(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Investigation of improper activities in the labor or management field. Hearings before the Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Management Field"

iii 






Hi 



mmm 



! i i 



rF 




t 



Given By 



3^ 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

SELECT COMMITTEE 

ON IMPEOPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 

LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 

EIGHTY-FIFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

PURSUANT TO SENATE RESOLUTIONS 74 AND 221, 85TH CONGRESS 



AUGUST 5, 6, 7, 8, AND 12, 1958 



PART 36 



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




INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

SELECT COMMITTEE 

ON IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 

LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 

EIGHTY-FIFTH CONGRESS 

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



AUGUST 5, 6, 7, 8, AND 12, 1958 



PART 36 



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




UNITED STATES 
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
21243 WASHINGTON : 1958 



Boston Public Librmry 
Superintendent of Documents 

JANl3 1b5y 
DEPOSITORY 



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, Je., North Carolina BARRY GOLDWATER, Arizona 

FRANK CHURCH, Idaho CARL T. CURTIS, Nebraska 

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

II 



CONTENTS 



James R. Hoffa and the International, Brotherhood of Teamsters, 
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America 

Page 

Appendix , 13707 

Testimonv of — 

Adlefman, Jerome S 13445, 13578, 13700 

Balkwill, William H 13322, 13338 

Belles, Ernest G 13616 

Bellino, Carmine S 13336, 13702 

Bitonti, John 13620 

Brennan, Owen Bernard 13398, 13488 

Brennan, William J 13548 

Bushkin, Jack 13365 

Davidson, Eml^rel 13458 

DeLucia, Paul (Ricca) 13575, 13583 

Feldman, Samuel 13565 

Finazzo, Sam 13483 

Fitzgerald, George 13439 

Fitzsimmons, Frank E 13588 

Grosberg, Herbert L 13410, 13448 

Held, George 13598 

Hoffa, James R. 13277, 13379, 13407, 13495, 13533, 13629, 13666, 13667, 13695 

Kelly, James P 13666 

Lantz, Conrad 133 16 

LoCicero, Thomas 13357 

Marroso, Samuel J 13452 

Meissner, John C 13344 

Miller, William H 13297 

Morgan, Arthur L 13609 

O'Carroll, Patrick P 13477 

Quasarano, Raffaele 13483 

Roberts, Robert D 13532 

Rose, Lulubelle 13562 

Salinger, Pierre E. G 13349, 13481, 13582 

Scott, Robert P 13673 

Stern, Max 13569 

Watkins, Vincent B 13312 

EXHIBITS 

Introduced Appears 
on page on page 
1. Check No. 1352, dated May 2, 1949, payable to Conrad S. 
Lantz, in the amount of $1,000 drawn on account of De- 
troit Institute of Laundering 13319 13707 

2A. Check No. 1203, dated September 30, 1948, payable to cash, 
in the amount of $1,000 drawn on account of Detroit In- 
stitute of Laundering 13332 13708 

2B. Check No. 1538, dated April 17, 1950, payable to cash, in the 
amount of $2,000 drawn on the account of Detroit Insti- 
tute of Laundering 13332 13709 

2C. Check No. 1347, dated April 24, 1949, payable to W. H. 
Balkwill, in the amount of $1,000 drawn on the account 

of Detroit Institute of Laundering 13332 13710 

3A-0. Fifteen checks in various amounts drawn on the account 
of Detroit Institute of Laundering from June 2, 1948, 

through April 27, 1951 -- 13338 (*) 

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

ni 



IV 



CONTENTS 



Introduced Api)ears 
on page on page 

3P-DD. Check stubs and ledger sheets, "legal expenses" and 

"travel and entertainment" 13338 (*) 

4. Contract, agreement, and scale of wages between Detroit 
Institute of Laundering and Laundry and Linen Drivers 
Union, Local 285 "_ 13350 (*) 

5A. Check dated March 15, 1955, payable to cash, in the amount 
of $500, signed by Benjamin Dranow and endorsed by 
Wilbur Clark's Desert Inn 13371 13711 

5B. Check dated March 15, 1955, payable to cash, in the 
amount of $1,500, signed by Benjamin Dranow and 
endorsed by Wilbur Clark's Desert Inn 13371 13712 

