted  to  find  out  where 
they  were  coming  from  and  who  was  threatening  my  family  and 
myself. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Yes? 


IMPROPER    ACTRaTIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12749 

Mr.  Greenfield.  That  is  why  I  used  to  ask  "Weinboro:  M'as  he  in 
with  a  syndicate  and  was  he  really  being  backed  by  them? 

I  never  really  believed  it,  because  I  knew  he  never  had  change  for 
the  right  time,  if  I  may  use  the  vernacular.  But  I  wanted  to  see  if, 
maybe,  if  he  kneM',  because  I  was  meeting  with  other  people  who  were 
interested  in  a  basic  objective  of  doing  away  with  the  revocation  of 
licenses  by  police  captains,  and  shakedowns,  that  maybe  there  was 
some  other  interference  that  somebody  knew  about  and  were  threaten- 
ing me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  So,  you  kept  asking  him  about  whether  these  syn- 
dicate hoodlums  were  involved  with  him  ? 

Mr.  Gri:enfield.  I  didn't  keep  asking  him.    He  kept  telling  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  He  kept  telling  you  that  they  were  backing  him? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Yes. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Whv  didn't  you  just  get  out  of  the  thing  right  away^ 
then? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  "Well,  in  the  first  place,  I  knew,  from  knowing 
the  little  I  know  about  him,  that  he  was  the  same  type  of  fellow 
as  some  of  these  broken-down  precinct  captains  who  tell  3^ou  that  they 
have  just  talked  to  Dwight  Eisenhower,  and  that  he  had  no  basic 
weight  anywhere. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Why  did  you  stay  with  them  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  didn't  stay  with  them. 

Mr.  Kjennedy.  You  kept  staying  with  him,  and  he  was  saying  he 
was  backed  by  the  syndicate,  backed  by  these  hoodlums,  and  you  kept 
going  back  for  more. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  But  I  did  not  stay  with  him. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  kept  coming  back  to  be  with  him 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  didn't  come  back.  I  was  doing  a  survey  on 
shakedowns  of  taverns  by  police  in  Chicago. 

INIr.  Kennedy.  Then  why  did  you  stay  with  Mr.  Weinberg  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  didn't  come  back  to  the  office.  I  didn't  see  him 
more  than  7  or  8  times. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  He  kept  telling  you  that  he  was  backed  by  the 
syndicate. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  He  didnt'  tell  me  that.  I  said  he  kept  telling  me 
that  he  had  a  lot  of  connections. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Why  would  you,  as  an  honest,  upright  attorney, 
be  associated  with  this  kind  of  a  group  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  was  not  associated  with  that  kind  of  a  group. 
I  did  not  take  any  money  from  the  group.  I  never  was  paid  a  fee 
by  the  group.    I  never  received  a  dollar  in  contribution  from  the  group. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  turn  the  facts  over  to  the  police  that  Wein- 
berg and  Labriola  said  they  were  backed  by  the  syndicate? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Did  I  turn  it  over  to  the  police  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Yes. 

Mr  Greenfield.  Xo  ;  I  did  not  turn  it  over  to  the  police. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  did  not  turn  any  of  this  inforaiation  over  to 
any  law-enforcement  official  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  did  not  turn  it  over,  because  I  knew  it  was  not  so. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  They  were  telling  you  this  was  so. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  don't  believe  every  crackpot  that  tells  me  some- 
thing. 

^Ir.  Keneedy.  I  don't  understand  why  you  associated  with  them. 


12750  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  did  not  associate  with  them. 

Mr,  Kennedy.  You  saw  them  6  or  8  times.  You  were  at  the  oflfice. 
You  saw  he  was  a  crackpot.  You  said  he  was  part  of  the  syndicate, 
and  you  thought  he  was  off  his  rocker,  and  you  did  not  turn  it  over 
to  the  police,  but  went  back  to  his  office. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  did  not  go  to  his  office.    It  was  not  his  office. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Well,  the  association's  office. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  The  association's  office  was  Mr.  Bernberg's  office, 
and  it  was  organized  by  other  people. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Why  didn't  you  break  off,  then? 

Mr.  Greenfield,  I  did  break  off,  when  I  finished  the  job  I  set 
out  to  do 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  these  conversations?  What  about  the  situa- 
tion of  coaching  these  witnesses  to  give  testimony  against  a  Govern- 
ment official  ?     Is  that  incorrect,  also  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  That  is  a  complete  and  unadulterated  lie.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  this  case  that  Lieutenant  Morris  pointed  out,  the 
license  was  not  revoked.  We  won  in  every  court.  It  was  appealed  all 
the  way  up  to  the  circuit  court.  Present  Chief  Justice  Cornelius 
Harrington,  in  his  decision,  stated  that  he  could  not,  for  the  life  of 
him,  understand  how  any  official  could  have  believed  the  perjured 
testimony  of  the  Government  witness.     This  is  in  the  record. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  were  not  in  there  coaching,  you  and  Weinberg 
coaching  witnesses  to  give  false  testimony  against  this  Government 
official ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  have  never  coached  the  witnesses  in  the  Red 
Wagon  case. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  So,  that  testimony  of  Lieutenant  and  Mr.  Duffy  is 
false  ?     Is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  In  a  thorough  investigation,  you  could  easily 
obtain  a  record  of  the  hearings  before  the  Illinois  Liquor  ComTnis- 
sion 

Mr.  Kennedy.  I  just  asked  you  a  question. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Yes ;  it  is  completely  false. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  many  members  did  the  retail  liquor  dealers' 
association  obtain? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  don't  know. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  get  a  number  of  them,  or  a  few  members  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  don't  know.    I  did  not  work  on  membership. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  testify  before  the  crime  committee  in  Chi- 
cago, the  Big  Nine  Crime  Commission  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Yes;  I  did. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  tell  tliem  what  the  membership  was? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  told  them  what  they  told  me  their  membership 
would  be,  or  was. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Didn't  you  testify  that  they  had  a  membership  of 
1,500  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  might  have. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  The  membership  was,  actually,  5  or  6  members,  and 
you  told  the  crime  committee,  under  oath,  as  I  understand  it,  that 
they  had  a  membership  of  1,500. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Did  I?  How  come  Lieutenant  Morris  didn't  tes- 
tify before  the  crime  commission  what  he  testified  today  ? 


IMPROPER    ACTFV^ITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12751 

Mr.  Kennedy.  I  am  asking;  is  that  correct  or  not,  that  you  told 
them  they  had  a  membership  of  1,500? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  The  conglomeration  of  the  membership  that  be- 
longed to  the  association,  of  various  groups  that  were  meeting  at 
that  time,  because  of  shakedowns  by  police,  comprised  a  little  over 
1,500  members. 

Mr.  Kexnedy.  You  keep  talking  about  the  shakedowns  by  police. 
I  am  asking  you  if  the  Federated  Retail  Liquor  Dealers  Association, 
which  you  discussed,  if  you  testified  that  that  membership  was  some 
1,500.     Actually,  they  had  5  or  6  members. 

ISIr.  Greenfield.  I  don't  know  how  many  members  they  had,  but 
the  amount  of  people  interested  in  the  conglomeration  of  associations, 
what  we  were  doing,  that  is,  to  pass  a  law  for  a  hearing  for  revocation 
of  license,  amounted  to  1,500. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  It  was  a  very  peculiar  testimony  before  that. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  think  more  peculiar  was  the  fact  that  Lieutenant 
Morris  did  not  even  testify.  With  the  knowledge  he  gave  you  tonight, 
he  could  have  blown  that  bombing  in  Chicago.  Wliy  did  he  wait 
until  today?     "Wliy  did  he  wait  5  years? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  is  a  question  you  should  ask  the  Chicago  Police 
Department. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Maybe  he  was  psychic.  Maybe  he  knew  in  5  years 
there  would  be  a  committee  or  something. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  I  don't  think  so.  How  many  members  did  the  Fed- 
erated Retail  Liquor  Dealers  Association  have  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  don't  know. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  don't  liave  any  idea? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  don't  have  any  idea. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  say  that  when  you  were  asked  before  the 
Big  Nine  Committee? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  don't  remember  what  I  said  before  the  Big  Nine 
Committee.  There  was  only  one  point  I  had  before  the  Big  Nine 
Committee. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  said  they  had  1,500.  Wliy  didn't  you  say  then 
you  did  not  know? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  We  went  into  that  before,  Mr.  Kennedy. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  I  don't  understand  your  answers. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  don't  understand  your  source  of  questions.  Do 
you  want  the  truth,  or  do  you  want  to  do  something  to  prove  Mr. 
Morris  is  a  great  man  ? 

The  Chairman.  Just  a  moment.  You  are  a  lawyer,  and  you  know 
how  to  answer  questions.  I  suggest  that  you  answer  the  questions 
asked  you ;  have  your  answer  directly  responsive  to  the  question,  and, 
if  you  wish  to  elaborate,  3'ou  may  do  so. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  All  right,  sir ;  that  is  fair  enough. 

The  Chairman.  I  want  to  ask  you  2  or  3  questions  at  this  point. 
"\Aliat  was  the  Federated  Liquor  Dealers  Association? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  It  was  a  retail  liquor  association  organized  by 
people  I  did  not  know,  except  Mr.  Bernberg,  whom  I  met. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  a  member  of  the  association  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  No,  sir ;  I  was  never  a  member  of  the  association. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  one  of  the  organizers  of  the  association? 

21243— 58— pt.  33 17 


12752  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Greenfield,  No,  sir;  I  was  never  an  organizer  of  the  asso- 
ciation. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  general  counsel  for  the  association  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  No,  sir.    I  was  never  paid  a  fee. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  to  be  general  counsel  for  the  association  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  hoped  to  be. 

The  Chairman.  In  other  words,  you  were  helping  to  organize  it, 
legal  counsel  to  it  in  the  process  of  organization,  with  a  view  of 
becoming  general  counsel  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Not  just  for  that,  Senator  McClellan. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  was  that  a  part  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Part  of  it.  There  were  various  other  associations, 
ta  t^ern  associations. 

The  Chairman.  All  right.  In  the  course  of  that  project,  and  your 
participation  in  it,  for  that  purpose  and  whatever  other  purpose,  did 
you  have  information  from  time  to  time  as  to  the  progress  it  was 
making  toward  your  organization  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  No  ;  I  did  not.  Except  after  an  editorial  appeared 
in  the  newspapers  of  Chicago,  based  upon  a  report  that  I  wrote  and 
submitted  to  the  State's  attorney,  to  the  Chicago  Crime  Commission, 
and  to  other  civic  bodies  in  Chicago,  and  to  all  newspapers. 

The  Chairman.  What  I  am  trying  to  find  out  is,  if  you  were  in- 
volved in  it,  to  what  extent.  As  I  understand  you,  you  were  helping 
or  counseling  in  the  organization  of  it. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  That  is  not  true,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  what  were  you  doing  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  was  counseling  in  the  developing  of  a  public- 
relations  platform  to  put  before  the  city  of  Chicago,  which  was  at 
that  time  in  the  heat  of  anger  over  the  crime  wave  and  police 
corruption. 

The  Chairman.  What  connection  does  that  have,  then,  with  the 
Federated  Retail  Liquor  Dealers  Association  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  None  whatsoever,  except  that  they  were  part 

The  Chairman.  All  right.  I  am  not  talking  about  that.  I  am 
talking  about  your  connection  with  the  Federated  Retail  Liquor 
Dealers  Association.    "Wliat  connection  did  you  have  with  it  ? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  rej^resented  them,  as  the  springboard  for  putting 
out  this  publication  report. 

The  Chairman.  In  other  words,  you  were  to  become  its  general 
counsel  if  the  organization  of  it  succeeded? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Well,  that  was  their 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  or  did  you  not,  or  were  you  or  were  you 
not? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  hoped  to  be. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  a  part  of  the  arrangement  and  under- 
standing; that  you  were  to  become  the  general  counsel  of  it,  if  the 
project  succeeded  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  All  right.  In  the  course  of  that,  with  that  under- 
standing and  with  your  employment  in  that  capacity,  although  you 
said  you  never  got  a  fee,  did  you  draw  up  its  articles  of  incorporation? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  No,  sir;  that  was  already  organized  when  I  met 
him. 


EVIPROPER    ACTWITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12753 

The  Chairman.  They  were  already  organized  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  who  drew  their  articles  of  incorpora- 
tion up  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  service  did  you  perform,  then,  in  assisting  it 
to  get  organized  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  performed  no  service  in  the  assisting  of  the  or- 
ganization, itself. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  assist  or  did  you  attend  meetings  of  mem- 
bers of  it  or  those  who  were  promoting  the  organization  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  No,  I  did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Where  did  you  meet  these  people,  Weinberg  and 
Labriolo?  You  said  that  you  saw  them  some  7  or  8  times.  Where 
did  you  meet  with  them  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  first  met  Mr.  Weinberg  in  Mr.  Abraham  Teitel- 
baum's  office.  I  was  there  on  a  matter  of  an  oil  deal,  having  nothing 
to  do  with  the  restaurant  associations  or  anything  else. 

The  Chairman.  Who  contacted  you  to  get  you  into  it  to  be  the  chief 
counsel  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  was  trying  a  case  before  a  superior  court  judge 
in  Chicago  on  a  revocation  of  a  license.  I  had  filed  an  injunction  and 
it  had  been  granted.  The  newspapers  wrote  it  up  the  following  day 
and  we  had  another  hearing  and  when  I  came  out  of  that  hearing  this 
man  came  up  to  me,  Weinberg. 

The  Chairman.  Weinberg  contacted  you  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Yes,  sir;  in  tlie  courtroom.  He  said,  "Do  you  re- 
member me,"  and  I  said,  "I  do  not,"  and  he  said,  "My  name  is  James 
Hill,  I  met  you  once  at  Mr.  Teitelbaum's  office."  And  so  I  said,  "Yes," 
still  not  remembering.  He  said,  "We  are  very  much  interested  in  the 
stand  you  are  taking  on  revocation  of  licenses.  There  are  quite  a  few 
associations  that  have  been  worried  about  this  and  none  of  their  lead- 
ers have  done  anything.  There  is  an  association  that  I  know  and  they 
would  like  to  meet  with  you  and  how  about  meeting  with  them  and 
maybe  we  can  get  together." 

He  brought  me  up  to  the  Federated,  where  I  met  Nate  Bernberg. 

The  Chairman.  In  whose  office  was  that  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Nate  Bernberg's  office. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  in  Bernberg's  office? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  the  first  time  that  you  met  with  the  group 
that  was  promoting  this  project  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Who  was  present? 

]Mr.  Greenfield.  Mr.  Nate  Bernberg. 

The  Chairman.  Who  else  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  That  is  all  I  remember,  and  Mr.  Bernberg,  and  his 
name  at  that  time  was  Hill. 

The  Chairman.  You,  Hill  or  Weinberg,  and  Bernberg,  is  that 
right,  the  three  of  you  were  present? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  discuss  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  They  discussed  or  Mr.  Bernberg  said  he  had  sev- 
eral people  who  were  tavernkeepers  who  had  organized  the  association 


12754  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    EST    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

with  him,  and  one  of  their  main  problems  was  that  since  the  closing 
up  of  bookies  by  the  Kefauver  committee,  as  a  result  of  that  commit- 
tee's findings,  policemen  were  now  using  shakedowns  in  taverns  in 
order  to  take  their  graft,  and  that  because  a  revocation  of  a  license 
could  be  had  without  a  hearing  that  the  interim  between  the  revoca- 
tion and  the  hearing  lasting  as  long  as  from  2  to  6  weeks,  would  put 
the  average  tavern  owner  out  of  busmess. 

They  were  interested  in  seeing  if  they  could  change  the  ordinance 
of  Cook  County  to  where  a  man  would  be  given  a  hearing  before  a 
revocation. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  employed  at  that  time  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  No  ;  I  wasn't  employed  at  that  time. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  join  up  with  them  in  the  project  at  that 
time? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  No,  I  did  not. 

The  Chairman.  AVlien  did  you  join  with  them  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Subsequently,  several  days  later,  or  something  like 
that,  I  ran  into  a  couple  of  other  people  who  were  in  the  liquor 
industry. 

The  Chairman.  Who  were  they  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  don't  remember. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  did  they  become  a  part  of  the  promoters  of 
this  project? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  They  were  interested  in  the  changing  of  the  law. 

The  Chairman.  You  don't  know  their  names  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  remember  one. 

The  Chairman.  Let  us  have  it. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Henry  Morgan. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  he  do? 

Mr,  Greenfield.  He  is  a  beer  distributor. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  next  meet  with  the  group  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  met  with  them  when  they  brought  in  a  case  of 
the  Red  Wagon,  revocation  of  license. 

The  Chairman.  How  long  was  that  after  your  first  meeting  with 
them? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  don't  really  remember.  Senator. 

The  Chairman.  Just  a  few  days  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  It  might  have  been  a  week. 

The  Chairman.  It  might  have  been  a  week  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Who  was  present  at  that  meeting  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  The  proprietor,  Mr.  Bernberg,  I  believe,  and  Mr. 
Hill  or  Weinberg. 

Tlie  Chairman.  The  same  three  of  you  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Together  with  the  proprietor  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  the  proprietor's  name  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  don't  remember. 

The  Chairman.  W1\at  did  you  do  at  that  meeting  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  He  told  me  what  had  occurred  and  why  his  license 
•was  revoked,  and  he  asked  me  if  I  would  handle  the  case,  and  I  said 
I  would. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12755 

The  Chairman.  You  were  employed  to  handle  his  case  at  that  time. 
What  else  occurred  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  was  then  given  another  case. 

The  Chairman.  By  whom  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  By  the  association,  the  Federated. 

The  Chairman.  Who  of  the  association  gave  you  another  case  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  don't  remember. 

The  CiLMRikL-vN.  You  would  remember  that. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  don't  remember  that. 

The  Chairman.  Who? 

Mr.  Greenfield,  It  was  Bernberg  or  Plill,  and  it  was  51/^  years  ago. 

The  Chairman.  Who  were  you  dealing  with  at  the  time  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Mr.  Bernberg. 

The  Chairman.  And  Hill  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  And  Hill ;  yes. 

The  Chairman.  All  right;  they  were  representing  the  association 
at  the  time  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  No ;  Bernberg  was. 

The  Chairiman.  Bernberg  was  representing  the  association  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Yes,  sir. 

Tlie  Chairman.  So  you  were  dealing  with  Bernberg,  and  did  he 
give  you  a  case  at  that  time  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  All  right,  now  when  was  your  next  meeting  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Well,  then  we  met  maybe  half  a  dozen  times  after 
that  just  on  general  policy. 

The  Chairman.  "We"  is  who? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Mr.  Bernberg,  myself,  various  other  associations, 
and  we  met  at  various  meeting  halls,  and  we  met  once  in  Springfield 
with  a  statewide  organization. 

The  Chairman.  "V\^ien  were  you  employed  by  the  association,  by 
Bernberg  or  whoever  represented  the  association  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  was  never  really  employed  by  them. 

The  Chairman.  When  was  it  discussed  that  you  would  assist  in 
promoting  it  and  then  become  its  chief  counsel  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  On  various  occasions. 

The  Chairman.  On  these  different  occasions  you  were  discussing  the 
prospects  of  your  becoming  chief  counsel  for  the  association,  if  it  was 
organized ;  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  had  then  that  contingent  interest  in  it  from 
the  time  they  first  began  discussing  it  with  you  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  No. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  from  the  time  they  first  talked  to  you  about 
becoming  the  counsel  for  it,  you  had  a  contingent  interest  in  its  suc- 
cess from  that  time  on ;  did  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  No,  I  had  a  contingent  interest  in  something  that 
was  greater  than  that. 

The  Chairman.  I  know  you  may  have  had  other  interests,  but  you 
mean  you  had  no  interest  in  this  at  any  time,  notwithstanding  the  fact 
you  were  looking  forward  to  being  general  counsel  for  it  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  No,  I  had  the  hopes  of  maybe  being  general  coun- 
sel for  a  tavern  association  or  tlie  liquor  group  generally. 

The  Chairman.  I  am  talking  about  this  one  particular  association. 


12756  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    EST    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Greenfield.  This  one  particular  association  merely  provided 
me  a  means  for  entering  into  the  picture  of  talking  about  revocation 
of  licenses. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  I  think  you  have  testified  to  that,  and  I 
don't  want  to  misrepresent  your  testimony,  but  as  I  understood  your 
testimony  you  testified  definitely  that  you  had  anticipated  being 
general  counsel  for  the  Federated  Retail  Liquor  Dealer's  Association. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  If  its  organization  was  successful  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  That  is  right. 

The  Chairman.  And  during  the  promotion  of  the  project  you  were 
meeting  with  them  and  discussing  this  project  with  them? 

Mr,  Greenfield.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Therefore  you  kept  advised,  I  am  sure,  of  the 
progress  being  made  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Yes,  sir.     Well,  progress  in  a  certain  sense. 

The  Chairman.  Toward  the  success  of  it  ? 

Mr,  Greenfield.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  in  determining  whether  it  was  making  prog- 
ress or  not,  would  it  not  be  natural  and  did  it  not  occur  that  they  did 
discuss  the  number  of  members  they  had  been  able  to  obtain  up  to 
that  time  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  How  many  members  had  they  obtained  up  to  the 
time  when  you  left  it  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  When  the  articles  appeared  in  the  newspapers  of 
Chicago,  editorials  supporting  the  report  I  had  filed  with  the  Crime 
Commission,  they  had  told  me  that  in  the  last  2  or  3  days  or  that 
week  they  received  from  600  to  700  telephone  calls  of  tavern  propri- 
etors saying  they  wanted  to  join  because  this  is  the  kind  of  work  they 
wanted  an  association  to  do. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  now  let  me  see.  You  haven't  answered  my 
question.  Did  they  tell  you  how  many  members  they  had?  You 
said  they  told  you  that  they  had  gotten  telephone  calls,  folks  who 
said  they  wanted  to  be  members.  How  many  members  and  did  they 
tell  you  or  did  you  have  the  information  at  the  time  you  say  you  left 
it  as  to  the  number  of  members  they  actually  had  in  this  association  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Well,  they  might  have  mentioned  around  1,500. 

The  Chairman.  You  think  they  mentioned  1,500? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  They  might  have. 

The  Chairman.  They  might  have  or  they  might  have  mentioned 
any  number,  but  did  they  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  have  no  definite  recollection  at  this  time,  Sen- 
ator. 

The  Chairman,  If  they  had  1,500  members,  they  would  have  a 
pretty  good  going  organization,  w^ouldn't  they  ? 

Mr,  Greenfield.  If  they  paid  their  dues,  they  would. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  they  would  hardly  last  long  as  members  if 
they  didn't  pay  up. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  That  is  probably  why  it  didn't  last  long. 

The  Chairman.  That  may  be,  and  they  may  never  have  had  that 
many  members. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  That  may  be  true,  too. 

The  Chairman.  You  ought  to  know  something  about  it. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12757 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Well,  no,  sir;  I  am  not  trying  to  be  argumenta- 
tive, Senator,  but  I  am  trying  to  establish  that  I  had  an  overall  objec- 
tive of  pinpointing  this. 

The  CiiAiinrAX.  Did  you  make  a  statement  to  the  staff  today,  mem- 
bers of  this  connnittee's  staff,  that  at  that  time  they  had  no  members? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  made  a  statement  today  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes,  today. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  don't  recall  making  that  statement. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  if  you  jnade  a  statement  about  3  hours  ago, 
you  would  remember  it? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  don't  remember  nuiking  such  a  statement. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  make  it  or  didn't  you?  I  can't  accept 
your  statement  that  you  can't  remember  whether  you  did  or  did  not 
make  such  a  statement. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  would  say  that  I  did  not  make  such  a  statement. 

The  Chairman.  You  would  say  you  did  not  make  such  a  statement? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  That  they  had  no  members  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  As  I  remember  it,  they  had  either  no  members  or 
have  a  dozen  members,  or  have  few  members. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  said  that  or  you  said  that  ? 

Mr.  Ivennedy.  You  said  that  in  the  presence  of  4  or  5  people,  and 
with  a  transcript  being  taken. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  said  they  might  have  no  members  or  5  or  6 
members  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Or  very  few  members. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  At  what  point  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  When  I  asked  you  the  question. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  At  what  point  in  their  organization — the  begin- 
ning, or  the  end  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  During  this  period  of  time,  anytime,  the  largest 
number.     Did  you  say  that  or  not  ? 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  have  a  transcript?  Let  us  get  the  tran- 
script in,  and  we  will  come  back  to  it  when  we  get  through. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Do  you  remember  saying  that  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  No,  I  don't  recall. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Do  you  deny  that  you  said  it  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  won't  deny  it,  but  I  don't  remember  saying  it. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Was  it  true  or  not  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  don't  remember. 

ISIr.  Kennedy.  Is  the  statement  true  that  you  had  very  few  members 
in  the  association  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  At  one  point,  there  must  have  been  very  few. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  ever  have  more  than  very  few  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  wouldn't  know,  of  my  own  knowledge. 

Senator  ER'vaN.  Mr.  Greenfield,  was  this  organization  that  Bern- 
berg  was  interested  in  called  the  Federated  Retail  Liquor  Dealers  and 
Tavern  Owners'  Association? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Ervin.  Now,  do  I  understand  you  that  you  are  now  telling 
this  committee  that  you  were  never  general  counsel  for  that  organiza- 
tion ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Yes,  sir ;  I  was  never  paid  as  general  counsel. 

Senator  Ervin.  I  am  not  asking  you  that  question.  I  was  counsel 
for  a  lot  of  people  I  didn't  get  paid  for.     I  am  asking  you  if  you  are 


12758  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

telling  this  committee  now  that  you  were  never  general  counsel  for 
that  organization  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  That  is  right;  I  was  never  general  counsel  for  that 
organization.     Do  you  mean  elected  general  counsel  ? 

Senator  Ervin.  I  don't  care  whether  you  were  elected  or  retained  or 
whether  you  assumed  the  office.     Were  you  ever  general  counsel  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  was  general  counsel  for  that  organization  for 
about  6  weeks  or  8  weeks. 

Senator  Ervin,  Now,  you  have  sworn  here  before  this  committee  a 
number  of  times  within  the  last  30  minutes  that  you  w^ere  never  general 
counsel  for  it,  didn't  you  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  said  I  never  received  consideration  for  it. 

Senator  Erven.  Didn't  you  say  or  haven't  you  told  us  a  dozen  times 
that  you  were  never  general  counsel  for  that  association  but  that  on 
the  contrary  you  expected  or  hoped  to  be  ? 

Now  isn't  that  what  you  swore  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  hoped  to  be  a  paid  counsel. 

Senator  Ervin.  Is  that  the  way  you  put  it? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  That  is  what  I  meant. 

Senator  Ervin.  Well,  I  want  to  ask  you  a  very  simple  question.  Do 
you  swear  to  this  committee  that  you  haven't  testified  to  us  on  one  or 
more  occasions  that  you  were  never  general  counsel  for  this  associa- 
tion ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Senator,  can  I  ask  you  a  question  ? 

Senator  Ervin.  You  answer  mine. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  don't  recall  whether  I  said  I  was  never  or  that  I 
was  implying  a  paid  general  counsel,  a  fee  or  consideration  for  being 
a  general  counsel. 

Senator  Ervin.  Do  you  mean  to  tell  me  that  you  can't  recall  what 
you  have  been  swearing  to  in  the  last  15  or  20  minutes  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  don't  remember  my  exact  language. 

Senator  Ervin.  You  are  not  a  layman,  and  you  are  a  lawyer  that  is 
interested  in  being  in  court,  and  concerned  with  the  taking  of  testi- 
mony. Are  you  now  swearing  to  this  committee  that  you  do  not  recall 
whether  or  not  you  have  stated  repeatedly  to  this  committee  that  you 
were  never  general  counsel  for  this  organization  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  don't  know  my  exact  language,  and  I  am  trying 
to  say  to  you.  Senator,  that  in  my  own  mind  I  am  thinking  of  a  gen- 
eral from  the  standpoint  of  a  paid  person  with  a  fee,  with  a  con- 
sideration or  retainer,  that  I  wasn't  on  that  basis. 

Senator  Ervin.  I  am  asking  you,  were  you  ever  general  counsel  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  was  for  a  time  called  general  counsel. 

Senator  Ervin.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  don't  you  know  that  you  joined 
Bernberg  in  issuing  a  statement  in  which  you  represented  yourself 
to  be  general  counsel  for  that  organization  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  That  is  right. 

Senator  Ervin.  And  do  you  know  that  is  set  out  here  in  this 
photostatic  copy  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Certainly,  and  I  brought  those  copies. 

Senator  P]rvin.  At  the  time  you  issued  tliat  statement  as  general 
counsel  with  the  executive  director,  Nate  Bernborg,  you  issued  that 
statement  realizing  and  expecting  that  that  would  stir  up  interest 
in  this  organization  and  you  would  get  members.  Didn't  you  issue 
it  for  that  purpose? 


IMPROPER    ACTH'ITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12759 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Xo,  sir ;  not  completely. 

Senator  Ervin.  Well,  partially  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Well,  certainly. 

Senator  Ervin.  In  other  words  you  were  sort  of  advertising  your- 
self as  ireneral  counsel,  and  you  were  advertising  Nate  Bernberg  as 
the  director  of  the  association  that  was  going  to  clean  up  everything? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  "Well,  it  did. 

Senator  Ervin.  It  did  ^     I  thought  you  said 

Mr.  Greenfield.  The  law  was  passed. 

Senator  Ervin.  I  thought  you  said  that  the  organization  never 
did  make  a  success. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  am  saying  that  the  objective  of  seeing  that  there 
was  a  hearing  before  revocation  is  now  the  law  in  Cook  County. 

Senator  Ervin.  But  what  happened  to  your  organization? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  It  died. 

Senator  Ervin.  It  is  still  dead,  is  it  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Yes. 

Senator  Ervin.  Is  it  customary  for  membei-s  of  the  bar  of  Illinois 
to  issue  public  statements  about  matters  in  expectation  that  it  will 
get  them  employment  as  attorneys  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Well,  that  is  not  putting  it  in  proper  language. 

Senator  Ervin.  You  admitted  awhile  ago  that  that  was  partially 
one  of  the  motives  which  prompted  you  to  join  Nate  Bernberg  in 
this  statement ;  did  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield,  Well,  I  wouldn't  say  that  members  of  the  bar 
of  any  State,  whether  it  be  Illinois  or  your  own  State,  have  ever  been 
accused  as  shrinking  violets  in  the  hope  of  getting  business. 

Senator  Ervin.  You  haven't  answered  the  question.  I  asked  you 
if  you  didn't  say  awhile  ago  that  was  one  or  partially  one  of  the 
motives  that  prompted  this  statement. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  The  prompting  of  that  editorial  or  that  state- 
ment at  that  time  in  Chicago — there  were  hearings  going  on,  crime 
commission  hearings,  and  it  was  to  see  that  their  public  light  on  an 
avenue  of  fraudulent  graft  that  should  be  stopped. 

Senator  Er\tn.  I  am  going  to  ask  you  the  same  question  for  the 
third  time,  and  that  is  this :  Did  you  state  a  few  minutes  ago  within 
the  last  10  minutes  that  that  was  one  or  partially  one  of  the  reasons 
why  you  joined  Nate  Bernberg  in  making  this  statement,  that  you 
hoped  it  would  bring  you  clients  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  That  is  fine ;  yes. 

The  Chairman.  Let  the  Chair  make  an  observation.  I  try  always 
to  be  very  indulgent  with  counsel.  There  is  a  rule  of  this  committee 
that  a  witness  may  have  the  benefit  of  counsel  as  he  testifies  to  advise 
him  of  his  legal  rights,  but  counsel  will  not  be  permitted  to  put  words 
in  the  witness'  mouth.  I  haven't  heard  the  words,  but  I  have  observed 
that  counsel  repeatedly,  when  a  question  is  asked,  has  a  whispered 
conversation  with  his  client.  I  just  simply  call  counsel's  attention  to 
the  rule  of  the  committee,  which  if  we  find  it  is  being  violated  will 
be  enforced. 

Proceed. 

Mr.  Clinton.  May  I  merely  say,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  was  just  trying 
to  induce  the  witness  to  answer  precisely  and  not  give  speeches. 

The  Chairman,  It  would  be  very  good  to  give  him  that  advice. 

Mr.  Clinton.  That  is  what  I  am  trying  to  do. 


12760  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

The  Chairman.  I  believe  he  has  that  advice. 

Mr.  Clinton.  I  am  trying  to  get  him  to  answer  "Yes"  or  "No," 
and  that  is  all. 

The  Chairman.  That  would  be  very  helpful  if  you  could  do  that. 

Mr.  Clinton.  It  is  not  always  easy,  Senator. 

The  Chairman.  I  have  before  me  a  transcript  of  your  conversa- 
tion with  the  staif  of  the  committee  some  2  or  3  hours  ago.  The 
question  was  asked,  "How  many  members  did  they  have?"  Do  you 
remember  that  question  being  asked  you  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Frankly,  I  don't. 

The  Chairman.  And  your  answer : 

At  that  time  they  had  very  little.  They  said  they  had  several  hundred,  but  I 
myself  think  that  they  had  15  or  16  taverns. 

Did  you  make  that  statement  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  You  made  that  statement  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  All  right. 

I  may  ask  you,  Is  that  statement  correct,  and  is  it  true  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  As  far  as  I  know,  and  it  may  not  be  true,  and  I 
don't  know  the  exact  membership. 

The  Chairman.  In  making  that  statement,  you  said,  "But  I  think 
that  they  had  15  to  16  taverns." 

Was  that  your  honest  judgment  as  to  the  progress  that  had  been 
made  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  That  was  my  judgment  at  the  time  I  first  met 
them. 

The  Chairman.  "Wliat  was  your  judgment  when  you  left  them  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  When  the  editorial  support  of  the  newspapers,  and 
the  report  of  the  crime  commission  supporting  it  came  out,  and  the  flood 
of  phone  calls  that  came  in  that  week,  I  felt  that  they  were  well  on  their 
way  with  good  membership. 

Senator,  I  just  want  to  point  one  thing  out.  I  was  involved  in  this 
thing  for  10  weeks,  and  I  appeared  before  the  Chicago  Crime  Commis- 
sion voluntarily,  and  I  told  my  story  there,  and  Lieutenant  Morris 
never  appeared  but  he  told  me  when  I  came  out  of  those  hearings  that 
I  have  put  manure  on  the  Chicago  police  and  some  day  he  will  get  even. 
Today  in  one  half  hour  he  took  a  lawyer  who  had  never  been  involved 
in  anything  but  banking  and  insurance  and  corporate  work  and  made 
him  a  comrade  of  the  local  hooligans  and  the  underworld  through 
what  he  admitted  was  a  broken-down  Weinberg  who  had  as  much  say 
in  the  underworld  and  prestige  in  the  underworld  as  a  skid-row  bum. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  the  Chair  and  the  committee  will  not  under- 
take at  this  time  to  pass  judgment  upon  the  accusations  and  recrimina- 
tions. Obviously  I  think  it  is  apparent  to  all  members  of  the  com- 
mittee and  others  who  are  listening  that  there  has  been  such  a  conflict 
of  testimony  under  oath  between  you  and  other  witnesses  that  it  is  a 
matter  that  should  receive  the  attention  of  the  Justice  Department. 

The  transcript  with  the  approval  of  the  committee  will  be  referred 
to  the  Justice  Department  for  its  vigorous  attention. 

Mr.  Clinton.  May  I  say  we  would  welcome  such  an  examination, 
Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  May  I  present  this  police  report?  May  I  ask  you 
an  academic  question  ?    And  you  don't  have  to  answer  it. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12761 

The  Chairman.  I  may  not  know  the  academic  answer. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Would  you  perhaps,  now  tliat  you  have  heard 
all  of  the  testimony,  tell  me  why  on  January  5,  1953,  if  I  were  such 
a  great  consort  of  the  hoodlums,  my  family  and  I  would  be  threatened 
to  be  killed?  This  isn't  my  record.  This  is  the  record  of  the  police 
department  of  the  town. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  sir,  I  can't  answer  that,  except  from  testi- 
mony that  we  have  heard,  gangsters  and  hoodlums  frequently  get 
killed  without  any  apparent  reason. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  If  I  was  the  new  "white-haired"  boy,  or  I  shouldn't 
say  that,  of  the  gangsters,  why  would  they  be  threatening  to  kill  me? 

The  Chairman.  I  wouldn't  know,  but  the  "white-haired"  boy  be- 
comes the  one  who  is  scalped  tomorrow  in  this  racket,  and  I  really 
don't  know  why.  Let  us  get  off  the  academic  and  proceed  back,  Mr. 
Counsel,  to  the  interrogation. 

Is  there  anything  further  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  No  ;  I  don't  believe  there  is.  I  think,  of  course,  this 
witness  as  we  pointed  out  before  testified  before  the  crime  committee 
at  that  time. 

The  Chairman.  Do  we  have  a  record  of  the  crime  committee  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  We  are  getting  the  record. 

The  Chairman.  When  the  record  of  his  testimony  before  the  crime 
committee  is  received,  the  official  record  of  it,  I  will  order  that  that 
record  be  made  exhibit  No.  21,  for  reference.  It  will  be  a  part  of  the 
record. 

(Document  referred  to  was  marked  "Exhibit  No.  21,"  for  reference, 
and  may  be  found  in  the  files  of  the  select  committee.) 

Mr.  Kennedy.  He  does  describe  himself,  according  to  the  report, 
as  the  attorney  for  this  organization.  Yet,  according  to  testimony 
here,  these  individuals  with  whom  he  was  working  stated  that  they 
were  being  backed  by  the  syndicate,  and  that  they  had  the  backing 
of  the  great  hoodlums  and  underworld  figures  in  Chicago. 

The  Chairman.  All  right.  We  will  have  the  whole  transcript 
properly  dispatched  to  the  Justice  Department. 

Senator  Mundt.  Did  you  testify  in  1953,  Mr.  Greenfield,  before  the 
so-called  Big  Nine  Crime  Commission  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Yes,  Senator. 

Senator  Mundt.  In  that  testimony  did  you  advise  the  commission 
that  you  had  evidence  of  some  shakedowns  by  the  police  of  taverns? 

Mr.  Greenfield,  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Mundt.  Did  j^ou  say  you  had  evidence  of  roughly  about  15 
such  shakedown  cases  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Mundt.  Did  you  supply  that  evidence  to  the  crime  com- 
mission ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Mundt.  Did  they  ask  you  for  it  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Mundt.  Why  didn't  you  supply  it  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Because  the  police  captain  had  the  power  of 
revocation  and  until  such  law  was  passed,  the  tavern  keeper  was  in 
jeopardy  of  his  economic  life  and  so  there  was  no  point  in  turning  it 
over.    It  wasn't  a  point  of  trying  to  pinpoint  any  particular  police- 


12762  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

man.    It  was  a  point  of  trying  to  eliminate  a  law  that  lent  itself  to 
easier  graft. 

Senator  Mundt.  Since  the  law  has  been  passed,  and  that  can  no 
longer  happen,  because  you  have  to  have  a  hearing  before  revocation 
of  license,  have  you  supplied  the  crime  commission  with  the  instances 
of  those  attempts  at  shaKedowns  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  No  ;  I  haven't,  and  nor  have  they  asked  for  it. 

Senator  Mundt.  They  have  not  asked  for  it  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  No. 

Senator  Mundt.  Is  the  crime  commission  still  in  existence? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Oh,  no. 