5C. Check dated March 15, 1955, payable to cash, in the 
amount of $1,100, signed bv Ben Dranow and endorsed 
by Hotel Flamingo, Inc___I 13371 13713 

6A. Check No. 1010, dated March 17, 1956, payable to Sam 
Marroso, in the amount of $250, drawn on special ac- 
count of Herbert L. Grosberg 13437 13714 

6B. Check No. 1011, dated March 17, 1956, payable to Sam 
Marroso, in the amount of $50, drawn on special account 
of Herbert L. Grosberg 13437 13715 

6C. Check No. 1015, dated April 16, 1956, payable to Sam 
Marroso, in the amount of $300, and drawn on special 
account of Herbert L. Grosberg 13437 13716 

6D. Check No. 1029, dated January 29, 1957, payable to Sam 
Marroso, in the amount of $208.17, and drawn on the 
special account of Herbert L. Grosberg 13437 13717 

7. Picture of Jimmy Quasarano 13468 (*) 

8. A group picture marked "Truck bombers" in which appears 

the picture of Bernard Brennan 13492 (*) 

9. Field report dated August 12, 1948, re Herman Kierdorf by 

Phihp H. Collins, parole officer, Division of Pardons, 

Paroles and Probation 13507 (*) 

10. Check No. 1810, dated June 21, 1956, payable to Samuel 

Feldman, in the amount of $750, drawn on the account of 

Dewey's Famous, Inc 13567 13718 

11. Photograph of the home formerly occupied by Paul DeLucia 

at Long Beach, LaPorte County, Ind 13577 (*) 

12. Plat of a survey made by Richard R. Frame, professional 

engineer for the State of Indiana, consisting of 8 lots 

which involves property of DeLucia or the Teamsters 13579 (*) 

13. Trust Agreement No. 96 transferring property in tract B, 

lots 37, 38, 39, and 40 to Teamster locals and back to 

Paul DeLucia and back to Teamsters 13581 (*) 

14. Trust Agreement No. 97 transferring tract A, lots 35, 36, 

41, and 42 from DeLucia to the Teamsters 13581 (*) 

15. Minutes of the executive board meeting of local 337, Jan- 

uary 4, 1957 13582 (*) 

16. The Long Beach zoning ordinance 13586 (*) 

17. Decision by the National Labor Relations Board; Report 

and Recommendation on Objections to Conduct Affecting 

the Results of the Election of Teamsters Lhiion 13613 (*) 

18. Letter dated September 26, 1957, addressed to Mr. Arthur 

Morgan, Minneapolis, Minn., from Elmer J. Ryan, at- 
torney at law, St. Paul, Minn '. 13613 13719 

19. Letter dated January 5, 1943, addressed to Manpower 

Branch, Civilian Personnel Division, War Department, 
Washington, D. C, re induction of Roland Bovne Mc- 
Master,\signed by James R. Hoffa ." 13639 (*) 

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



CONTENTS 



Introduced Appears 
on page on page 

20. Document, prospectus of North American Rare Metals. 

Ltd_._ 1 13656 (*) 

21 A. Check No. 1318, dated April 19, 19.56, payable to Ahmed 

Abass, drawn on local 299 in the amount of $12,000 13662 13720 

21 B. Check stub No. 1318, dated April 19, 1956, payable to 

Ahmed Abass for "Personal, 2d mortgage" in the amount 

of $12,000 13662 13721 

22. Check dated August 6, 1956, payable to Benjamin Dranow, 

in the amount of $4,430, signed by Jack Bushkin 13664 13722 

23. A\'ithdrawal card issued to Robert P. Scott: "Not active in 

business," by local 50, Barbers Union 13686 13723 

24. Ledger sheet showing the years Robert P. Scott paid dues 

to Local 50, Barbers Union: 1943, 1944, 1945, 1956, and 

part of 1947 13686 13724 

25. Telegram received by Robert Scott from Elmer Albrecht, 

secretary-treasurer, local 552 13689 13725 

26. Check No. 415 dated February 21, 1955, payable to Joint 

Council 43, in the amount of $3,000 and signed by 

Frank Collins, Joint Council 43, defense fund 13704 13726 

Proceedings of — 

August 5, 1958 13275 

August 6, 1958 13377 

August 7, 1958 13451 

Augusts, 1958 13547 

August 12, 1958 13629 

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



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



TUESDAY, AUGUST 5, 1958 

United States Senate, 
Select Committee on Improper Activities 

IN THE Labor or Management Field, 
Washington, L 

The select committee met at 10 : 30 a. m., pursuant to Senate R 
tion 74, agreed to January 30, 1957, in the caucus room, Senate 
Building, Senator Jolin L. McClellan (chairman of the select 
mittee) presiding. 