Senator  Mundt.  It  was  just  a  special  crime  commission  set  up  for  a 
specific  investigation  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Yes. 

Senator  Mundt.  Are  you  prepared  now  to  submit  that  to  whatever 
proper  authorities  might  ask  you  for  that  evidence,  and  are  you  pre- 
pared to  submit  it  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  No  ;  I  am  not. 

Senator  Mundt.  By  now  you  have  forgotten  it,  I  suppose. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Well,  it  is  a  good  way  to  put  it. 

The  Chairman.  Are  there  any  further  questions  ? 

Senator  Ervin.  Did  you  supply  it  to  the  district  attorney  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  No  ;  he  knew  about  it  and  I  told  him  about  it. 

Senator  Ervin.  You  say  you  did  not  supply  it  to  him  but  you  told 
him  about  it.  To  what  district  attorney  did  you  supply  the  informa- 
tion about  shakedowns  by  police  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  State  Attorney  Goodnick. 

Senator  Ervin.  When  did  you  supply  it  to  Mm  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  During  that  period. 

Senator  Ervin.  Did  he  taken  any  action  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Did  I  give  the  names  of  the  policemen;  no.  I 
wouldn't  give  the  names  of  the  policemen. 

Senator  Ervin.  You  are  posing  here  before  this  committee  and  in 
this  statement  you  put  before  the  Chicago  Crime  Commission  as  a  per- 
son trying  to  promote  law  and  order  and  decent  conduct  among  the 
police  force,  and  you  say  that  you  had  information  about  the  city  of 
Chicago  police  shaking  down  tavern  owners,  and  you  didn't  give  that 
information  to  anybody  ? 

Mr.  Clinton.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  want  to  talk  to  him  about  a  legal 
matter  in  this  respect,  if  I  may  ? 

The  Chairman.  You  may. 

(Witness  consulted  with  counsel.) 

Mr.  Greenfield.  No,  I  did  not. 
'     Senator  Ervin.  You  did  not  ? 

Mr.  Griknfield.  No. 

Senator  Ervin.  You  never  told  a  single  human  being  the  names  of 
any  police  officers  that  you  claimed  were  engaging  in  shakedowns  of 
tavern  owners  at  that  time  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  No,  I  haven't. 

Senator  Ervin.  Can  you  give  the  committee  the  names  of  any  of 
them  at  this  time? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  No. 

Senator  Ervin.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Lieutenant  Morris,  would  you  stand  up  a  moment? 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12763 

Did  you  ever  hear  Greenfield  discuss  the  question  of  this  shakedown 
by  the  policemen  while  in  this  association  office? 

Mr.  Morris.  That  was  one  of  the  platforms  they  were  using  to 
attract  attention,  that  the  police  had  too  much  powiir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  he  discuss  the  15  cases  at  all  there  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  I  heard  him  mention  police  corruption,  but  no  specific 
number  of  cases. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  he  state  he  had  made  these  cases  up  at  that 
time  ?    Did  you  have  a  report  on  that  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  There  may  be,  and  I  couldn't  tell. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Does  Mr.  Duffy  know  that?  Do  you  know  Mr. 
Duffy? 

Mr.  Duffy.  What  was  the  question  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  The  question  was,  where  had  he  arrived  at  the  figure 
of  15,  and  what  was  the  basis  of  fact  of  the  15  cases  ? 

Mr.  Duffy.  I  remember  correlating  summary  reports  on  that  spe- 
cific instance. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Do  you  remember  that  ? 

Mr.  Duffy.  I  remember  the  general  gist  of  it,  and  it  was  a  pre- 
fabricated story  to  help  promote  the  Federated  Ketail  Liquor  Deal- 
er's Association,  as  were  many  of  the  features  of  the  organization 
prefabricated  also. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  I  believe  the  report  that  you  made  at  the  time  also 
shows  that  Mr.  Greenfield  admitted  at  the  office  that  he  was  making 
these  stories  up. 

Mr.  Duffy.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  KJENNEDY.  And  he  made  up  the  number  of  membership  of 
1,500? 

Mr.  Duffy.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Thank  you. 

The  Chairman.  All  right,  Mr.  Greenfield,  if  you  want  to  make 
any  statement.  Did  you  wish  to  make  any  comment  about  it,  Mr. 
Greenfield  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  It  is  a  report  on  March  2,  INIr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  May  I  make  a  statement? 

(At  this  point,  the  following  members  were  present:  Senatoi'S  Mc- 
Clellan,  Ervin,  and  Mundt.) 

Mr.  Greenfield.  May  I  make  a  statement? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Yes. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  will  make  a  statement  that  I  was  involved  in 
the  Tavern  Association  for  a  period  of  10  weeks.  My  objective  at  that 
time  was  to  get  a  law  passed  that  would  give  a  man  a  hearing  without 
revoking  his  license.  This  objective  was  ultimately  achieved.  In 
the  course  of  meeting  with  various  tavern  associations,  there  were 
men  of  background  that  might  not  have  been  of  the  best.  But  they 
were  unimportant. 

The  objective  we  tried  to  reach  was  to  eliminate  a  law  that  allowed 
further  corruption.  Chicago  at  that  time  was  in  a  great  fit  of  excite- 
ment to  the  public.  The  Kefauver  committee  had  exposed  the  link 
between  crime  and  the  police.  This  is  very  important  to  me.,  Senator, 
because  for  10  weeks  of  having  done  a  job  that  was  good,  I  have  been 
maligned  and  blasphemed. 

This  is  a  very  important  thing.  I  have  only  this  to  say :  that  if 
there  are  these  hoodlums  who  exist,  and  if  there  are  these  crimes  that 


12764  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN   THE    LABOR   FIELD 

exist,  and  they  go  on  year  after  year  after  year,  because  I  heard  about 
it  as  a  child,  I  heard  it  under  the  Kefauver  committee,  and  I  hear 
about  it  now,  I  think  it  would  be  pretty  reasonable  to  assume  that  the 
continued  existence*  of  illegal  enterprises,  except  for  occasional  in- 
terruptions, could  only  exist  with  the  overt  cooperation  of  the  police 
and  political  figures. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  businessmen  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Well,  you  are  probably  right,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And,  we  might  say,  and  some  lawyers. 

Senator  Ervin.  In  this  connection,  Mr.  Greenfield,  you  and  Mr. 
Bernberg — you  prepared  the  statement,  didn't  you,  that  you  and  Mr. 
Bernberg  issued  to  the  crime  commission  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Yes. 

Senator  Ervin.  You  and  Mr.  Bernberg  issued  this  statement  to  the 
effect  that  tavern  keepers  had  paid  cops  anywhere  from  $350  to  $2,000 
to  avoid  being  charged  with  liquor  law  violations,  didn't  you  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Ervin.  Did  you  have  information  to  that  effect  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  ERv^N.  Did  you  have  the  information?  Where  did  you 
get  the  information  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  From  the  tavern  owners. 

Senator  Ervin.  And  did  you  get  the  names  of  the  crooked  cops  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Ervin.  Don't  you  think  maybe  as  a  lawyer,  an  officer  of 
the  court,  who  gets  information  of  that  kind  and  then  fails  to  turn  it 
over  to  any  prosecuting  agency  of  the  government  is  also  responsible 
for  crime  conditions  such  as  you  say  you  have  heard  about  in  Chicago 
since  you  were  a  child  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  suppose  so.  I  drank  gin  bucks  during  prohibi- 
tion.   I  suppose  I  am  as  bad  as  a  bootlegger. 

Senator  Ervin.  You  go  and  make  this  statement  that  cops  have 
gotten  as  much  as  $2,000  in  shakedowns.  You  have  never  at  any  time 
either  given  the  information  to  any  prosecuting  attorney  or  given  any 
specific  cases ;  have  you  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  wasn't  retained  by  these  people  to  give  the  infor- 
mation to  the  prosecuting  attorney.  I  was  given  the  information  for 
the  purpose  of  seeing  if  we  could  work  up  an  interest  in  changing  the 
law. 

Senator  Ervin.  And  you  made  a  public  statement  that  would  cast 
suspicion  on  every  police  officer  of  the  city  of  Chicago,  and  you  issued 
that  statement  for  the  purpose,  among  other  things,  of  building  up 
the  business  of  this  company  of  which  you  were  or  hoped  to  be  general 
counsel. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  On  the  contrary,  Senator,  that  editorial  you  hold 
in  front  of  you  specifically  states  that  the  overwhelming  majority  of 
the  police  in  the  city  of  Chicago  are  honest. 

Senator  Ervin.  The  editorial  may  say  that 

Mr.  Greenfield.  That  is  the  report  that  we  submitted. 

Senator  Ervin.  But  your  statement,  you  issued  a  statement  charg- 
ing the  police  force  or  members  of  the  police  force  of  Chicago  with 
these  shakedowns,  and  you  have  never  yet  made  the  least  effort  to 
bring  a  single  one  of  them  to  prosecution ;  have  you  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  That  wasn't  my  objective. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12765 

Senator  Ervin.  No;  your  objective  was  to  advertise  the  company 
of  whicli  yon  were  general  counsel  or  hoped  to  be  general  counsel  so 
they  might  get  some  business  and  so  you  might  get  some  fees ;  wasn't 
it? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  No,  sir.   That  was  only  one  of  the  objectives. 

Senator  Ervin.  That  was  one  of  your  motives. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Yes,  sir ;  and  it  is  a  legitimate  motive. 

Senator  Ervin.  And  you  are  not  concerned  at  all  with  seeing  any 
of  the  guilty  men  that  have  been  guilty  of  these  shakedowns  being 
brought  to  justice? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  was  concerned  with  seeing  a  law  that  makes  it 
possible  changed. 

Senator  Ervin.  And  right  today  you  say  you  are  unable  to  give  this 
committee  the  names  of  any  of  the  officers  that  receive  shakedowns  of 
that  character? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  The  clients  that  I  represented  there  were  inter- 
ested in  getting  the  law  changed  and  not  in  getting  themselves  heroes. 

Senator  Ervin.  You  see,  you  never  answer  the  question,  until  after 
several  efforts. 

Read  my  question. 

(The  pending  question  was  read  by  the  reporter,  as  requested.) 

Mr.  Greenfield.  It  is  a  lawyer 's  confidential  communication,  a 
privileged  communication. 

Senator  Ervin.  I  have  never  heard  that,  and  I  have  been  a  lawyer 
a  long  time,  but  I  think  there's  no  requirement  that  you  keep  confi- 
dential anything  about  the  rascality  of  anybody  except  your  own 
clients. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Well,  my  clients  have  asked  me  to  keep  it  con- 
fidential, because  they  are  still  in  business. 

The  Chairman.  Unless  you  got  it  from  your  clients.  They  could 
not  ask  you  unless  they  were  your  clients  at  the  time  you  got  the  in- 
formation. 

Senator  Ervin.  In  other  words,  you  are  swearing  to  this  committee 
that  they  had  been  shaken  down  for  anywhere  from  $350  to  $2,000 
and  you  would  not  tell  the  officers  of  the  law  about  it? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  am  not  so  smart.  I  don't  understand  why 
Lieutenant  Morris  has  waited  5  years  to  testify. 

Senator  Ervin.  You  don't  answer  questions.  Mr.  Greenfield,  when 
we  ask  you  a  question,  you  talk  about  something  else. 

That  is  all. 

The  Chairman.  Let  me  ask  Mr.  Duffy  a  question. 

Mr.  Duffy,  you  testified  a  moment  ago.  Have  you  seen  a  summary 
of  your  report  that  you  made  on  this  matter? 

Mr.  Duffy.  Yes,  sir ;  I  have. 

The  Chairman.  I  hand  you  what  I  understand  is  a  summary  of  the 
report  you  made.  I  ask  you  to  look  at  the  bottom  paragraph  of  page 
6  and  read  it  to  yourself  and  then  tell  me  whether  you  identify  that 
as  a  part  or  substance  of  your  report. 

(The  document  was  handed  to  the  witness.) 

Mr.  Duffy.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  a  part  of  vour  report  ? 

Mr.  Duffy.  Yes,  sir ;  it  is. 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  read  that  part  of  your  report? 

Mr.  Duffy.  Yes,  sir. 


12766  IMPROPER   ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

The  Chairman.  Just  before  you  do,  let  me  ask  one  question  of  Mr. 
Greenfield. 

Mr.  Greenfield,  I  think  I  heard  you  say  in  your  testimony  that  you 
volunteered  to  go  before  the  Big  Nine  Crime  Committee,  is  that 
correct  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Well,  they  called  me  up  and  asked  me  if  I  would 
appear  and  I  said  "Very  happy  to." 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  subpenaed  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield,  I  don't  think  it  was  a  subpena.  I  think  it  was  a 
summons,  an  invitation  or  a  summons.  I  don't  remember  how  it 
came. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  you  volunteered.  You  responded  to  an 
invitation,  at  least,  or  responded  to  a  subpena.     Wliich  was  it? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  was  called  up  by  one  of  the  aldermen.  I  don't 
remember  the  name  now.  He  asked  me  whether  I  would  appear,  in 
view  of  that  editorial,  if  I  would  appear  before  the  committtee. 

I  said  "Any  time  you  want  to."  The  following  week  I  received  a 
subpena. 

The  Chairman.  So  instead  of  volunteering  as  a  lawyer,  you  know 
you  responded  to  a  subpena,  don't  you  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  know  I  offered  to  volunteer  to  appear  before 
them. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  offer  until  you  were  called. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Senator  McClellan,  they  called  me  up  by  this  com- 
mittee and  asked  if  I  would  come  over  and  talk  to  them.  I  went  over. 
When  I  was  there,  they  gave  me  a  subpena.  I  still  volunteered.  They 
didn't  have  to  look  for  me. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  all  right. 

I  think  the  record  shows  that  he  was  subpenaed.  If  he  wants 
to  say  volunteered,  we  will  not  quibble  about  it. 

All  right,  Mr.  Duffy,  read  the  summary,  that  paragraph  in  the 
summary,  of  your  statement. 

Mr.  Duffy  (reading)  : 

On  March  2,  1953,  Greenfield  received  a  subpena  to  appear  before  the  Big 
Nine  Crime  Committee.  During  his  testimony  before  this  committee,  Greenfield 
testified  that  the  Federated  Retail  Liquor  Dealers  Associaticm  was  comprised 
of  a  membership  of  1,500.  Actually,  the  total  membership  was  0  members. 
Greenfield  further  testified  that  he  had  evidence  of  at  least  15  shakedowns 
committed  by  the  police  against  members  of  the  association. 

Actually,  Greenfield  has  never  received  any  such  complaints.  In  subsequent 
conversations  he  was  overheard  to  say  he  manufactured  this  statement  on  the 
spur  of  the  moment. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  the  one  who  heard  him  say  it  ? 

Mr.  Duffy.  Well,  no,  sir.  I  compiled  this  from  a  siunmary  of 
reports.  The  following  day,  after  Mr.  Greenfield  testified  before 
the  Big  Nine  Committee,  or  rather,  during  the  course  of  the  day  while 
lie  was  testifying,  members  of  our  unit  Avere  serving  subpenas  on 
Nate  Bernberg  and  various  other  members  of  the  association,  in  order 
that  tlie  ])olice  might  be  able  to  refute  what  Greenfield  had  testified 
to.  The  day  on  which  Mr.  (xreenfield  testified  terminated  tlie  doings 
of  the  Big  Nine.  The  police  department  never  had  an  occasion,  or 
never  had  the  op|)ortunity  to  state  their  case  before  the  Big  Nine 
with  reference  to  Mr.  Greenfield's  testimony. 

In  other  words,  to  impeach  him. 


IMPROPER    ACTR'ITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12767 

The  Chairman.  So  the  committee,  as  I  understand  you  now,  the 
Big  Nine  Committee,  terminated  on  the  same  day  that  Mr.  Greenfield 
testified  ? 

Mr.  Duffy.  Yes,  sir,  the  same  day  or  the  following  day. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  mean  by  terminated  ? 

Did  the  life  of  it  expire  ? 

Mr.  Duffy.  Well,  it  became  enmeshed  in  some  legal  problems, 
I  think,  as  I  recall. 

The  Chairman.  Did  they  hold  any  more  hearings  ? 

Mr.  Duffy.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  the  last  hearing  they  held,  the  day  Mr. 
Greenfield  testified  ? 

Mr.  Duffy.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Mundt.  Mr.  Duffy,  what  was  the  address  of  the  office 
of  the  association  where  you  and  Lieutenant  Morris  established  sur- 
veillance? 

Mr.  Duffy.  10  North  Clark  Street. 

Senator  Mundt.  How  many  times  did  you  tell  the  committee,  Mr. 
Greenfield,  that  you  were  in  the  offices  at  No.  10  North  Clark  Street  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Wliat  is  that,  sir  ? 

Senator  Mundt.  Earlier  in  your  testimony  you  were  asked  how 
many  times  you  were  in  the  offices  of  the  association  at  No.  10  North 
Clark  Street.     How  many  times  did  you  say  you  were  in  that  office? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  During  the  course  of  the  10  weeks? 

Senator  Mundt.  During  the  course  of  the  10  weeks. 

As  I  recall,  you  said  5  or  6  or  6  or  8,  but  I  may  be  wrong. 

IMr.  Greenfield.  For  a  period  of  a  few  weeks  I  was  there  4  or  5 
times  a  week. 

Senator  Mundt.  I  think  the  earlier  testimony,  and,  of  course,  what- 
ever you  said  was  in  the  record,  will  show  up  in  print,  I  tliink  it  was 
considerably  less  than  that. 

In  10  weeks,  that  is  about  50  times. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  said  for  just  a  period  of  a  few  weeks. 

Senator  Mundt.  How  many  weeks  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  don't  remember. 

Senator  Mundt.  Eight  of  the  ten  weeks,  would  you  say  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  If  I  don't  remember,  it  is  I  can't  remember  whether 
it  was  8  of  the  10  weeks  or  6.  of  the  10  weeks. 

Senator  Mundt.  If  you  don't  remember,  you  can't  tell  whether  it 
was  a  few  weeks  either. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  What  is  that? 

Senator  Mundt.  If  you  can't  remember,  you  can't  remember  whether 
it  was  a  few  weeks. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  know  when  I  was  busy  writing  a  report  and 
gathering  certain  evidence,  I  saw  them  more  often. 

Senator  Mundt.  Do  you  suppose  you  were  there  as  many  as  35 
times  altogether? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  might  have  been. 

Senator  Mundt.  Maybe  45  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Maybe. 

Senator  ]Muxdt.  Maybe  55  ? 

21243— 58— pt.  33 18 


12768  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Maybe. 

Senator  Mundt.  Maybe  60  ? 

I  wouldn't  go  beyond  that,  but  that  is  a  big  departure  from  your 
earlier  testimony  of  5  or  6  times. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Maybe  I  didn't  understand  the  question  before. 

Senator  Mundt.  You  would  be  a  much  more  convincing  witness,  I 
might  say,  if  you  would  be  a  little  more  consistent ;  if  you  had  a  better 
memory.  But  you  keep  changing  positions  so  fast  it  is  pretty  diffi- 
cult for  someone  on  this  side  of  the  table  to  know  just  what  in  the 
world  you  were  doing. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Maybe,  Senator,  it  is  just  because  if  I  am  changing 
or  shifting,  I  am  not  conscious  of  it. 

I  will  admit  I  am  very,  very  much  excited,  terribly  tense  and  terribly 
angry,  because  the  man  who  said  that  some  day  he  would  smear  me,  he 
has  been  able  to  do  it,  and  this  committee  rather  than  take  a  look  at 
it,  the  overall  objective  of  what  was  accomplished,  and  rather  than 
take  a  look  at  the  talk  with  the  State's  attorney,  that  I  reported  to 
the  police  on  January  5,  that  I  acted  as  a  legitimate  businessman  or 
attorney,  and  take  those  facts  into  consideration  as  you  would,  from 
an  impartial  standpoint,  say,  "Here  is  a  man  that  travels  with  hoods." 

He  goes  to  the  police,  to  the  State's  attorney,  writes  reports  to  the 
crime  commission,  appears  before  them,  and  here  all  this  time  these 
great  intelligence  officers  had  this  information,  they  had  the  commis- 
sioner of  police  behind  them,  the  mayor  behind  them,  the  aldermen  be- 
hind them,  but  they  didn't  testify  because  I  testified  on  the  last  day 
and  they  made  no  arrests.  Because  I  was  what?  A  big  power? 
With  who  ? 

I  mean,  doesn't  this  strike  you  as  being  strange  ? 

Senator  Mundt.  The  whole  situation  strikes  me  as  strange,  it 
would  sound  a  lot  simpler  if  you  told  me  you  appeared  before  the 
crime  commission  and  yoU'  said  you  had  15  pieces  of  evidence  about 
15  shakedowns,  and  what  were  they,  and  if  you  had  related  them  there, 
instead  of  saying  "I  wouldn't  tell  you." 

It  would  have  eliminated  some  of  the  bizarre  nature  of  this  whole 
thing,  in  my  opinion,  and  then  the  blind  knowledge  would  have 
stopped. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  can  understand  your  puzzlement  there.  But  if 
I  can  just  give  you  the  circumstances  then,  these  men,  the  tavern- 
keepers,  were  still  under  the  law,  with  the  police  captain  having  the 
sword  of  Damocles  hanging  over  their  heads. 

They  were  interested  in  changing  the  law.  They  were  not  inter- 
ested in  becoming  subject  to  any  vindictiveness  or  retaliatory  meas- 
ures by  the  police  by  coming  out  and  saying,  "I  paid  so-and-so  so- 
and-so."  We  can  sit  here  and  ask  why  we  didn't  act  with  the  greatest 
holiness,  but  you  know  there  are  a  lot  of  people  who  may  do  things 
in  graft,  who  will  resent  the  fact  that  they  had  to  pay  it,  but  will  not 
take  the  steps  to  say,  "I  paid  so-and-so  so-and-so,"  especially  if  they 
are  in  business. 

Senator  Mundt.  Could  be. 

The  Chairman.  Is  there  anything  further  ? 

Mr.  Clinton.  Senator,  may  I  tender  this  as  an  exhibit  to  you,  sir  ? 

The  Chairman.  You  may  pass  it  up. 

Mr.  Clinton.  This  is  the  ])olice  report  on  January  3, 1953. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR   FIELD  12769 

Senator  Mundt.  Are  you  sure,  Mr.  Greenfield,  that  you  met  Mr. 
Labriola  just  one  time? 

You  met  him  once? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Yes,  it  was  in  a  restaurant. 

Senator  Mundt.  You  are  sure  you  didn't  meet  him  any  other  time? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  To  the  best  of  my  recollection,  I  don't  ever  re- 
member meeting  him  again.  You  see,  at  that  time,  men  like  him  did 
not  come  downtown  or  in  places  where  a  lot  of  the  public  congregated. 
They  were  picked  up. 

Senator  Mundt.  Were  you  ever  told  by  Mr.  Bernberg  not  to  men- 
tion the  fact  that  Mr.  Labriola  was  connected  with  the  association  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Senator,  Mr.  Bernberg  and  myself  used  to  wink 
at  each  other  across  the  desk  as  we  listened  to  these  crumby  psy co- 
paths  sit  around  and  talk  how  they  were  going  to  take  over  Chicago. 
This,  viewed  in  another  light,  makes  dramatic  reading,  makes  like  a 
terrific  job  of  accomplishment  by  the  police.  But  if  you  will  search 
the  records  of  these  men  and  find  out  how  completely — I  will  give  you 
one  example,  this  man  that  they  mentioned.  About  a  year  goes  by 
and  he  runs  into  me  on  La  Salle  Street,  rundown  shoes,  needed  shave. 

Senator  Mundt.  This  is  Labriola  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  No,  one  of  the  great  syndicate  characters  that 
Lieutenant  Morris 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Who  was  it  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Lombardi.  He  said  to  me  "I  just  got  into  town 
a  few  days  ago.     How  you  been  ?" 

I  said  "Fine."     I  said  "How  you  been  ?" 

I  am  looking  him  over.  He  said,  "I  am  in  trouble.  Mayor  Kennelly 
called  me  the  other  night  and  said  "Joe,  I  heard  you  got  in  town. 
Why  didn't  you  call  me  ?'  " 

You  are  dealing  with  real  screwballs.  Now  you  sit  down  and  talk 
about  a  couple  of  guys  that  can't  fight  their  way  out  of  a  paper  bag, 
talking  about  big  syndicate  members,  with  Senators  and  this.  It 
sounds  like  a  big  blot.  May  I  tell  you.  Senator,  if  the  syndicate  was 
really  interested  in  what  we  were  doing,  did  they  have  to  go  to  a  Nate 
Bernberg,  who  had  four  members  in  his  association,  according  to  your 
records,  to  take  over  and  move  in  on  the  retail  taverns  in  Chicago? 
Do  you  think  these  men  had  enough  muscle,  enough  strength,  and 
enough  power  that  they  had  to  start  with  a  little  crumb  joint  on  North 
Clark  Street  ?     Does  that  make  sense  to  you,  Senator  ? 

Senator  Mundt.  No  ;  it  doesn't. 

I  am  completely  puzzled. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  This  is  conjured  up  as  a  great  picture  by  Lieu- 
tenant Morris. 

Senator  Mundt.  It  doesn't  make  sense  to  me  why  you  want  to  be- 
come general  counsel  to  an  organization  run  by  a  couple  of  crackpots. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  That  is  right.  That  is  why  I  left.  The  whole 
thing  was  10  weeks.  But  forget  about  me.  Let's  say  I  am  sitting 
here,  and  I  am  lying.  Take  for  granted  that  I  am  a  character  as  he 
painted.    Just  take  the  physical  facts  into  consideration. 

It  is  important  to  me  as  a  human  being.  Would  a  syndicate,  assum- 
ing the  power  that  you  men  say  it  has,  big  enough  so  that  the  Sun- 
Times  is  running  television  on  it,  with  that  kind  of  power,  do  they 
have  to  start  moving  into  a  retail  tavern  association,  through  an  or- 


12770  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    m    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

ganization  by  Nate  Bernberg,  who  has  a  side  job  and  a  political,  in 
city  hall,  with  4  members  or  6  members  ? 

This  is  the  way  they  have  to  get  started ?  Does  that  sound  logical? 
Would  Henry  Crown  or  Mr.  Kennedy  have  to  start  a  business  by  in- 
vesting $1,000?  These  are  big  men,  'if  they  are  big  syndicate  people 
from  what  I  read  in  the  paper.  Why  do  they  need  an  organization  of 
3  or  4  men  ?     Why  do  they  need  a  Bob  Greenfield  ? 

Senator  Mi  ndt.  Maybe  Weinberg  and  Bernberg  fooled  them  like 
they  fooled  you.  You  thought  they  were  big  enough  to  set  up  an 
association  and  establish  you  as  general  counsel. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Bernberg  was  not  fooled.  He  used  to  sit  and  say, 
"I  knew  Jim  since  he  was  a  kid.  When  he  had  10  bucks  in  his  pocket, 
he  wanted  to  leave  for  New  York  and  buy  the  Empire  State  Building." 

Senator  Mundt.  Maybe  Bernberg  fooled  and  misled  the  syndicate 
as  you  say  he  misled  you. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Bernberg  ? 

Senator  Mundt.  Yes. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  You  mean  Weinberg  ? 

Senator  Mundt.  Both  of  them. 

They  would  sit  and  wink  at  each  other.  The  Winker  Bros.,  I  am 
thinking  of. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  am  a  Bernberg  winker,  not  a  Weinberg  winker. 

Weinberg  is  the  one  who  made  the  wink. 

Senator  Mundt.  To  Bernberg  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Who  is  on  first  ? 

Senator  Mundt.  It  is  just  as  illogical  to  me  that  they  kept  you  on 
the  hook  for  10  weeks,  thinking  you  were  going  to  become  general 
counsel  for  a  new  association. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Well,  I  can  prove  this,  and  Lieutenant  Morris 
knows  it,  that  Mr.  Weinberg  or  Mr.  Hill  used  to  try  to  get  a  dollar  for 
coffee.  Here  is  a  man  that  said  to  me,  "Don't  worry  about  Teitel- 
baum.    I  will  get  you  his  job  at  $125,000  a  year." 

I  said,  if  they  had  recordings,  "Gee,  Jimmie,  that  is  wonderful." 

Now,  assuming  I  have  normal  intelligence^  enough  to  pass  a  bar 
exam,  would  I  have  believed  that  a  man  who  hasn't  got  money  to  buy 
coffee  is  going  to  turn  over  a  job  to  me  in  a  month's  time  of  $125,000 
a  year  ? 

Senator  Mundt.  I  wouldn't  think  so,  but  you  look  to  me  so  much 
more  intelligent  than  to  have  to  go  back  45  times  to  the  same  outfit 
to  find  that  out.  I  am  giving  you  credit  for  fewer  times  than  you 
say.     You  said  60,  and  I  am  cutting  it  to  45. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  These  people  provided — and  any  newspaperman 
knows  what  I  mean  and  any  public-relations  man  knows  what  I  mean — 
they  provided  me  with  the  necessary  springboard  for  writing  this 
report. 

Coming  from  a  wholesaler,  it  would  not  have  been  as  good.  .  But 
coming  from  retail  outfits,  the  other  established  retail  outfits  did  not 
want  to  lend  themselves  to  this  report. 

They  wanted  it,  but  they  were  afraid  they  would  be  subject  to 
harassment.  So  this  new  organization,  because  they  were  new,  were 
willing  to  lend  themselves,  and  it  jrave  me  the  necessary  hook  for  pro- 
ducing a  report  that  eventually  clianged  the  law.  This  was  the  only 
reason  I  saw  them. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12771 

Senator  Mundt.  I  am  not  entirely  familiar  with  the  report  aspects 
of  this  case.     Is  that  the  report  you  made  to  the  crime  commission? 

Mr.  Greexfield.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Mundt.  Why  did  you  have  to  wait  until  you  were  sub- 
pen  aed  to  make  it  ? 

Mr.  GitEENFiELD.  I  did  not  wait  until  I  was  subpenaed. 

Senator  Mundt.  Well,  invited. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  didn't  wait  until  I  was  invited. 

Senator  Mundt.  Well,  they  called  you. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  They  were  also  calling  people  and  having  all  kinas 
of  trouble  of  their  own.  They  were  interviewing  a  lot  of  police  cap- 
tams  at  that  thne  who  had  terrific  investments  and  saved  a  lot  of 
money. 

They  called  me  and  said,  "We  would  like  to  talk  to  you  about  this 
shakedown." 

And  I  said,  "Any  time  you  are  ready,  let  me  know,  and  I  would  be 
very  happy  to  appear." 

Then  one  day  a  policeman  walked  in  and  handed  me  a  subpena. 
By  the  same  token,  if  you  had  called  me  here  and  said,  "We  want  you 
to  appear  in  Washington,"  you  would  not  have  to  give  me  a  subpena. 
I  would  have  appeared.  But  you  can  now  put  on  the  record  that  I 
was  subpenaed.     I  was. 

Senator  Mundt.  Is  it  your  feeling  and  belief  that  if  you  had  not 
gone  down  to  the  crime  commission  that  day  and  testified,  the  city 
ordinance  would  not  have  been  passed  ? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Well,  that  is  a  very  hard  thing  to  say.  I  do  know 
that  the  report  that  we  filed  received  the  editorial  support.  And 
because  it  made  sense,  and  it  did  make  sense,  and  because  there  was 
considerable — there  is  a  brief  that  was  filed  by  Mr.  Clinton  inciden- 
tally, a  complaint  in  a  lawsuit  in  a  United  States  Federal  court — if 
you  will  look  at  the  newspapers  at  that  time  you  will  find  there  was 
considerable  editorializing,  headlines  and  stories,  about  the  tieup  be- 
tween police  and  crime,  so  at  that  time  it  was  timely,  and  even  if  I 
had  not  appeared  at  the  crime  commission,  I  think  the  report  in 
itself  got  them  to  thinking  about  it  and  they  decided  as  long  as  it 
was  an  avenue  of  graft,  it  was  a  good  thing  to  eliminate. 

Senator  Mundt.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  say  that  there  was  editorial  and  interest  in  the 
tieup  between  the  police  and  crime.  You  had  information  yourself 
of  the  tieup  with  crime.  You  had  these  individuals  saying  that  they 
were  associated  with  the  syndicate  in  Chicago. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Which  individuals  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  These  individuals.  Weinberg,  with  whom  you  were 
associated. 

JNIr.  Greenfield.  I  was  not  associated. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Well,  whom  you  met  in  the  office  around  45  or  50 
times.  He  was  telling  j'ou  he  was  taking  instructions  from  the  syn- 
dicate. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Because  I  knew  he  wasn't. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Why  didn't  you  tell  the  crime  committee  about 
that? 

Mr.  Greenfield.  About  him  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Yes. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  wouldn't  want  to  be  a  dead  hero. 


12772  IMPROPER   ACTIVITIES    EST   THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  wouldn't  want  to  be  a  dead  hero.  Then  you 
go  to  the  crime  committee  and  appear  before  them  as  somebody  who 
has  1,500  members. 

Mr.  Greenfield.  Well,  let  me  put  it  this  way.  There  is  a  basic 
reason  because  I  didn't  tell  it  to  the  crime  commission,  any  more  since 
I  didn't  believe  it. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  As  Senator  Mundt  says,  you  went  there  45  or  50 
times 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  don't  know  how  many  times  I  went  down  there. 
So  don't  peg  on  something  I  don't  remember  and  use  that  as  a  hook. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  said  6  times  first,  and  45  or  50  times  second. 
If  you  were  telling  the  truth 

Mr.  Greenfield.  I  am  telling  the  truth. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  All  right. 

The  Chairman.  Is  there  anything  further  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  is  all. 

The  Chairman.  The  statement  filed  by  counsel  will  be  filed  with 
the  committee. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  This  witness  will  be  recalled  in  another  hearing  at 
a  later  time. 

Mr.  Clinton.  May  I  assure  the  committee  that,  on  request  of  any 
representative  of  the  committee,  we  will  appear  upon  reasonable 
notice. 

The  Chairman.  Further  testimony  will  be  required  during  the 
course  of  the  committee's  work.  Upon  reasonable  notice  of  the  time 
and  place  the  committee  desires  to  further  interrogate  the  witness, 
he  will  appear  without  further  subpena  ? 

Mr.  Clinton.  That  is  correct. 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  will  stand  in  recess  until  10  o'clock 
in  the  morning. 

(Whereupon,  at  5  p.  m.,  the  hearing  was  recessed  with  the  follow- 
ing members  present :  Senators  McClellan,  Ervin,  and  Mundt,  to  re- 
convene at  10  a.  m.,  Friday,  July  18, 1958.) 


INVESTIGATION  OF  IMPROPER  ACTIVITIES  IN  THE 
LABOR  OR  MANAGE3IENT  FIELD 


FRIDAY,   JULY   11,    1958 

United  States  Senate, 
Select  Committee  on  Improper  Activities 

IN  THE  Labor  or  JManagement  Field, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

The  select  committee  met  at  10  a,  m.,  pursuant  to  Senate  Resolution 
74,  agreed  to  January  30,  1957,  in  the  caucus  room.  United  States 
Senate,  Senator  John  L.  McClellan  (chairman  of  the  select  commit- 
tee) presiding. 

Present :  Senator  John  L.  McClellan,  Democrat,  Arkansas ;  Senator 
John  F.  Kennedy,  Democrat,  Massachusetts;  Senator  Sam  J.  Ervin, 
Jr.,  Democrat,  North  Carolina;  Senator  Barry  Goldwater,  Republi- 
can, Arizona;  Senator  Karl  E.  Mundt,  Republican,  South  Dakota; 
Senator  Carl  T.  Curtis,  Republican,  Nebraska. 

Also  present :  Robert  F.  Kennedy,  chief  counsel ;  John  J.  McGovern, 
assistant  counsel;  LaVern  J.  Duffy,  investigator;  James  P.  Kelly, 
investigator;  James  Mundie,  investigtor;  Ruth  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  Ervin.) 

The  Chairman.  Before  we  proceed  with  the  next  witness,  the  Chair 
will  announce  that  we  have  information  that,  both  in  Detroit  and  in 
Chicago,  efforts  are  being  made  to  intimidate  witnesses  or  some  of  the 
witnesses  that  are  under  subpena  to  come  before  this  committee  and 
testify.  The  committee  has  requested,  and  the  FBI  has  promptly 
responded,  an  investigation  to  get  on  these  cases  immediately. 

I  have  heretofore  said,  and  I  repeat,  that,  in  my  judgment,  any 
such  act  or  any  attempt  to  intimidate,  coerce,  or  threaten  a  witness 
under  subpena  by  this  committee  is  an  act  in  contempt  of  the  United 
States  Senate.  If  we  can  apprehend  those  who  are  guilty  of  it,  we 
will  deal  with  them  in  that  fashion. 

I  think,  also,  they  would  be  guilty  of  an  attempt  or  conspiracy  to 
obstruct  justice  and  to  obstruct  due  process  of  the  Senate.  I  am  hope- 
ful the  FBI  will  be  successful  in  discovering  those  who  may  be  en- 
gaged in  such  activity  and  that  we  will  be  able  to  bring  them  to  justice 
and  that  they  will  receive  proper  punishment  for  their  offense. 

All  right ;  is  there  anything  further  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  I  might  add  tluit  there  were  2  separate  occasions  in 
the  past  week  in  Detroit,  and  1  instance  in  Chicago  on  a  witness  who 
is  to  appear  early  next  week.  The  two  other  witness  are  to  appear 
in  our  Detroit  hearings,  which  will  start  within  the  next  several 
weeks. 

12773 


12774  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

The  Chairman.  I  don't  know  liow  you  would  need  any  stronger 
evidence  to  convince  one  that  the  underworld  element  is  operating  in 
a  fashion  that  threatens  and  endangers  the  security  of  our  country. 
I  am  hopeful  that  these  hearings  will  continue  to  reveal  their  activ- 
ities, particularly  as  they  infiltrate  into  business  and  labor  organiza- 
tions, and  that,  as  a  result,  we  will  be  able  to  legislate  in  this  field 
so  as  to  prevent,  where  it  is  possible  to  do  so,  such  action  and  to 
punish  those  who  may  be  guilty  of  such  conduct. 

Call  the  next  witness. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Sam  Battaglia. 

The  Chairman.  Is  the  witness  present  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  I  believe  the  lawyer  said  that  he  was  present. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  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.  Battaglia.  I  do. 

TESTIMONY  OF  SAM  BATTAGLIA 

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

Mr.  Battaglia.  My  name  is  Sam  Battaglia.  I  live  at  1114  North 
Ridgeland  Avenue,  Oak  Park,  111. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  you  business  or  occupation? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  I  refuse  to  answer  on  the  ground  that  my  answer — 
wait  a  while — I  refuse  to  answer  on  the  ground  that  my  answer  may 
tend  to  incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  have  counsel  ? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  I  am  appearing  without  counsel. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  waive  counsel,  then  ? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  I  suggest  you  change  that  word  "refuse"  to 
"decline." 

Mr.  Battaglia.  I  decline. 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  make  that  change  as  you  read  your 
statement  ? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  I  don't  understand. 

The  Chairman.  I  said,  instead  of  using  the  word  "refuse,"  will 
you  say  you  "decline"  ? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  Do  I  have  to  do  that  ? 

The  Chairman.  Well,  you  may  have  to.  I  think  "decline"  shows  a 
little  more  respect  for  your  Government,  don't  you? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  O.  K.  ;  decline,  then. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Could  you  tell  us,  Mr.  Battaglia,  a  little  bit  about 
your  background,  as  to  where  you  were  born  ? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  I  decline  to  answer  on  the  ground  that  that  may 
tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Just  where  you  were  born,  Mr.  Battaglia.  Can't 
you  tell  us  that? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  I  answered  already. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  I  am  asking  you  again  to  reconsider  your  answer. 
Could  you  tell  us  where  you  were  bom,  and  the  date  of  it? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  I  answered  it. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12775 

Mr,  IvENNEDY.  Xo;  I  would  like  to  have  you  reconsider  it,  and 
what  is  your  answer  on  reconsideration  of  my  question  ? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  I  answered  it. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  haven't  answered  this  question.  I  want  to 
have  the  date  and  the  place  of  your  birth. 

Mr.  Battaglia.  I  decline  to  answer  on  the  ground  that  that  may 
tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  were  born  in  Chicago,  were  you,  in  1909;  is 
that  correct  ? 

The  Chairman.  Let  the  Chair  make  a  record  here,  please.  We  are 
going  to  test  out  some  of  these  instances.  The  Chair  will  ask  you 
the  question :  "\AnTLere  were  you  bom  ? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  I  refuse  to  answer — decline  to  answer  on  the 
ground  that  that  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  With  the  permission  of  the  committee,  with  its 
approval,  the  Chair  orders  and  directs  you  to  answer  the  question. 

Mr.  Battaglia.  I  answered  it. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  your  answer  ? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  understand  that  you  are  being  ordered  and 
directed  by  this  committee  to  answer  the  question  as  to  where  you 
were  born  ? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  I  just  told  you  where  I  was  born. 

The  Chairman.  You  did? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  I  just  told  you. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  I  answered  the  question. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  I  asked  you  the  question,  and  I  have  ordered 
and  directed  you  to  answer,  and  state  where  you  were  born. 

Mr.  Battaglia.  I  answered  it. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  your  answer  ? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  not  an  answer.  That  answer  will  not  be 
accepted.     Do  you  still  refuse  to  answer  ? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  I  answered  it. 

The  Chairman.  I  said :  Do  you  still  refuse  to  answer  and  state  to 
this  committee  Avhere  you  were  born  ? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  I  answered  it. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  the  answer  you  want  to  give  ? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Your  answer  is  that  you  refuse  or  decline  on  the 
ground  that  to  answer  it  might  tend  to  incriminate  you  ? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  honestly  believe  if  you  told  this  committee 
where  you  were  born  tliat  a  truthful  answer  to  that  question  might 
tend  to  incriminate  you  ? 

Mr.  Battagija.  One  answer  leads  to  another,  and  I  am  not 
answering. 

The  Chairman.  I  asked  you  if  you  honestly  believed  that,  if  you 
gave  a  truthful  answer  to  the  question :  Where  were  you  born  ?  a 
truthful  answer  might  tend  to  incriminate  you. 

Mr.  Battaglia.  I  answered  it. 

The  Chairman.  You  haven't  answered  this  question,  and,  with  the 
approval  of  the  committee,  the  Chair  orders  and  directs  you  to  answer 


12776  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

the  question  as  to  whether  you  honestly  believe  that,  if  you  gave  a 
truthful  answer  to  the  question :  'Wliere  were  you  born  ?  a  truthful 
answer  might  tend  to  incriminate  you. 

Mr.  Baitaglia.  I  answered  it. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  not  answered  it,  and  the  Chair  holds  you 
have  not  answered  it,  and  you  are  under  orders  and  direction  of  the 
committee  to  answer  it. 

Mr.  Battaglia.  I  just  told  you;  I  read  this  off  this  paper,  and  I 
answered  you. 

The  Chairman.  You  haven't  read  off  that  paper  when  I  asked 
you  if  you  honestly  believe. 

Mr.  Battaglia.  I  refuse  to  answer  on  the  gi'ound  it  may  tend  to 
incriminate  me.     Does  that  answer  your  question  now? 

The  Chairman.  That  doesn't. 

Mr.  Battaglia.  That  is  my  answer. 

The  Chairman.  All  right;  let  the  record  stand.  Proceed,  Mr. 
Kennedy. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Tell  us  a  little  bit  about  your  background,  Mr. 
Battaglia.     How  many  times  have  you  been  arrested? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  I  refuse  to  answer  on  the  groimd  that  it  may  tend 
to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Have  you  ever  been  arrested  ? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  I  refuse  to  answer  on  the  ground  that  it  may  tend 
to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  We  have  probably  an  incomplete  record  here,  but 
it  shows  that  you  have  been  arrested  23  times;  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  I  refuse  to  answer  on  the  groimd  that  it  may  tend 
to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  you  have  eight  convictions;  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  I  refuse  to  answer  on  the  ground  that  it  may  tend 
to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Is  that  a  complete  record  ? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  I  refuse  to  answer  on  the  ground 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair,  Avith  the  approval  of  the  committee, 
orders  and  directs  you  to  use  the  word  "decline"  instead  of  "refuse." 

Mr.  Battaglia.  All  right ;  decline. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  say  it  with  any  more  contempt  ? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  What  is  the  matter  with  "refuse";  that  is  a  word 
too,  isn't  it  ? 

The  Chairman.  Proceed. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  As  we  understand  it,  Mr.  Battaglia,  your  specialty 
is  armed  robbery ;  is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  I  refuse  to  answer  on  the  ground — on  the  ground  it 
may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  most  of  your  arrests  and  convictions  have  been 
for  armed  robbery ;  isn't  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  I  refuse  to  answer  on  the  ground  that  it  may  tend 
to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  you  have  been  convicted  8  times,  and  on  3  of 
those  occasions  you  served  time  in  jail ;  is  that  right? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  I  refuse  to  answer  on  the  ground  it  may  tend  to 
incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  are  back  on  "refuse." 

Mr.  Battaglia.  What  is  the  other  word  ? 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12777 

The  Chairman.  The  other  word  is  "decline,"  and  it  is  a  little  more 
respectful. 

Mr.  Battaglia.  All  riorht,  decline. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  did  you  know  Estelle  Carey  ?  Did  you  know 
that  young  lady  ? 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  Were  you  arrested  in  connection  with  Estelle  Carey 
in  1943,  in  connection  with  her  being  bludgeoned  and  burned  to  death  ? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  I  decline  to  answer  on  the  ground  that  it  may  tend 
to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  and  Marshall  Caif  ano  at  that  time  were  arrested 
in  connection  with  her  murder? 

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

Mr.  Ivennedt.  Can  you  tell  us  anything  about  the  murder  of  Estelle 
Carey? 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  when  you  registered  for  the  Selective  Service 
back  during  early  1940's,  you  gave  as  your  address  4500  West  Filmore 
as  a  place  of  employment.  Now,  that  is  the  same  address  as  Marshall 
Caifano,  and  could  you  tell  us  what  you  and  Marshall  Caifano  were 
doing  at  that  address? 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  Then  tell  us  about  Alexander  Chase,  could  you  tell 
us  anything  about  him  ? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  I  decline  to  answer  on  the  account  it  may  tend  to 
incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  were  also  arrested  in  connection  with  his 
murder ;  were  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Battagll\.  I  decline  to  answer  on  account  it  may  tend  to 
incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  October  3,  1945,  you  were  arrested  in  connection 
with  first  degree  murder ;  were  you  not  ? 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  Alexander  Chase,  and  you  were  the  last  person  with, 
him,  was  found  shot  to  death,  on  September  28,  1948 ;  isn't  that  right? 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  At  the  time  of  arrest  you  had  $3,000  in  cash  in  your 
pockets ;  isn't  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  I  decline  to  answer  on  account  it  may  tend  to 
incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  you  gave  your  occupation  as  a  gambler  ? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  I  decline  to  answer  on  account  it  may  tend  to 
incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Wliat  happened  to  that  case,  Mr.  Battaglia  ? 

Mr.  Battagll4.  I  decline  to  answer  on  the  ground  it  may  tend  to 
incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  our  interest  in  you,  Mr.  Battaglia,  is  your  rela- 
tionship with  Mr.  James  Weinberg,  and  Paul  "Needle  Nose''  Labriola. 


12778  IIVIPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Could  you  tell  us  anything  about  James  Weinberg  and  Paul  "Needla 
Nose"  Labriola  ? 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  know  "Needle  Nose"  Labriola  ? 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  know  up  until  a  few  weeks  ago,  he  had  the 
longest  arrest  record  in  Chicago  history,  and  it  was  recently  broken ; 
did  you  know  that  ? 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  We  understand  you  were  contacted  in  connection 
with  their  setting  up  certain  restaurant  liquor  associations  in  Chicago : 
is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  I  decline  to  answer  on  the  ground  it  maj^  tend  to 
incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  were  considered  to  be  the  dominant  factor  in 
West  Side  gambling  and  narcotics  operation,  and  considered  the  head 
man  in  West  Side  Chicago  under  Sam  "Mooney"  Giancana,  is  that 
correct  ? 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  that  you  have  Leonard  Patrick  and  "Willy" 
Block  reporting  to  you,  is  that  correct  ? 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  when  Labriola  and  Weinberg  were  making 
arrangements  for  setting  up  this  association,  they  had  to  go  or  it  was 
suggested  that  they  get  in  touch  with  you,  and  the  man  in  overall 
charge  of  it  was  Sam  "Golfbag"  Hunt,  but  that  you  were  in  charge  of 
the  West  Side,  is  that  correct  ? 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  the  man  that  they  had  to  be  solicited  on  the 
South  Side  was  Bruno  Roti,  is  that  correct  ? 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  Do  you  have  it  split  into  areas  out  there,  Mr. 
Battaglia? 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  according  to  the  testimony  yesterday,  what 
developed  was  that  the  group  of  "Needle  Nose"  and  Weinberg  failed  to 
get  your  permission  when  they  moved  in  on  the  West  Side,  and  so  you 
became  very  angry,  is  that  correct  ? 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  because  you  got  angry,  Bruno  Eoti  also  with' 
drew  his  support  from  the  South  Side,  is  that  right? 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  you  all  work  those  things  out  together,  do  you, 
Mr.  Battaglia,  a  little  club  among  yourselves  ? 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12779 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  know  Eddie  Morris,  who  is  now  serving 
time  in  the  penitentiary  out  in  Illinois  ? 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  He  visited  the  office,  and  he  talked  about  the  situa- 
tion, and  the  fact  that  Gussie  Alex  should  be  contacted,  and  lie  should 
be  the  one  to  bring  peace  between  all  of  you.  Now  Guss  Alex  was  a 
top  hoodlum  in  Chicago,  is  he  not  ? 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  he  is  a  close  associate  of  yours  ? 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  And,  Mr.  Battaglia,  we  located  Mr.  Alex  out  in  Los 
Angeles  about  a  month  ago,  and  as  we  were  coming  to  the  hotel  to 
subpena  him,  he  left  suddenly  and  we  haven't  been  able  to  find  him 
since  then.  Would  you  help  us  by  telling  us  where  you  think  he 
might  be  ? 

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

Air.  ICennedy.  Do  you  know  where  Mr.  Giancana  is  ?  We  are  also 
looking  for  him. 

Mr.  IBattaglia.  I  decline  to  answer  on  the  ground  it  may  tend  to 
incrnninate  me. 

Mr.  I^NNEDY.  You  are  not  going  to  help  the  Government  at  all, 
Mr.  Battaglia  ? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  As  much  as  I  can. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Will  you  tell  us  where  "Mooney"  Giancana  is? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  I  decline  to  answer  on  the  ground — wait  awhile — 
I  decline  to  answer  on  the  ground  that  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Wliat  ways  will  you  help  the  Government?  You 
name  some  of  the  things  that  you  will  do.  Is  there  anything  at  all? 
What  will  you  do  ?     You  suggest  something. 

Mr.  Battaglia.  I  ain't  suggesting  anything. 

^ir.  IvENNEDY.  You  suggest  something. 

]Mr.  Battaglia.  You  are  asking  tlie  questions. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  For  instance,  will  you  help  us  by  telling  us  what 
business  you  are  in  ? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  I  declme  to  answer  on  the  ground  it  may  tend  to 
incriminate  me. 

Mr,  Kennedy.  Will  you  tell  us  or  help  us  by  telling  us  some  of 
your  associates?     You  are  a  friend  of  Guss  Alex,  for  instance? 

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

Mr.  Ivennedy.  You  suggest  something  that  you  will  lielp  us  on,  and 
then  we  can  move  from  that.  Will  you  suggest  somethinqf?  Any- 
thing that  you  would  do  to  help  the  Government,  Mr.  Battaglia. 
Could  you  suggest  something  that  you  would  do  to  help  the  Govern- 
ment ? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  I  am  not  suggesting  anything. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Nothing? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  You  are  asking  the  questions. 


12780  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN   THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Have  you  ever  helped  the  Government  in  any  way  ? 

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

The  Chairman.  Are  you  an  American  citizen  ? 

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

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

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

The  Chairman.  With  the  approval  of  the  committee,  the  Chair  or- 
ders and  directs  you  to  answer  the  question.  Are  you  an  American 
citizen  ? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  I  answered  it. 

The  Chairman.  You  haven't  answered  it,  and  you  declined  to  an- 
swer it. 

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

The  Chairman.  The  Chair,  also  with  the  approval  of  the  commit- 
tee, orders  and  directs  you  to  answer  the  question,  Do  you  honestly 
believe  that  if  you  gave  a  truthful  answer  to  the  question,  "Are  you  an 
American  citizen?"  that  such  answer  would  tend  to  incriminate  you? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  I  answered  you. 

The  Chairman.  You  haven't  answered,  and  I  am  ordering  and  di- 
recting you  to  answer  the  question. 

]Mr.  Battaglia.  I  decline  to  answer  on  the  ground  it  may  tend  to 
incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  All  right,  proceed. 

Mr.  IvENNEDY.  It  was  also  suggested  in  these  conversations  in  this 
office  you  were  the  one  to  make  the  approach  to  Johnny  Lardino,  of 
local  593,  to  insure  that  there  was  full  cooperation.  This  is  in  the 
organization  of  this  restaurant  and  liquor  association.  Could  you 
tell  us  about  that? 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  Do  you  know  Johnny  Lardino  ? 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  can  you  tell  us  how  this  association  was  going 
to  operate  with  the  union  ?  According  to  the  information  developed 
yesterday,  the  labor  union  was  going  to  act  as  an  enforcement  arm 
for  tills  association.     Could  you  tell  us  about  that  ? 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  the  association,  on  the  other  hand,  was  to  be 
sort  of  a  protective  racket  for  some  of  you  underworld  figures;  is  that 
correct  ? 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  were  going  to  give  protection  to  some  of  the 
restaurant  and  tavern  owners  in  return  for  their  payment  to  you? 

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


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12781 

Mr.  Kenxkdy.  And  the  labor  unions  were  to  act  as  tliis  enforcement 
arm,  to  cause  strikes  on  taverns  or  restaurants  who  wouldn't  make  pay- 
ments to  your  association ;  is  that  right? 

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

]Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  some  testimony  yesterday  was  that  you  and  the 
so-called  young  bloods,  "Skippy*'  Cerone,  and  "Moone}'"  Giancana, 
and  Marshall  Caifano  were  getting  too  big  for  j^our  breeches  and  it 
was  going  to  be  necessary  to  cut  you  down  to  size.  Could  you  tell  us 
if  that  ever  happened  ? 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  said  you  were  going  off  and  acting  on  your  own 
without  the  permission  of  the  syndicate.     Is  that  right  ? 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  then  an  instance  was  given  where  Marshall 
Caifano's  brother  was  killed  in  the  attempt  to  kidnap  Theodore  Roe. 
His  name  was  "Fatty"  Leonard ;  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Battaglia,  I  decline  to  answer  on  the  ground  it  may  tend  to 
incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  because  Roe  had  killed  "Fatty"  Leonard  when 
they  were  trying  to  kidnap  him,  Roe  was  later  killed  out  in  Chicago; 
is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  I  decline  to  answer  on  the  ground  it  ma}^  tend  to 
incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  according  to  the  testimony  yesterday,  you  were 
in  on  the  job  of  killing  Roe ;  is  that  correct  ? 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  have  anything  to  do  with  killing  Roe? 

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

]Mr.  Kennedy.  Xow,  according  to  the  information  that  we  have 
from  the  Oak  Park  Police  Department,  Tony  Accardo  and  Sam 
"Mooney"  Giancana  were  frequent  visitors  at  your  home ;  is  that  cor- 
rect ? 

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

The  Chairman.  Are  you  married  ? 

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

The  Chairman.  Do  you  have  any  children  ? 

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

The  Chairman.  I  was  speaking  of  legitimate  children,  of  course. 

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

The  Chairman.  All  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Well,  Mr.  Chairman,  this  witness  doesn't  want  to 
seem  to  help  much. 

The  Chairman.  Are  there  any  other  questions  ? 

You  will  remain  under  your  present  subpena  subject  to  being  recalled 
for  further  testimony.   Where  can  we  notify  you  ? 


12782  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Battaglla.  At  home. 

The  Chairman.  Where  is  your  home  ? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  1114  North  Michigan. 

The  Chairman.  You  will  remain  under  your  present  subpena. 

Mr.  Battaglia.  You  mean  I  can  go  home  now  ? 

The  Chairman.  Upon  reasonable  notice,  you  can  expect  to  reappear 
before  the  committee  at  such  time  and  place  as  it  may  designate  to  give 
further  testimony. 

Mr.  Battaglia.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  will  remain  here  for  the  remainder  of  the  day, 
and  we  may  want  to  recall  you. 

Mr.  Battaglia.  All  right. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  agree  to  remain  under  the  present  subpena 
to  return ;  do  you  ? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  I  have  got  to,  you  are  telling  me  to  stay  here,  and 
what  do  you  want  ? 

The  Chairman.  Wliat  is  that  ? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  You  are  telling  me  to  stay  here  ? 

The  Chairman.  I  said  for  the  present,  but  when  you  are  excused 
today  you  will  remain  under  the  same  subpena ;  and  you  agree  to  that, 
do  you,  and  to  return  whenever  the  committee  desires  to  interrogate 
you  further  ? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  I  suppose ;  I  don't  know. 

The  Chairman.  Wliat  is  that  ? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  I  suppose.  Am  I  supposed  to  agree  to  it  ?  I  don't 
know. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  we  can  put  you  under  another  subpena  right 
now,  if  you  want  to  do  that. 

Mr.  Battaglia.  I  will  agree. 

The  Chairman.  You  will  agree  ? 

Mr.  Battaglia.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Very  well. 

Mr.  Battaglia.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  All  right ;  stand  aside. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Antony  J.  Accardo. 

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

The  Chairman.  Will  you  be  sworn  ? 

You  do  solemnly  swear  that  the  evidence  you  shall  give  before  this 
Senate  select  conunittee  shall  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing 
but  the  truth,  so  help  you  God  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  do. 

TESTIMONY  OF  ANTHONY  J.  ACCARDO,  ACCOMPANIED  BY  HARRY 
CLIFFORD  ALLDER,  COUNSEL,  OF  WASHINGTON,  D.  C. 

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

Mr.  Accardo.  My  name  is  Anthony  J.  Accardo,  and  I  live  at  915 
Franklin,  River  Forest,  111.,  and  on  my  business  and  occupation  I 
would  claim  the  privilege  of  the  fifth  amendment  and  decline  to 
answer. 

The  Chairman,  You  decline  to  answer  as  to  what  business  or  pro- 
fession or  occupation  you  have  ? 


IIVIPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12783 

Mr.  AccARDO.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  On  the  ground  of  the  fifth  amendment  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  lionestly  believe  that  if  you  answered  the 
question  as  to  your  business,  profession,  or  occupation,  that  a  truthful 
answer  to  tliat  question  might  tend  to  incriminate  you  ? 

Mr.  AccARDo.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  counsel  present  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Counsel,  identify  yourself  for  the  record. 

Mr.  Allder.  My  name  is  Harry  Clifford  Allder,  and  my  address  is 
401  Third  Street  NW.,  Washington,  D.  C,  and  I  am  a  member  of  the 
bar  of  Washington,  D.  C. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you  very  much. 

Mr.  Allder.  May  I  make  a  request  at  this  time,  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

The  Chairman.  You  may. 

Mr.  Allder.  This  witness  respectfully  requests  the  committee  that 
the  television  cameras,  which  are  televising  this  hearing  in  the  city 
of  Chicago,  111.,  be  turned  off  while  he  is  a  witness.  He  is  neither  an 
entertainer,  an  athlete,  nor  a  political  figure,  and  he  is  a  private 
citizen  whose  rights  of  privacy  should  not  be  invaded. 

He  is  only  here  because  of  subpena,  and  he  is  not  here  to  appear  on 
a  television  show. 

He  has  an  action  now  pending  against  the  American  Broadcasting 
Co.,  and  field  enterprises,  wherein  an  injunction  has  been  sought  to 
prevent  the  defendants  televising  his  appearance  here  over  station 
WBKB,  channel  7,  in  Chicago,  111. 

A  preliminary  restraining  order  requested  in  this  case  has  been 
denied,  but  this  witness  insists  until  the  case  is  concluded  on  its  merits, 
and  there  is  a  decision  adverse  to  him,  that  his  right  of  privacy  should 
not  be  violated. 

The  Chairjlvn.  The  request  is  denied  It  does  not  come  within 
the  purview  of  the  rules  of  the  committee.  I  have  no  authority  to  tell 
the  television  services  to  televise  any  hearing  or  any  part  of  any 
hearing.  The  committee  could,  I  think,  if  it  desired  to  do  so,  prohibit 
television;  but  I  feel  personally,  and  I  think  that  I  voice  the  senti- 
ments of  the  committee,  that  television  is  definitely  one  of  the  greatest 
mediums  of  communication  and  dissemination  of  information  in  our 
country.  I  could  not  conscientiously  deny  to  television  services  the 
right  to  be  present  at  a  public  hearing  and  televise  the  proceedings 
without  in  my  judgment  discrimination  against  them,  because  the 
press  is  present,  and  the  public  is  present,  and  the  television  cannot 
reveal  any  more  than  what  others  here  can  see  and  do  see  or  any 
more  than  what  they  can  hear  and  do  hear,  as  the  proceedings  progress. 

Is  there  any  statement,  Senator  Curtis? 

Senator  Curtis.  I  have  no  statement,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  All  right,  we  will  proceed. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Accardo,  could  you  tell  us  any  of  the  businesses 
that  you  are  in  at  the  present  time  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  answered. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  ground  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  On  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me,  or 
lead  me  into  something. 

21243— 58— pt.  33 19 


12784  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Ejennedt.  Excuse  me,  what  is  the  last  part  ? 

Mr.  Allder.  I  want  to  address  the  Chair  a  moment,  if  I  might. 
So  we  may  understand,  Mr.  Chairman,  any  time  that  this  witness  de- 
clines to  answer,  it  will  be  because  he  is  claiming  his  privilege  under 
the  fifth  amendment  and  he  honestly  believes  that  his  answer  might 
tend  to  incriminate  him,  and  if  he  does  not  say  those  exact  words  in 
declining  to  answer,  that  is  the  basis  of  it  in  each  instance,  and  if  you 
will  permit  us  to,  we  will  say  when  he  does  decline  to  answer,  that 
he  is  declining  for  the  same  reasons. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  the  Chair  is  anxious  to  do  most  any  reasonable 
thing  to  expedite  the  procedure.  However,  I  may  say  to  counsel 
that  it  is  quite  probable  that  some  of  these  instances  where  witnesses 
are  declining  to  answer  will  become  a  matter  of  interest  to  courts 
and  thev  may  become  parties  to  a  contempt  proceeding.  For  that 
reason,  I  would  like  to  make  the  record  clear,  and  it  is  in  the  interest 
of  the  witness  as  well  as  the  committee  to  keep  the  record  straight, 
at  least,  and  so  as  we  proceed  the  questions  I  may  think  are  vital  and 
important,  I  may  require  the  witness  to  state  fully  his  reasons.  I 
am  not  doing  that  just  to  make  a  show  of  him,  but  I  do  think,  you 
know  how  meticulous  the  courts  are  sometimes  with  respect  to  records, 
and  I  want  the  record  to  be  made. 

Mr.  Allder.  That  is  the  reason  I  want  the  record  to  show  that  in 
declining  each  time,  it  is  his  intention  to  do  it  because  it  might  tend  to 
incriminate  him,  in  case  he  does  not  say  the  exact  words,  that  is 
what  he  means  each  time,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  The  record  will  reflect  your  remarks,  of  course. 
All  right,  proceed. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  If  you  won't  give  your  own  business  interests,  Mr. 
Accardo,  I  wonder  if  we  are  missing  some  witnesses  and  I  wonder  if 
you  would  look  at  this  picture  and  identify  the  people  in  the  picture, 
and  then  I  would  like  to  ask  you  a  question  about  it. 

The  Chairman.  I  hand  you  a  photograph  showing  a  picture  of  two 
persons,  apparently  the  same  people,  one  set  of  the  picture  shows  the 
two  men  with  their  overcoats  off,  and  the  other  picture  shows  the  same 
two  men  apparently  with  their  overcoats  on.  I  will  ask  you  to  examine 
the  picture  and  state  if  you  identify  the  persons  in  the  picture. 

(A  document  was  handed  to  the  witness.) 

Mr.  Allder.  Do  you  want  us  to  look  at  both  of  them  at  one  time. 
Senator. 

The  Chairman.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Allder.  We  only  have  one. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  is  it.    It  is  tAvo  exposures. 

Mr.  Allder.  I  understand  it  now. 

Tlie  Chairman.  It  is  two  separate  exposures,  I  believe. 

Mr.  Allder.  All  riglit. 

May  we  have  the  question,  whatever  it  was  ? 

The  Chairman.  I  present  you  a  photograph,  and  ask  j^ou  if  you 
identify  the  persons  in  this  photograph  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  honestly  believe  that  if  you  answered  and 
gave  a  truthful  answer  to  the  question,  as  to  whether  you  identify  the 
persons  in  the  picture,  that  a  trustful  answer  might  tend  to  incriminate 
you? 

Mr.  Accardo.  Yes,  sir. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12785 

The  Chairman.  Proceed. 

Mr.  Kexxedy.  Our  information  is  that  the  individual  here  to  the 
left  Avith  his  overcoat  on,  is  you,  Mr.  Accardo ;  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  the  individual  to  the  right  is  Mooney  Giancana; 
is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  AccARD.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  Mr.  Giancana  is  one  of  the  most  important 
and  perhaps  one  of  the  two  or  three  most  important  underworld 
figures  in  the  Chicago  area,  and  we  have  been  looking  for  him  for  quite 
a  wliile,  and  I  was  wondering  if  you  could  give  us  any  information  as 
to  his  whereabouts  at  the  present  time? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  We  understand  he  is  a  close  associate  of  yours,  and 
I  thought  maybe  you  would  help  us  with  that,  even  if  you  won't  give 
us  some  of  your  own  background. 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  you  decline  to  answer  as  to  the  whereabouts, 
whether  you  know  the  whereabouts  of  the  other  man  in  this  picture ;  is 
that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  On  what  ground  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  It  may  tend  to  incriminate  me  or  lead  me  into  some- 
thing that  may  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  are  not  going  to  tell  us  anything  about  that, 
Mr.  Accardo? 

Mr,  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Would  you  repeat  on  what  ground  you  declined  to 
answer,  so  I  can  understand. 

Mr.  Accardo.  On  the  ground  it  may  incriminate  me,  or  may  lead  me 
into  something  that  will  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Accardo. 

The  Chairman.  Let  this  picture  be  made  exhibit  No.  22. 

(The  document  referred  to  was  marked  ''Exhibit  No.  22"  for  refer- 
ence and  may  be  found  in  the  files  of  the  select  committee.) 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Accardo,  we  had  some  testimony  yesterday  re- 
garding James  Weinberg  and  Paul  "Needlenose"  Labriola.  Did  you 
know  either  one  of  those  gentlemen  before  they  were  killed  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  ground  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  On  the  gi'ound  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  or  lead  me 
into  something  that  will  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now  according  to  the  information  that  was  given  in 
testimony  before  the  committee  yesterday,  Mr.  Robert  Greenfield  was 
to  become  general  counsel  for  this  association  which  died  early  or  did 
not  exist  very  long.  He  wanted  to  make  sure  that  the  individuals  who 
were  running  this  association  liad  your  permission  to  exist,  and  it  was 
arrangexl  to  meet  with  you.  Now,  could  you  tell  us  a  little  bit  about 
the  meeting  and  what  you  discussed  ? 

ATr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mf .  Kennedy.  On  what  ground  ? 

]Mr.  Accardo.  On  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  won't  tell  us  anything  about  the  meeting  that 
you  had  with  these  individuals. 


12786  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  grounds? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  On  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  also  there  was  that  original  meeting  and  then 
on  another  occasion,  Weinberg  reported  back  that  he  and  Bernberg  had 
had  lunch  with  you  and  discussed  these  arrangements.  Can  you  tell 
us  about  that  ? 

Mr.  AccARDo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  Mr.  Accardo,  as  far  back  as  1931,  you  were 
named  one  of  the  public  enemies  in  Chicago.  I  wonder  if  you  could 
tell  us  after  you  were  named  as  a  public  enemy  what  kind  of  a  legiti- 
mate business  you  got  into  after  that,  after  1931  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Have  you  ever  had  any  legitimate  business  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

The  Chairman.  On  what  ground,  and  I  don't  think  that  if  you  have 
had  any  legitimate  business,  I  don't  think  that  that  would  mcrmiinate 
anyone. 

Mr.  Allder.  Might  I  be  heard.  Senator  ? 

The  Chairman.  I  will  ask  the  witness  a  question. 

Mr.  Accardo.  On  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  All  right.     Do  you  wish  to  say  something? 

Mr.  Allder.  There  is  nothing  further  about  that,  and  I  won't  make 
any  statement. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  were  also  known  as  Joe  Batters,  Mr.  Accardo; 
is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  were  one  of  the  leading  lieutenants  of  Al 
Capone ;  is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  when  Bioff-Brown,  when  the  extortion  case 
in  1940  or  1943,  you  took  over  as  the  head  of  the  Capone  syndicate  in 
1943  in  Chicago ;  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  the  two  most  important  figures  in  Chicago  at 
the  present  time  or  at  least  up  to  a  month  ago,  were  you  and  Paul 
"The  Waiter"  Ricca ;  isn't  that  right? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

The  Chairman.  Wliere  were  you  born  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

The  Chairman.  You  will  not  tell  us  where  you  were  born  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  an  American  citizen  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  honestly  believe  if  you  gave  a  truthful 
answer  to  tlie  question  of  where  you  were  born,  that  a  truthful  answer 
might  tend  to  incriminate  you  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  honestly  believe  if  you  gave  a  truthful 
answer  to  the  question,  are  you  an  American  citizen,  that  a  truthful 
answer  might  tend  to  incriminnte  you? 

Mr.  Accardo,  1  decline  to  answer. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12787 

The  Chairman-.  With  the  approval  of  the  committee,  the  Chair 
orders  and  directs  the  witness  to  answer  the  question,  "Where  were 
you  born  ^" 

Mr.  AccARDo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

The  Chairman.  With  the  approval  of  the  committee,  the  Chair 
orders  and  directs  you  to  answer  the  question,  "Are  you  an  American 
citizen?" 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

The  Chairman.  With  the  approval  of  the  committee,  the  Chair 
orders  and  directs  you  to  answer  the  question,  "Do  you  honestly  believe 
that  if  you  gave  a  truthful  answer  to  the  questions,  'where  were  you 
born,'  and  'are  you  an  American  citizen,'  "  that  a  truthful  answer  to 
those  questions  or  either  of  them  might  tend  to  incriminate  you  ? 

]\Ir.  AccAREKj.  I  decline  to  answer. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed. 

Senator  Curtis.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like  to  ask  for  the  record, 
of  the  staff,  what  information  do  we  have  that  connects  this  witness 
with  either  labor  unions  or  labor  union  relations  groups,  or  manage- 
ment relations  grouj^s? 

Mr.  IvEXNEDY.  We  have  had  the  testimony  yesterday.  Senator 
Curtis,  that  this  group  of  underworld  figures  or  this  syndicate  had 
arranged  to  set  up  a  restaurant  association  and  a  tavern  association 
in  Chicago.  Teitelbaum  was  somewhat  in  disfavor  with  the  syndicate, 
and  it  was  decided  that  they  would  set  up  a  rival  association  in  both  of 
these  fields.  Before  they  could  go  ahead  and  operate,  they  had  to  get 
the  permission  of  Tony  Accardo.  Mr.  Accardo  was  contacted,  and 
lieutenants  under  him  were  contacted. 

Senator  Curtis.  Is  it  your  information  that  one  of  the  activities  of 
these  trade  associations  would  have  to  do  with  labor-management 
relations  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Yes ;  it  was  arranged  that  they  would  make  a  con- 
tact, and  they  did.  They  had  telephone  calls  with  Mr.  Lardino  of 
local  593,  and  the  local  union  was  to  act  as  the  enforcement  arm  for 
this  association.  Then  they  explained  how  it  would  operate.  The 
union  would  go  around  and  place  pickets  in  front  of  one  of  the  taverns 
or  the  restaurants.  A  representative  of  the  association  would  then  go 
in  and  say  "We  can  get  the  picket  line  taken  off,  if  you  become  mem- 
bers of  our  association  and  you  pay  a  certain  amount  of  money." 

Then  the  group  would  come  into  the  association,  and  the  picket  line 
would  disappear ;  or  they  would  not  come  into  the  association,  and  the 
picket  line  would  remain. 

This  is  the  heart  of  what  we  are  looking  into  in  this  situation,  and 
we  will  be  going  into  this  kind  of  operation  in  other  cities. 

Now  this  did  not  get  off  the  ground.  It  only  went  for  a  short 
period  of  time  because  the  people  operating  it  made  some  serious 
mistakes,  but  we  have  seen  the  regular  restaurant  association  employ 
people  such  as  Al  Capone's  attorney,  Champagne,  who  has  a  long 
criminal  record,  and  Sam  English,  a  long  criminal  record,  and  Louis 
Romano.  Then  we  will  go  into  some  other  cities  and  show  that  this 
is  a  pattern  that  the  underworld  follows.  We  have  some  definite  in- 
formation on  this,  and  that  is  why  we  are  going  to  go  into  it. 

Senator  Curtis.  I  wanted  to  establish  the  record. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  I  am  glad  to  do  that  so  that  we  have  the  record. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed. 


12788  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN   THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Up  until  a  month  ago,  you  and  Mr.  Kicca  were  in 
charge  of  Chicago.  But  then  Mr.  Eicca  got  into  difficulties  and  into 
tax  difficulties,  and  he  has  been  convicted,  and  so  it  would  appear  that 
you  would  be  the  one  who  is  left  in  charge.     Is  that  right? 

Mr.  AccARDo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  ground  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  On  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  have  ever  been  very  close  to  Paul  ''The  Waiter" 
Ricca,  have  you  not,  Mr.  Accardo  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  In  fact  when  he  was  sent  to  jail,  in  1943,  you  fre- 
quently visited  him  at  the  penitentiary,  did  you  not,  according  to  out 
record  you  were  a  frequent  visitor  at  the  penitentiary. 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Visiting  your  old  friend  Paul  "The  Waiter"  Ricca. 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  also  are  a  close  friend  of  "Cherrynose"  Gioe, 
isn't  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  In  fact  you  were  arrested  with  him  in  1931,  were 
you  not,  for  carrying  concealed  weapons? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  ground  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  On  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  He  passed  on  in  1954,  and  he  was  murdered  in  gang- 
land style.     Could  you  tell  us  anything  about  that? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  He  was  working  for  a  restaurant  prior  to  that  time  ? 
And  do  you  understand  why  he  had  to  go  to  work  for  that  restaurant? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  the  head  of  a  syndicate  of  any  kind? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  the  one  who  gives  orders  for  these  fellows 
to  be  killed  when  they  step  out  of  line? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  have  anything  to  do  with  these  gangland 
murders  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

The  Chl\irman.  Are  you  a  party  to  them  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  Sir. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  a  party  to  them? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  operate  your  affairs  so  as  to  try  to  get  con- 
trol of  labor  unions  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  operate  your  affairs  so  as  to  shake  down 
legitimate  businesses  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed. 

Mr.  Kenni:dy.  Now,  Mr.  Accardo,  in  1931  you  and  four  others  of 
the  Capone  syndicate,  including  Paul  Labriola's  stepfather  were  seized 
in  a  raid  following  the  torch  slaying  of  Mike  Heitler  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Heitler  was  burned  to  death,  was  he  ? 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12789 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr,  Kennedy.  On  what  «:round  ? 

Mr.  AccARDo.  On  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me  or  lead 
me  into  something. 

Mr.  IvENNEDY.  Wliy  was  it  selected  that  he  should  be  burned  to 
death? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  IvJENNEDY.  On  what  ground  ? 

]Mr.  AccARDO.  On  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  We  also  understand  that  you  were  a  close  associate 
of  Claude  jNladdox  until  he  died  recently,  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  AccAitDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Tony  Capezio? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  you  were  also  arrested  in  connection  with  the 
St.  Valentine's  murder,  or  a  suspect  in  the  St.  Valentine's  murder. 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  have  any  scruples  against  killing  people? 

Mr.  Acc-ARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

The  Chairman.  On  what  ground  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  On  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  You  mean  to  say  if  you  said  that  you  did  have,  that 
you  were  opposed  to  killing,  that  it  might  tend  to  incriminate  you  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

The  Chairman.  You  think  that  might  incriminate  you,  if  you  gave 
an  answer  to  that  question  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

The  ChxVirman.  Proceed. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  "We  understand  that  you  were  Al  Capone's  personal 
bodyguard  when  he  lived  at  the  Lexington  Hotel  in  Chicago,  is  that 
right? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  that  you  were  in  a  close  association  with  Murray 
"The  Camel"  Humphreys  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  Frank  "The  Enforcer"  Nitti  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  ground  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  On  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  Ed  "Dutch"  Vogel  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  ground  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  On  the  ground  it  might  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  KJENNEDY.  And  Mr.  Battaglia  who  just  testified. 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  deline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  Jack  Cerone? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  ground  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  On  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  "We  have  some  other  pictures  here  that  might  refresh 
your  recollection,  and  we  understand  some  of  these  people  are  friends 
of  yours,  and  at  least  one  of  them  was  involved  in  these  associations. 

So  I  would  like  to  present  these  pictures  if  we  may,  and  perhaps 
you  can  help  us  if  you  would. 


12790  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

The  Chairman.  I  present  you  a  picture  af  6  men  and  ask  you  to 
examine  the  picture  and  state  if  you  recognize  any  of  the  6  people 
who  appear  in  this  photograph. 

(A  document  was  handed  to  the  witness.) 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  examined  the  picture  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  identify  any  of  the  people  in  that  picture? 

Mr.  AccARDo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

The  Chairman.  On  what  ground  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  On  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  In  other  words,  you  think  if  you  acknowledged 
that  you  know  some  of  these  people,  it  might  tend  to  incriminate  you? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  That  picture  may  be  made  exhibit  No.  23. 

(The  document  referred  to  was  marked  "Exhibit  No.  23"  for  ref- 
erence, and  may  be  found  in  the  files  of  the  select  committee.) 

The  Chairman.  I  hand  you  another  picture  showing  6  men,  and 
ask  you  to  examine  this  photograph,  and  state  if  you  identify  any 
of  the  people  in  it. 