Present : Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas ; S( 
John F. Kennedy, Democrat, Massachusetts; Senator Sam J. ] 
Jr., Democrat, North Carolina; Senator Frank Church, Dem 
Idaho ; Senator Irving M. Ives, Republican, New York ; Senator 
E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota ; Senator Carl T. Curtis, E 
lican, Nebraska. 

Also present: Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel; Paul Tii 
assistant counsel; John J. McGovern, assistant counsel; Carm 
Bellino, accountant; Pierre E. Salinger, investigator; Ruth Y. 
chief clerk. 

(At the convening of the session, the following members were 
ent : Senators McClellan, Ives, Ervin, Kennedy, Curtis, and Chi 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

Good morning. 

Mr. HoFFA. Good morning. Senator. 

The Chairman. The Chair will make a brief opening state 
Today the committee resumes its inquiry into the policies, prai 
and activities of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, C 
feurs. Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, and particularly 
respect to the same under the leadership and direction of Jan 
Hoffa, general president of this labor organization. 

At the time Mr. Hoffa appeared before this committee last 
he did not hold the top position in the Teamsters Union. Since 
however, at a convention in Miami, Fla., he was elected to the 
dency with attending circumstances that raised serious questic 
the propriety and validity of his selection. 

Nevertheless, he now heads the Nation's most powerful union, 
potential for good and evil in the position he holds is tremei 
The teamsters have both the capacity and the opportunity to 
mighty driving and constructive force for the welfare of its mer 
and for the betterment of the American economy. If the powe 
ability of the International Teamsters Union should be imprc 
directed and misused, then it could become an extremely evi 

13275 



13276 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

destructive force in the social, political, and economic life of our 
country. 

Obviously, tlie direction of this international union will depend 
upon the integrity and the motivation of that leadership. This is 
of great concern, not only' to this committee and the Congress but 
to all decent, law-abiding American citizens evei-ywhere. 

On the basis of previous testimony before this committee, replete 
with improper practices and conduct on the part of Mr, Hoffa and 
some of his associates, a serious question has arisen in the minds of 
the committee as to Mr, Hoffa's motivation and the direction and 
leadership he proposes to give this great and important union. 

As spelled out in the committee's interim report, the evidence had 
shown that in numerous instances Mr. Hotfa has alined himself with 
certain underworld characters, who are a part and parcel of the crimi- 
nal elements and most sinister forces in this country. 

When he testified before the connnittee, Mr. Hotfa said he would 
attempt to divest himself of some of his associations and give this 
union the character and quality of leadership and administration 
worthy of the importance and high purposes of this great labor 
organization. 

In these hearings the committee will be interested in ascertaining 
whether he has been successful — or what efforts and progress he has 
made in that direction. 

It will be recalled that when Mr. Iloft'a testified before, he suffered 
seriously from 'iack of memory,'' and thus avoided answering many 
pertinent questions seeking information, about which he had knowl- 
edge and in which the committee was interested. 

It is to be hoped that his memory has improved and that he can 
now give the committee the cooperation and assistance it is entitled 
to receive and that he, as an American citizen and the leader of this 
great union, is under obligation to give. 

This series of hearings will not be of 1 day's duration. The affairs 
of this union and its top officers are so intricate and complex that it 
may well engage the attention of the committee here in public hear- 
ings for several weeks. 

Mr. Hoffa will be expected to remain here during that time to 
answer all pertinent questions, to give explanations, or to refute any 
testimony the committee may hear of improper practices, or that 
which may be derogatory to him personally. 

We have a right to expect from him candid and truthful answers. 
For him to do less would seriously compromise his position and cast 
further doubt upon his integrity and the propriety of his union 
leadership, 

I believe Mr. Hoffa observed recently in Seattle, Wash., that the 
Teamsters have the power to shut down the economy of this Nation 
at its will. That I think we can concede. Any union in which such 
tremendous power is reposed also bears equal obligation and responsi- 
bility to the people and to the Government of the United States. 