(A  document  was  handed  to  the  witness.) 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  examined  the  photograph? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  identify  any  of  the  people  in  the  photo- 
graph ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

The  Chairman.  On  what  ground  ? 

Mr.  AccARDo.  On  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  honestly  believe  that  if  you  gave  a  truthful 
answer,  as  to  whether  you  identify  any  of  those  people,  that  a  truthful 
answer  might  tend  to  incriminate  you  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Let  that  picture  be  made  exhibit  No.  23-A. 

(The  document  referred  to  was  marked  "Exhibit  No.  23-A"  for 
reference  and  may  be  found  in  the  files  of  the  select  committee.) 

Mr.  Kennedy.  In  this  first  picture,  we  have  a  group  of  six  gentle- 
men, and  on  the  left,  Paul  Ricca;  do  you  know  him? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  ground  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  On  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Sylvester  Agoldia,  and  do  you  know  him  ? 

Mr.  AccARDo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  ground  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  On  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Luciano  ? 

Mr.  AccARDo.  I  deline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  ground  ? 

Mr.  AccRADO.  On  the  ground  it  might  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  Mirlansky  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  John  Sina  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer  on  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  in- 
criminate nie. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  TTnrry  Brown  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12791 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  wliat  ground  ? 

Mr.  AccARDo.  On  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Here  is  a  group  of  another  six  men,  and  the  one 
that  is  of  particular  interest  to  us  is  a  man  here,  No.  5,  whose  name 
is  James  Mirro.    Did  you  know  James  Mirro  ? 

Mr.  xVccAKDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  he  is  known  as  Cowboy  Mirro,  and  could  you 
tell  us  anything  about  him  i 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now  James  Mirro,  Mr.  Chairman,  was  connected 
with  these  trade  associations,  that  we  had  discussed  yesterday,  and 
he  played  an  important  role  and  was  an  important  figure,  and  we 
have  not  been  able  to  locate  him.  His  picture  is  here,  and  we  would 
like  to  find  out  if  he  has  been  an  associate  of  yours,  and  if  you  could 
tell  us  where  he  might  be  at  the  present  time. 

Mr.  AccARDo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  IvENNEDY.  Do  you  know  anything  about  Estelle  Cary  being 
burned  to  death  or  murdered  that  way  in  1943  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  were  arrested  in  connection  with  that  also? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  ground  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  On  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  have  any  respect  for  your  Government? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  think  it  might  tend  to  incriminate  you,  to 
answer  truthfully  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  June  24,  1946,  an  attempt  was  made  to  assassi- 
nate James  M.  Ragan,  of  the  Continental  Press,  in  Chicago. 

He  later  died  from  the  gunshot  wounds  and  according  to  state- 
ments that  he  made  to  the  district  attorney  out  there,  this  shooting 
followed  attempts  by  yourself,  Murray  Humphreys,  Jake  Guzik,  and 
Sam  "Golf  Bag"  Hunt,  and  Tony  Capezio  to  muscle  m  on  the  Con- 
tinental Press.     Is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  threaten  Mr.  Ragan  ? 

Mr.  AccARDo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  then  have  him  killed  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  IvENNEDY.  On  what  ground. 

Mr.  AccARDO.  On  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Chairman,  you  asked  the  witness  if  he  had  ever 
done  anything  for  his  country,  I  believe. 

The  Chairman.  I  asked  him  if  he  had  any  respect  for  his  Govern- 
ment. 

Mr.  KJENNEDY.  I  think  that  he  gives  Fourth  of  July  parties,  and  he 
invites  many  of  his  close  friends  and  celebrates  the  formation  of  the 
United  States.  I  would  like  to  ask  you :  Do  you  give  these  Fourth 
of  July  parties,  Mr.  Accardo  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  in  1954,  who  did  you  have  at  your  Fourth  of 
July  party? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 


12792  IMPROPER   ACTIVITIES    IN   THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  have  all  of  the  leading  gangsters  in  the 
United  States  to  your  Fourth  of  July  party  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Like  Joe  Aiuppa,  Jack  Cerone,  Mike  Strain,  Sam 
English,  Chuck  English,  Euss  Brio,  and  Joe  Aeillo;  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  you  had  some  labor-union  officials  there;  did 
you  not? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  According  to  information  we  have,  Johnnie  Lar- 
dino,  of  local  593,  was  at  your  Fourth  of  July  party  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Joey  Glimco,  of  Local  777  of  the  International 
Brotherhood  of  Teamsters  and  Taxicab  Drivers,  was  at  your  Fourth 
of  July  party  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  ground  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  On  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me  or  lead 
me  into  something, 

Mr.  Kj:nnedy.  And  Joe  Aiello  was  the  head  of  the  Hodcarriers 
Union  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

The  Chairman.  You  understand,  do  you,  that  the  committee  is 
undertaking  to  get  information  with  respect  to  the  criminal  element 
or  underworld  element  or  racketeers,  and  gangsters  and  thugs  and 
hoodlums  that  have  infiltrated  or  may  have  infiltrated  into  the  labor 
movement  in  this  country,  in  some  areas,  or  also  into  legitimate  busi- 
nesses for  the  purpose  of  extortion  and  shakedown  and  exploitation. 
You  understand  that ;  do  you  not  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  not  willing  to  help  your  Government  fer- 
ret out  such  elements  and  give  the  Congress  information  that  will 
enable  it  to  enact  proper  legislation  to  deal  with  the  problem ;  is  that 
correct  ?    You  are  un willing  to  cooperate  and  to  help  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

The  Chairman.  I  just  hope  that  as  the  committee  labors  hard  to 
carry  out  this  assignment  and  struggles  against  these  obstructions  that 
are  placed  in  our  way,  the  country  will  sense  the  real  danger  that  is 
present  and  growing  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  there  are  characters  in 
this  country  who  will  resort  to  such  tactics  and  such  activities  without 
regard  for  humanity  in  any  degree,  but  simply  to  satisfy  their  own 
avarice  and  greed  for  money  and  power.  I  hope  that  the  Congress 
■will  respond  to  the  public  demand  to  enact  laws  that  will  make  it 
possible  to  drive  such  elements  out  of  any  legitimate  enterprise  or 
labor  organization  or  business  association. 

Proceed,  Mr.  Kennedy. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  there  were  some  other  individuals  present, 
but  you  also  had  a  Fourth  of  July  party  in  1955;  did  you  not? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  ground? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  On  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  once  again  Joey  Glimco  of  Local  777  of  the 
Teamsters  was  present? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 


IMPROPER  AcrrvrriEs  in  the  labor  field         12793 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  Sam  "Golf bag"  Hunt  was  present? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Ejinnedy.  On  what  ground  ? 

Mr.  AccARDo.  On  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Tony  Capesio  was  present  ? 

Mr.  AccAKDo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  ground  ? 

Mr.  AccARDo.  On  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  Paul  "The  Waiter"  was  present? 

Mr.  AccARDo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  ground  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  On  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  IvENNEDY.  Joes  Caesar  was  present  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  IvENNEDY.  On  what  ground  ? 

Mr.  AccARDo.  On  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Claude  Maddox  was  present  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline 

Mr.  KJENNEDY.  On  what  ground  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  On  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Ivennedy.  Joey  Aiuppa  was  present  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  Yes,  sir.     I  decline. 

Mr.  Ivennedy.  And  Jack  Guzik  ? 

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

Mr.  Ivennedy.  There  was  also  an  automobile  which  was  registered 
in  the  name  of  Local  450  of  the  Hotel  and  Restaurant  Workers'  Union, 
that  was  seen  at  the  scene  of  your  Fourth  of  July  party  in  1955.  Can 
you  tell  us  why  representatives  of  that  local  were  present? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

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

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Could  you  tell  us  why  these  union  officials  come  to 
your  party,  Mr.  Accardo  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  KJENNEDY.  Why  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  On  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  IvENNEDY.  Did  these  unions  act  as  your  enforcement  arm, 
and  do  they  call  strikes  against  those  individuals  that  you  don't  like, 
and  give  labor  peace  to  those  that  you  are  interested  in;  is  that 
correct  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  KJENNEDY.  Then  also  not  only  do  you  have  these  Fourth  of 
July  parties,  but  you  and  your  friends  attend  any  of  the  wakes  of 
any  of  the  departed  of  the  syndicate ;  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  IvENNEDY.  For  instance,  when  Louis  "Little  Nose"  Campagna 
died,  there  was  a  wake  on  June  2, 1955,  "Little  New  York"  Campagna? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  didn't  get  the  question. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  There  was  a  wake  for  "Little  New  York"  Cam- 
pagna? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  attend  that  wake  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 


12794  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  in  addition  the  information  that  we  have  not 
only  were  you  there,  but  Rocco  Fichetti  was  present,  and  is  that 
correct  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  Joey  Glimco  was  president  once  again  of  Local 
777  of  the  Teamsters? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  Claude  Maddox  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  ground  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  On  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  Joey  Aiuppa  ? 

Mr,  Accardo.  I  decline. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  ground  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  On  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy,  Johnny  Lardino  was  present  of  the  Hotel  and 
Restaurant  Worker's  Union  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kj:nnedy.  On  what  ground  do  you  decline  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  On  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr,  I^nnedy.  And  Sam  Giancana,  who  was  also  present  ? 

Mr,  Accardo.  I  decline. 

Mr,  Kennedy.  Now,  just  going  through,  Mr,  Chairman,  we  have 
another  matter  regarding  his  relationship  with  the  restaurant  associ- 
ation, that  still  exists,  but  prior  to  getting  into  that  I  would  like  to 
ask  him  about  his  income  and  wliat  he  has  declared. 

In  1946  you  reported  an  income  of  $90,910.86,  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  $25,910.86  from  the  Owl  Club  at  Calumet  City? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  ground  ? 

Mr.  Accardo,  On  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me, 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  then  other  sources  of  $65,000,  is  that  correct? 

Mr,  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Wliat  were  the  other  sources  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy,  On  what  ground? 

Mr.  Accardo.  On  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Then  in  1947,  the  Illinois  Simplex  Distributing 
Co.,  of  Chicago,  111.,  about  $3,000,  or  $2,200,  and  $831.  Could  you 
tell  us  about  that? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  then  your  partnership  in  the  Owl  Club  of 
$88,911.39? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy,  And  other  sources,  $33,500,  is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Accardo,  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr,  Kennedy,  Making  a  total  for  that  year  of  $74,611.39,  is  that 
correct  ? 

Mr,  Accardo,  I  decline  to  answer, 

Mr,  Kennedy,  On  what  ground  ? 

Mr,  Accardo,  On  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me, 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Then  in  1949  you  declared  an  income  of  $186,957.01, 
is  that  right? 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12795 

Mr.  AccAKDo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  ground  ? 

Mr.  AccARDo.  On  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  these  came  from  the  chib  at  $347.45,  and  Guzik 
and  Accardo  of  $134,207.54,  and  tlie  Owl  Club  of  $32,402.12,  and 
miscellaneous,  $20,000,  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  ^Y[\at  were  the  miscellaneous  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  ground? 

JNIr.  Accardo.  On  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  what  is  Guzik  and  Accardo  of  $134,207.54. 
WHiat  kind  of  business  is  that? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Then  in  1950  you  declared  an  income  of  $158,193.91 ; 
is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  ground  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  On  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

JNIr.  Kennedy.  Owl  Club  $31,349.29,  and  the  Gary  &  Buffalo  Iron, 
$116,844.62,  and  miscellaneous,  $10,000  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  ground  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  On  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  then  in  1951,  $172,252.15  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  The  speculator  on  gambling  events,  $47,500,  is  that 
correct  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  IvENNEDY.  On  what  ground? 

Mr.  Accardo.  It  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  $59,752.15  for  the  Owl  Club;  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  ground  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  On  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  then  in  1953,  $83,867.20,  income,  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  ground  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  On  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  a  D'Leibe,  employee,  $49,500,  Owl  Club,  $14,- 
367.27,  and  speculator  on  gambling  events,  and  miscellaneous  of 
$20,000.    Could  you  tell  us  what  that  was  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

The  Chairman.  Would  you  say  that  any  of  these  businesses  are 
legitimate  businesses? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

The  Chairman.  You  think  you  honestly  believe  if  you  gave  a  truth- 
ful answer  to  the  question,  whether  any  of  these  businesses  that  have 
been  referred  to  here  are  legitimate  businesses,  that  a  truthful  answer 
might  tend  to  incriminate  you  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

The  Chairman.  I  asked  you  if  you  honestly  believe  it. 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 


12796  IMPROPEE   ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair,  with  the  approval  of  the  committee, 
orders  and  directs  the  witness  to  answer  the  question,  whether  you 
honestly  believe  that,  if  you  gave  a  truthful  answer  to  the  question 
whether  any  of  these  businesses  are  legitimate  businesses,  a  truthful 
answer  might  tend  to  incriminate  you. 
Mr.  AccARDo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

The  Chairsian.  You  are  still  under  orders  and  direction  of  the  com- 
mittee to  answer  the  question. 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 
The  Chairman.    Proceed. 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  In  1954,  you  declared  an  income  of  $78,000 ;  $30,000 
from  a  D'Leibe,  miscellaneous  income  of  $20,000,  and  games  and  sale 
of  property  $25,000,  an  income  from  other  interests  of  $3,000.  Is  that 
correct  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 
Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  ground  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  On  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 
Mr.  Kennedy.  What  is  all  of  this  miscellaneous  income  of  $20,000 
each  year,  and  where  are  you  getting  that  from  ? 
Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  is  a  great  deal  of  money,  and  will  you  tell  us 
any  of  the  sources  of  that  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  In  1955,  you  declared  a  total  income  of  $57,000; 
$1,500  from  Lesley  Kruse,  sale  of  interest  in  the  Owl  Club  of  $25,000, 
and  other  sources,  miscellaneous,  $30,500.  Could  you  tell  us  about 
that? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Then,  in  1956,  $67,862.25.    That  is  salary  of  $42,- 
862.25  from  the  Premium  Beer  Sales,  Inc.  ? 
Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  other  income ;  sale  of  the  Owl  Club,  $25,000 ;  is 
that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 
Mr.  Ivennedy.  On  what  ground  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  On  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 
Mr.  Kennedy.  The  total  for  that  period  of  time,  1946  through  1956, 
was  $904,654.86 ;  is  that  correct? 
Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  could  you  tell  us,  Mr.  Accardo — we  have  some 
information  that  you  were  aware  of  the  appointment  of  ^Ir.  Cham- 
pagne as  the  labor-relations  consultant  for  the  Chicago  Restaurant 
Association.   Could  you  tell  us  about  that  ? 
Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  the  word  came  down  from  you  that  there  should 
be  no  longer  any  cooperation  with  Abraham  Teitelbaum,  that  he  was 
in  your  disfavor,  and  that  Mr.  Champagne  should  be  appointed;  is 
that  right? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  ground? 

Mr.  Accardo.  On  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12797 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And,  subsequently,  after  Mr.  Champagne  was  able 
to  come  in,  and  he  was  able  to  settle  this  strike,  and  he  received  this 
higher  rate  of  income,  the  information  we  have  is  that  you  then 
forced  his  resignation ;  is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  ground  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  On  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Are  you  the  one  who,  in  fact,  forced  his  resignation  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Chairman,  could  we  call  Mr.  Duffy,  who  has 
some  confidential  information  from  a  reliable  source,  on  this  situation  ? 

The  Chairman.  Come  around.    Have  you  been  previously  sworn  ? 

Mr.  Duffy.  No. 

The  Chairman.  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.  Duffy.  I  do. 

TESTIMONY  OF  LaVERN  J.  DUFFY 

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

Mr.  Duffy.  My  name  is  LaVern  Joseph  Duffy,  and  I  live  at  123 
Carroll  Street  SE.,  here  in  Washington,  D.  C,  and  I  am  a  staff  member 
of  the  Senate  Permanent  Investigating  Committee  of  the  United  States 
Senate  on  temporary  loan  to  this  special  select  committee. 

The  Chairman.  All  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  Mr.  Duffy,  have  you  had  some  conferences  with 
the  representatives  of  the  Internal  Revenue  Service  ? 

Mr.  Duffy.  Yes;  in  reference  to  the  Chicago  Restaurant  Associa- 
tion. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Would  you  give  us  the  information  that  you  have 
secured  from  them,  and  tell  us  what  you  fomid  out,  and  your  source 
of  the  information  ? 

Mr.  Duffy.  During  the  investigation  of  this  Chicago  Restaurant 
Association,  I  had  the  opportunity  to  review  some  files  in  the  Internal 
Revenue  Service ;  one  of  the  memos  I  ran  across  was  dated  March  7, 
1956,  which  stated,  in  substance,  that  there  was  a  discussion  between 
Anthony  V.  Champagne,  who  was  the  labor  counsel  for  the  Chicago 
Restaurant  Association,  in  1954,  and  Tony  Accardo. 

An  argument  ensued  between  these  2  individuals,  and  the  argu- 
ments were  over  payments  that  Mr.  Champagne  was  to  make  to  thei 
Internal  Revenue  Service  from  his  retainer  from  the  Chicago  Restau- 
rant Association,  which  was  $125,000.  The  other  argument  related 
to  certain  activities  of  the  Chicago  Restaurant  Association.  Appar- 
ently, Mr.  Accardo  became  very  disturbed  at  this,  and  ordered  Mr. 
Champagne  murdered  forthwith.  Through  the  intervention  of  Mr. 
Champagne's  friends,  his  life  was  saved  and,  immediately  thereafter, 
he  resigned  from  the  Chicago  Restaurant  Association.  Tlmt  is,  as 
labor  counsel. 

Now,  when  I  received  this  information,  or  I  examined  this  memo- 
randum, I  thought  it  was  serious  enough  that  I  interview  the  agent 
in  the  Internal  Revenue  Service  who  secured  it.  The  agent — I  will 
not  disclose  his  name,  but  he  is  an  undercover  agent  working  in  Chicago 


12798  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

for  the  Internal  Revenue  Service.  He  supplied  the  name  of  the  indi- 
vidual who  was  close  to  the  syndicate  in  Chicago  who  gave  that  infor- 
mation to  him.  However,  he  requested  me  that  I  not  divulge  the  name 
of  this  individual  because  he  fears  for  the  safety  of  him.  He  feels,  for 
informing  on  the  syndicate,  he  would  be  killed. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Or  lost  as  a  future  source  of  information  ? 

Mr.  Duffy.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  the  records  show  that  Mr.  Champagne  came 
from  a  business-law  practice  where  he  was  declaring  some  $9,000  in 
income  tax ;  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Duffy.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  that  he  went  to  this  business  for  the  Chicago 
Restaurant  Association,  where  he  received  $125,000  a  year;  is  that 
right  ? 

Mr.  Duffy.  "Wliich  is  more  than  he  made  in  1  month. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  He  received  more  in  1  month  than  he  was  making  a 
year  prior  to  that  time  ? 

Mr.  Duffy.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  then,  suddenly,  he  resigned  and  said  that  the 
Chicago  Restaurant  Association  was  taking  up  too  much  of  his  time  ? 

Mr.  Duffy.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  he  had  to  get  back  to  his  law  practice ;  is  that 
right? 

Mr.  Duffy.  I  submitted  a  letter  to  that  effect. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  he  said  he  had  to  get  back  to  his  law  practice, 
because  the  Chicago  Restaurant  Association,  for  which  he  was  receiv- 
ing $125,000  a  year,  was  taking  too  much  of  his  time  ? 

Mr.  Duffy.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  IvENNEDY.  And  he  went  back  to  his  law  practice,  and  the  next 
year  declared  about  $11,000  in  his  income  tax  ? 

Mr.  Duffy.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  here  is  the  letter  from  Mr. 
Champagne,  and  the  letter  of  resignation  from  the  Chicago  Restaurant 
Association. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  obtain  this  letter  in  the  course  of  your 
investigation  ? 

Mr.  Duffy.  Yes,  Senator. 

The  Chairman.  I  hand  you  the  letter  referred  to,  and  I  will  ask 
you  to  examine  it.  This  appears  to  be  a  photostatic  copy  of  it.  I  ask 
you  to  examine  it,  and  state  if  you  obtained  this  letter,  and,  if  so, 
where  and  how,  and  out  of  whose  files  ? 

Mr.  Duffy.  This  letter  is  from  Anthony  V.  Champagne,  addressed 
to  the  Chicago  Restaurant  Association,  with  attention  to  Mr.  Donald 
Kiesau,  the  executive  vice  president  of  the  Chicago  Restaurant 
Association. 

The  Chairman.  First,  identify  the  letter,  and  how  did  you  obtain 
possession  of  it? 

Mr.  Duffy.  From  the  files  of  the  Chicago  Restaurant  Association. 

The  Chairman.  All  right ;  proceed. 

Mr.  Duffy.  And  Mr.  Kennedy  has  stated,  the  letter  stated  to  get 
back  to  his  clients,  and  that  is  why  he  resigned.  Perhaps  1  sliould 
read  the  wliole  letter. 

The  Chairman.  If  you  read  the  whole  letter,  it  will  not  be  an 
exhibit,  but  simply  i)laced  in  the  record  at  this  point. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12799 

Mr,  Duffy.  The  letter  is  dated  June  14,  1954,  addressed  to  the  Chi- 
cago Restaurant  Association,  7  South  Dearborn  Street,  Chicago,  111., 
attention  Mr.  Donald  Kiesau,  executive  vice  president. 

Gentlemen  :  I  hereby  submit  my  resignation  as  attorney  for  your  association 
and  its  members,  el'fective  July  1,  11)54.  It  would  be  appreciated  if  you  would 
advise  the  officers  of  the  association  and  each  of  your  members  of  my  resignation 
as  such. 

I  wish  to  acknowledge  the  pleasant  relationship  which  I  have  enjoyed  with 
you,  personally,  the  officers  and  directors,  as  well  as  the  individual  members 
who  have  sought  my  counsel  during  my  tenure  as  their  attorney. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  have  to  suspend.  That  bell  signals  a  roll- 
call  vote  in  the  Senate,  and  the  committee  will  have  to  stand  in  recess 
temporarily  until  the  members  can  go  to  the  Chamber  and  vote.  We 
■will  return  inunediately. 

(A  brief  recess  was  taken.) 

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

Tlie  Chairman.  The  committee  will  come  to  order. 

Mr.  Kennedy,  you  may  proceed. 

]\Ir.  Kennedy.  Could  you  tell  us  about  the  conversation  that  you 
had  with  Mr.  Champagne  on  this  matter  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  grounds  ? 

JNIr.  AccARDo.  On  the  gi'ound  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Were  you,  in  fact,  upset  by  the  way  he  intended  to 
handle  the  money  and  declare  the  money  he  received  from  the  Chicago 
Restaurant  Association  ? 

Mr.  AccARDo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Could  you  tell  the  committee  whjr  it  was  that  the 
Chicago  Restaurant  Association  was  willing  to  pay  him  $125,000? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  ground  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  On  the  ground  it  might  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Was  some  of  that  money  going  to  you  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  ground  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  On  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Could  you  tell  us  if  you  were  the  one  that  forced  his 
resignation  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  ground  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  On  the  ground  it  might  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

IVIr.  Kennedy.  We  have  some  information  that  your  home  has  22 
rooms ;  is  that  correct  ? 

]Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  an  indoor  swimming  pool,  2  bowling  alleys,  a 
pipe  organ,  and  6  master  bedrooms.     Is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

]\Ir.  Kennedy.  Three  of  the  six  bathrooms  have  gold-plated  fixtures ; 
is  that  right? 

Mr.  AccARDo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  one  is  a  bathtub  that  supposedly  cost  $10,000, 
cut  from  a  solid  block  of  Mexican  onyx  ? 

21243— 58— pt.  33 20 


12800  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN   THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Is  that  true  ? 

Mr.  AccARDo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  the  house  is  worth  about  $500,000 ;  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  purchased  it  in  1951  for  about  $125,000 ;  is  that 
right? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  ground  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  On  the  ground  it  might  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  this  is  where  you  celebrate  the  Fourth  of  July ; 
is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  ground  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  On  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Could  you  tell  us  what  other  union  officials  you  know 
other  than  the  ones  we  mentioned  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  ground  ? 

Mr.  AccARDo.  On  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Do  you  have  any  business  deals,  arrangements,  with 
any  of  them  ? 

Mr.  AccARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  ground  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  On  the  ground  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Could  you  tell  us  what  other  businesses  you  are  in 
other  than  the  ones  that  have  been  mentioned  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  grounds  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  On  the  grounds  it  might  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  We  have  some  information  we  are  developing  that 
you  are  in  some  other  businesses,  Mr.  Accardo.  Could  you  tell  us 
about  any  of  those  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  ground  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  On  the  grounds  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

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

The  Chairman.  Are  there  any  further  questions? 

Senator  Ervin.  Can  you  think  of  any  activities  in  which  you  have 
engaged  in  the  last  20  years  that  you  could  tell  us  about  that  would 
not  tend  to  incriminate  you  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Senator  Er\t;n.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Chairman,  we  have  information  that  the  witness 
was  born  April  28, 1906,  in  Chicago. 

Is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Accardo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

The  Chairman.  This  witness  will  remain  under  the  present  sub- 
pena.  You  will  bo  under  recognizance  to  reappear  and  give  further 
testimony  before  the  committee  at  such  time  and  place  as  it  may 
designate.     Do  you  accept  such  recognizance? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Accardo.  Yes,  sir. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12801 

The  Chairman.  All  right.  We  will  give  you  a  reasonable  notice, 
or  your  counsel,  of  the  time  nnd  place  where  the  committee  may  desire 
to  hear  further  testimony  from  you. 

Mr.  Kexnedy.  I  just  have  one  more  question.  We  have  some  in- 
formation about  Labriola  and  Weinberg  planning  to  kill  Mr.  Teitel- 
baum.     Could  you  tell  us  anything  about  that  ? 

Mr.  AccARDo.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  IvExxEDY.  On  what  ground? 

Mr.  AccARDo.  On  the  grounds  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

]\fr.  IvENNEDY.  Did  you  know  of  the  plot  to  kill  Teitelbaum? 

Mr.  AcoARDO.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kexnedy.  On  what  grounds  ? 

Mr.  .VccARDO.  On  the  grounds  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair  will  announce  at  this  time  that  he  is 
instructing  the  staff  of  the  committee  to  immediately  prepare,  as  early 
as  they  can  get  to  it,  with  the  workload  that  we  have,  the  proper 
papers  and  documents  to  cite  this  witness  and  the  preceding  witness 
this  morning  for  contempt  of  the  United  States  Senate.  There  were 
some  other  witnesses  yesterday  who  will  also  be  included.  I  do  not 
have  their  names  before  me  just  now.  We  will  take  these  citations 
up  at  an  executive  session  of  the  committee  as  soon  as  the  citations 
have  been  prepared.  I  am  hopeful  that  the  Senate  will  approve  the 
resolution  based  upon  this  record  citing  these  parties  for  contempt 
of  the  United  States  Senate. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  these  witnesses  are  making  absolutely 
capricious  use  and  abuse  of  the  fifth  amendment  privilege,  when  a 
citizen  of  this  country  takes  a  position  that  he  can't  acknowledge  that 
fact  without  the  possibility  of  being  incriminated  or  cannot  tell  the 
date  or  the  place  of  his  birth,  if  he  was  born  in  this  country,  without 
possible  self-incrimination. 

It  is  time  for  the  court  to  say  whether  the  fifth  amendment  was 
intended  and  can  be  used  as  a  device  simply  to  evade  giving  informa- 
tion that  a  committee  or  that  a  court  may  need  to  carry  out  its  func- 
tions. 

The  legitimate  use  of  the  fifth  amendment  should  be  sustained.  It 
should  be  granted,  and  it  should  be  respected.  But  the  flagrant  abuse 
of  it,  converting  it  into  a  device  simply  to  make  a  mockery  of  the 
Government  and  of  the  courts  of  the  land,  using  it  solelv  for  the  pur- 
pose of  concealing  facts  that  should  be  known  and  could  be  known  and 
could  be  told  by  the  witness  without  any  possible  self-incrimination 
is,  in  my  judgment,  something  that  needs  to  be  clarified  by  the  courts 
of  the  land. 

We  ought  to  know  whether  this  amendment  is  intended  to  be  used 
in  such  fashion.  I  know  of  no  other  way  to  find  out  except  to  process 
these  cases  and  let  the  highest  court  in  the  land  rule  on  them. 

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

The  Chairman.  This  is  a  terrific  job,  and  there  is  nothing  pleasant 
about  this  work.  It  is  most  exasperating  to  find  people  enjoy  the 
hlessings  of  our  country  and  our  Government,  who  defy  it,  who  ob- 
struct its  processes,  who  trv  to  utilize  its  freedoms  that  are  guaranteed, 
solely  for  the  purpose  oi  exploitation  of  legitimate  enterprises,  of 
legitimate  labor  imions,  and  who  even  resort  to  murder  in  order  to 
carry  on  their  nefarious  enterprises. 


12802  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

I  am  liopefiil  that  the  courts,  when  they  hear  and  review  this  record, 
will  be  conscious  of  an  obligation  to  society  as  a  whole,  as  well  as  to 
the  rights  of  individuals  under  the  fifth  amendment  provision  of  the 
Constitution. 

All  right,  you  may  stand  aside. 

Call  the  next  witness,  please. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  ^Marshall  Caifano. 

The  Chairman.  Come  forward,  Mr.  Caifano. 

While  the  witness  is  coming,  I  will  read  the  balance  of  the  letter 
that  Mr.  Duffy  was  reading  when  he  was  testifying.     It  says : 

It  has  become  apparent  to  me  that  the  responsibilities  and  decisions  to  be 
made  in  behalf  of  yonr  association  and  its  members  require  the  full  time  and 
attention  of  myself  or  any  other  person  in  order  to  completely  and  competently 
solve  the  many  issues  which  arise.  As  you  know,  I  have  been  practicing  law 
for  the  past  2.5  years,  and  am  confronted  with  many  legal  problems  and  de- 
cisions to  be  made  in  behalf  of  my  clientele,  all  of  which  require  considerable 
time  and  effort  on  my  part.  In  view  of  the  established  practice  which  I  have 
enjoyed  for  many  years,  I  feel  it  my  duty  to  continue  serving  these  clients 
without  interruption. 

Again  assuring  you  that  it  has  been  a  pleasure  to  be  of  service  to  your  splendid 
organization,  I  remain. 
Sincerely  yours, 

Anthony  V.  Champagne. 

Will  you  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? 

JNIr.  Caifano.  I  do. 

TESTIMONY  OF  MAESHALL  CAIFANO 

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

Mr.  Caifano.  Marshall  Caifano,  415  Aldine,  Chicago,  111. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  your  business  or  occupation,  please? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  on  the  ground  that  my  answer 
may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  have  an  attorney  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  waive  counsel  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  Yes,  I  waive  counsel. 

The  Chairman.  All  right,  sir. 

You  state  that  you  cannot  answer  as  to  your  business  or  occupation 
because  you  think  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  you  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer. 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair  will  ask  you  this  question:  Do  you 
honestly  believe  that  if  you  gave  a  truthful  answer  to  the  question 
of  "What  is  your  business  or  occupation?"  that  a  truthful  answer  to 
the  question  miglit  tend  to  incriminate  you  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  the  question  because  it  tends  to 
incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  I  am  asking  you  if  you  honestly  believe  that  it 
might  tend  to  incriminate  you  if  you  answer  the  question  truthfully 
and  told  us  your  business  or  occupation  ? 

INIr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer. 

The  Chairman.  You  decline  to  say,  do  you,  whether  you  honestly 
believe  that  it  might  tend  to  incriminate  you? 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12803 

Mr.  Caifano.  Yes;  I  decline  to  answer  on  the  grounds  that  it  may 
tend — that  my  answer  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair,  with  the  approval  of  the  committee, 
orders  and  directs  you  to  answer  the  question :  Do  you  honestly  be- 
lieve that  if  you  answered  the  question  and  told  the  committee  what 
is  your  present  occupation  or  business,  that  a  truthful  answer  might 
tend  to  incriminate  you  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  on  the  grounds 

The  Chairman.  The  order  for  you  to  answer  the  question  will 
stand.     Where  were  you  born  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  ordered  and  directed  to  answer  the  ques- 
tion. 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  on  the  grounds  that  my  answer 
to  that  question  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  honestly  believe  that  if  you  gave  a  truthful 
answer  to  the  question  and  told  the  committee  where  you  were  born, 
that  a  truthful  answer,  or  that  information,  might  tend  to  incriminate 
you? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  that  on  the  grounds  that  the 
answer  to  that  question  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair,  with  the  approval  of  the  committee, 
orders  and  directs  tlie  witness  to  answer  the  question. 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  a  citizen  of  the  United  States? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question  because  my  answer 
may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  honestly  believe  that  if  you  answered  the 
question  truthfully  "Are  you  a  citizen  of  the  United  States"  that  a 
truthful  answer  to  that  question  might  tend  to  incriminate  you? 

Mr.  Cah^ano.  I  decline  to  answer  that  on  the  grounds  that  my 
answer  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  With  the  approval  of  the  committee,  the  Chair 
orders  and  directs  vou  to  answer  the  question :  Are  you  a  citizen  of 
the  United  States?  " 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer. 

The  Chairman.  With  the  approval  of  the  committee,  the  Chair 
orders  and  directs  you  to  answer  the  question :  Do  you  believe, 
honestly  believe,  that  if  you  gave  a  truthful  answer  to  the  question 
"Are  you  a  citizen  of  the  United  States?"  that  a  truthful  answer  to 
the  question  might  tend  to  incriminate  you  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

The  Chairman.  The  order  of  the  committee  for  you  to  answer  the 
question  stands. 

Proceed,  Mr.  Kennedy. 

Senator  Curtis.  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

Tlie  Chairman.  Senator  Curtis. 

Senator  Curtis.  Were  you  served  with  a  subpena  to  come  here  and 
testify? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Senator  Curtis.  All  I  am  asking  you  is :  Were  you  served  with  a 
paper  that  ordered  you  to  come  here  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer. 


12804  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES   EST    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Senator  Curtis.  No,  no,  I  am  not  asking  you  to  give  any  informa- 
tion about  yourself.  I  just  want  to  know  whether  or  not  you  were 
served  with  a  subpena,  or  why  you  are  here. 

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

Senator  Curtis.  Wlio  advised  you  to  decline  to  answer  on  the 
grounds  that  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  you  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  because  my  answer  may  tend  to 
incriminate  me. 

Senator  Curtis.  Did  the  mob  of  hoodlums  tell  you  if  you  came 
down  here,  not  to  testify  to  anything  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  declme  to  answer  that  question  because  my  answer 
may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Senator  Curtis.  Are  you  refusing  to  say  even  whether  or  not  you 
have  been  subpenaed  or  whether  you  are  a  citizen  because  you  have 
been  so  ordered  by  the  hoodlums  not  to  testify  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question  because  my  answer 
may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Senator  Curtis.  Are  you  afraid  of  the  other  hoodlums  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question  on  the  gi'ound  that 
my  answer  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Senator  Curtis.  You  are  not  a  lawyer,  are  you  ?     Are  you  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Senator  Curtis.  Who  told  you  what  to  do  in  order  not  to  have  to 
testify? 

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

Senator  Curtis.  Wlio  did  you  talk  to  after  you  had  received  your 
subpena  to  come  down  here  and  testify  ?     Who  did  you  talk  to  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question.  My  answer  may 
tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Senator  Curtis.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed,  Mr.  Kennedy. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  have  been  asked  whether  you  were  threatened. 
Have  you  threatened  anyone  else,  Mr.  Caifano  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question  because  my  answer 
may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Have  you  threatened  any  of  the  witnesses  that  were 
going  to  appear  before  the  committee  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy,  On  what  grounds  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  On  the  grounds  that  my  answer  to  that  question  may 
tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  many  times  have  you  been  arrested,  Mr.  Cai- 
fano? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  I  don't  know  whether  our  record  is  complete  but 
we  show  that  you  have  been  arrested  18  times  since  1929 ;  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  that. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  you  have  been  arrested  for  such  operations  as 
a  stickup  man,  bank  robber,  alcohol  peddler,  and  a  bookmaker;  is 
that  right? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question  on  the  grounds  my 
answer  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12805 

Mr.  Kennedy.  According  to  the  information  that  we  have,  you 
were  involved  in  the  operation  of  James  Weinberg  and  Paul  "Needle- 
nose"  Labriola,  in  setting  up  some  of  these  associations.  Would  you 
tell  us  about  that  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question  on  the  grounds  that 
my  answer  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  These  were  tavern  associations  and  a  restaurant  asso- 
ciation that  was  going  to  be  set  up  in  1953  by  Weinberg  and  Labriola. 
It  was  goin^  to  operate  in  conjunction  with  the  labor  unions,  and  have 
the  labor  unions  act  as  an  enforcement  arm  for  them. 

It  was  to  be  run  by  the  syndicate  and  you  were  part  of  it ;  is  that 
correct  ? 

Mr.  Caitang.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question  because  my  answer 
may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  ICjennedy.  You  are  known,  are  you  not,  as  one  of  the  Young 
Bloods  over  on  the  West  Side  of  Chicago  ? 

Mr.  Calfano.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  grounds  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  On  the  grounds  that  my  answer  to  that  question  may 
tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  you  were  working  over  there  with  "Teets"  Bat- 
taglia,  "Skippy "  Cerone,  and  "Mooney"  Giancana ;  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Ivennedy.  Do  you  know  Battaglia  i 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  grounds  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  On  the  grounds  that  my  answer  to  that  question  may 
tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Do  you  want  to  look  at  this  picture  for  me? 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair  presents  to  you  a  picture  of  2  persons, 
with  2  exposures  of  the  2  people.  Will  you  examine  the  picture  and 
state  if  you  identify  the  people  in  the  picture  ? 

(The  photograph  was  handed  to  the  witness.) 

The  Chairman.  You  have  examined  the  picture,  have  you? 

Mr.  Caifano.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  All  right.  Do  you  identify  any  of  the  people  in 
the  picture  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

The  Chairman.  Why? 

Mr.  Caifano.  On  the  grounds  that  my  answer  may  tend  to  in- 
criminate me. 

The  Chairiman.  Are  you  in  the  picture  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  that. 

The  Chairman.  Why? 

Mr.  Caifano.  On  the  grounds  that  my  answer  may  tend  to  incrimi- 
nate me. 

The  Chairman.  This  picture  may  be  made  exhibit  No.  24. 

(The  document  referred  to  was  marked  "Exhibit  No.  24"  for  refer- 
ence and  may  be  found  in  the  files  of  the  select  committee.) 

The  Chairman.  Proceed. 

Mr.  I^NNEDY.  This  group,  this  association,  operated,  and  the 
police  were  able  to  get  information  as  to  what  was  going  on.  One 
of  the  conversations  that  took  place  was  when  an  Eddie  Morris  made 
some  statements  about  you.     Did  you  know  Eddie  Morris? 


12806  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  that. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  It  is  Irving  Morris.  Is  it  Eddie  Morris  or  Irving 
Morris  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  grounds? 

Mr.  Caifano.  On  the  grounds  my  answer  may  tend  to  incriminate 
me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  This  was  Irving  Morris  and  he  is  a  syndicate  hood- 
lum out  there ;  is  he  not  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question  on  the  grounds  that 
my  answer  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  He  is  now  in  jail  for  counterfeiting,  in  the  peniten- 
tiary, but  he  stated  that  the  murder  of  Theodore  Roe  was  done,  was 
carried  out,  because  Theodore  Roe  had  killed  your  brother  when  you 
and  your  brother  were  trying  to  kidnap  him.     Is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  that  you  were  responsible  for  the  murder  of 
Theodore  Roe.   Is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  grounds  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  On  the  ground  that  my  answer  may  tend  to  incrimi- 
nate me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  According  to  the  information  that  we  have,  you  are 
a  close  associate  of  Tony  Accardo  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  didn't  identify  these  pictures?  You  didn't 
identify  these? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  ground  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  On  the  grounds  that  my  answer  may  tend  to  incrimi- 
nate me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Isn't  this  picture  on  the  left,  isn't  that  you  and  isn't 
that  Mr.  Battaglia  standing  next  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  that. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  grounds  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  On  the  grounds  my  answer  may  tend  to  incriminate 
me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Wasn't  he  a  close  associate  of  yours,  and  you  worked 
together  on  this  restaurant  and  tavern  association  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

The  Chairman.  Was  this  man  one  of  the  organizers  of  the  asso- 
ciation ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  No.  He  was  being  brought  in,  Mr.  Chairman.  They 
had  to  get  certain  clearance  from  Mr.  Caifano  in  order  to  operate.  He 
was  one  of  the  heads  of  the  Young  Bloods  whose  clearance  was  neces- 
sary on  the  West  Side  of  Chicago. 

Then,  of  course,  contacts  were  made  with  the  labor  unions. 

The  Chairman.  All  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  We  have  information  that  you  traveled  a  number  of 
different  times  to  Las  Vegas  with  Tony  Accardo,  is  tliat  correct  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question  on  the  grounds  that 
miffht  tend  to  incriminate  me. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12807 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Could  you  tell  us  about  your  being  arrested  in  con- 
nection with  the  murder,  the  slaying,  of  Estelle  Carey,  in  1943,  in  which 
she  was  bludgeoned  and  then  burned  to  death  in  her  apartment  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  grounds  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  On  the  grounds  that  my  answer  may  tend  to  incrimi- 
nate me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Then  you  were  arrested  in  the  slaying  of  Quattrochi, 
were  you  not,  who  was  a  small-time  gambler  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  also  traveled  to  Miami,  Fla.,  with  Frabotta 
and  Phil  Alderisio,  known  as  Milwaukee  Phil  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question  on  the  grounds  my 
answer  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  "Would  you  tell  us  what  you  do  down  there  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question  on  the  grounds  my 
answer  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Do  you  have  any  interest  in  the  gambling  establish- 
ments in  Las  Vegas  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question  on  the  grounds  my 
answer  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  We  have  information  that  you  have  interests  out 
there,  that  you  have  had  some  interests  with  Pat  Manno,  also  known 
as  Pat  Manning,  in  Dallas,  Tex. ;  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question  on  the  grounds  my 
answer  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  IvENNEDY.  And  you  are  now  living  under  the  name  of  M.  J. 
Monette,  on  Aldine  Street,  apartment  6-D.    Is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question  on  the  grounds  my 
answer  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  we  also  understand  that  you  have  admitted  to 
having  a  cigarette  concession  in  the  hotel,  one  of  the  hotels  down  in 
Havana,  Cuba  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question  on  the  groimds  that 
my  answer  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  So  your  operation  is  very  extensive;  is  it  not,  Mr. 
Caifano? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  you  do  it  not  only  through  your  own  strong- 
arm  methods  but  through  your  contacts  that  you  have  with  these 
other  people  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  grounds  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  On  the  grounds  that  my  answer  may  tend  to  incrimi- 
nate me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Anthony  Accardo,  Battaglia,  Paul  "the  Waiter" 
Ricca,  are  all  associates  of  yours  ? 

]\Ir.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  grounds  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  On  the  grounds  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Senator  Kennedy.  What  is  the  source  of  your  income  now  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question  on  the  grounds  that 
my  answer  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 


12808  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES   IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Senator  Kennedy.  Do  vou  play  golf  at  the  Tam  O'Shanter  Golf 
Club? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

Senator  Kennedy,  You  play  golf  how  many  times  a  week  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question  on  the  grounds  my 
answer  may  tend 

Senator  Kennedy.  I  understand  that  when  they  went  to  serve  you 
with  a  subpena,  they  went  out  to  the  golf  club  and  missed  you  there, 
and  finally  got  you  at  your  home. 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

Senator  Kennedy.  If  you  play  golf  some  days  each  week,  what  is 
the  source  of  your  income  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

Senator  Kennedy.  On  the  grounds  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  you  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  Yes. 

Senator  Curtis.  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Curtis. 

Senator  Curtis.  Are  you  a  member  of  any  labor  organization  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  that. 

Senator  Curtis.  Have  you  had  anything  to  do  with  labor-manage- 
ment relations  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

Senator  Curtis.  Have  you  had  anything  to  do  with  any  strikes  or 
picket  lines  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  on  the  grounds  that  my  answer 
may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Senator  Curtis.  Have  you  had  any  part  in  any  shakedown  or  at- 
tempted extortion  or  blackmail  in  connection  with  labor-management 
relations  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  that. 

Senator  Curtis.  On  what  grounds  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  On  the  grounds  that  my  answer  may — to  that  ques- 
tion— may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Senator  Curtis.  Would  your  answer  incriminate  anybody  else  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question  also,  on  the  same 
grounds. 

Senator  Curtis.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Caifano,  it  was  developed  that  you  play  golf 
almost  every  day  out  in  Chicago,  and  you  were  asked  about  your 
source  of  income.    You  wouldn't  give  us  any  information  about  that  2 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  grounds  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  On  the  grounds  my  answer  may  tend  to  incriminate 
me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Isn't  it  a  fact  that  when  you  arrived  at  the  office 
yesterday,  you  asked  one  of  the  staff  members  whether  it  would  be  pos- 
sible to  rent  some  golf  clubs  so  that  you  could  go  out  and  play  golf 
here  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Could  you  tell  the  committee  the  source  of  the  in- 
come to  pay  for  the  rent  of  the  golf  clubs  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  might  add  that  we  were  unable  to 
give  the  witness  that  information. 


UVIPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12809 

The  Chairiman.  The  witness  will  remain  under  the  present  subpena. 
He  will  be  under  recognizance  to  reappear  and  give  further  testimony 
before  the  committee  at  such  time  and  place  as  the  committee  may  de- 
sire, subject,  of  course,  to  reasonable  notice  being  given  you  of  the  time 
and  place  we  will  want  to  hear  you  again.  Do  you  accept  that  recog- 
nizance, do  you  ? 

Mr.  Caifano.  Yes,  I  do. 

The  CiiAiR^rAN.  All  right.   Are  there  any  further  questions  ? 

The  Chair  will  give  the  same  instructions  to  the  staff  with  respect 
to  this  witness  as  has  been  given  to  the  other  two  who  testified  here 
this  morning.  I  want  contempt  papers  prepared  as  early  as  possible 
so  that  the  committee  may  take  action  thereon. 

All  right,  you  may  stand  aside. 

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

(^Vliereupon,  at  12 :  25  the  hearing  recessed,  to  reconvene  at  2  p.  m., 
of  the  same  day,  with  the  following  members  present :  Senators  Mc- 
Clellan,  Kennedy,  Ervin,  and  Curtis!) 

AFTERNOON"   SESSION 

(At  the  reconvening  of  the  session,  the  following  members  were  pres- 
ent :  Senators  McClellan,  Goldwater,  and  Curtis.) 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  will  come  to  order.  Call  the  next 
witness,  Mr.  Kennedy. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Chairman,  could  I  call  a  number  of  these  wit- 
nesses together  so  that  we  can  move  along  more  quickly  ? 

The  Chairman.  Very  well, 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Koss  Prio,  Mr.  Joey  Caesar  DiVarco,  and  Mr. 
Jackie  Cerone. 

The  Chairman.  Will  the  witnesses  come  forward,  please?  Each 
of  you  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  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth,  so  help  you 
God? 

Mr.  Prio.  I  do. 

Mr.  Cerone.  I  do. 

Mr.  DiVarco.  I  do. 

TESTIMONY  OF  JACK  CERONE,  ROSS  PRIO,  AND  JOSEPH  DIVARCO, 
ACCOMPANIED  BY  H.  C.  ALLDER,  MR.  DIVARCO'S  COUNSEL 

The  Chairman.  Beginning  on  my  left,  will  you  state  your  name, 
your  place  of  residence,  and  your  business  or  profession,  please? 

Mr.  DiVarco.  Joseph  DiVarco,  4275  Jarvis  Avenue,  Lincolnwood, 
111. 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  state  your  business  or  profession? 

Mr.  DiVarco.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question  because  it  may  tend 
to  incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  have  counsel  present  representing  you? 

Mr.  Allder.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  All  right,  counsel,  identify  yourself. 

Mr.  Allder.  My  name  is  H.  Clifford  Allder,  401  Third  Street  NW., 
Washing-ton,  D.  C.  I  am  a  member  of  the  bar  of  Washington,  D.  C. 
I  am  representing  Mr.  DiVarco. 


12810  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  represent  the  others  ? 

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

The  Chairman.  The  one  in  the  center,  will  you  give  us  your  name, 
your  address,  and 

Mr.  Cerone.  Jack  Cerone,  2000  North  77th  Avenue,  Elmwood  Park, 
111. 

The  Chairman.  Wliat  is  your  business  or  occupation  ? 

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

The  Chairman.  Do  you  have  counsel  ? 

Mr.  Cerone.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  waive  counsel  ? 

Mr.  Cerone.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  All  right;  the  one  on  my  right.  What  is  your 
name  ? 

Mr.  Prig.  Ross  Prio,  1721  Sunset  Ridge,  Glenview,  111. 

The  Chairman.  And  what  is  your  business  or  occupation  ? 

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

The  Chairman.  This  last  witness  on  my  right,  I  ask  you  the  ques- 
tion :  Do  you  honestly  believe  that  if  you  gave  a  truthful  answer  to 
the  question,  "What  is  your  business  or  occupation?*'  that  a  truthful 
answer  thereto  might  tend  to  incriminate  you  ? 

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

The  Chairman.  The  Chair,  with  the  approval  of  the  committee, 
orders  and  directs  the  witness  to  answer  the  question :  Do  you  honestly 
believe  that  if  you  gave  a  truthful  answer  to  the  question,  "What  is 
your  business  or  occupation?"  that  a  truthful  answer  thereto  might 
tend  to  incriminate  you  ? 

Mr.  Prig.  I  decline  to  answer  that  on  the  grou.nds  that  my  answer 
may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  The  order  and  direction  of  the  Chair  stands.  The 
witness  in  the  center,  Wliat  is  your  name  ? 

Mr.  Cerone.  Jack  Cerone. 

The  Chairman.  Cerone?  Did  you  give  us  your  business  or 
occupation  ? 

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

The  Chairman.  Do  you  honestly  believe  that  if  you  gave  a  truth- 
ful answer  to  the  question  "What  is  your  business  or  occupation?" 
that  a  truthful  answer  might  tend  to  incriminate  you  ? 

Mr.  Cerone.  I  decline  to  answer. 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair,  with  the  approval  of  the  committee, 
orders  and  directs  the  witness  to  answer  the  question. 

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

The  Chairman.  You  understand  the  question.  It  is :  Do  you  hon- 
estly believe  that  if  you  gave  a  trutlrful  answer  to  the  question  "What 
is  your  business  or  occupation?"  that  a  truthful  answer  thereto  might 
tend  to  incriminate  you  ? 

Mr.  Cerone.  I  invoke  the  fifth  amendment. 

The  Chairman.  You  understand  the  question,  do  you  ? 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12811 

Mr.  Cerone.  I  decline  to  answer  on  tlie  grounds  it  may  tend  to 
incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman-.  The  order  and  direction  to  this  witness  to  answer 
the  question  stands. 

The  witness  DiVarco,  on  my  left,  Did  you  give  us  your  business  or 
occupation  ? 

Mr.  DiVarco.  I  decline  to  answer  the  question  as  it  may  tend  to 
incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  honestly  believe  that  if  you  gave  a  truth- 
ful answer  to  the  question  "What  is  your  business  or  occupation?" 
that  a  truthful  answer  thereto  might  tend  to  incriminate  you? 

Mr.  DiVarco.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

The  Chairman.  AVith  the  approval  of  the  committee,  the  Chair 
orders  and  directs  you  to  answer  the  question. 

jMr.  DiVarco.  I  invoke  the  fifth  amendment  and  decline  to  answer 
that  question. 

The  Chairman.  The  order  stands,  the  order  and  direction  of  the 
Chair  stands. 

You  are  still  under  orders  and  direction  to  answer  the  question  that 
if  you  gave  a  truthful  answer  to  the  question  "\Vliat  is  your  business  or 
occupation?"  that  a  truthful  answer  thereto  might  tend  to  incriminate 
you. 

Mr.  DiVarco.  I  decline  to  answer  your  question,  because  any  answer 
may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  I  will  continue  with  you.  Are  you  a  citizens  of  the 
United  States  ? 

Mr.  DiVarco.  I  decline  to  answer  the  question. 

The  Chairman.  Where  do  you  live  ? 

Mr.  DiVarco.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

The  Chairman.  When  were  you  born  ? 

Mr.  DiVarco.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question,  too,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Where  were  you  born  ? 

Mr.  DiVarco.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question,  too. 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair,  with  the  approval  of  the  committee, 
orders  and  directs  the  witness  to  answer  the  questions:  "Where  were 
3'^ou  born?"  "When  were  you  born?"  "Are  you  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States?" 

Mr.  DiVarco.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question  because  any  answer 
may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  The  order  and  direction  of  the  Chair  stands  for  you 
to  answer  those  questions. 

Mr.  DiVarco.  I  decline  to  answer  those  questions,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  I  ask  you  the  question :  Do  you  honestly  believe  that 
if  you  gave  a  truthful  answer  to  the  questions  of :  "Where  were  you 
born?"  When  were  you  born?"  "Are  you  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States?"  that  a  truthful  answer  to  any  or  either  of  these  questions 
might  tend  to  incriminate  you  ? 

Mr.  DiVarco.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair,  with  the  approval  of  the  committee, 
orders  and  directs  the  witness  to  answer  the  question. 

Mr.  DiVarco.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question  because  any  answer 
may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  I  ask  the  witness  Cerone — is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Cerone.  That  is  correct.  Senator. 


12812  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES   IN   THE    LABOR    FIELD 

The  Chairman.  I  ask  you :  Where  were  you  born  ? 

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

The  Chairman.  When  were  you  born  ? 

Mr.  Cerone.  I  honestly  believe  that  the  answer  may  tend  to  incrimi- 
nate me. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  a  citizen  of  the  United  States? 

Mr.  Cerone.  I  decline  to  answer. 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair,  with  the  approval  of  the  committee, 
orders  and  directs  the  witness  to  answer  the  questions:  When  were 
you  born?  Where  were  you  born?  And  are  you  a  citizen  of  the 
United  States  ? 

Mr.  Cerone.  I  decline  to  answer. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  honestly  believe  that  if  you  gave  a  truth- 
ful answer  to  the  questions,  When  were  you  born?  Where  were  you 
born?  and  Are  you  a  citizen  of  the  United  States?  that  a  truthful 
answer  to  any  or  either  of  these  questions  might  tend  to  incriminate 
you  ? 

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

The  Chairman.  The  Chair,  with  the  approval  of  the  committee, 
orders  and  directs  you  to  answer  the  questions. 

Mr.  Cerone.  I  invoke  the  fifth  amendment. 

The  Chairman.  The  witness  on  my  right,  the  order  and  direction 
of  the  Chair  stands  throughout  the  proceedings,  throughout  the  period 
that  you  are  on  the  witness  stand.  The  witness  on  my  right,  Mr. 
Prio 

Mr.  Prio.  That  is  correct. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  correct  ?     Where  were  you  born  ? 

Mr.  Prio.  I  decline  to  answer  the  question  because  my  answer  may 
tend  to  incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  When  were  you  born  ? 

Mr.  Prio.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  ? 

Mr.  Prio.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair,  with  the  approval  of  the  committee, 
orders  and  directs  the  witness  to  answer  the  questions :  When  were  you 
born  ?  Where  were  you  born  ?  And  are  you  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States? 

Mr.  Prio.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  honestly  believe  that  if  you  gave  a  truth- 
ful answer  to  the  questions,  When  were  you  born  ?  Where  were  you 
born?  and  Are  you  a  citizen  of  the  United  States?  that  a  truthful 
answer  to  any  or  either  of  those  questions  might  tend  to  incriminate 
you? 

Mr.  Prio.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question,  sir. 

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

Mr.  Prio.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question  on  the  gi-ound  that  my 
answer  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  The  order  and  direction  of  the  Chair  will  stand  and 
remain  in  force  during  the  period  that  you  are  on  the  witness  stand. 

Proceed,  Mr.  Kennedy. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12813 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Prio,  according  to  the  information  that  we  have 
that  was  developed  under  oatli  before  the  committee  yesterday,  you 
had  a  very  prominent  role  in  the  setting  up  of  these  syndicate-spon- 
sored trade  associations  in  Chicago  in  1952  and  1953.  Could  you  tell 
us  about  what  you  did  in  connection  with  that  ? 

Mr.  Prio.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  grounds  i 

Mr.  Prio.  On  the  grounds  that  my  answer  may  tend  to  incriminate 
me. 

i\Ir.  Kennedy.  And  that  you  were  associated  in  that  venture  with 
James  Weinberg  and  Paul  "Needlenose"  Labriola  ? 

Mr.  Prio.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  grounds  ? 

Mr.  Prio.  On  the  grounds  that  my  answer  may  tend  to  incriminate 
me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  It  was  explained  that  the  man  in  charge  of  the  whole 
operation  was  "Golf  Bag"  Hunt.  Above  him  was  Tony  Accardo,  but 
that  "Golf  Bag"  Hunt  was  the  one  that  was  immediately  in  charge,  but 
that  you  had  an  important  role  in  what  is  called  the  one  section  of 
Chicago. 

Could  you  tell  us  what  you  were  going  to  do  in  that  section  of 
Chicago  in  connection  with  this? 

Mr.  Prio.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question,  sir. 

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

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

The  Chairman.  Proceed. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  We  understand  that  you  are  probably  one  of  the 
most  important  figures  in  Chicago  as  far  as  bookmaking  is  concerned, 
but  that  you  operate  chiefly  out  of  the  North  Side  of  Chicago. 

Is  that  right,  Mr.  Prio '? 

Mr.  Prio.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  that  another  man  that  was  going  to  work  with 
you  was  Joey  Caesar ;  is  that  right  ? 

Mr,  Prio.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Do  you  know  Joey  Caesar  ? 

Mr.  Prio.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Is  that  Joey  Caesar  that  is  sitting  on  your  right 
there  ? 

Mr.  Prio.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Would  you  mind  looking  and  seeing  if  you  can  iden- 
tify him?  Not  that  individual,  but  the  one  sitting  next  to  him.  Do 
you  recognize  him  ? 

Mr.  Prio.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  ordered  and  directed  to  answer  the  ques- 
tion. 

Mr.  Prio.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  DiVarco  you  are  also  known  as  Mr.  Caesar,  are 
you  ? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Are  you  also  known  as  Mr.  Caesar? 

Mr.  DiVarco.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 


12814  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES   IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  DiVarco,  would  you,  or  Mr.  Caesar,  would  you 
look  up  and  tell  me  whether  you  know  Mr.  Prio  ? 

Mr.  DiVarco.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  ordered  and  directed  to  answer  the  ques- 
tion, with  the  approval  of  the  committee. 

Mr.  DiVarco.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question  because  anything 
I  say  might  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  We  understand  the  two  of  you  were  to  make  the 
arrangements  through  Tony  Accardo.     Is  that  correct?     Mr.  Prio? 

Mr.  Prio.  1  decline  to  answer  that  question,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  that  you  were  then  going  to  operate  and  con- 
trol this  one  section  of  Chicago. 

You  were  reported  to  have  made  a  statement  that  you  would  be 
satisfied  to  do  this  as  long  as  you  could  have  a  man  right  in  the  office, 
your  own  personal  representative  in  the  office,  to  make  sure  that 
everything  was  done  honestly.     Is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Prio.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question,  sir. 

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

Mr.  Prio,  I  decline  to  answer  that  question,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  that  you  wanted  somebody  there  to  protect 
your  interests,  is  that  correct,  Mr.  Prio  ? 

jNIr.  Prio.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Can  you  add  anything  to  that,  Mr.  DiVarco? 

Mr.  DiVarco.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

The  Chairman.  Let  the  Chair  order  and  direct  the  previous  wit- 
ness, the  other  witness,  to  answer  that  last  question.  With  the  ap- 
proval of  the  committee,  the  Chair  orders  and  directs  you  to  answer 
the  question. 

Mr.  Prio.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question  because  my  answer  may 
tend  to  incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  All  right,  proceed. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  It  was  pointed  out  that  if  this  group  tried  to  get 
started  in  your  area,  that  they  could  not  do  so,  Mr.  Prio,  unless  they 
got  the  clearance  of  you  and  Caesar,  and  a  man  by  the  name  of 
Dominick  Nuccio  and  DeBello,  is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Prio.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Would  anybody,  to  get  one  of  these  kinds  of  opera- 
tions going,  would  they  have  to  get  the  clearance  of  you? 

Mr.  Prio.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair  orders  and  directs  the  witness  to  answer 
the  question,  with  the  approval  of  the  committee. 

Mr,  Prio,  I  decline  to  answer  that  question,  sir. 

The  Chairman,  All  right,  proceed. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  There  are  3,  that  are  called  the  3  Doms  that  operate 
in  Chicago ;  are  there  not?  One  is  Dominick  Nuccio  and  one  is  Dom- 
inick DeBello.     That  is  2  out  of  the  3  Doms,  is  it  ? 

Mr.  Prio.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  grounds  ? 

Mr.  Prio.  On  the  grounds  my  answer  may  tend  to  incriminate  nie. 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair  presents  to  you,  Mr.  Prio,  a  photogra])h 
which  has  2  exposures  on  it  of  3  men  without  hats  and  the  other 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12815 

exposure  appears  to  be  the  same  3  men  with  hats  on.  I  pass  this 
picture  to  you  and  ask  you  to  examine  it  and  see  if  you  identify  any 
of  the  three  men  in  the  picture. 

(The  photograph  was  handed  to  the  witness.) 

Mr.  Prig.  I  decline  to  answer  the  question. 

The  CiiAiRMAX.  You  have  examined  the  picture  ? 

Mr.  Prio.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  decline  to  answer  the  question  ? 

Mr.  Prig.  That  is  right.  • 

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

Mr.  Prig.  I  decline  to  ansAver  the  question  on  the  grounds  that  my 
answer  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  see  your  own  picture  there  ? 

Mr.  Prig.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Would  your  own  picture,  do  you  tliink,  tend  to 
incriminate  you  ? 

Mr.  Prig.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  There  is  nothing  about  your  picture  to  be  ashamed 
of  or  afraid  of,  is  there  ? 

Mr.  Prig.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question,  sir. 

The  Chairman,  Are  you  married  ? 

Mr.  Prig.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  ordered  and  directed  to  answer  the  ques- 
tion, with  the  approval  of  the  committee. 

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

The  Chairman.  Do  you  mean  the  fact  that  you  are  married  might 
tend  to  incriminate  you  ? 

Mr.  Prig.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

The  Chairman.  I  don't  know  that  it  would  ever,  that  it  ever  incrim- 
inated anybody  to  either  be  married  or  not  married.  That  is  a  kind 
of  new  wrinkle,  isn't  it  ? 

Mr.  Prig.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question,  sir. 

Tlie  Chairman.  You  wouldn't  say  it  Avas  an  old  wrinkle,  would  you  ? 

Mr.  Prig.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  got  any  children  ? 

Mr.  Prig.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

The  Chairman.  I  meant,  of  course,  legitimate  children. 

Mr.  Prig.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

The  CnAHtMAN,  Is  there  something  about  your  situation,  domestic 
situation,  that  you  think  that  to  admit  that  you  were  married  or  that 
you  have  children  might  tend  to  incriminate  you  ? 

Mr.  Prig.  I  have  to  decline  to  answer  that  question,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  honestly  believe  that  if  you  answered  the 
question  truthfully,  that  you  are  married  or  that  you  are  not  married, 
or  that  you  have  children  or  that  you  do  not  have  children,  that  a 
truthful  answer  to  those  questions,  or  either  of  them,  might  tend  to 
incriminate  you  ? 

Mr.  Prig.  I  refuse  to  answer  that  question  on  the  same  grounds. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  with  the  approval  of  the  committee,  the 
Chair  orders  and  directs  you  to  answer  the  question. 

Mr.  Prig.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

21243— 58— pt.  33 21 


12816  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Senator  Curtis.  Mr.  Chairmcan  ? 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Cnrtis. 

Senator  Curtis.  I  would  like  to  ask  the  same  witness  a  question. 

Have  you  had  any  experience  getting  other  people  to  talk  when 
you  wanted  information  from  them? 

Mr.  Prio.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question,  sir. 

Senator  Curtis.  On  what  grounds  ? 

Mr.  Prio.  On  the  grounds  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Senator  Curtis.  You  have  'had  no  experience  whatever  having 
observed  attempts  to  get  people  to  talk? 

Mr.  Prio.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question,  sir. 

Senator  Curtis.  On  what  grounds  ? 

Mr.  Prio.  On  the  grounds  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Senator  Curtis.  That  is  all. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Cerone,  are  you  married? 

Mr.  Cerone.  I  invoke  the  fifth  amendment. 

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

The  Chairman.  Against  whom,  your  wife  or  the  committee  ? 

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

The  Chairman.  Do  you  have  children  ? 

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

The  Chairman.  You  wouldn't  tell  us  where  you  were  born,  when 
you  were  born,  whether  you  are  an  American  citizen,  if  you  are 
married  or  if  you  have  children.     Is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Cerone.  I  decline  to  answer  on  the  gromids  it  may  tend  to 
incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair  orders — with  the  approval  of  the  com- 
mittee, the  Chair  orders  and  directs  you  to  answer  the  question  of 
whether  you  are  married  or  if  you  have  children. 

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

The  Chairman.  The  order  and  direction  of  the  Chair  will  stand 
throughout  the  period  of  your  examination  on  the  witness  stand. 

Mr.  Di Varco,  are  you  married  ? 

Mr.  Di Varco.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  have  children  ? 

Mr.  Di  Varco.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

The  Chairman.  With  the  permission  of  the  committee,  and  the 
approval  of  the  committee,  the  Chair  ordei^  and  directs  you  to  answer 
the  question  "Are  you  married?     Do  you  have  children?" 

Mr.  Di  Varco.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

The  Chairman.  The  order  and  direction  of  the  Chair  will  stand 
throughout  the  period  of  your  testifying  before  this  committee. 

All  right,  Mr.  Counsel. 

Mr.  Allder.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  address  you  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Allder.  May  the  record  show  that  each  time  this  witness 
declines  to  answer  it  is  because  of  his  privilege  under  the  fifth  amend- 
ment. He  doesn't  answer  because  it  might  tend  to  incriminate  him. 
He  leaves  those  words  out  and  that  is  what  he  means  to  say,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  I  think  we  better  just  adhere  to  the  proper 
procedure.     This  committee  is  going  to  have  to  take  some  action,  in 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12817 

my  judgment,  on  some  of  these  cases,  and  I  don't  want  to  do  anything 
that  woiikl  waive  the  proper  activities  of  the  committee,  its  proper 
function. 

I  believe  we  will  just  proceed  according  to  all  legal  standards.  All 
right,  Mr.  Kenned}^  proceed. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Prio  ? 

The  Chairman.  The  photograph  that  I  showed  Mr.  Prio  that  he 
stated  he  examined,  let  it  be  made  exhibit  No.  25. 

(The  document  referred  to  was  marked  "Exhibit  No.  25"  for  refer- 
ence and  may  be  found  in  the  files  of  the  select  committee.) 

The  Ctiaikmax.  Proceed. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  JMr.  Prio,  the  information  we  have  regarding  your 
background  is  that  from  1933  to  193G  you  were  in  the  dairy  business. 
Is  that  right? 

Mr.  Prio.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  in  1936  you  were  in  the  Blue  Ribbon  Dairy  Co., 
with  Marcus  Lipsky  ? 

Mr.  Pkio.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  He  is  one  of  the  well-known  hoodlums  in  Chicago. 

In  1938  3'ou  were  arrested  for  burning  down  one  of  your  competitors 
in  the  dairy  business? 

Mr.  Prio.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  were  acquitted  for  that;  were  you  not? 

Mr.  Prio.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  then  vou  organized,  in  1939,  the  L.  &  P.  Milk 
Co.? 

Mr.  Prig.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Then  you  were  in  this  venture  with  Marcus  Lipsky, 
also ;  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Prio.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair,  with  the  approval  of  the  committee, 
orders  and  directs  the  witness  to  answer  these  questions. 

Mr.  Prio.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question  on  the  grounds  that  my 
answer  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  In  1940  you  went  into  the  parking  lot  and  gas  sta- 
tion business  on  South  Franklin  Street  ? 

Mr.  Prio.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  also  owned  another  parking  lot  at  134  North 
LaSalle  Street;  is  that  right? 

Mr.  Prio.  I  decline  to  answer  tluit  ([uestion,  sir. 

]\Ir.  Kennedy.  Then  you  went  back  into  the  dairy  business  m  1943  ? 

Mr.  Prio.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  in  that  year,  your  partner  was  murdered  in  a 
barberehop ;  is  that  right? 

]Mr.  Prio.  1  decline  to  answer  tliat  question,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  AVhat  kind  of  business  were  you  doing  besides  the 
daily  business  during  this  period  of  time  ? 

Mr.  Prio.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Why  was  your  partner  murdered  in  a  barbershop  ? 

^Ir.  Prio.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Then  you  had  anotlier  parking  company  in  194G. 
In  1952  you  went  into  the  oil  business ;  is  that  right  ? 

]\Ir.  Prio.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question,  sir. 


12818  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  KJENNEDY.  In  1954  you  went  into  the  real-estate  business  in  the 
Lincolnwood  area  of  Illinois? 

Mr.  Prig.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  In  1954  you  were  also  seen  very  often  in  the  company 
of  Joseph  DiVarco,  who  is  also  known  as  Joey  Caesar ;  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Prio.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  used  to  meet  during  this  period  of  time  at 
Algour's  Restaurant  ? 

Mr.  Prig.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Could  you  tell  us  anything  about  Algour's  Restau- 
rant? 

Mr.  Prig.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  I  suppose  you  noted  that  Algour's  Restaurant  was 
burned  down  during  the  last  few  months  ? 

Mr.  Prig.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  It  was  a  million  dollar  fire ;  was  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Prig.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Can  you  give  us  any  explanation  about  the  two 
arsonists  that  came  into  that  restaurant  and  set  it  afire,  held  the  peo- 
ple at  gunfire  and  then  set  it  afire  ? 

Mr.  Prig.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Cerone,  can  you  give  us  any  information  on 
that? 

Mr.  Cergne.  I  decline  to  answer  on  the  grounds  it  may  tend  to  in- 
criminate me. 

Mr.  KJENNEDY.  Mr.  DiVarco,  can  you  give  us  any  information  on 
that? 

Mr.  Cergne.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  On  what  ground  ? 

Mr.  Cergne.  On  the  ground  it  may  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  have  been  associated  with  Louie  Campagna, 
Frankie  Diamond ;  is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Prig.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  According  to  information  that  we  have,  you  con- 
tacted Cherrynose  Gioe  and  Frankie  Diamond  it  Ciro's  Restaurant, 
18  North  Wabash  Avenue  in  1954,  is  tliat  right  ? 

Mr.  Prig.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  Cherrynose  was  working  with  this  restaurant, 
and  was  told  to  go  along  with  a  mob  directive  that  he  lay  off  all  slot 
and  pinball  operations  in  the  county ;  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Prig.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  he  refused  to  do  so.  He  left  the  meeting  and 
a  short  time  afterward  was  shot  to  death  ? 

Mr.  Prig.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Could  you  tell  us  anything  about  the  death  of 
Cherrynose? 

Mr.  Prig.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question,  sir. 

Mr.  IvENNEDY.  And  within  a  short  time,  Frankie  Diamond  was  also 
killed? 

INIr.  Prig.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  a  gunman  ? 

Mr.  Prio.  I  didn't  hoar  the  question. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  a  gunman  ? 

Mr.  Prig.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question,  sir. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12819 

Mr.  Kennedy,  We  have  information  that  you  are  also  associated 
with  Cowboy  Mirro,  and,  of  course,  Paul  Labriola. 

Mr,  Prig,  I  decline  to  answer  that  question, 

Mr,  lO^NNEDT,  They  were  involved  in  this  trade  association.  Is 
that  correct  ? 

Mr,  Prig,  I  decline  to  answer  that  question, 

Mr,  Kennedy,  Mr.  DiVarco,  according  to  our  information,  you  are 
also  known  as  Joey  Caesar  and  also  Bill  Caesar,  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  DiVarco.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  you  were  also  connnected  with  these  trade  asso- 
ciations that  were  formed  in  1952-53  by  Weinberg  and  Needlenose 
Labriola  ? 

Mr.  DiVarco.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  that  had  Mr.  Greenfield  as  their  attorney.  Did 
you  know  Mr.  Greenfield  ? 

Mr.  DiVarco.  I  decline  to  answ^er  that  question. 

Mr.  Kennedy,  We  also  have  information  that  you  are  an  associate 
of  Tony  Accardo. 

Mr,  DiVarco.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  that  you  were  one  of  those  individuals  from 
whom  they  had  to  get  clearance  in  order  to  operate  in  Chicago. 

Mr,  DiVarco,  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Kj:nnedy.  And  it  was  the  fact  that  clearance  was  not  obtained 
through  you  and  some  of  your  associates  that  the  trade  associations 
broke  down,  is  that  right,  Mr.  Caesar  ? 

Mr.  DiVarco.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question, 

Mr,  Kennedy,  According  to  the  information  we  have,  you  started 
out  as  a  counterfeiter  back  in  1936,  is  that  right? 

Mr,  DiVarco.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr,  Kennedy.  You  were  arrested  and  served  1  year  in  the  Michigan 
Federal  Detention  Farm. 

Mr.  DiVarco.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Then  you  were  working  for  the  three  Doms,  Domi- 
nick  Nuccio,  Dominick  DiBello,  and  Dominick  Brancato,  in  the  late 
1940's,  is  that  right? 

Mr,  DiVarco.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  you  were  very  close  to  Laurence  Mangano,  who 
was  murdered  in  gangland  style,  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  DiVarco.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mangano  was  Paul  Labriola's  stepfather,  was  he 
not? 

Mr,  DiVarco.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  were  an  important  figure  in  the  gambling  on  the 
North  Side  of  Chicago? 

Mr.  DiVarco.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  The  Chair  is  going  to  order  the  witness  to  answer 
these  questions  with  the  approval  of  the  committee. 

Mr.  DiVarco.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question  because  my  answer 
may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  you  achieved  a  position  of  power  there  in  1949 
on  the  order  of  Tony  Goebels  and  Paul  "the  Waiter"  Ricca  ? 

Mr.  DiVarco.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr,  Kennedy,  Do  you  have  any  interest  in  any  of  the  restaurants 
in  Chicago  ? 


12820  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  DiVarco.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  have  any  interest  in  the  C.  &  B.  Meat  Co. 
at  1136  West  Randolph  Street,  Chicago  ^ 

Mr.  DiVarco.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair,  with  the  approval  of  the  committee, 
orders  and  directs  the  witness  to  answer  the  question. 

Mr.  DiVarco.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Isn't  it  a  fact  that  you  could  have  an  interest  in 
that  meat-supply  company,  and  that  that  company  supplies  a  good 
number  of  the  restaurants  and  nightclubs  in  the  Chicago  area  ? 

Mr.  DiVarco.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

The  Chairman.  With  the  approval  of  the  committee,  the  Chair 
orders  and  directs  the  witness  to  answer  the  question. 

Mr.  DiVarco.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  isn't  it  correct  that  your  associate  in  that  com- 
pany is  Carlo  Coleanni,  who  is  a  business  agent  for  the  Barbers'  Union 
m  Chicago  ? 

Mr.  DiVarco.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Could  you  tell  us  why  you  got  into  that  ? 

Mr.  DiVarco.  I  decline  to  answ^er  that  question. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Is  that  how  shakedowns  are  received,  througli  the 
sale  of  the  meat  to  these  restaurants  and  nightclubs  in  Chicago  ? 

Mr.  DiVarco.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  according 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair,  with  the  approval  of  the  committee, 
ordei'S  and  directs  the  witness  to  answer  the  question. 

Mr.  DiVarco.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  According  to  information  that  we  also  have,  you 
M'ere  connected  with  the  Valentino's  Restaurant  at  16  East  Ohio  Street, 
Chicago. 

Mr.  DiVarco.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  restaurant  closed  down  very  recently.  Is  that 
right? 

Mr.  DiVarco.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Cerone,  we  also  understand  that  you  were  con- 
nected with  the  trade  association  that  was  to  work  with  unions  that 
"was  formed  in  1952  and  1953.     Is  that  correct  ? 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  Are  you  also  known  as  "Skippy,"  Mr.  Cerone  ? 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  Is  your  brother  known  as  "Skippy"  ? 

Mr.  Cerone.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  We  understand  that  you  are  the  former  chauffeur 
and  the  bodyguard  for  Tony  Accardo;  is  that  right? 

Mr.  Cerone.  I  decline  to  answer. 

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

Mr.  Cerone.  I  invoke  the  fifth  amendment. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  We  understand  you  were  present  at  the  fourth  of 
July  lawn  parties  in  1954  and  1955  for  Tony  Accordo;  is  that  right? 

Mr.  Cerone.  I  invoke  the  fifth  amendment. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12821 

Mr.  Kexxedy.  Could  you  tell  us  why  John  Lardino,  of  local  593, 
came  to  those  parties? 

Mr.  Cerone.  I  invoke  tlie  lifth  amendment. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  Maurice  Timpanaro,  who  is  secretary-treasurer 
of  local  88  of  the  Cooks  Union  was  at  the  1954  party  ? 

Mr.  Cerone.  I  invoke  the  fifth  amendment. 

Mr.  Kennedy,  Why  do  these  union  ofiicials  go  to  these  parties? 

Mr.  Cerone.  I  hivoke  the  fifth  amendment. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Also  Joey  Glimco,  of  course,  of  local  777  of  the 
teamsters  was  present ;  was  he  not  ? 

Mr.  Cerone.  I  invoke  the  fifth  amendment. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  He  has  been  very  close  to  all  your  people;  has  he 
not? 

You  are  very  close  friends  with  Joey  Glimco  ? 

Mr.  Cerone.  I  invoke  the  fifth  amendment. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Then  in  1955,  Louis  Nadia,  secretary-treasurer  of 
local  450,  was  at  Accardo's  home  at  the  same  time  you  were  there, 
on  the  fourth  of  July  party ;  is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Cerone.  I  invoke  the  fifth  amendment. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  about  the  1958  fourth  of  July  party,  Mr. 
Cerone  ?    Can  you  tell  us  about  that  ? 

Mr.  Cerone.  I  invoke  the  fifth  amendment. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Is  it  true  that  the  Fourth  of  July  party  in  1958  was 
not  held  at  Mr.  Accardo's  home  but  was  held  at  your  home  ? 

Mr.  Cerone.  I  invoke  the  fifth  amendment. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  We  have  investitratoi-s  tliat  went  out  to  your  home 
that  evening  at  2000  North  77th  Avenue,  Elm  wood  Park,  111.,  and  you 
have  a  party  the  Fourth  of  July ;  did  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Cerone.  I  invoke  the  fifth  amendment. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  We  found  Mr.  Accardo's  car  parked  outside  your 
residence.     Was  Mr.  Accardo  attending  your  party  ? 