It is unthinkable that the leaders of any such powerful organization 
should have an alliance or understanding in any area of its activities 
with racketeers, gangsters, and hoodlums. 

Such an alliance or any working arrangements with such characters 
and elements places a dangerous force at the jugular vein of America's 
economic life. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13277 

The committee is convinced that the great mass — the million and 
a half members of the Teamsters Union — are honest, law-abiding 
citizens. The committee is interested in serving them — in protecting 
their interest and their welfare. 

The committee is also interested in ascertaining the truth regarding 
policies, activities, and practices associated with this union and its 
leadership and with labor-management relations generally that need 
to be corrected or prohibited. 

To that end the committee seeks information with a view of sub- 
mitting recommendations to the Congress for appropriate remedial 
legislation. 

Notwithstanding Mr. Hoffa's reported remarks of contempt for 
this committee, its source of authority, the United States Senate, and 
the purposes and objectives for which the committee labors, the com- 
mittee will pursue its duty and carry out the mandate in the resolu- 
tion creating it. 

In this, we hope to have, and have every right to expect, Mr. Hoffa's 
cooperation and assistance. 

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

This is something he owes to the great mass of working people — • 
dues-paying members whose interest he is supposed to represent, 
whose welfare he is supposed to promote, and whose rights he is 
■dutybound to protect. 

The committee shall now proceed as faithfully and diligently in the 
course herein set forth as it is within its capacity to do so. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chainnan, before you start, I would like to com- 
mend you upon that statement. It is an excellent presentation. I 
think it expresses the feeling of every single one of us. Before we 
get through with this series of hearings, at which Mr. Hoffa will be 
present, I have a feAv questions I expect to ask him. 

The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Ives. 

Are there any other comments ? 

Senator Curtis? 

Senator CtiRTis. No statement. 

The CiiAiRMAx. Senator Kennedy ? 

Senator Kennedy. No statement. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Hoffa, will you be sworn, please, sir? 

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

Mr. Hoffa. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES R. HOFFA, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
EDWARD BENNETT WILLIAMS, GEORGE FITZGERALD, AND 
DAVID PREVIANT 

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

Mr. Hoffa. My name is James R. Hoffa, 16154 Robeson, Detroit, 
Mich., and I am president of the International Brotherhood of Team- 
sters, Chauffeurs, "Warehousemen, and Helpers of America. 

The Chairman. You have counsel. 

Mr. Counsel, identify yourself. 



13278 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. HoFFA. Yes, sir, I have counsel today, and I desire my counsel 
to make a statement j^rior to the hearing also. 

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

If you have more than one 

Mr. Williams. My name, sir, is Edward Bennett Williams of 
Washington, D. C. 

So that there will be no misunderstanding about my role here, I 
would like to say for the record that I appear here as general counsel 
for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chautl'eurs, Ware- 
housemen, and Helpers of America, to counsel with the president 
during his appearance here. I should like to just take one minute,. 
Mr. Chairman, to say a few 

The Chairman. May I ask before you do that if there are other 
counsel representing him ? 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

Mr. George Fitzgerald of Detroit, Mich., and Mr. David Previant,. 
of Milwaukee, Wis., also appear here as counsel. 

Mr. Chairman, I should like to say just a couple of words relative 
to the subject that you spoke on a minute ago. I think in order to 
evaluate the pertinency of this interrogation, it is necessary to state a 
little of the background that has shifted since the witness' last appear- 
ance here on August 23d. As the Chair indicated, he has become 
president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. 

The Chairman. Is there any objection on the part of the committee 
to permit counsel to make a brief backgi'ound statement ? 

Without objection, you may proceed. 

Mr. Williams. On January 23, of this year, Mr. Chairman, as the 
direct result of an order of the United States District Court for the 
District of Columbia, the witness became seated as president of this 
union; on January 31, just 8 days later, this international union vol- 
untarily did unto itself what no union has done. It submitted itself 
to the equity jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the 
District of Columbia, acting through a court-appointed board of 
monitors. That board of monitors, Mr. Chairman, was appointed to 
advise the president and his executive board on matters of democratic 
procedures, financial procedures, on questions of conflict of interest, 
and on the removal of trusteeships in local unions. 