]Mr.  Cerone.  I  invoke  the  fifth  amendment. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  ashamed  of  your  guests  ?  Are  you  afraid 
that  the  mentioning  of  their  names  might  incriminate  you  ? 

Mr.  Cerone.  I  honestly  believe  that  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  Sir? 

Mr.  Cerone.  I  invoke  the  fifth  amendment. 

The  Chairman.  You  said  you  honestly  believed  something. 

Mr.  Cerone.  I  decline  to  answer  for  I  honestly  believe  that  my 
answer  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  I  might  say  on  April  23,  1958,  Mr.  Chairman,  when 
we  went  out  to  try  to  subpena  Mr.  Tony  Accardo  at  his  home,  we  found 
Mr.  Cerone's  automobile  in  his  driveway. 

You  were  visiting  with  him  that  night,  Mr.  Cerone  ? 

Mr.  Cerone.  I  invoke  the  fifth  amendment. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  We  also  found  that  the  automobile  of  John  Lardino, 
administrative  director  of  local  593,  was  at  your  home  on  the  Fourth  of 
July. 

Mr.  Cerone.  I  invoke  the  fifth  amendment. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  Willie  "Smokes''  Aloisio,  well-known  syndicate 
gambler,  was  also  there  ? 

Mr.  Cerone.  I  invoke  the  fifth  amendment. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  a  girl  friend  of  Kocco  Fishetti  was  also  present? 

Mr.  Cerone.  I  invoke  the  fifth  amendment. 


12822  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  Joseph  Malta ;  is  tliat  correct  ? 

Mr.  Cerone.  I  invoke  the  fifth  amendment. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  He  is  the  one  that  owns  the  pink  Oldsmobile,  is  he 
not,  that  was  used  by  Tony  Accardo  and  Paul  Ricca  at  Claude  Mad- 
dox'  funeral  ? 

Mr.  Cerone.  I  invoke  the  fifth  amendment. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  is  the  information  we  have.     Is  it  correct  ? 

Mr.  Cerone.  I  decline  to  answer. 

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

Mr.  Kennedy.  We  have  information  that  you  are  associated  with 
the  Premium  Beer  Sales,  Inc. 

Mr.  Cerone.  I  decline  to  answer. 

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

Mr.  Cerone.  I  invoke  the  fifth  amendment. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Chairman,  this  is  the  organization,  the  com- 
pany, that  Mr.  Accardo  listed  as  a  source  of  $40,000  income  in  1955. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  a  legitimate  business  ? 

Mr.  Cerone.  Are  you  speaking  to  me,  Senator  ? 

The  Chairman.  I  am  looking  at  you  and  speaking  to  you. 

Mr.  Cerone.  I  invoke  the  fifth  amendment. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  The  1956  credit  report  is  rather  interesting.  It 
shows  the  owner  to  be  Henry  Morgan,  of  Libertyville,  III. 

This  is  the  one  we  say  Mr.  Accardo  and  Mr,  Cerone  are  connected 
with.  Yesterday,  when  Mr.  Greenfield  was  asked  the  name  of  just  one 
tavern  owner  that  had  approached  him  and  told  him  about  the  fact 
that  he  had  been  shaken  down,  the  only  name  he  could  come  up  with 
was  Mr.  Henry  Morgan  ? 

Could  you  explain  that  to  us  ? 

Mr.  Cerone.  I  invoke  the  fifth  amendment. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  None  of  you  want  to  say  anything  ? 

Do  you  want  to  say  anything,  Mr.  Prio  ? 

Mr.  Prio.  I  decline  to  answer  that. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  about  you,  Mr.  Cerone? 

Mr.  Cerone.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  DiVarco  ? 

Mr.  DiVarco.  I  decline  to  answer. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  it  you  are  declining  to  answer  ? 

Do  you  know  ? 

Mr.  Prio.  I  decline  to  answer  that,  also. 

The  Chairman.  You  decline  to  answer  whether  you  know  what 
you  are  declining  to  answer  or  not  declining  to  answer? 

Mr.  Prio.  I  decline  to  answer  that  also. 

The  Chairman.  Are  there  any  further  questions  ? 

Senator  Curtis? 

Senator  Ervin  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Curtis.  I  would  like  to  have  a  statement,  very  brief,  about 
the  connection  of  these  men  to  unions  or  trade  associations  or  man- 
agement-labor relations  at  this  point  in  the  record. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  No.  1,  the  1952-58  operation  tliat  we  had  testimony 
about  yesterday,  where  tliese  two  trade  associations  were  being  created, 
the  liquor  association  and  a  restaurant  association,  which  was  to  be 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12823 

backed  by  the  syndicate,  that  were  to  use  the  labor  unions  as  an 
enforcement  arm. 

It  is  the  same  matter  that  I  mentioned  this  morning.  These  three 
individuals  were  to  be  associated  with  that.  Their  names  were  men- 
tioned in  connection  with  this  operation.    That  would  be  No.  1, 

Again,  as  I  said  this  morning,  this  is  an  extremely  important  kind 
of  operation,  because  it  is  similar  to  the  kind  of  operations  that  we 
have  seen  in  other  sections  of  the  country. 

No.  2,  these  individuals  have  all  had,  the  three  of  them,  close  asso- 
ciations with  certain  union  officials  in  the  Chicago  area. 

No.  1,  Joey  Glimco ;  No.  2,  would  be  Johnny  Lardino.  And  there 
have  been  others  that  I  have  mentioned  here  in  the  course  of  the 
record.  What  we  are  investigating  is  the  infiltration  of  criminals 
and  hoodlums  into  legitimate  businesses,  possibly  for  use  as  fronts, 
and  into  labor  organizations,  and  the  perversion  of  labor  organiza- 
tions, which  are  supposed  to  be  for  the  use  of  the  employees,  the 
workers,  by  people  such  as  this  to  advance  their  own  well-being  and 
their  own  incomes,  and  without  any  interest  whatsoever  in  the  union 
members. 

Of  course,  it  exploits  the  members  of  the  union.  As  for  the  exploi- 
tation of  businesses,  we  have  found  that  it  is  a  million  dollar  shake- 
down going  on  throughout  the  United  States,  in  which  these  men 
participate. 

The  Chairman,  Each  of  you  will  remain  under  your  present  sub- 
pena.  You  will  be  under  recognizance  to  reappear  and  testify  before 
the  committee  at  such  time  as  it  may  desire  further  testimony  from 
you,  with  reasonable  notice  of  the  time  and  place  of  the  committee 
hearing  being  given  to  you. 

Do  you  accept  such  recognizance  ? 

Mr.  Prig.  I  do 

Mr.  DiVarco.  Yes. 

Mr.  Cerone.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  You  understand  reasonable  notice.  We  will  send 
you  a  telegram  to  your  home  address.  Did  each  of  you  give  us  your 
home  address? 

Mr.  Prio.  Mine  is  1721  Sunset  Hidge,  Glenview,  111. 

Mr.  Cerone.  2000  North  77th  Avenue,  Elmwood  Park,  111. 

Mr.  DiVarco.  4275  Jar  vis. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  in  Illinois  ? 

Mr.  DiVarco.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

The  Chairman.  You  decline  to  state  whether  you  are  in  the  State 
of  Illinois  or  not  ? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

The  Chairman.  It  just  shows  how  ridiculously  people  of  this  char- 
acter resort  to  the  device  of  the  fifth  amendment  solely  for  purposes 
of  obstructing  the  orderly  processes  of  Government. 

Is  there  anything  further  ? 

Before  you  leave,  the  Chair  will  give  the  instructions  to  the  staff 
to  prepare  the  necessary  papers  for  you  to  be  cited  for  contempt  of 
the  United  States  Senate,  I  am  confident  that  the  committee  will 
weigh  that  carefully,  and  if  it  should  propose  a  resolution  to  the  Senate 
for  you  to  be  cited  for  contempt,  I  am  also  reasonably  confident  the 
Senate  will  act  favorably  on  it. 


12824  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

If  it  develops,  as  I  hope  it  will,  I  hope  that  your  cases,  some  of  them 
at  least,  will  go  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States. 

Then  we  can  determine  once  and  for  all  whether  the  law  and  order 
of  this  country  and  decent  society  can  be  undermined  and  destroyed 
by  the  tactics  you  folks  employ. 

You  are  excused  for  the  present. 

Call  the  next  witness. 

Mr,  Kennedy.  Mr.  Clifton  and  Donald  Marquis. 

Mr.  Chairman,  we  have  now  closed  this  phase  of  the  investigation 
dealing  with  the  trades  associations  that  tried  to  get  started  in  1952 
and  1953.  We  are  going  back  now  to  finish  up  with  the  Chicago 
Eestaurant  Association  and  some  of  the  members  of  the  Chicago  Kes- 
taurant  Association,  and  certain  restaurant  owners. 

Mr.  Lancaster.  Did  you  want  both  at  the  same  time,  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Have  them  both  at  the  same  time. 

The  Chairman.  You  and  each  of  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  you  God? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  I  do. 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  I  do. 

TESTIMONY  OF  CLIFTON  MARQUIS  AND  DONALD  MARQUIS, 
ACCOMPANIED  BY  COUNSEL,  WILLIAM  J.  LANCASTER 

The  Chairman.  Beginning  on  my  left,  state  your  name,  your  place 
of  residence,  and  your  business  or  occupation,  please. 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  Clifton  Marquis,  5016  North  Albany  Ave- 
nue, Chicago,  111. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  your  business? 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  Eestaurant. 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  Donald  A.  Marquis,  7710  Northeast  Lake, 
Chicago,  111.  I  am  in  the  restaurant  business,  treasurer  of  the  Marquis 
Co. 

The  Chairman.  Counsel,  identify  yourself  for  the  record. 

Mr.  Lancaster.  William  J.  Lancaster,  111  West  Washington,  Chi- 
cago 2,  111. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Clifton  Marquis,  you  are  president  of  this  res- 
taurant ? 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  there  are  approximately  11  in  Chicago  ? 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  Exactly  11. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  many  employees  do  you  have  all  together? 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  Approximately  we  have  150. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  and  your  brother  have  been  in  the  restaurant 
business  for  some  40  years  ? 

Mr.  Clifton  ]\L\rquis.  About  43. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  In  May  or  June  of  1953,  a  business  agent  of  Miscel- 
laneous Union  593  wrote  you  a  letter  regarding  joining  the  union  ? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  I  got  the  letter. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  they  stated  in  the  letter  they  had  a  majority  of 
the  employees  signed  up  ? 

Mr.  I  )oN ALD  Marquis.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  got  in  touch  then  with  Mr.  Donald  Kiesau  of 
the  Chicago  Eestaurant  Association  ? 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12825 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  I  am  not  sure  Avhether  I  called  Mr.  Kiesau 
first  or  Teitelbaum. 

Mr.  Kexxedy.  But  you  were  ultimately  put  in  touch  with  Mr. 
Teitelbaum  ? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Teitelbaum  told  you  he  could  settle  the  problem  ? 

Mr.  Donald  jMarquis.  He  told  me  to  disregard  the  letter  and  he 
could  handle  the  situation. 

INIr.  Kennedy.  "Was  this  period  of  time  that  Mr.  Teitelbaum  had  got- 
ten into  some  difficulty,  both  taxwise  and  also  with  the  House  com- 
mittee? 

]Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  I  believe  he  had  had  some  difficulty  prior  to 
that. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Within  the  previous  couple  of  years;  is  that  right? 

Mr.  Marquis,  Clifton  Marquis,  you  requested  an  election,  then,  from 
the  union  ? 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  Well,  the  day  it  started  I  went  down  to  the 
union  office. 

jSIr.  Kennedy.  What  started  it  ? 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  The  day  the  pickets  were  in  front. 

]Mr.  Kennedy.  Subsequently,  after  Mr.  Teitelbaum  told  you  to  dis- 
regard the  letter,  you  disregarded  it  and  they  put  pickets  on? 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  That  is  right.  Then  I  went  down  to  the 
union  office  and  I  asked  about  an  election  and  they  said  it  was  too  late. 

]\Ir.  Kennedy.  Who  did  you  talk  to  down  there  ? 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  Mr.  Cullerton,  Mr.  Blake. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Blakely,  I  think. 

Mr.  Clifton  jMarquis.  Mr.  Blakely,  and  I  think  Mv.  Lardino. 

Mr.  Kennedy,  John  Lardino  ? 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  I  think  the  three  of  them  were  there. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  you  requested  that  the  employees  be  permitted 
to  vote  as  to  whether  they  wanted  to  belong  to  the  union,  and  these 
union  officials  that  you  have  named  refused  to  give  you  the  vote,  is  that 
right  ? 

Mr.  Clifton  ]\Lvrquis.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Refused  to  put  this  to  the  members,  the  employees 
of  3' our  restaurants  ? 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Were  all  of  your  restaurants  on  strike  ? 

Mr.  Clifton  ]\L\rquis.  All  of  them. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  All  11  of  them  ? 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Were  any  of  your  own  employees  on  the  picket  line? 

Mr,  Clifton  Marquis.  There  may  have  been  a  few.  Of  course,  I 
wasn't  there  when  it  started  that  morning.  That  was  about  4  or  5 
o'clock.  So  I  am  not  positive  whether  there  were  any  of  our  own 
employees  there  at  that  time  or  not. 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  May  I  answer  that,  Mr.  Kennedy  ?  I  have 
checked  around  the  11  stores  and  the  bakery,  which  is  12'years,  and 
there  Avere  not  over  10  or  15  of  approximatelj^"^  100  that  were  employees. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  The  rest  of  them  were  all  outside  pickets  ? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  you  tell  me  that  some  of  the  pickets  actually 
came  into  the  stores,  or  did  they  stay  outside  ? 


12826  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  Tliey  stayed  outside,  but  there  were  frequent 
occasions  where  there  would  be  automobile  loads  of  derelicts  dumped 
out  in  front  of  the  restaurant  and  given  money  to  go  into  the  restau- 
rant. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  was  the  purpose  of  that  ? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  To  create  a  disturbance,  buy  food,  spill  it 
on  the  floor  and  fall  asleep  in  the  restaurant. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  they  do  that  ? 

Mr,  Donald  Marquis.  They  did  that. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Fall  asleep  in  the  restaurants  ? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  Yes. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  was  during  the  period  that  the  strike  was  going 
on? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  During  the  period  of  10^2  weeks  that  it  was 
going  on. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  were  contributing  to  the  voluntary  fund  of  thp 
Chicago  Kestaurant  Association  ? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  Yes,  we  have. 

Mr.  I^NNEDY.  One  of  the  purposes  of  the  voluntary  fund  was  to 
prevent  the  unionization  of  the  restaurants,  was  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  I  don't  believe  that  is  quite  the  way  I  would 
like  to  have  it  phrased,  sir.  There  is  a  point  that  has  not  been 
brought  up. 

In  1914  the  Chicago  Association  was  organized  to  help  defend  a 
restaurant  man  who  had  had  a  6  month's  contract  with  the  Wait- 
resses Union  be  continued  providing  they  had  been  successful  in  in- 
fluencing his  waitresses  to  join  the  union  or  if  the  imion  w^as  successful 
in  providing  them  with  a  sufficient  number  of  waitresses. 

At  the  end  of  that  6-month  experiment,  he  was  threatened  with 
pickets,  and  at  that  time  this  group  of  restaurant  men,  I  would  say 
about  20  of  them,  that  perhaps  operated  80  restaurants,  maybe  100, 
they  organized  in  order  to  help  these  fellows  get  a  fair  deal  and  to 
forbid  this  illegal  what  might  be  described  as  not  peaceful  picketing. 

At  that  time,  gentlemen,  is  when  the  voluntary  fund  was  developed, 
1914.  The  amount  that  was  suggested  as  being  a  fee  to  be  paid  by 
the  members  has  varied  from  time  to  time.  In  many  years  it  was 
none. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  But  the  point  is  that  one  of  the  mian  purposes  of  the 
voluntary  fund,  and  tlie  money  used  in  the  voluntary  fund,  was  to 
prevent  the  unionization  of  these  restaurants,  was  it  not? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  To  prevent  coercion  into  the  union.  I  don't 
think  it  prevents  unionism. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  "Wliat  percentage  of  the  restaurant  owners  who  are 
members  of  the  association  have  unions  in  their  restaurant? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  I  am  sorry,  I  don't  know. 

Mr.  Ivennedy.  Isn't  it  correct  that  about  80  percent  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Chicago  Restaurant  Association  are  nonunion? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  I  do  not  know  the  percentage. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Teitelbauni  was  unable  to  settle  the  strike,  is 
that  right? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  the  pickets  went  on? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  That  is  right. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR   FIELD  12827 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Was  Mr.  Teitelbaum,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  he 
was  not  able  to  keep  the  pickets  from  going  on  the  restaurants,  was 
he  then  fired  from  his  job  as  hibor  consultant  for  the  Chicago  Restau- 
rant Association? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  Well,  I  don't  know  that  I  would  say  that 
he  was  fired.  It  was  an  automatic  understanding,  as  I  understood  it, 
that  when  we  needed  his  attention,  if  we  didn't  get  successful  appli- 
cation, he  was  to  quit. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  If  he  wasn't  able  to  jjrevoiit  the  picketing  of  a  res- 
taurant, then  his  services  were  to  be  dispensed  with  ? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  I  don't  think  it  quite  worked  that  way,  be- 
cause we  did  retain  his  services  after  at  least  some  place,  I  just 
learned  about  today,  was  picketed  during  his  term. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Well,  I  believe  the  Nantucket  Restaurant  or  the 
Howard  Johnson. 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  No  prior  to  ours.  I  think  it  was  the  PIow- 
ard  Johnson.    I  just  learned  that  yesterday. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  When  he  wasn't  able  to  successfully  produce  what 
he  was  supposed  to  produce,  which  evidentally  in  this  case  was  the 
picketing,  then  his  services  were  dispensed  with,  is  that  right? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  In  this  particular  case,  his  services  were  dispensed 
with  because  he  was  unable  to  prevent  the  picketmg? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Then  the  Chicago  Restaurant  Association  went  out 
and  hired  another  labor  relations  consultant,  is  that  right,  and  not 
Mr.  Champagne  ? 

Mr.  DoNi\LD  Marquis.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  was  in  Mr.  Champagne's  background  and  ex- 
perience that  qualified  him  for  this  job  as  labor  relations  consultant? 

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

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  That  I  don't  know.  The  committ^ee  that 
engaged  him  would  perhaps  have  more  definite  information. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  were  one  of  the  members  of  the  committee  ? 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  What  was  his  background  and  experience? 

Mr.  Clifion  Marquis.  I  have  no  idea. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  inter^newed  him? 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  No,  I  didn't.  I  went  along  with  a  committee 
of  three,  with  George  Drake  and 

Mr.  Kennedy.  '\V1io  is  George  Drake  ? 

Mr.  Clifton  ]Marquis.  At  that  time  he  was  president  of  the  Res- 
taurant Association. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  A^Hiat  labor  experience  had  Mr.  Champagne  had  ? 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  Mr.  Kennedy,  I  don't  know  if  he  had  any. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  It  is  a  fact  he  had  no  labor  experience. 

Mr.  Clitton  Marquis.  I  don't  know  if  he  had  any  or  not. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  He  was  a  criminal  laM-yer,  was  he  not? 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  Well,  I  can  put  it  this  way.  I  don't  know 
anything  about  him.     I  didn't  then  and  I  don't  know. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  were  one  of  the  three  individuals,  you  said? 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  Yes,  I  went  Vvith  the  tliree  people,  and  I 
remember  meeting  Harry  Isral  that  morning,  and  driving  out  with 
Harry.    George  Drake  met  us  before  we  met  Mr.  Champagne.    The 


12828  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

idea  was  to  see  if  he  wanted  to  accept  the  job  as  labor  relations  counsel 
for  the  Chicago  Restaurant  Association. 

In  the  interview,  I  was  there,  but  I  can't  remember  just  what  Mr. 
Champagne  said  or  what  Mr.  Isral  said.  I  know  I  didn't  have  any 
conversation. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  "VAHio  proposed  Mr.  Champagne  ? 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  Mr.  George  Drake. 

Mr.  Kennedt.  And  he  was  president  of  the  Chicago  Restaurant 
Association? 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  as  a  member  of  the  committee,  you  don't  know 
anything  about  Mr.  Champagne's  backgroinid  and  experience  ? 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  No.    I  am  awfully  sorry  that  I  don't. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  did  you  determine  what  salary  should  be 
paid  ? 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  I  think  it  was  determined  based  on  what  Mr. 
Tietelbaum  was  receiving  at  the  time  Mr.  Champagne  was  engaged. 

Mr.  KJENNEDY.  That  was  $125,000  a  year.  Did  you  know  what  Mr. 
Champagne  was  earning  at  that  time? 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  I  haven't  the  faintest  idea. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  He  was  earning  $9,000,  in  1952,  he  earned  $9,328,  and 
you  agreed  to  pay  him  $125,000? 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  "Was  he  able  to  settle  the  strike? 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  I  don't  know.  It  was  ended  while  Mr. 
Champagne  was  the  attorney. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  many  days  after  he  was  retained  ? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  I  think  it  was  about  ten. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  About  10  days  after  he  was  retained  ? 

Mr.  Donald  ]\Iarquis.  Yes. 

Mr.  Ivennedy.  How  long  had  the  strike  been  in  progress  ? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  Ten  and  a  half  weeks  it  had  been  in  progress. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Do  you  know  what  particular  magic  he  had  to  be 
able  to  settle  the  strike? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  I  do  not.  I  am  not  sure  that  that  is  what 
done  it.  But  I  know  that  the  pickets  left,  and  about  10  days  after  he 
started,  but  by  that  time  they  were  getting  somewhat  tired, 

(At  this  point,  Senator  Ervin  left  the  hearing  room.) 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Do  you  know  if  he  had  an  assistant? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Do  you  know  if  he  had  as  an  assistant  in  this  opera- 
tion Mr.  Sam  English? 

Mr.  Donald  INIarquis.  I  do  not  know  that.    I  read  it  in  the  paper. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Sam  English  had  a  long  criminal  record.  Why 
was  that  necessary? 

Mr.  Donald  ]Marquis.  I  couldn't  answer  that. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Were  you  financed  during  this  period  of  the  strike 
by  the  Chicago  Restaurant  Association  ? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  Yes ;  we  were. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  How  much  money  did  you  receive  ? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  Approximately  $247,000. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  $247,000? 

Mr.  Donald  INIarquis.  That  is  right. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12829 

Mr.  IvENNEDY.  That  was  from  the  Chicago  Restaurant  Association? 

Mr,  Donald  Marquis.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Did  any  of  your  employees  sign  up  in  tlie  union? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  Not  that  1  know  of. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  None  of  them  became  members  of  the  union? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  I  don't  know  that  they  did. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  never  signed  a  union  contract  ? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  No  ;  we  did  not. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  So  you  w^ere  successful  in  preventing  unionization  ? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  Successful  in  keeping  an  open  shop  condi- 
tion. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  There  were  never  any  contracts  signed  with  the 
nnion? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  No. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  So  far  as  you  know,  there  were  never  any  employees 
(hat  became  members  of  the  union  ? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  I  Avouldn't  know  that  for  sure. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Well,  as  far  as  you  know. 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  As  far  as  I  know  there  was  none. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  is  all. 

The  Chairman.  Do  I  understand  that  you  were  picketed  simply 
because  you  wouldn't  force  your  employees  into  the  union  ? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  That  is  right,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Had  any  of  your  employees  come  to  you  and  dis- 
cussed it  w4th  you,  telling  you  that  they  had  joined  the  union? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  No  ;  they  did  not. 

The  Chairman.  In  other  words,  this  was  just  pressure  from  the 
organization  of  the  union  to  force  you.  The  reason  they  put  the 
pickets  out  was  because  you  wouldn't  sign  up  your  people? 

iSIr.  Donald  Marquis.  That  is  right. 

The  Chairman.  That  is,  to  put  them  in  the  union  ? 

jNIr.  Donald  Marquis.  That  is  right. 

Senator  Curtis.  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

Mr.  Clifton  ]Marqcts.  Could  I  add  a  point  here  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Clxftcn  Marquis.  Probably,  I  don't  know  for  sure,  10  or  15 
years  prior  to  this,  when  some  organizer  would  come  and  ask  me  about 
having  our  place  organized,  I  offered  to  give  them  the  names  and  the 
addresses  of  the  employees,  thinking  that  if  they  wanted  to  belong 
to  a  union  I  shouldn't  have  to  tell  them  to  join  the  union.  They 
should  contact  them  themselves. 

The  Chairman.  All  right. 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  At  no  time  did  they  take  advantage  of  that. 
But  from  time  to  time,  organizers  would  be  in  the  restaurants,  talking 
to  the  help,  and  that  was  one  time  when  my  brother  influenced  them 
to  quit  working  on  them  in  the  stores  on  our  time,  and  to  talk  to 
them  elsewhere. 

But  just  prior  to  our  experience,  there  was  almost  constantly— I 
would  say  every  day  or  two  I  would  see  one  or  more  of  them  ew  ering 
some  of  the  stores. 

The  Chairman.  Did  they  ever  come  to  you  and  tell  you  that  they 
had  a  majority  of  your  people  signed  up  ? 

Mr.  Donald  ]\iARQUis.  Just  in  one  piece  of  mail,  sir — that  one 
letter  that  I  got  signed  by  Josephine  Clark.     It  wasn't  signed  by 


12830  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES   IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Lardino,  Blakely,  or  CuUerton.    It  was  signed  by  this  woman,  Jose- 
phine Clark. 

The  Chairman.  Did  they  follow  up  on  the  letter  and  come  to  see 
you  in  person — any  of  the  union  officials  ? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  No,  they  did  not.  I  got  a  phone  call  and  I 
left  word  that  I  would  be  home  at  a  given  time,  to  call  me  back,  but 
I  didn't  get  the  call. 

Mr.  Lancaster.  Mr.  Chairman,  they  conducted  a  poll  of  their 
employees  during  this  picketing.  I  thought  you  might  want  to  inquire 
about  that. 

The  Chairman.  During  that  period  of  time 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  During  the  period  from  the  time  we  got  the 
letter  identifying  the  fact  that  "We  have  an  overwhelming  majority 
of  your  employees ;  you  will  meet  with  us  and  sign  a  letter  of  recog- 
nition or  we  will  take  positive  action" — that  is  the  substance  of  the 
letter,  though  not  exactly  verbatim — that  is  when  I  talked  to  Teitel- 
baum  and  he  said,  "Don't  worry,  you  will  get  no  pickets ;  you  will  have 
no  strike,"  but  to  feel  them  out  and  to  try  to  find  out  whether  or  not 
they  actually  did  want  to  belong  to  the  union. 

I  gave  the  managers  some  cards  to  distribute  among  the  employees, 
saying  "I  do  want  to  belong  to  the  union"  or  "I  do  not  want  to  belong 
to  the  union."  Of  the  approximate  160  that  we  had  at  the  time,  there 
were  97  that  said  'T  do  not,"  and  there  were  41  that  said  "I  do  want 
to  belong  to  the  union."  Of  the  41,  there  were  at  least  30  that  hadn't 
ever  worked  a  full  week. 

The  Chairman.  Hadn't  what  ? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  Hadn't  worked  a  full  steady  week  for  us. 
They  are  what  the  family  refers  to  as  floaters.  But  there  were  41 
such  people  that  happened  to  be  on  the  payroll  within  the  period  of 
time  that  they  were  taking  this  vote,  and  there  were  an  approximate 
20  or  25  that  didn't  see  fit  to  sign  for  or  against. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  think  those  who  signed  that  they  didn't 
want  a  union  did  so  under  the  impression  that  if  they  said  they  wanted 
a  union  they  might  get  discharged  ? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  I  don't  believe  so,  sir.  It  was  just  a  piece 
of  card  with  the  two  lines  printed  on  it,  and  I  asked  the  managers 
just  to  circulate  these  among  them  and  ask  them  to  sign  them,  to 
express  their  wishes  and  sign  the  cards.  There  was  certainly  no  pres- 
sure put  on  them. 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Mundt. 

Senator  Mundt.  This  $247,000  that  you  were  reimbursed  by  the 
restaurant  association  was  collected,  I  presume,  from  your  fellow 
restauranteurs  by  assessments  ? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  No;  we  never  called  it  assessments,  sir.  It 
is  a  voluntary  fund.  The  amount  is  suggested  that  So-and-so  is  pay- 
ing 25  cents  a  month,  25  cents  a  week,  or  a  dollar  a  month,  depending 
upon  the  circumstances  and  the  condition  of  the  fund. 

Senator  Miindt.  It  was  a  vohmtar}^  assessment  in  that  you  could 
pay  it  or 

Mr.  Donald  IMarquis.  Or  not  pay  it,  as  you  saw  fit. 

Senator  INIundt.  But  if  you  did  not  pay  it,  I  presume  you  dropped 
out  as  a  potential  beneficiary  ? 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12831 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  No,  sir;  that  is  not  the  case.  There  were 
many  people  that  did  not  contribute  to  the  voluntary  fund  that  were 
given  aid  throuirhout  the  years. 

Senator  Mundt.  How  big  a  revolving  fund  or  nest  egg  did  this 
association  maintain,  usually  ^ 

Mr.  Donald  JVLvkqi  is.  I  am  sorry ;  I  don't  know  the  exact  amount. 

Senator  Mi;ndt.  Your  brother  might  know.  He  apparently  was 
an  official. 

How  big  a  fund  did  they  maintain  ? 

Mr.  Clifton  Makquis.  I  couldn't  give  you  the  exact  figures,  but 
it  varied.  When  there  was  need,  then  the  contribution  was  larger. 
It  has  varied.  I  believe  Mr,  Mundie  may  have  those  figures,  when  he 
checked  with  the  association's  oflice.  As  far  as  our  records  are  con- 
cerned, Mr.  Mundie  checked  those,  too.  Pie  could  give  actual  figures, 
where  I  wouldn't  remember  them. 

Senator  Mundt.  You  fellows  operated  11  restaurants,  did  j^ou  ? 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  That  is  right. 

Senator  Mundt.  What  would  be  the  average  annual  voluntary  con- 
tribution ? 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  Average  over  the  whole  period  of  time? 

Senator  Mundt.  Yes. 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  That  would  be  about  40  years. 

Senator  Mundt.  Not  necessarily. 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  Per  year  ? 

Senator  Mundt.  Per  year,  yes. 

I  will  put  it  this  way :  Can  you  give  me  some  idea  of  the  top  and 
lower  limits  ? 

IMr.  Clifton  Marquis.  I  think  I  could  give  you  this  as  a  rough 
estimate.  That  in  the  period  of  time  that  we  have  had  the  voluntary 
contribution  we  have  contributed  probably  $40,000. 

Senator  Mundt.  In  how  long  ? 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  In  the  40  years,  43  or  42. 

Senator  Mundt.  Averaging  abcmt  $1,000  a  year  ? 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  I  am  just  making  a  guess.  It  would  be 
something  like  that. 

Senator  Mundt.  Do  you  recall  what  would  be  the  highest  contri- 
bution you  ever  made  in  1  year  ? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  It  could  have  been  as  much  as  $6,000  or  $7,000 
in  1  year. 

Senator  Mundt.  That  would  be  for  all 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  It  would  be  a  very,  very  high  year,  when 
there  was  some  difficulty. 

Senator  Mundt.  How  was  that  contribution  distributed  among  the 
various  restaurant  operators — on  the  basis  of  your  gross  income  or  on 
the  basis  of  your  employees  ? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  On  the  basis  of  the  number  of  employees  ? 

Senator  Mundt.  Roughly  what  ? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  Twenty-five  cents  a  person,  fifty  cents  a  per- 
son, a  dollar  a  person,  providing  you  saw  fit  to  do  it. 

Senator  Mundt.  How  could  you  protect  each  other  if  the  fellow  who 
didn't  pay  was  treated  exactly  the  same  as  the  fellow  who  did  pay  ? 

21243 — 58— pt.  33 22 


12832  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr,  Clifton  Marquis.  Well,  there  might  have  been  a  case  that  a 
man  was  in  difficulty  and  we  thought  the  treatment  to  him  was  so 
unfair  we  would  help  him,  even  though  he  didn't  make  a  contribution. 
The  whole  thing  was  to  keep  from  being  boycotted,  coerced,  forced  into 
a  union. 

Senator  Mundt.  In  other  words,  if  a  fellow  had  some  economic  cir- 
cumstances which  the  officers  considered  legitimate  and  which  would 
make  it  difficult  for  him  to  pay,  he  would  not  necessarily  have  to  pay. 
But  if  a  good  and  going  concern,  obviously  making  money,  on  State 
Street,  for  example,  just  said,  "I  don't  want  to  pay,  and  I  don't  expect 
to  get  the  benefits" 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  To  my  knowledge  we  have  never  refused  to 
help  anyone  that  was  in  trouble,  so  far  as  I  remember.  The  policy  and 
the  thinking  behind  the  whole  program  was  to  help  the  entire  restau- 
rant— not  necessarily  the  association,  but  the  restaurant  business. 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  The  so-called  strike  that  prevailed  in  1914,  in 
that  there  was  one  man  involved  that  had  more  than  10  restaurants, 
but  large  ones.  He  used  quite  a  good  many  waitresses.  But  in  just  a 
few  weeks,  2  other  firms  that  had  5  or  6  places  each  were  picketed  by 
waitresses,  neither  of  whom  had  ever  employed  a  waitress. 

But  because  the  three  firms  were  associated  in  a  bakery— that  might 
have  been  the  justification  for  putting  waitresses  picketing  lunchrooms 
that  had  never  had  waitresses  work  in  them.  The  firms  were  10  or  12 
years  old  even  then.  That  was  the  time  we  succeeded  in  getting  an 
injunction  restraining  them  from  picketing,  and  that  was  during  our 
similar  experience.  I  dislike  calling  it  a  strike,  because  I  think  of  a 
strike  as  where  your  employees  are  on  the  picket  line,  and  not  75  or  80 
or  90  percent  unemployed. 

Senator  Mundt.  The  way  you  describe  it,  the  words  "secondary 
boycott"  would  be  more  applicable  than  "strike." 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  Well,  forbidding  the  delivery  of  merchan- 
dise and  forbidding  the  disposal  of  the  garbage,  which,  of  course,  is 
a  serious  problem.  But  noting  the  condition  that  these  fellows  had 
in  1914,  and  when  the  handwriting  came  on  the  wall  that  we  were 
going  to  be  clouted  in  the  same  manner,  it  was  a  little  disturbing. 

Senator  Mundt.  About  how  many  restaurants  in  Chicago  belong  to 
this  association  ? 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  That  question  was  asked  before  and  I  don't 
know  tlie  exact  percentage.     Once  it  w^as  75  were 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis,  That  isn't  what  he  asked.  He  asked  how 
many  restaurants.  There  are  800  members  involving  somewhere  be- 
tween 1,600  and  perhaps  2,000  restaurants. 

Senator  Mundt.  About  what  percentage  of  the  restaurants  of  Chi- 
cago would  that  be  ? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  I  don't  know  that,  sir.  I  one  time  heard  a 
figure  of  7,000  restaurants.     That  would  be  35  percent,  approximately. 

Senator  Mundt,  A  staff  member  indicates  that  that  would  be  be- 
tween 20  and  25  percent, 

Mr,  Donald  Marquis,  Something  like  that.  But  I  am  not  sure  of 
that. 

Senator  Mundt.  The  thing  that  is  difficult  for  me  to  understand,  if 
that  arithmetic  is  correct,  is  how  20  or  25  percent  of  the  restaurants  of 
Chicago  could  undertake  to  underwrite  the  losses  of  the  other  75  per- 
cent that  didn't  make  any  voluntary  contribution  ? 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12833 

Mr.  DoxALi)  Marquis.  Well,  it  never  came  around  to  where  they  had 
a  condition  (knclop  to  where  they  were  asked  to  lielp  that  many.  If 
it  was  a  matter  of  some  little  fellow  just  staiiino;  in  business,  he  would 
be  more  likely  to  be  the  one  that  would  get  help,  that  had  not  made 
any  contribution  to  tlie  fund. 

Senator  Mixdt.  Did  the  members  of  the  Chicaiio  Ivestaurant  Asso- 
ciation traditionally  have  a  little  bit  more  trouble  Avith  the  labor 
unions  than  those  that  did  not  belong  to  the  restaurant  association  ? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  I  don't  think  so.  I  wouldn't  know,  but  I 
wouldn't  think  so. 

Senator  JNIunut.  I  suggested  an  analogy  to  one  of  your  predecessors 
on  the  stand  a  day  or  two  ago  that  one  concept  of  this  business  in 
Chicago,  which  I  confess  I  am  not  sure  I  completely  understand, 
would  be  that  it  would  be  sort  of  a  mutual  insurance  company  in 
which  the  restaurant  jjeople  made  voluntary  assessments  or  contribu- 
tions for  their  collective  protection  against  this  brigandry  that  the 
mdawful  elements  in  labor  unions  were  trying  to  inflict  upon  them. 

I  know  something  about  mutual  insurance  companies  as  they  apply 
on  hail  insurance  on  South  Dakota  farms,  for  example,  or  lire  insur- 
ance. We  have  a  lot  of  little  mutual  insurance  companies  whereby 
neighbors  or  people  within  a  county  collectively  insure  each  other 
through  a  mutual  arrangement,  but  I  don't  know  of  any  of  them  that 
give  benefits  to  the  nonparticipants.  I  am  sure  that  a  mutual  insur- 
ance company  could  not  succeed  if  they  simply  say  "part  of  the  people 
will  pay  the  cost,  but  all  of  the  people  will  share  the  benefits." 

That  seems  to  be  the  concept  I  get  from  you  fellows  as  to  the  May 
this  mutual  insurance  company  protection  operated  in  Chicago  if,  in 
fact,  that  is  what  it  was. 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  About  the  same  thing  happened  as  far  as  the 
restaurant  association  itself  was  concerned  because  many  people  that 
don't  belong  to  the  restaurant  association  still  derive  benefits  from  it. 

Senator  Mundt.  That  is  the  curious  part.  That  is  the  part  that  it 
is  hard  for  me  to  reconcile  with  the  insurance  concept.  Let  us  take, 
for  example,  an  insurance  company  in  my  home  county  in  South  Da- 
kota, where  the  Lake  County  farmers  get  together  and  insure  each 
other  against  tornadoes.  When  one  of  them  has  a  set  of  farm  build- 
ings swept  away,  they  have  an  assessment  and  each  pays  into  the  fund 
so  that  the  unfortunate  sufferer  can  be  recompensed. 

But  the}^  never  step  beyond  the  county  line  to  someone  who  didn't 
pay  any  assessments  or  fees,  and  say  "Too,  too  bad,  old  fellow,  you  lost 
your  buildings.     We  will  rebuild  your  buildings,  too."' 

It  looks  to  me  that  in  an  insurance  company,  if  that  is  what  it  was, 
part  of  the  restaurant  in  Chicago  undertook  the  financial  responsi- 
bility of  underwriting  the  strike  losses  and  the  labor  trouble  losses  of 
all  of  the  restaurants  of  Chicago.  I  don't  see  how  that  thing  is  eco- 
nomically feasible. 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  That  is  not  the  case. 

Senator  Mundt.  Where  is  the  difference?  Where  is  it  different 
than  that  ? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  Where  we  had  occasion  to  help  a  new  fellow, 
a  little  fellow,  just  starting  in  business,  and  he  was  perhaps — I  am 
just  guessing,  though  I  know  definitely  some  instances — where  he 
was  threatened  with  pickets  if  he  didn't  sign  up  with  a  union  right 
away,  we  have  helped  such  restaurant  people  several  times.     What 


12834  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES   IN   THE    LABOR    FIELD 

my  brother  meant  when  he  made  reference  to  the  fact  that  all  the 
restaurant  business  in  Chicago  get  some  benefit  from  the  Chicago 
Restaurant  Association's  activities  is  in  the  restaurant  field,  whether 
they  belong  to  it  or  not ;  that  is  what  he  meant. 

It  is  just  like  in  almost  any  trade,  there  will  be  some  who  do  the 
work  and  pay  the  freight  and  some  will  get  benefits  from  it  that 
don't  take  any  part  in  it. 

That  would  be  the  regular  membership,  that  is  what  he  referred  -to, 
and  not  the  voluntary  fmid  for  the  purpose  of  insurance  against, 
pardon  me,  hoodlum  activity  to  destroy  our  business. 

Senator  Mundt.  Would  you  agree  with  the  hypothesis  that  what 
you  were  actually  operating  was  some  kind  of  a  mutual  insurance 
company  to  protect  you  against  union  hooliganism — to  borrow  a 
Russian  phrase? 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  I  think  that  is  a  good  explanation  for  it, 
a  good  name  to  call  it. 

Senator  Muxdt.  I  can  see  under  the  circumstances  a  need,  perhaps 
for  that,  but  I  still  have  difficulty  in  figuring  out  how  you  could 
maintain  the  financial  structure  on  the  basis  of  20  to  25  percent  of 
your  paying  the  premiums  to  provide  the  benefits  for  the  100  percent 
of  the  people  in  the  business.     That  to  me  is  still  a  puzzle. 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis,  Maybe  I  stated  it  wrong  before,  if  I  said 
100  percent  of  the  people.  I  should  have  said,  perhaps,  all  of  the 
members  of  the  Chicago  Restaurant  Association? 

Senator  Mundt.  I  asked  you  the  question  of  whether  or  not  a 
fellow  who  did  not  belong,  or  a  fellow  who  failed  to  pay  his  assess- 
ments, would  get  the  same  benefits  as  the  man  who  did*  belong. 

I  thought  you  said  he  would, 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis,  Maybe  I  stated  it  wrong.  What  I  was 
going  to  say  was  that  the  members  of  the  Chicago  Restaurant  Asso- 
ciation that  did  not  volunteer  to  the  contribution  did  get  some  help 
without  the  voluntary  contribution,  rather  than  to  say 

Senator  _Mundt,  Now  you  are  telling  me  that  there  is  an  associa- 
tion to  which  all  pay  an  initiation  fee,  dues  or  something  in  addition 
to  the  voluntary  assessments,  and  that  the  benefits,  by  and  large,  are 
made  available  to  all  members  of  the  association,  but  not  to  all  people 
in  the  business. 

Is  that  right? 

Mr,  Clifton  Marquis.  That  is  right. 

Senator  Mundt.  That  is  more  understandable. 

Senator  Curtis.  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Curtis. 

Senator  Curtis.  During  the  years  that  you  liave  been  in  the  restau- 
rant association  and  participating  in  the  Voluntary  fund,  were  there 
any  instances  where  that  fund  was  used  to  help  an  employer  resist 
union  activities  that  were  carried  on  in  a  strictly  lawful  manner? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  Not  that  I  know  of. 

Senator  Curtis.  In  other  words,  if  the  employees  of  an  establish- 
ment would  seek  to  organize  themselves  and  seek  recognition,  and 
there  was  no  violation  of  law  of  any  consequence,  would  your  associa- 
tion resist  such  activities  ? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  Definitely  not.  For  instance,  there  were 
quite  a  few  members  of  the  association  that  were  already  organized, 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IX    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12835 

but  at  no  time,  to  my  knowledge,  could  voluntary  contributions  be 
used  if  somebody  was  unionized  legitimately. 

Senator  Curtis.  We  have  had  a  great  deal  of  testimony  here  as  to 
the  infiltration  into  these  unions  of  hoodlums  and  people  with  crimi- 
nal records  and  the  like.  Was  it  regarded  by  the  restaurant  industry 
generally  that  all  of  the  unions  that  they  had  to  deal  with  were  so 
constituted  ? 

Mr.  Donald  IMarquis.  No,  sir.  An  example  of  that  prevails  in 
our  company.  We  have  a  small  bakery,  where  we  bake  for  our  own 
lunchrooms,  and  we  have  had  union  bakers  for  many  years,  as  well 
as  union  drivers. 

Senator  Curtis.  Do  you  know  whether  or  not  the  bakers'  union  has 
had  any  liaison  with  the  criminal  elements? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  I  do  not  believe  they  have.  I  have  never 
heard  of  it.  Not  that  I  would  know  of.  But  this  little  union,  the 
few  people  I  have  and  our  contact  with  them,  I  have  not  heard  of  any 
hoodlumism  or  racketeering.  It  could  well  prevail  Avithout  my  hear- 
ing about  it,  but  I  have  not  heard,  and  it  has  not  come  to  my  knowledge. 

Senator  Curtis.  The  right  to  organize  and  bargain  collectively  is 
not  a  right  that  belongs  to  unions.  It  is  a  right  that  belongs  to 
workers.  That  is  why  I  was  interested  in  knowing  whether  or  not 
your  association  or  its  voluntary  fund  would  resist  the  bona  fide  and 
lawful  efforts  of  workers  to  organize  themselves  assuming  that  all 
of  their  activities  were  in  accordance  with  the  law. 

Mr.  Clifton  IMarquis.  I  don't  know  if  it  is  of  interest  to  the  com- 
mittee, but  our  payroll  percentage  of  what  we  pay  is  40  percent  of 
every  dollar  we  take  in. 

That  is  using  a  percentage  of  dollar  income  against  what  is  paid  to 
employees.  There  was  some  past  witness  where  there  was  some  com- 
ment with  reference  to  did  they  save  by  not  belonging  to  the  union  ? 

Of  course,  as  far  as  we  are  concerned,  that  does  not  prevail,  because 
since  the  strike  of  1953  we  have  not  quite  got  over  the  disease  yet. 

That  is  5  years  ago  just  about  now,  the  20th  of  July. 

Senator  Curtis.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Mundt.  As  I  get  the  picture,  it  is  the  testimony  of  you 
fellows  that  the  Chicago  Restaurant  Association  was  not  organized  to 
fight  honest  unionism. 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  That  is  right. 

Senator  Mundt.  But  it  was  organized  to  fight  corrupt  unionism  or 
corrupt  practices  by  bad  union  officials ;  is  that  it  ? 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  That's  exactly  riglit. 

Mr.  Donald  ]SL\rquis.  Our  experience  in  the  1914  one  perhaps 
stands  out  in  my  mind  because  it  was  so  unfair  and  having  so  few 
actual  employees,  and  at  least  10  or  12  not  a  single  employee.  Our 
case  was  very  much  like  that. 

Senator  Mundt.  The  way  you  fellows  present  the  picture,  it  is  a 
perfectly  correct  and  proper  arrangement.  What  disturbs  me  is  that 
at  least  two  of  your  employees,  former  employees,  or,  I  better  say, 
executives  of  the  association,  come  before  the  committee  and  take  the 
fifth  amendment.  If  this  was  all  as  legitimate  as  you  have  described 
it,  I  can't  understand  why  Mr.  Teitelbaum  and  why  Mr.  Champagne, 
who  were  your  top  functionaries  and  wliose  job  it  was  to  carry  out  this 
perfectly  laudable  purpose  of  running  a  mutual  insurance  company  to 
protect  yourself  against  dishonest  unions,  would  not  proudly  pro- 


12836  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES,   IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

claim  what  they  have  been  doing,  as  you  fellows  properly  are  proud  of 
what  you  have  been  doing. 

How  do  you  explain  that  these  top  functionaries  of  yours  come  in 
and  take  the  fifth  amendment  ? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  I  never  heard  of  the  fifth  amendment  before, 
sir.  I  can't  imagine  such  a  thing.  Plad  I  known  it  was  going  to  pre- 
vail like  that,  you  can  be  sure  that  I  would  not  have  had  any  contact 
with  them. 

Senator  Mundt.  In  other  words,  had  you  known  that  the  people 
that  you  looked  to  to  enforce  this  arrangement  were  engaging  in  ac- 
tivities of  such  a  nature,  that  when  questioned  by  a  lawfully  con- 
stituted committee  of  Congress,  they  had  to  hide  behind  the  cloak  of 
the  fifth  amendment,  you  would  not  have  made  your  contributions? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  It  has  been  a  terrible  reflection  upon  a  fine 
organization. 

Senator  Mundt.  That  is  how  it  seems  to  me.  You  fellows  come 
here  and  I  have  been  very  favorably  impressed  by  virtually  all  of  the 
restaurant  men  who  have  been  here,  but  it  is  pretty  hard  for  me  to 
understand  why  legitimate  businessmen  engaged  in  a  legitimate  effort 
to  protect  themselves  against  criminal  elements  should  have  engaged 
people  who  take  the  fifth  amendment  when  asked  to  tell  us  what  they 
were  doing  with  the  money. 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  It  is  unfortunate. 

Senator  Mundt.  Who  is  it  at  the  present?  Mr.  Teitelbaum  is  out 
entirely  at  present,  and  Mr.  Champagne  is  out? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  Yes. 

Senator  Mundt.  Who  is  the  new  Mr.  Teitelbaum  or  the  new  Mr. 
Champagne  ? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  We  don't  have  anybody. 

Senator  Mundt.  You  have  somebody,  don't  you,  to  run  the  thing? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  During  the  strike  period  we  had  Winston, 
Conner,  and  Strong  that  were  preparing  a  case  to  seek  an  injunction 
restraining  the  pickets.  That  preparation  was  being  made  at  the 
time  the  pickets  left. 

Senator  Mundt.  What  M-as  the  title?  Wliat  title  did  Mr.  Teitel- 
baum have  ?    Executive  secretary  ? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  No;  labor-relations  attorney. 

Senator  Mundt.  And  that  is  the  title  Mr.  Champagne  had?  Labor- 
relations  counselor  ? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  That  is  right. 

Senator  Mundt.  You  don't  have  a  labor-relations  counselor  now  ? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  No  ;  we  do  not. 

Senator  Mundt.  Do  j^ou  now  realize  that  instead  of  actually  creat- 
ing what  you  thought  you  had— a  mutual  insurance  company,  oper- 
ating to  protect  yourself  against  dishonest  union  practices — that  you 
possibly  had  created  an  apparatus  which,  in  the  hands  of  an  unsavory 
character,  ])ermitted  liim  to  rocT'uit  trouble  for  your  restaurants  in- 
stead of  allay  it?  All  you  had  to  do  was  to  get  the  wrong  man  in  as 
labor  consultant,  and  he  Avent  out  among  his  thug  friends  and  said, 
"Look,  we  have  a  lot  of  soft  touches  in  the  restaurant  association,  and 
if  you  will  go  over  to"  this  street,  that  street,  "and  go  after  them,  we 
can  make  a  nice  deal,  bring  in  some  more  restaurant  men,  make  a  set- 
tlement, and  we  will  give  you  part  of  this  loot." 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12837 

]\fr.  DoxALD  Marquis.  It  is  very  disappointing  to  know  that  that 
hapi)ened,sir. 

Senator  INIuxdt,  In  other  words,  when  j^ou  have  an  association 
which  is  as  phish  as  yours,  to  be  able  to  write  a  check  for  $247,000  to 
one  unfortunate  and  $150,000  to  another,  there  is  a  lot  of  money  which, 
used  legitimately,  can  be  very  helpful.  But  it  is  also  quite  an  induce- 
ment to  a  crooked  fellow,  out  among  some  of  his  thugs,  who  would  say, 
"Look,  this  is  a  pretty  good  system.  We  must  not  let  the  source  of  irri- 
tation dry  up.  Get  out  and  cause  a  little  trouble  among  these  mem- 
bers so  we  can  collect  some  more  money,  and  they  will  contribute." 

That  is  what  actually  happened  in  what  you  are  trying  to  do. 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  There  was  a  long  period  of  peace  and  tran- 
quillity. 

Senator  Mundt.  That  could  be.  Possibly  under  a  different  labor 
consultant  or  before  the  particular  labor  consultant  in  question  discov- 
ered there  was  more  gold  in  different  hills  than  the  one  in  which  he 
happened  to  be  drilling  at  the  time. 

Did  you  have  any  recourse  under  law  if  at  tlie  time  this  secondary 
boycott  was  initiated  against  you,  and  you  put  in  your  claim  for 
$247,000  of  losses,  the  association  had  said,  "Sorry,  old  fellow,  we 
wouldn't  give  you  a  dime." 

Mr.  Donald  Marqltis.  We  would  have  been  out  of  business. 

Senator  Mundt.  But  would  you  have  any  legal  recourse  in  this  in- 
surance arrangement  that  you  had  ?  Did  you  have  a  policy,  a  contract 
or  anything  in  writing  ? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  No. 

Senator  Mundt.  You  were  putting  an  awful  lot  of  faith  in  whoever 
your  labor  consultant  was  or  whoever  was  running  the  association. 
You  put  in  $(),000  or  $7,000  in  1  3'ear  as  sort  of  an  insurance  premium. 
I  bet  you  don't  do  that  with  your  life-insurance  policy  or  your  fire- 
insurance  policy  or  your  casualty-insurance  policy.  I  bet  you  insist 
on  getting  some  kind  of  piece  of  paper  with  printing  on  it  in  hand, 
don't  you,  to  protect  you?  " 

Mr.  Donald  IMarquis.  Well,  we  have  complete  confidence  in  our 
fellow  restaurateurs  in  Chicago,  if  that  is  the  answer  for  you,  sir. 

Senator  Mundt.  Looking  ahead  instead  of  back,  how  do  you  think 
you  can  operate  in  this  arrangement,  wliich  may  be  necessary  in 
Chicago?  I  don't  know.  If  you  have  crooked  elements  in  labor 
unions,  and  if  Congress  continues  to  refuse  to  pass  legislation  to  cor- 
i-ect  it,  which  I  think  Congress  is  going  to  refuse  to  pass  as  it  looks 
to  me  on  the  other  side  of  the  Capitol  so  you  continue  to  face  the  same 
trouble,  how  do  you  tliink  you  can  continue  to  serve  the  same  protection 
to  yourselves  and  other  restaurant  men  without  getting  yourselves 
boxed  in  with  another  Teitell)aum  or  another  Champagne? 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  We  had  hoped  that  possibly  some  legislation 
could  be  passed  that  would  give  a  small  operator  a  chance  to  have  an 
election  before  there  was  illegal  picketing. 

Senator  Mundt.  I  think  you  have  a  lot  of  work  to  do  in  your  local 
precincts  in  Chicago  to  supply  some  votes  for  that  legislation. 

I  don't  think  it  is  going  to  be  forthcoming  in  this  Congress.  If  it 
isn't  forthcoming,  you  are  still  in  business,  and  the  peril  is  still  there. 
Self-prese)  ration  is  the  first  law  of  nature.  You  have  to  o]^erate  col- 
lectively to  protect  yourselves.  But  you  certainly  don't  want  to  do  it 
in  such  a  way  that  you  will  create  the  perils  that  you  are  trying 


12838  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

to  eliminate,  which  I  think  in  the  past  you  have  been  doing  in  setting 
up  this  type  of  apparatus  which  has  been  used  against  you.  They 
have  been  using  your  money  to  dragoon  more  money  out  of  you.  You 
are  intelligent  enough  to  run  restaurants.  You  have  to  figure  some 
way  to  protect  yourself.    What  can  you  suggest  ? 

It  would  seem  to  me  that  the  Chicago  Restaurant  Association  ought 
to  have  a  convention  and  get  a  resolutions  committee  and  figure  this 
out,  because  it  is  a  tough  proposition.  I  can  undei-stand  your 
problem. 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  I  believe  the  restaurant  association  at  times 
tried  to  have  something  passed,  even  in  the  State,  if  it  would  make 
things  a  little  more  fair.  It  seems  like  it  is  very  fair  to  have  an  elec- 
tion, because  then,  with  an  adequate  supervised  election,  then  you  have 
an  actual  fact  of  whether  the  majority  of  the  employees  want  to  belong 
to  the  union. 

Senator  Mundt.  I  live  in  a  section  of  the  country  where  we  had 
pretty  good  law  enforcement  for  a  long  time  before  we  had  motor 
patrolmen  or  motor  sheriffs.  The  boys  packed  a  six  gim  around  and 
took  care  of  things  pretty  well.  I  am  not  suggest  ing  that  you  take  care 
of  this  by  violence,  but  I  do  suggest  that  you  find  a  way  of  operating 
this  sort  of  protective  association  under  legitimate  circumstances, 
so  that  you  would  have  reputable  people,  and  you  could  come  to  each 
other's  support.  But  somehow  or  other  you  have  to  keep  it  out  of  the 
hands  of  people  who  take  recourse  in  the  fifth  amendment.  Other- 
wise, rather  than  becoming  something  legitimate  and  functioning  as 
something  which  can  serve  the  community,  you  become,  inadvertently, 
perhaps,  through  lethargy  and  inattention,  partners  to  the  creation  of 
a  very  unsavory  situation. 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  I  will  certainly  recommend  that  when  we 
have  our  next  meeting. 

Senator  Mundt.  Do  you  have  meetings  of  the  association? 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  Yes,  periodical  meetings,  directors'  meetings. 

Senator  Mundt.  You  do  realize  that  the  way  you  have  let  this 
thing  grow  up,  it  could  become  more  of  a  peril  to  you  than  it  could 
be  a  support. 

The  Chairman.  Is  there  anything  further? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  had  Mr.  Teitelbaum  working  for  you  for  some 
14  years,  did  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  Teitelbaum  had  been  attorney  for  Al  Capone  ? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  So  I  heard. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  Louis  Romano  worked  for  11  years  for  the 
association  ? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  I  don't  know  that.  He  may  have  been 
working  for  Teitelbaum. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Well,  he  was  working  for  Teitelbaum.  And  he  was 
with  the  association  for  11  years ;  was  he  not  ? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  I  don't  know  that. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  during  this  period  of  time,  as  you  pointed  out, 
he  was  able  to  avoid  the  restaurant's  having  any  difficulties  with  the 
labor  unions,  so  everybody  was  satisfied  with  his  services. 

So  tlien  he  got  in  difficulties  with  the  House  committee,  got  in 
difficulties  on  income  tax  and  still  his  services  were  maintained.  He 
continued  to  work  for  the  association :  did  he  not  ? 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12839 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  Yes;  he  did. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  according  to  tlie  testimony,  we  have  some  in- 
formation that  he  was  involved  in  arranging  a  bribe  in  1950-51  and 
still  he  continued  to  work  for  the  association. 

Mr.  Donald  IVIarquis.  I  didn't  know  that. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  It  wasn't  until  the  fact  that  he  was  not  able  to  keep 
pickets  off  your  restaurant,  he  was  unable  to  keep  the  pickets  away, 
that  his  services  were  dispensed  with ;  is  that  right  'i 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  is  as  you  testified  here.  Again,  on  this  ques- 
tion, you  had  Mr.  Gutgsell.  First  you  retained  JSIr.  Champagne,  who 
was  an  attorney  for  the  gangsters  out  there. 

Ultimately  you  got  Mr.  Gutgsell.  His  services  were  dispensed 
w^ith  when  he  was  unable  to  keep  picket  lines  off  of  one  of  your  res- 
taurants.    Is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  IvENNEDY.  So  I  think  you  were  not  all  innocent  babes  in  the 
woods  in  this  situation,  being  imposed  upon  by  the  Teitelbaums,  the 
Champagnes,  the  Sam  Englishes,  and  the  Louis  Komanos. 

That  is  all. 

The  Chairman.  Any  further  questions  ? 

Senator  Mundt.  Yes.  Were  you  in  the  committee  room  yesterday 
when  Mr.  Greenfield  testified? 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  No  ;  I  was  not. 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  We  were  here  part  of  the  afternoon,  but  I 
don't  remember  his  name. 

Senator  Mundt.  Mr.  Greenfield,  anyhow,  who  was  the  man  that 
hoped  to  become  the  general  counsel,  let  me  put  it  that  way,  for  a 
competitive  restaurant  association,  and  testified  that  he  was  motivated 
to  get  into  this  because  it  was  general  practice  in  the  city  of  Chicago 
for  people  owning  restaurants  to  bribe  the  policemen  in  order  to  let 
them  run  after  hours,  and  serve  liquor  to  minors,  and  run  joints,  in 
connection  with  the  restaurant  and  so  forth.  How  general  a  prac- 
tice do  you  think  that  was  in  the  city  of  Chicago? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  I  did  not  know  that  it  prevailed. 

Senator  Mundt.  Have  you  had  any  trouble  with  the  police  of  Chi- 
cago coming  in  and  trying  to  shake  you  down  ? 

Mr.  Donald  Marquis.  No. 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  No. 

Senator  Mundt.  Do  you  know  any 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  We  don't  have  any  alcohol. 

Senator  Mundt.  Do  you  know  any  members  of  your  association  that 
have  had  that  experience  ? 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  We  don't  have  any  bars  in  our  lunchrooms. 
We  are  open  all  the  time.  So  the  element  of  closing  time  does  not  have 
anything  to  do  with  it  in  our  business. 

Senator  Mundt.  You  do  have  members  in  your  association,  I  sup- 
pose, that  serve  drinks  along  with  food  ? 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  Yes,  some  of  these. 

Senator  Mundt.  At  these  meetings  that  you  hold,  has  there  been  a 
source  of  general  complaint  about  the  conduct  of  the  police  of  the  city 
of  Chicago  that  they  try  to  come  in  and  shake  down  your  members? 

My.  Clifton  Marquis.  I  have  not  heard  of  such  a  thing. 


12840  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Senator  Mundt.  You  have  not  heard  of  such  a  thing.  It  was  just  a 
unique  source  of  information  that  came  to  Mr.  Greenfield  and  nobody 
else  lieard  it  as  far  as  you  know  of  ? 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  As  far  as  I  know  of. 

Senator  Mundt.  Do  you  remember  the  Big  Nine  Crime  Commission 
that  they  liad  in  Chicago  ? 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  Yes,  I  remember  it ;  yes. 

Senator  Mundt.  Did  either  of  you  testify  before  that  ? 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  No. 

Senator  Mundt.  Were  members  of  your  association  generally  called 
in  to  testify  before  that  ? 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  Not  that  I  heard  of. 

Senator  Mundt.  Was  that  a  crime  commission  established  primarily 
to  investigate  crime  dealing  with  restaurants  and  taverns  and  things  of 
that  type  ? 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  I  would  assume  that,  from  reading  about  it 
in  the  paper.    Otherwise,  I  don't  know  anything  about  it. 

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

Senator  Mundt.  But  you  think  in  the  main,  those  were  not  incidents 
involving  members  of  your  association  ? 

Mr.  Clifton  Marquis.  I  don't  think  so. 

Senator  Mundt.  Did  the  owner  of  the  Red  Barn  or  the  Red  ^Vlieel 
belong  to  your  association  ? 

Mr.  C^LiFTON  Marquis.  I  never  heard  of  it,  so  I  don't  know. 

Senator  Mundt.  All  right. 

Tlie  Chairman.  All  right.    Thank  you  very  much,  gentlemen. 

Call  the  next  witness. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  I  would  like  to  call  the  counsel  who  then  replaced 
Mr.  Teitelbaum  for  the  Chicago  Restaurant  Association  and  have  him 
tell  the  committee  how  he  settled  the  strike  at  the  Marquis  Retuarants. 
That  would  be  Mr.  Champagne. 

The  Chairman.  Be  sworn,  please.  You  do  solemnly  sAvear  the 
evidence  you  shall  give  before  the  Senate  select  conunittee  sliall  be  the 
truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth,  so  help  you  God? 

Mr.  Champagne.  I  do. 

TESTIMONY  OF  ANTHONY  V.  CHAMPAGNE,  ACCOMPANIED  BY 
COUNSEL,  H.  CLIFFORD  ALLDER 

The  Chairman.  State  your  name,  your  ])lace  of  residence,  and  youi 
business  or  occupation. 

Mr.  Champagne.  My  name  is  Anthony  V.  Champagne,  and  I  am  an 
attorney  at  law,  duly  licensed  to  practice  in  the  State  of  Illinois,  with 
an  office  at  5670  AVest  Madison  Street.  I  reside  at  1501  Bonnie  Brae, 
River  Forest,  111. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  counsel  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Counsel,  identi  fy  yourself  for  the  record. 

Mr.  Allder.  My  name  is  H.  Cliil'ord  Allder,  my  business  address 
is  401  Third  Street  NW.,  Washington,  D.  C.  I  am  a  member  of  the 
bar  of  the  District  of  Columbia. 

]\fr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Champagne,  we  have  had  some  testimony  that 
you  were  the  one  that  replaced  Mr.  Teitelbaum  in  the  Cliicago  Res- 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12841 

taurant  Association  as  tluMi"  atlornoy,  and  that  you  were  then  able  to 
settle  the  Marcjuis  strike. 

Could  you  tell  the  connnittee  how  it  was  that  you  were  retained  by 
the  Chicago  Kestuarant  Association  and  how  you  came  to  settle  the 
Marqviis  strike  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Mr.  Kennedy,  under  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Yes  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  And  all  of  its  amendments,  includinj>;  the  fifth 
amendment,  I  decline  to  answer  for  the  reason  that  my  answer  may 
tend  to  incriminate  me,  and  I  decline  to  be  a  witness  a<2:ainst  myself. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Champagne,  you  were  the  counsel  for  this  Chi- 
cago Kestaurant  Association.  All  we  are  doing  is  trying  to  lind  the 
facts  surrounding  your  representation  of  that  group,  AVhat  I  want  to 
know  is  how  you  came  to  be  retained  by  them. 

Would  you  please  give  the  committee  that  information  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and 
all  of  its  amendments,  including  the  fifth  amendment,  I  decline  to  be 
a  witness  against  myself  and  respectfully  decline  to  answer  the  ques- 
tion for  the  reason  that  my  answer  may  tend  to  incrminate  me. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Mr.  Champagne,  you  are  an  attorney  at  law? 

INIr.  Champagne.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Kennedy.  You  are  at  the  present  time  practicing  law  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Do  you  feel  that  you  should  remain  an  attorney 
at  law,  a  member  of  the  State  bar  of  Illinois,  and  come  before  this 
committee  and  refuse  to  give  the  information  about  how  3'ou  met 
your  responsibilities  as  an  attorney  at  law,  and,  in  a  sense,  an  officer 
of  the  court  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Senator  Kennedy,  under  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  and  all  of  its  amendments,  including  the  fifth  amend- 
ment, I  respectfully  decline  to  answer  for  the  reason  that  my  answer 
may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

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

Senator  Kennedy.  Mr.  Champagne 

Mr.  Champagne.  And  I  respectfully  decline  to  be  a  witness  against 
myself. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Mv.  Champagne,  of  course,  you  have  that  con- 
stitutional privilege.  The  question  is  whether  you  should  be  per- 
mitted to  continue  to  practice  law  in  the  State  of  Illinois,  as  a  member 
of  the  State  bar  of  Illinois,  and  with  the  privileges  that  go  with  mem- 
bership in  the  bar. 

If  you  choose  to  exercise  your  constitutional  privilege,  do  you  have 
any  comments  as  to  whether  you  should  be  permitted  by  the  State  bar 
association  to  continue  to  practice  law  ? 

I  don't  think  we  have  had  an  attorney  take  the  fifth  amendment. 
You  and  Mr.  Teitelbaum  are  the  first  two  attorneys  who  have  taken 
the  fifth  amendment  before  this  committee,  in  my  opinion.  I  am 
hopeful  that  the  State  bar  of  Illinois  should  move  against  both  of 
you. 

I  believe  you  should  be  disqualified  from  practicing.  I  don't  want 
in  any  way  to  interfere  with  your  rights  to  take  the  fifth  amendment. 


12842  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

You  are  certainly  entitled  to  take  that,  if  you  feel  an  answer  would 
incriminate  you.  But  I  don't  think  that  you  should  be  permitted  to 
continue  to  enjoy  the  privileges  of  membership  in  the  State  bar  asso- 
ciation, be  an  officer  of  the  court,  with  all  of  the  responsibilities  that 
are  placed  upon  you  as  an  attorney.  I  don't  think  you  can  do  both, 
in  my  opinion.     I  am  hopeful  that  the  bar  association  will  look  into  it. 

This  is  a  matter,  the  conduct  of  attorneys  is  a  matter  which  has  been 
of  some  concern  to  the  members  of  this  committee  for  the  past  18 
months.  We  have  had  other  attorneys  who,  I  think,  have  had  conflicts 
of  interest  between  their  responsibility  and  duty  as  a  member  of  the 
bar  and  the  actions  they  took. 

This  is  the  first  time  we  have  had  two  cases  of  taking  the  fifth 
amendment.  And  I  don't  think  you  should  be  permitted,  nor  Mr. 
Teitelbaum  in  view  of  that,  to  continue  to  practice  in  the  State  of 
Illinois.  I  am  not  attempting  at  all  to  discuss  whether  you  should 
or  shouldn't  take  the  fifth  amendment.  But  I  don't  think  there  is 
any  doubt  that  your  conduct  in  taking  the  fifth  amendment  should 
definitely  be  investigated  by  the  Bar  Association  of  the  State  of 
Illinois,  and  I  think  if  you  take  the  fifth  amendment  they  should 
disbar  you.    The  same  goes  for  Mr.  Teitelbaum. 

Do  you  want  to  comment  on  that  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  You  are  asking  me  if  I  wish  to  comment  on  what 
you  have  just  said  ? 

Senator  Kennedy.  Yes. 

Mr.  Champagne.  I  respectfully  decline  to  comment  under  the  pro- 
visions of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  all  of  its  amend- 
ments, including  the  fifth  amendment.  I  respectfully  decline  to 
answer  for  the  reason  that  my  answer  may  tend  to  incriminate  me, 
and  I  decline  respectfully  to  be  a  witness  against  myself. 

Senator  Kennedy.  I  want  to  make  it  clear  that  the  question  you 
were  asked  by  the  counsel  was  what  steps  you  took  as  an  attorney  after 
you  succeeded  Mr.  Teitelbaum,  to  bring  the  strike  to  an  end.  I  believe 
after  the  strike  was  ended,  which  was  7  days  after  you  assumed  the 

Sosition  of  responsibility  that  the  strike  was  ended,  yet  the  Marquis 
Restaurants  all  remained  nonunion.  The  question  which  was  asked 
you  was  what  you  did  and  what  steps  were  taken  ? 

As  I  said,  you  have  taken  the  fifth  amendment  and  I  have  given 
you,  at  least  my  opinion,  as  to  what  action  the  bar  ought  to  take. 

(At  this  point,  Senator  McClellan  entered  tlie  hearing  room.) 

Senator  Mundt.  Mr.  Champagne,  are  you  a  graduate  of  a  reputable 
law  school? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Champagne.  Yes,  sir.  Senator. 

Senator  Mundt.  Thank  you.  Are  you  a  member  of  the  Chicago 
Bar  Association  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Yes,  sir,  Senator. 

Senator  Mundt.  Are  you  a  member  of  the  Illinois  Bar  Association  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Mundt.  Are  you  a  member  of  the  American  Bar  Asso- 
ciation ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Mundt.  Just  the  Chicago  bar  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Just  the  Chicago  bar. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12843 

Senator  jMundt.  I  asked  if  you  were  a  member  of  the  State  bar,  and 
I  believe  you  said  no. 

Mr.  CnAMrAGNE.  You  asked  me  if  I  was  a  member  of  the  Illinois 
bar,  and  I  answered  that  I  was  not. 

The  Illinois  Bar  Association? 

Senator  Muxdt.  I  am  not  a  lawyer.  I  guess  there  is  a  difference. 
Are  you  a  member  of  the  Illinois  bar  ? 

Mr. Champagne.  Association? 

Senator  Mundt.  Association.  That  Is  what  I  asked  you,  and  you 
said  no.     Is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  That  is  correct. 

Senator  Mundt.  But  you  are  admitted  to  practice  anywhere  in  the 
State  of  Illinois? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Kennedy.  May  I  ask  one  question?  Do  you  have  to  be 
a  member  of  the  Bar  Association  of  Chicago  or  the  bar  association 
of  the  State  to  practice  before  the  courts  of  Illinois? 

Mr.  Champagne.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Kennedy.  You  don't  have  to  be  a  member  of  either  group  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Xo,  sir. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Who  certifies  you  for  admission  to  practice  be- 
fore the  courts?  Once  you  graduate  from  the  law  school,  do  you 
take  a  bar  exam  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  That  is  correct. 

Senator  Ivennedy.  And  you  are  admitted  to  the  bar  of  Illinois,  in 
that  case,  or  Chicago  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  If  you  successfully  pass  the  State  bar  examination 
conducted  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  you  then 
become  admitted. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Are  there  canons  of  ethics  in  the  Chicago  bar, 
the  Illinois  bar? 

]\Ir.  Champagne.  I  know  there  are  canons  of  ethics  of  the  Chicago 
bar,  but  I  don't  know  about  the  Illinois  bar. 

Senator  Kennedy.  The  Illinois  bar  or  the  Chicago  bar  have  moved 
to  disbar  attorneys;  you  know  that,  don't  you,  Mr.  Champagne,  in 
the  past? 

In  other  words,  the  bar  itself,  in  Chicago  or  in  Illinois,  does  have 
some  competence  and  jurisdiction  over  the  actions  of  members  of  the 
bar  and  their  rights  to  practice  in  Chicago  and  Illinois;  isn't  that 
correct  ?  In  fact,  I  believe  there  was  a  case  before  the  Supreme  Court, 
wasn't  there,  recently,  involving  the  rights  of  an  attorney  practicing 
in  Illinois,  and  the  actions  the  bar  had  taken  in  Illinois,  and  the 
actions  the  bar  had  taken  in  Illinois  in  disbarring  him  ?  I  don't  think 
there  is  any  doubt  that  it  is  possible  for  attorneys,  your  peers,  in 
Illinois,  to  disbnr  you,  if  they  felt  that  your  conduct  before  this  com- 
mittee had  been  against  the  ethics  of  the  bar  association  or  the  members 
of  the  bar  of  that  city  and  State ;  isn't  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  CHA:>rpAGNE.  I  don't  quite  understand  your  question. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Do  you  know  what  disbarment  proceedings  are? 

Mv.  (  iiampa(;ne.  It  seems  to  me  that  you  were  making 

Senatoi"  Kennedy.  I  don't  want  to  ask  you  about  it.  I  will  just 
state  tliat  tliere  are  procedui-es  for  disbarring  in  the  State  of  Illinois 
and  the  city  of  Chicago,  by  other  attorneys,  if  they  feel  that  an  at- 
torney does  not  meet  the  standards  of  the  profession.    In  my  opinion. 


12844  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

by  your  actions  liere  you  have  not  met  those  standards.  I  would  sug- 
gest that  the  bar  association  of  the  State  and  the  Bar  Association  of 
Chicago  should  investigate  and  make  that  judgment.  I  am  giving 
you  my  opinion  as  a  member  of  this  committee  for  18  months,  and 
I  have  seen  the  attorneys  before  this  committee.  I  think  by  taking 
the  fifth  amendment  on  a  question  before  this  committee,  which  is 
subject  to  this  investigation,  where  you  have  taken  the  fifth  amend- 
ment it  should  be  decided  whether  you  should  be  disbarred. 

Mr.  Kennedy,  We  understand  you  are  a  close  associate  of  Mr. 
Mooney  Ginacana.    Can  you  tell  us  about  that  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and 
all  of  its  amendments,  including  the  fifth  amendment,  I  decline,  re- 
spectfully, to  answer  for  the  reason  that  my  answer  may  tend  to  in- 
criminate me,  and  I  respectfully  decline  to  be  a  witness  against  myself. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  it  was  partly  through  your  association  with 
Giancana  that  you  were  able  to  obtain  this  position  and  you  were 
able  to  settle  the  Marquis  strike ;  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and 
all  of  its  amendments,  including  the  fifth  amendment,  I  respectfully 
decline  to  answer  for  the  reason  that  my  answer  may  tend  to  in- 
criminate me,  and  I  respectfully  decline  to  be  a  witness  against 
myself. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  For  instance,  one  of  the  things  you  did  for  Giancana 
was  to  handle  the  sale  of  some  property  at  644  West  Gunnison  Avenue, 
which  was  the  center  of  some  gambling  operations  for  Monney  Gian- 
cana, and  also  when  he  moved  to  his  present  address  at  1145  Wenonah, 
Oak  Park,  111.,  it  was  you  who  handled  the  arrangements.  Is  that 
right,  Mr.  Champagne  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and 
all  of  its  amendments,  including  the  fifth  amendment,  I  decline  to 
answer  for  the  reason  that  my  answer  may  tend  to  incriminate  me, 
and  I  respectfully  decline  to  be  a  witness  against  myself. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Champagne,  will  you  identify  this  letter  ? 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair  presents  to  the  witness  a  photostatic 
copy  of  a  letter  which  has  been  made  exhibit  No.  13  of  the  record. 
Will  you  please  examine  this  letter  and  state  if  you  identify  it  ^ 

(The  document  was  handed  to  tlie  witness.) 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Allder.  May  I  address  the  Chair  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Allder.  My  recollection  is  the  last  time  we  appeared  here  this 
was  shown  to  Mr.  Champagne  and  he  testified  at  that  time.  It  is 
already  in  the  record. 

The  Chairman.  I  am  not  sure  about  it. 

Mr.  Allder.  Several  months  ago  we  appeared  before  the  commit- 
tee. 

The  Chairman.  That  same  letter  was  put  in  the  record  ? 

Mr.  Allder.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  previously  identified  the  letter;  have 
you  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  I  have  stated  previously  that  under  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States  and  all  of  its  amendments,  including  the 
fifth  amendment,  I  decline  to  answer  the  question  for  the  reason  that 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12845 

my  answers  may  tend  to  incriminate  me,  and  I  decline  to  be  a  witness 
against  myself,  as  it  referred  to  this  letter. 

The  Chairman.  As  I  understand  you,  you  are  now  declining  to 
testify  that  you  identify  the  letter.  I  will  ask  you,  then,  if  you  identify 
your  signature  on  the  letter. 

Mr.  CiiajNipagne.  Under  the  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
and  all  of  its  amendments,  including  the  fifth  amendment,  I  respect- 
fully decline  to  answer  for  the  reason  that  my  answer  may  tend  to 
incriminate  me,  and  I  respectfully  decline  to  be  a  witness  against 
myself. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  born  in  the  United  States  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chair]man.  You  are  a  citizen  of  the  State  of  Illinois  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed,  Mr.  Kennedy. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  According  to  this  letter,  and  according  to  the  rec- 
ords that  we  have,  you  were  making  some  $8,000  or  $9,000  in  law  prac- 
tice, Mr.  Champagne. 

At  least,  that  is  how  much  you  were  declaring.  Then  when  you 
went  to  the  Chicago  Eestaurant  Association,  you  were  given  a  retainer 
of  $125,000,  you  remained  there  for  8  or  9  months  and  settled  the 
Marquis  strike  and  then  resigned  on  the  basis  that  you  had  to  go  back 
to  your  law  practice,  that  it  was  taking  too  much  time. 