It is exactly 6 months to the day since that board of monitors has 
been in operation. I can report to you, Mr. Chairman, that there has 
been no recommendation that has been made by this outside, impartial 
board of monitors which has been refused. I say this to point out to 
the chairman and the committee that many of these matters which 
may be pertinent here are under the equity jurisdiction of the United 
States District Court for the District of Columbia, and that they are 
matters which are under the continuing scrutiny of the court and its 
appointed officers. 

I feel that this is a very important piece of information against 
which to assess the pertinency of this interrogation because I am sure 
that this committee does not want to intrude itself as a part of the 
legislature into a case which is actively under the scrutmy of the 
judiciary. 

The Chairivian. The committee will not intrude upon the preroga- 
tives of the court. We have no intention of doing that. Tlie re- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13279 

sponsibility and authority vested in the court does not oontlict, neces- 
sarily, in any instance, so far as I know, with the purposes and 
objectives of this committee to ascertain what improper practices may 
be current or may have occurred in the past that may warrant and 
command the attention of tlie legishitive branch of the Government 
with respect to laws to remedy such conditions, if they exist. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Mundt. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Williams — I would like to ask counsel a couple 
of questions about this board of monitors, so that I can be sure that 
I understand the picture in my own mind. 

Wliat is tlie anticipated life expectancy of this board of monitors? 

Mr. Williams. Senator Mundt, the consent decree, which was 
entered into voluntarily by this international imion, provides that the 
board of monitoi-s shall sit for no less than 1 year, and that they shall 
sit, unless discharged by the court, in any event until the next conven- 
tion of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. 

In the normal course of events, under the constitution, the next 
convention of the international brotherhood would be in 1962. 

Senator Mundt. So they have a minimum life of a year ? 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. And a maximum life until the next convention ? 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. And would you give just a quick, brief rundown 
of what their responsibilities are and what their authority is, if any ? 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

Senator 

Senator Mundt. It would be helpful, too, I think, to have in the 
record the identity of the members. 

Mr. Williams. Under this consent decree, and I repeat this inter- 
national under the presidency of the witness entered into this volun- 
tarily, the board of monitors is given jurisdiction over, first of all, 
democratic procedures within the union. They have the right to 
counsel with and make recommendations to the general executive 
board of the Teamsters on these matters : On the election of officers, 
on the right to honest advertised elections, on the right to fair mii- 
form qualifications to stand for office, and, furthermore, on the right 
to freedom to express views at meetings. 

In other words, they have been given the jurisdiction voluntarily 
by the IBT to police intraunion democracy. 

Secondly, they have been given jurisdiction voluntarily by the inter- 
national under the presidency of the witness to police financial and 
accounting controls and procedures of the international. 

They are authorized to and they have already. Senator Mundt, made 
an audit of the international, through Price, Waterhouse and they are 
continuing to make other audits at the local levels through this same 
accounting firm. 

In addition, they have been empowered to see that no officer of the 
international has any conflict of interest in the performance of his 
duties. In other words, if any officer of the international has any- 
thing which can be construed as an investment which might conflict 
or an interest which might conflict with the full performance of his 
duties to the international, they have the authority to police this and 



13280 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

bring it to the attention of the court. I might say to you, Senator, 
that the past 6 months during the existence of this board of monitor- 
ship, every investment, every interest, that any international officer 
has had, has been divested, several months ago, which could possibly 
be at war with the letter or spirit of this provision of the decree. 

Again, they are authorized and empowered to look into the situ- 
ation of trusteed locals. The last time that this witness appeared 
here, Senator Mundt, I believe there were some 118 locals in trustee- 
ship. As of this morning, my best information is that the figure is 
45. In other words, the number of locals in trusteeship have been 
more than halved. 

They are now less than 50 percent of what they were. During the 
existence of this board of monitorship, which originally was headed 
by Chief Judge Nathan Cay ton, formerly chief judge of the Munic- 
ipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and which was 
filled further by Godfrey Schmidt, of New York, and L. N. D. Wells, 
of Dallas, Tex., all the recommendations which were made by the 
board of monitors to the president and the general executive board 
were abided by. 

Every recommendation was adhered to. I may say to you, sir, that 
there were scores and scores of these. Chief Judge Cay ton resigned 
in April of this year, and he was succeeded by a District of Columbia 
lawyer, Martin F. O'Donoghue. Since Mr. O'Donoghue assumed the 
chairmanship of the board of monitors, again there have been numer- 
ous recommendations. I can report to you that as of this moment 
none has been declined. There are some still under advisement, but 
none has been declined by the president of the general executive board. 