Can  you  tell  us  why  you  followed  such  a  peculiar  record  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Mr.  Kennedy,  under  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  and  its  amendments,  including  the  fifth  amendment,  I 
respectfully  decline  to  answer  for  the  reason  that  my  answer  may 
tend  to  incriminate  me,  and  I  respectfully  decline  to  be  a  witness 
against  myself. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Champagne,  the  reason  that  we  have  that  you 
resigned  was  an  argument  that  you  got  into  with  Tony  Accardo,  and 
he  was  going  to  have  you  killed  at  that  time ;  that  finally,  through  the 
intercession  of  some  of  your  friends  and  relatives,  that  was  prevented. 

Would  you  make  any  comment  on  that,  whether  that  is  correct  or 
not  ?  That  you  were  going  to  be  killed  but  some  of  your  relatives  and 
friends  interceded  and  saved  your  life,  and  you  resigned  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Well,  I  am  going  to  answer  again,  Mr.  Kennedy, 
that  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  all  of  its  amend- 
ments, including  the  fifth  amendment,  I  respectfully  decline  to  answer 
for  the  reason  that  my  answer  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Champagne,  what  we  understand  is  that  you 
could  not  perform  these  arduous  duties  of  representing  the  restaurant 
association  by  yourself,  so  you  got  some  assistance  from  Mr.  Sam 
English. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like  to  call  Mr.  Sam  English  around  at  this 
time  and  have  him  sit  with  Mr.  Champagne. 

The  Chairman.  Come  forward,  Mr.  English. 

Be  sworn,  Mr.  English.  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.  English.  I  do. 


12846  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES   IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

TESTIMONY  OF  SAM  ENGLISH,  ACCOMPANIED  BY  H.  CLIFFORD 

ALLDER,  COUNSEL 

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

Mr.  English.  My  name  is  Sam  English.  I  live  at  1800  South 
Austin,  Cicero,  111. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  your  business  or  occupation  ? 

Mr.  Allder.  May  I  say,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  I  represent  this  wit- 
ness also? 

The  Chairman.  All  right. 

Let  the  record  so  show. 

Mr.  English.  Under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  all 
its  amendments,  including  the  fifth  amendment,  I  decline  to  answer 
because  my  answer  might  tend  to  incriminate  me,  and  I  refuse  to  be 
a  witness  against  myself. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed,  Mr.  Kennedy. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Chairman,  according  to  the  information  we  have, 
Mr.  Champagne  was  getting  paid  $125,000  a  year  and  he  needed  some 
help  and  assistance,  so  he  got  Mr.  Sam  English  and  put  him  on  the 
payroll,  paid  him  out  of  the  fee  that  he  got  from  the  Chicago  Restau- 
rant Association,  and  paid  him  $19,200  a  year. 

Is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  English.  I  decline  to  answer  because  my  answer  might  tend  to 
incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  he  was  listed  on  the  payroll,  Mr.  Chairman,  as 
a  "labor  expert." 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  do  any  work  ? 

Mr.  English.  I  decline  to  answer  because  my  answer  might  tend  to 
incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  mean  honest  work  would  incriminate  you  ? 

Mr.  English.  I  decline  to  answer  because  my  answer  might  tend  to 
incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Chairman,  Mr,  English  has  a  rather  consider- 
able record  of  about  a  dozen  arrests.  He  is  known  to  law-enforcement 
officials  as  a  bookie.  You  spend  most  of  your  time  at  the  racetrack; 
don't  you,  Mr.  English  ? 

Mr.*  English.  I  decline  to  answer  because  my  answer  might  tend  to 
incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  You  used  to  go  to  the  racetrack  most  often  with  Sam 
"Golfbag"  Hunt  and  "Greasy  Thumb"  Guzik ;  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  English.  I  decline  to  answer  because  my  answer  might  tend  to 
incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  both  of  them  are  prominent  members  of  the 
syndicate;  are  they  not? 

Mr.  English.  I  decline  to  answer  because  my  answer  might  tend  to 
incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Here  is  a  picture,  Mr.  Chairman,  Avith  Sam  Hunt, 
and  Tony  Accardo,  who  was  a  witness  this  morning.  The  witness 
miglit  want  to  identify  it.  It  might  refresh  his  recollection  as  to 
wliether  he  knows  Sam  Hunt. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12847 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair  hands  you  a  picture  containing  four 
people  in  it.  Examine  the  picture  and  state  if  you  identify  any  of 
the  persons  in  the  picture. 

(The  photograph  was  handed  to  the  witness.) 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  see  anybody  in  the  picture  you  know? 

Mr.  English.  I  decline  to  answer  because  my  answer  might  tend  to 
incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  in  the  picture  ? 

Mr,  English.  I  decline  to  answer  because  my  answer  might  tend  to 
incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  the  people  in  the  picture  ? 

Mr.  English.  I  decline  to  answer  because  my  answer  might  tend  to 
incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  Let  that  picture  be  made  exhibit  26. 

(The  document  referred  to  was  marked  "Exhibit  No.  26"  for  ref- 
erence and  may  be  found  in  the  files  of  the  select  committee.) 

Mr.  Kennedy.  AVe  understand  that  you  own  a  small  restaurant  or 
grill  yourself,  called  the  Fiftli  Jack  Grill,  which  is  located  at  Fifth 
Avenue  and  Jackson  Boulevard ;  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  English.  I  decline  to  answer  because  my  answer  might  tend  to 
incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  There  are  8  waitresses,  2  dishw^ashers,  and  1  cook 
and  none  of  them  are  members  of  the  union. 

Mr.  English.  I  decline  to  answer  because  my  answer  may  tend  to 
incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  We  found  out  that  since  you  obtained  an  ownerehip 
in  that  grill,  that  that  grill  has  never  been  bothered  by  the  union. 

Mr.  English.  I  decline  to  answer  because  my  answer  might  tend 
to  incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  an  American  citizen  ? 

Mr.  English.  I  decline  to  answer  because  my  answer  might  tend  to 
incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  honestly  believe  that  if  you  answered  the 
question  "Are  you  an  American  citizen?"  and  answered  it  truthfully, 
a  truthful  answer  to  that  question  might  tend  to  incriminate  you  ? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  English.  Will  you  repeat  the  question  ? 

The  Chairman.  I  asked  you  if  you  were  an  American  citizen.  That 
was  first. 

Mr.  AuLT,  May  he  have  a  moment  to  confer  with  me  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

The  Chairman.  The  question  is :  Are  you  an  American  citizen  ? 

Mr.  English.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed,  Mr.  Kennedy. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Chairman,  from  an  examination  of  the  payrolls 
of  the  grill,  we  find  that  all  of  the  employees  of  this  labor  expert  are 
paid  below  union  scale,  and  if  he  paid  union  scale  it  amounts  to  approx- 
imately $1 ,700  each  year. 

2124.S  O — 58— pt.  33 23 


12848  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

We  understand  you  were  also  connected  with  the  Midwest  Amuse- 
ment Co.  which  has  the  same  address  as  the  Fifth  Jack  Grill ;  is  that 
ri^ht? 

Mr.  English.  I  decline  to  answer  because  my  answer  might  tend 
to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  This  company  was  in  the  business  of  maintaining 
and  distributing  pool  tables ;  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  English.  I  decline  to  answer  because  my  answer  might  tend 
to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  This  company,  as  we  understand  it,  is  not  active  at 
the  present  time ;  is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  English.  I  decline  to  answer  because  my  answer  might  tend 
to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  We  also  understand  you  are  a  close  associate  of 
Danny  Lardino,  who  is  a  business  agent  now  of  local  598  and  used 
to  be  the  president  or  head  of  another  local  in  Chicago,  659. 

Mr.  English.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  658.     Is  that  right,  658  ? 

Mr.  English.  I  decline  to  answer  because  my  answer  might  tend 
to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  you  are  an  associate  of  Milwaukee  Phil,  a 
gambler  and  hoodlum  in  Chicago? 

Mr.  English.  I  decline  to  answer  because  my  answer  might  tend  to 
incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  And  you  were  invited  to  both  the  lawn  parties,  the 
4th  of  .July  festivities  at  Tony  Accardo's  liome  in  1954  and  1955;  is 
that  right  ? 

Mr.  English.  I  decline  to  answer  because  my  answer  might  tend  to 
incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Could  you  tell  the  conniiittee  a  little  bit  of  the  tech- 
nique that  you  used  as  a  labor  expert  in  settling  these  strikes  for  the 
restaurant  association  ? 

Mr.  English.  I  decline  to  answer  because  my  answer  might  tend  to 
incriminate  me, 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Mr.  Champagne,  can  you  tell  us  Avhy  you  employed 
Mr.  Sam  English,  put  liim  on  the  payroll  at  $19,200  a  year? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Mr.  Kennedy,  under  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  and  all  of  its  amendments,  I  respectfully  decline  to 
answer  because  my  answer  may  tend  to  incriminate  me,  and  I  respect- 
fully decline  to  be  a  witness  against  myself. 

The  Chairman.  Let  the  Chair  ask  you  the  question:  Do  you 
honestly  believe  that  if  you  gave  a  truthful  answer  to  the  (]uestion 
"Why  did  you  employ  Mr.  English?'"  a  trutliful  answer  to  that  cpies- 
tion  might  tend  to  incriminate  you? 

Mr.  Champagne.  My  answer  to  that  question  is  "Yes." 

Tlie  Chairman.  Proceed. 

Senator  IVIundt.  Mr.  English,  do  you  know  the  gentleman  seated 
to  your  innnediate  left  ? 

Mr.  En(!Lish.  I  decline  to  answer  because  my  answer  might  tend  to 
incriminate  me. 

Senator  Mi'ndt.  .Just  a  minute.  I  think  you  said  you  were  using 
liim  as  coinisel,  if  I  remember  you  correctly.  I  want  to  ask  you  that 
([uestion  again.  Do  vou  know  the  gentleman  seated  at  your  immediate 
left? 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12849 

Mr.  ExGLisii.  I  decline  to  answer  because  my  answer  nu<rlit  tend  to 
incriminate  me. 

Senator  Muxirr.  Are  you  representetl  here  by  counsel  ( 

Mr.  ExoLisii.  I  decline  to  answer  because  my  answer  miirlit  tend  to 
incriminate  me. 

Senator  Mundt.  Mr.  Chairman,  1  tiiink  the  record  is  a  little  bit 
confusin<r.  We  have  a  man  here  claiming  to  be  counsel  and  the 
witness  claims  he  is  not  his  counsel.     We  ought  to  straighten  that  out. 

Mr.  Allder.  May  we  have  a  moment,  sir  ( 

Senator  Mundt,  I  think  you  should. 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  English.  Will  you  repeat  the  ([uestion  ''i 

Senator  Mundt.  I  will  start  over  again.  Do  you  know  the  gentle- 
man seated  at  your  immediate  left  ( 

Mr.  English.  Yes. 

Senator  Mundt.  Who  is  he  i 

Mr.  English.  Counsel. 

Senator  Mundt.  And  his  name  ^ 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  English.  Clitford  Allder. 

Senator  Mundt.  Do  you  know  the  gentleman  seated  to  the  immedi- 
ate left  of  your  counsel  ? 

Mr.  English.  I  decline  to  answer  as  my  answer  might  tend  to 
incriminate  me. 

Senator  Mundt.  Mr.  Champagne,  do  you  know  the  gentleman 
seated  to  your  immediate  right  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Senator  Mundt,  under  the 

Mr.  Allder.  He  asked  if  you  know  me. 

Mr.  Champagne.  I  misunderstood  your  question.  Senator.  Would 
you  please  repeat  the  question. 

The  Chairman.  Witnesses  pay  attention  now. 

Senator  Mundt.  I  will  have  the  reporter  read  the  question. 

(The  pending  question  was  read  by  tiie  reporter,  as  requested.) 

Mr.  Champagne.  I  certainly  do. 

Senator  Mundt.  Who  is  he  ^ 

Mr.  Champagne.  He  is  Mr.  Harry  ('lift'ord  Allder,  an  attorney  at 
law  representing  me  at  this  proceeding. 

Senator  Mundt.  Thank  you. 

Do  you  know  the  gentleman  seated  at  his  immediate  right? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Xow,  Senator,  I  started  to  answer  the  question 
because  I  misunderstood  you,  so  I  will  answer  that  question  now. 

T  jider  the  terms  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  all 
of  its  amendments,  including  the  iifth  amendment,  I  respectfully 
decline  to  answer  the  question  because  it  may  tend  to  incriminate  me, 
and  I  respectfully  decline  to  be  a  witness  against  myself. 

Senator  Mundt.  So  you  recognize  there  is  some  difference  then, 
between  your  relationship  with  the  gentleman  seated  to  the  immediate 
right  of  your  counsel  and  your  relationship  with  vour  counsel,  is  that 
right? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Under  the  Constitution  of  the  Ignited  States  and 
all  of  its  amendments,  including  tiie  fifth  amendment,  I  respectfully 
decline  to  answer  that  question  because  my  answer  may  tend  to  in- 
criminate me.  and  I  may  be  giving  testimony  against  myself. 


12850  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Senator  Mundt.  Do  you  know  Mr.  Abraham  Teitelbaum? 

Mr.  Champagne.  lender  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and 
all  of  its  amendments,  I  respectfully  decline  to  answer  that  question 
on  the  grounds  that  my  answer  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Senator  Mundt.  Is  jour  fear  about  self-incrimination  stimulated 
by  the  fact  that  as  a  lawyer  in  the  city  of  Chicago,  you  have  had  rela- 
tionships with  characters  of  somewhat  unsavory  reputation? 

Is  that  what  stimulates  your  fear  in  that  connection  ? 

Mr,  Champagne.  Senator  Mundt,  under  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  and  all  of  its  amendments,  including  the  fifth  amend- 
ment, I  decline  to  answer,  respectfully,  for  the  reason  that  my  answer 
may  tend  to  incriminate  me,  and  I  decline  respectfully  to  be  a  witness 
against  myself. 

Senator  Mundt.  Let's  put  the  question  this  way  in  your  own  self- 
interest,  a  question  in  line  with  the  suggestion  that  Senator  Kennedy 
has  given  to  the  Chicago  Bar  Association,  which  undoubtedly  will  be 
carried  in  the  Chicago  press,  and  will  come  officially  to  the  attention  of 
the  Chicago  Bar  Association. 

It  would  occur  to  me  that  a  lawyer  engaging  in  a  practice  in  the  city 
of  Chicago,  either  of  a  general  nature,  or  who  specializes  in  what  we 
call  criminal  law,  might  have  conceivably  and  properly  a  relation- 
ship of  a  legal  nature  with  unsavory  characters  and  criminals  and 
hoodlums  and  gangsters,  and  that  if  those  associations  were  strictly  of 
a  legal  type,  they  could  be  considered  appropriate. 

So  let  me  ask  you  whether  you  have  ever  had  any  connections  with 
Mr.  Teitelbaum  other  than  those  which  you  could  define  as  being  legal 
from  the  standpoint  of  a  relationship  between  lawyer  and  client. 

Mr.  Champagne.  May  I  confer? 

Senator  Mundt.  Surely. 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Champagne.  Senator  Mundt,  under  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  and  all  of  its  amendments,  including  the  fifth  amend- 
ment, I  respectfully  decline  to  answer  for  the  reason  that  my  answer 
may  tend  to  incriminate  me,  and  I  respectfully  decline  to  be  a  witness 
against  myself. 

Senator  Mundt.  The  question  is  designed,  Mr.  Champagne,  not  to 
provide  you  an  opportunity  to  incriminate  yourself,  but  to  provide 
you  with  an  opportunity  to  put  into  the  record  something  which  would 
reflect  to  your  credit  in  the  event  the  Chicago  Bar  Association  or  any 
other  instrumentality  of  the  State  of  Illinois  should  initiate  disbar- 
ment proceedings  against  you,  because,  as  I  stated,  very  properly  you 
could  have  legal  relationships  with  criminal  elements,  and  I  don't 
think  disbarment  ])roceedings  should  be  launched  under  those  cir- 
cumstances. 

But  if  a  lawyer,  who,  by  virtue  of  the  fact  that  he  does  practice 
before  the  courts  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  has  relationships  with  crimi- 
nal elements  which  are  extralegal  in  nature,  which  have  no  connection 
with  a  relationship  between  lawyer  and  client,  which  imply  that  in- 
stead of  helping  to  eiiforce  the  law  and  protect  the  courts  he  is  trying 
to  undermine  the  law  and  degrade  the  courts,  then,  indeed,  you  might 
l)e  inviting  disbarment. 

My  question  was  designed  to  give  you  a  chance  to  state,  if  you  can, 
under  oath,  that  you  have  not  had  relationships  with  these  criminal 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12851 

elements  other  than  those  which  a  hiwyer  would  have  as  a  relationship 
between  lawyer  and  client.  ,  ••      i  a 

Do  you  stiU  avoid  this  opportunity  to  insert  something  in  tlie  record 
which'might  reflect  to  vour  credit  i 

Mr.  ('hampagne.  Senator,  I  have  no  comment  on  that  statement  or 
question.  ^^  ^-.     „ 

Senator  Mundt.  Well,  I  want  an  answer.  \  ou  can  say  les,  or 
you  can  say  ''No,"  or  you  can  really  take  recourse  in  the  hfth  amend- 
ment.   I  am  giving  you  the  opportunity.  •       •  <? 

Mr.  CHAMPAaxE.  Senator,  under  the  terms  of  the  (Constitution  ot 
the  T'nited  States  and  all  of  its  amendments,  including  the  fifth  amend- 
ment, I  respectfully  decline  to  answer  for  the  reason  that  the  answer 
may  tend  to  incrinnnate  me,  and  I  respectfully  decline  to  be  a  witness 

against  myself.  «■  x-    9 

TheCHURMAN.  Are  you  a  member  of  the  Mafia? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Senator  McClellan,  under  the  Constitution  of  the 
T^nited  States  and  all  of  its  amendments,  including  the  fifth  amend- 
ment, I  decline  to  answer  for  the  reason  that  my  answer  may  tend  to 
incriminate  me,  and  I  respectfully  decline  to  be  a  witness  against 
nivsclf. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  a  member  of  a  crime  syndicate  combine  or 
organization  in  the  city  of  Chicago  ? 

Mr.  Champgne.  Under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and 
all  of  its  amendments,  including  the  fifth  amendment  I  resepctfully 
decline  to  answer  for  the  reason  that  my  answer  may  tend  to  incrimi- 
nate me,  and  I  decline  respectfully  to  be  a  witness  against  myself. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  employed  by  this  restaurant  association 
by  reason  of  the  influence  or  on  the  recommendation  of  a  gangster, 
high  in  the  crime  operations  in  the  city  of  Chicago  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Senator,  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  and  all  of  its  amendments,  including  the  fifth  amendment,  I 
respectfully  decline  to  answer  for  the  reason  that  my  answer  may  tend 
to  incriminate  me,  and  I  respectfully  decline  to  be  a  witness  against 

myself. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  employ  Sam  P^nglish  to  help  you  because 
you  were  ordered  to  do  so  by  organized  criminals,  criminals  in  the  city 
of  Chicago? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and 
all  of  its  amendments,  including  the  fifth  amendment,  1  respectfully 
decline  to  answer  for  the  reason  that  my  answer  may  tend  to  incrimi- 
nate me,  and  I  respectfully  decline  to  be  a  witness  against  myself. 

The  Chairman.  Did  Anthony  Accardo  recommend  you  to  the  res- 
taurant association  as  a  successor  to  Teitelbaum,  and  did  he  also 
order  and  direct  you  or  recommend  that  you  employ  Sam  English 
to  assist  you  ? 

Mr  Champagne.  Under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and 
all  of  its  amendments,  including  the  fifth  amendment,  I  respectfully 
decline  to  answer  for  the  reason  that  my  answer  may  tend  to  incrimi- 
nate me,  and  I  respectfully  decline  to  be  a  witness  against  myself. 

The  Chairman.  As  a  lawyer  in  that  profession  have  you  done  any- 
thing in  that  profession  in  a  legitimate  professional  way  that  you 
could  testify  to,  that  wouldn't  tend  to  incriminate  you?  Can  you 
think  of  one  thing  that  you  can  disclose  ? 


12852  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Mr.  Champagne.  To  that  question,  Senator  McClellan,  I  am  answer- 
ing tliat  under  the  terms  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and 
its  amendments,  inchiding  the  fifth  amendment,  I  respectfully  decline 
to  answer  for  the  reason  that  my  answer  may  tend  to  incriminate  me, 
and  I  respectfully  decline  to  be  a  Avitness  against  myself. 

The  Chairman.  Are  there  any  further  questions? 

Senator  Kennedy  ? 

Senator  Kennedy.  I  just  want  it  clear,  Mr.  Champagne,  that  Mr. 
Teitelbaum  was  the  attorney.  He  was  unable  to  settle  the  strike  for 
the  restaurant  association.  Then  you  were  brought  in  and  you  hired 
Mr.  Sam  P^nglish,  who  was  an  associate  of  Mr.  "Golf bag"  Hunt,  who 
was  called  that  because  he  carried  a  weapon  in  a  golfbag,  a  machine 
gun  in  a  golfbag,  and  who  was  directly  tied  up  with  Tony  Accardo, 
w^ho  is  one  of  the  crime  leaders  in  that  city,  and  you,  then,  were  able 
to  settle  the  strike  in  7  days,  with  Mr.  English  as  your  assistant. 

You  wei-e  paid  a  large  sum  of  money.  The  restaurant  employees 
were  not  unionized.     They  were  paid  wages  below  the  union  scale. 

You  have  come  before  the  committee  and  have  refused  to  give  us 
any  information  about  it,  and  so  has  Mr.  English.  That  is,  of  course, 
completely  reprehensible.  The  people  who  were  really  sold  out  were 
the  employees  of  the  restaurant.  They  are  the  ones  that  are  paying 
the  cost  of  this  criminal  operation,  which  is  what  it  was.  I  am  hope- 
ful that  legislation  we  may  be  able  to  have  passed  in  this  session  of 
the  Congress  would  make  it  more  difficult  to  operate,  will  prevent  a 
repetition,  because  it  will  make  it  necessary  to  disclose  all  financial 
transactions,  by  those  who  pose  as  labor-management  middlemen  or 
those  w^ho,  like  Mr.  English,  are  labor  experts. 

All  payments  to  them  will  be  recorded  and  reported  at  the  time  they 
are  made  and  the  purposes  for  which  they  are  expended.  I  am  hope- 
ful that  the  labor  legislation  which  passed  the  Senate  will  pass  the 
House  this  session,  because  it  will  make  it  far  more  difficult  for  you, 
Mr.  Accardo  or  Mr.  English  to  operate  in  the  labor-management  move- 
ment w^here  you  have  no  business  to  operate.  You  were  not  an  attorney 
for  the  restaurant  association  in  a  proper  sense,  nor  for  the  union. 

You  really  had  no  business,  nor  did  Mr.  Accardo  or  Mr.  English,  in 
the  industrial  bargaining,  which  should  have  taken  place  between  the 
restaurants  and  the  unions.  The  only  employees  who  got  the  short  end 
were  the  employees  who  were  not  unionized  and  were  not  organized  at 
the  end  of  the  strike. 

What  you  did  in  the  7  days,  we  don't  know.  But  a  large  sum  of 
money  was  paid  to  you,  and  the  strike  was  ended  and  there  was  no 
union.  The  victims  were  quite  obvious.  And  the  large  sum  of  money 
which  you  and  Mr.  English  received  was — how  much  was  that  ? 

Mr.  Kennedy.  $125,000  for  this  individual  alone.  I  think  it  shows 
the  control,  thecomplete  control,  of  the  syndicate,  by  the  gangsters  and 
by  the  hoodlums,  and  what  part  they  played  in  this  situation? 

Senator  Mi^ndt.  In  your  income  tax  reports  you  show  that  in  1952 
you  were  earning,  on  the  basis  of  your  reports,  $8,216.91.  In  1953  you 
reported  $23,174.05.  That  is  the  year  you  began  your  work  for  the 
Chicago  Restaurant  Association. 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12853 

You  reported  you  ^ot  from  them  $20,800  that  year.  In  1954,  you 
reported  a  total  income  of  $()9,938,  and  said  that  of  that  amount  $62,4"'0 
came  from  the  C'liicago  Restaurant  Association. 

Then  you  left  the  association,  and  in  1955  your  income  report  was 
$11,537.87.  My  question  is :  In  making  out  your  income-tax  returns  to 
the  Federal  Govermnent,  have  you  made  them  out  accin-ately  or  have 
you  made  them  out  fictitiously  ? 

Mr,  ('iiAMi'AoxK.  Semitor  Mundt,  under  the  Constitution  of  the 
(juestion 

Senator  Munht.  Be  sure  you  understand  the  question  now. 

We  had  confusion  last  time  when  I  was  talking  about  your  counsel. 
1  don't  want  you  to  get  into  more  trouble  than  you  are,  unless  you  want 
trouble. 

Nobody  wants  trouble  with  the  Internal  Revenue  Service.  I  am  ask- 
ing whether  in  making  out  your  1952,  1953,  and  1954,  and  1955  income 
tax  returns,  whether  you  made  them  out  accurately  or  fictitiously. 
Think  it  over  carefully,  talk  to  your  lawyer,  and  realize  exactly  the 
implications  involved. 

Mr.  Champagne.  Senator  Mundt,  under  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  and  all  of  its  amendments  including  the  fifth  amend- 
ment, I  respectfully  decline  to  answer  for  the  reason  that  my  answer 
may  tend  to  incriminate  me,  and  I  respectfully  decline  to  be  a  witness 
against  myself. 

Senator  Mundt.  When  you  answer  it  that  way,  you  do  so,  I  am 
sur«^,  as  an  attorney  and  as  a  man  of  competence  and  a  man  who 
realizes  that  by  answering  the  question  by  stating  that  you  have  made 
out  your  income  taxes  accurately,  you  could  not  possibly  tend  to  in- 
criminate yourself. 

The  implications  are  a  little  serious  when  you  say  you  cannot 
answer  the  question  without  fear  of  self-incrimination,  as  to  whether 
you  have  attem])ted  to  deceive  the  Internal  Revenue  Service.  I  want 
to  give  you  every  opportunity  simply  to  say,  if  the  facts  will  so  war- 
rant, that  in  making  out  your  income  taxes,  yon  have  made  them  out 
honestly,  accurately  and  faithfully. 

Do  you  still  decline  to  avail  yourself  of  that  opportunity,  or  do 
you  want  to  let  tlie  record  stand  that  if  you  were  to  answer  the  ques- 
tion honestly  about  your  income  taxes,  you  might  incriminate  your- 
self? 

(At  this  point.  Senator  Curtis  left  the  hearing  room.) 

Mr.  Champagne.  I  decline  to  answer,  Senator  Mundt,  on  the 
grounds  as  I  have  previously  stated. 

Senator  Mundt.  I  would  like  to  hear  it  again.  I  have  kind  of 
forgotten. 

Mr.  Champagne.  Well,  under  the  terms  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  and  all  of  its  amendments,  including  the  fifth  amend- 
ment, I  respectfully  decline  to  answer  because  my  answer  may  tend 
to  incriminate  me,  and  I  respectfully  decline  to  be  a  witness  against 
myself. 

Senator  Mundt.  That  refreshes  my  memory.  I  understand  the 
answer. 


12854  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

The  Chai  iAf  an.  Are  there  any  other  questions  ? 

You  will  rtinain  under  the  same  subpena,  subject  to  being  recalled. 
Do  you  accept  that  recognizance  ? 

Mr.  Champagne.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  will  be  given  reasonable  notice. 

The  committee  will  stand  in  recess  until  10  o'clock  next  Tuesday 
morning. 

(Whereupon  at  4 :  45  p.  m.,  the  committee  recessed  with  the  fol- 
lowing present :  Senators  McClellan,  Kennedy,  and  Mundt,  to  recon- 
vene at  10  a.  m.,  Tuesday,  July  15, 1958.) 


APPENDIX 


Exhibit  No.  13A 


APPLICATION  FOR  CHARTER  OF  AFFILIATION 


— TO  TBI — 


^ottl  $,  3acetaurant  Cmplopees  anU  Bartrntirrs  3lnternattoual  ^nion 


'^50 


?£-- 


atfitiatrfe  tnttt)  t\)t  anuHcan  ^titration  ot  labor 

KtibK  lat  takar  Cniciii  •(  Caiiba  HallBar  lakar  Ciciallaia  aaaaclall 

528  anb  330  8>alnut  Jtnttt,  Cincinnati,  •C>bio,  Q.  Jt.  S. 

•  INKItAL  orriCK  TSLKPHONK  PAWKWAV  8164-9I45 


All)  mmilicr  of  persons  nii|>liiyc<l  in  hotels,  roslauranls.  or  taverns.  enKanctl  in  the  \>Tv\<i\r;tUylf^:ti\A  x-rviii);  of  foul  nr 
lnvirauo.  or  in  sfn-iriii(;  the  piililic/or  any  other  jierMiiis  ein|)liiye<l  in  •■iniil.ir  lr.iile>.  nut  Iinn  UKm  t«eiity-(ivc  (i'l),  «h"i  are 
(U>iri>iis  I'l  fiinnint;  a  tininn  atTilinted  with  the  Hotel  >'4-  Kestatiranl  Kiii|>loyces  aii'l  H;irtrn'lj^  Intel nalimial  I'nion.  may  (ill 
out  this  (orni  ami  forwaril  it.  together  with  $.'i0.oO  to  the  oiTioc  of  the  Inleriiatioiiiil  I'ni^lv  •V,''<  Wahiiit  Street.  Cincinnati. 
Ohio  This  sum  of  money  pay>  for  the  charter  and  niiitit.  which  inchiile'^  a  full  set  oi  h«<ks  and  press  seal.  For  each  aiiplirant 
in  excess  of  twenty-live,  the  sum  of  jpl.M  shoiiM  Ik-  ad'led  to  the  cost  of  the  chftrte^iml  oiitlit  .Should  the  .ipplication  I 
denied  the  numev  will  I*  returned  to  the  remitte: 


M 


(CITY  AND  DATK) 


Chioaso.   Illinola 


We.  the  iiiKlersif'ne'I       -  - 

efTectu-ite  an  improvement  in  our  economic  and  s.Kial  ouiilitio 
|<titiiin  Ihe  Hotel  &  Restaurant  Kmployees  and  H:irtenders  Int 


.  and  I 


March  7, 


id  adv 


SO 

let  I.. 
esiKxttully 


.Vamc  of  Ureaiii'aiion  . 
Iloldini;  ReKular  Meetings  at  N- 
In  the  City  of 
State  or   I'rovince 

We  herehy  pleflge  ourselv<'s. 


!.oCi  1     6'-^ 


lal  Inhin  l.i  tjr.uit  a  I  ertdicalr  of  :inih:iiion  to 
n-us  Store,   Sod*  Fountain,^Luncheonatta  Eaployasa   ''nl?il 
10  north  Wlla  Street 
Chicago    "U  " 
IlUnoia  Charter   anted    3/6/50. 


ii.dividually  and  collectively,  to  lie  K"veriK<l  hy  tiie  (.oii.slilulio.i.  UuUs.  and  I'sages  of  the 
Hotel  \  Kesiaurani  Kmployees  .iiid  Hartendcrs  International  L'nii'n.  that  .ire  now  in  force,  or  that  imy  hereafter  lie  ailo|>leil. 
and  we  ackiiimled);e  its  authority  and  pledge  our  olwdience  to  the  .s;mie. 


Total   Number  of  .^pplica^ts-    _    _       (Tw»ntv-f Iva) 
(AinnEss  OF  SECRrrAKY). 
(aooeess  of  orcanuu). 


-  -  -/  -        Xkaial  Urdino  Sbcmta«y 

^Z.  10  North  Welle  Street,   Chioajo^    111^ 

,y    Intiirnatinnal   YioarPraa.  Jaaea  BlakBJjr 0«canize« 

-^      IQ  north  aalla  Straat,  China  go.  WlIUiloU. 


NAMES  OF  APPLICANTS 


^  3. 

"4. 
'8 
6 

.■'^ 
.    8 

^.. 

10- 

■  ij 

*   18. 

^14 


Itebtl  Bryant 

^"^^Pt  Mandell 

-J  P.hn  Ma  thewB 

jtvlyn  MeCullowKb 
tal ly  MeCullottgh 

DaiL  Urdlnn 


JRi  lbur_  J  am  ie  ■  on 
Ed  MoCoTBiok^ 
Charlee  Saealaaki 

DePorraat  Baaa 

RajlaaSal^ 

tee  b;«jM| 


UBfmA  IsMsr^ 


OCCUPATION 


Countar.  Olrl 

C  ounterjja  n 

Kl^oheiL.  Ualpar.- 

C  Quoter.  Clir  1 


Counter  Clrl 


Counter_llan 

^Couatar  Man 

_  .9r ill  MSP 

CountarjMii 

.     .C«ua$ar- Maa 

.     .  Cmint.mr    Qlr] 

ypuntain    Mapanaar 

.200 


(Oaar) 


ADDRESSES  OK  APPLICANTS 


120..£aLat.  iSrd  Streal,- 

1716  B.  Montloollo 

fi&lZ  Kabaeh  A.Teiiua 

^17  Hlfhlgan  ixeaiia. 
4317  Jllchigan  ATeiiue_ 
*?T6Jfprth  Magnolia 
604?  S9«.th_P»LrJc_ 


...^.<u 


.:L± 


2QQ.  miajit.  Hadiaon  Straat...  l^J 

6430  £outh_Senwi>od_AnuaML.i_i..2 

6630  Xiabark .  - C'J?)  . 

60  South  Pafk CJSJ—^. 


«306  CaluMt       - 
4403  ».    Amltaga 


JJLL- 


12855 


12856  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Exhibit  No.  15 


APPLICATION  FDR  CHARTER  OF  AFFILIATION 

— TO  THE —  ~^   ■ 

i^otfl  antj  aSvcstaurant  CmploprcB'  auli  33c\jerast  Bisptnficrs  _, 
Sntcrnational  aiUanrc  ^^a  - 

I  atfiliattl)  toitb  tbt  amtncn  Jftitvoiion  ot  labor 

K',  (no  Canabian  Zxiitt  ani  Laboc  ConQTtlf 

I  328  an6  530  Walnut  ^trcft,  <Ctnfinnafi,  <€>.,  a.  *.  51. 

Any  inmiLer  ..t  t  ....ks  l)i>|Kn.-,irs,  W  ;ut.rs.  W  aarcsse,.  ..r  ,.ther  r^rsons  cmplovc.l  in  ^imibr  tra.les. 
nut  lf«  than  ten.  wli..  are  .lesir.nis  -l  forming  .T  fniun  affili.Me.l  with  the  Hotel  anjlKestaurant  •■■■>'pl:'vws 
an.l  HeveraL'c  Disi^nsers"  International  .Mliance,  must  fill  up  this  form  and  forward  il.  together  with  *.'.<• 
to  thi-  olTicc  a'i  .ilK.ve  for  approval.  This  sum  of  money  |)ay.  lor  the  charter  ami  oulfu.  which  mclu-lcs  a  full 
set  of  iKK.ks  an.l  press  seal.  For  each  applicant  in  excess  of  ten.  the  sum  oi  «l..;i)  shouKl  Ih-  .i.l.le.l  to  the  cost 
of   the  charter  and   outfit.      Should   the   application   he  <lenie<l.  the  money  wdl  he  returned  to  the  remitter. 

(CITY  .\Ni)  u.vri::)    .CICKRO.  ILL^  AUaUST  12TH  lit  35 

We.  the   undersifincd  _ BARTCIDERS  Wievin,  it  to  he 

well  calculated  to  improve  our  intellectual  and  si«:ial  coudil.on.   aiul    promote   our    mdustrial   well-be.nj.   and 

advancement    resiK-ctfullv  )«tili<.n  the   Hotel  an.l   Ke^Uiurant  Kmployees   ami  Hcvera),-e  Disj^nsers    Imcriia- 

tioiial  .Mliancc  to  Krant  a  Certilicute  of  Alfiliation  to   i-  a-  representative-  of 

Xameof.,r«ani.atio„  BARTEIIDERS'     UNION 

Holding  Regular  Meetings  a.  No  6029i    V.'.     ROOSEVELT    RD. 

In  the  fity  of  .  CICERO 

State  <.r   Province     ILLI1I0I5   .. 

Wc  herehv  pledge  ourselves,  indivi.lually  and  collectively,  to  Ik-  Roverned  hy  the  Constitution,  Rules, 
.„,d  Us^iges  of  the  International  Organisation,  with  the  reserved  right  to  pre.serve  the  autonomy  or  sell- 
g!>vernme..t  of  our  own  organiratiou.  suhject  to  such  rules  and  regulation,  as  may  1«  ma.le.  or  are  n.  .s 
cstahlishcd  in  the  International  Organization  as  alxive  named. 


.12 

JOSEPH  AIUPPA 

_  ITOa  JS*  .  Auii-tJun  _Blttd, 

ireQ-.-J-^-  licLaaa -r^:. 

(ADDRESS  or  organizer) LSS-Jf..    ffn  q  /.  n^t^pft   .St 


Total  NumU-r  of  Meinl>ers  in  Ciiinn 


(address  of  secretary). 


m 


Secretary. 

Organize*. 

CilXQluTXO,    117.. 


lESSES  OF  APPLICANTS 


^.-^ 


.^ 


^^^f^feCf:^ 


<'^^^ 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12857 

Exhibit  No.  16 


-<-"V^^-<A^C*^i^ 


B.  »,  W.  MISC.  UNION  N-    «W 

2137  SOUTH  CiCtRO  avL 

OCtrO  50.  H-tmOiS 

V.M.  H.  K^fW.  sec  i  TRtAS. 

•  •• 

\ V 


•  •      • 


12858  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Exhibit  No.  18 


T^ri 


i    •! 


CO 

oo 

CO 

to 

^ 

:^ 

1 

- 

•  -< 


+%•«*• 

i%,*'    ■ ' 


IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD  12859 

Exhibit  No.  18A 


nua  mwuTE  it 
OKI  MM  wNAi  IS  mmn 

Blii*llMMT  (MW 
taMviOwk 

Q  Iw*  •• 


APPLICATION  FOR   EXCHANGE       ' 


HCN»TuRi  OF  PURCH*»cn 


-'4^''?^1  ^^  1/L^ 


^<iu.a^  fi^.  (^ 


■'''(^C^^ 


^ 


^ 


TRC  COKAL  GABLES  HIST  NATIONAL  lANK 
eMAL  OAlUa  nOSBA 


^/> 


<J><? 


12860  IMPROPER    ACTIVITIES    IN    THE    LABOR    FIELD 

Exhibit  No.  19 


--i. 

^^^^M 

1 

3952 

i 

^p 

Mr.  A*  TttlUlbaiai 
20  E.  Jaoicsoa 
Chl0ai!O,   rtllnolti 

^^ 

Dtar  nr*  Ti»lt«}bmait 

I  m  fne^nming  rtMlpt*  for  |>«7gMnt«  n«d«  io  tht  W«itm«P«8  and  Cooies 
OttJor.a,  totaHnrr  |5'<7,00,  la  aoeordanfw  vith  evr  ooBYwrsatlon.     I 
vould  appraolata  a  ehaok  aa  aoeai  as  poaslbla. 

Vary  imly  yottra, 

°™"*      ^^^^^^^H 

^ 

m 

Oaarga  £•  Marlanthal 

3  9999  06352  025  6