Senator Mtjndt. Is Mr. Schmidt still a member of the board of 
of monitors ? 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Schmidt is still a member. 

Senator ISIundt. The only change is the judge who has been re- 
placed by Mr. O'Donoghue. 

Senator Mundt. Is that former District of Columbia Jiggs Dono- 
hue? 

Mr. Williams. No; it is not. Senator Mundt. They are two dif- 
ferent men. The chairman of the board is Mr. O'Donoghue. 

Senator Mundt. I would like to ask a question about the consent 
decree, under the terms of which this voluntary arrangement was 
made. 

Is there anything in that arrangement whereby the recommenda- 
tions of the board of monitors have to be accepted? Or what hap- 
pens under the consent decree if the board of monitors unanimously 
recommend to the Teamsters that this be done and the Teamsters 
say, "We don't think this is right, we can't do it, or we wouldn't do it." 

If you have an impasse, what happens ? 

Mr. Williams. As of this moment, Senator, that situation has not 
taken place. 

Senator Mundt. I understood that you said they had all been fol- 
lowed. But this is a conceivable contingency. I am wondering, under 
the terms of the consent decree, what happens then ? 

Mr. Williams. Under the consent decree, if there were an arbitrary 
pattern of noncooperation by the general executive board and its presi- 
dent, with the recommendation of the board of monitors, and arbitrary 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13281 

pattern of ignoring the board and failure to cooperate, the board has 
taken the position, through the chairman, Mr, O'Donoghue, that it 
could go to Judge Letts, who is the judge who signed the consent 
decree, and call these facts to his attention for what action he would 
take. 

Senator Mundt. In other words, you are telling us that this board 
does have some power, that there are some teeth in it, that if over a 
period of some time a pattern were developed that they could enforce 
it, or they could go to the judge and ask him to enforce it? 

Mr. Williams. I am saying that under the decree they have recom- 
mendatory and advisory powers only. As of this date, the question 
of whether they have teetli or not is a moot question because it has not 
arisen. Everything has been abided by. 

Senator Mfndt. Is there any question in your mind but what the 
court, if it desired, could enforce the recommendations of the board 
if the board found that there were this arbitrary unwillingness, which, 
happily, does not exist, but which could exist? 

Mr. Williams. I don't want to leave you with the impression for a 
moment. Senator, that the general executive board has surrendered 
the autonomy of this international to the board of monitors. 

Senator Mundt. I am trying to find out what the facts are. 

Mr. Williams. I don't want to suggest to you for a moment that 
the board of monitors can run this union under the decree, because we 
have not given them that kind of power. We have given them advisory 
and recommendatory power, and we have adhered to their recom- 
mendations. 

If we should refuse to accept their recommendations in an isolated 
case here and there, certainly there would be nothing that they could 
do about it, because we retain in the executive board and in the presi- 
dent the final power to act in the administration and control of this 
union. But I did say to you that if there were an arbitrary flaunting 
as a pattern of the advice and recommendations of the board of moni- 
tors, then they have taken the position, and I suppose the chairman of 
the board is in a better position to answer than I what he conceives his 
own functions and powers to be, but they have taken the position that 
they could go to the United States district court and seek relief there. 

Senator Mundt, What I am trying to establish primarily, Mr. 
Williams, in my own mind, is whether or not this board has a decree 
of administrative responsibility and authority which would indicate 
that perhaps some of the questions that we propose to ask should be 
directed to them instead of Hojffa and Bennett, or Hofi'a counseled by 
Bennett, 

It appears clear to me then from what you have said that whatever 
questions are pertinent to this inquiry can appropriately be directed 
to Mr, Hoffa, that he continues to function as president of the Team- 
sters, and he has not flaunted these things arbitrarily ; he is the man 
in control and can also speak with authority and is a free agent. Is 
that correct ? 

Mr. Williams. Senator, may I say to you I hope that this commit- 
tee will, in the exercise of its functions, and in the spirit of fairness, 
call the two chairmen of the board of monitors who have sat in office 
over the past 6 months during Mr. Hoffa's administration, and ask 
them, as impartial officers of the court, whether or not this union hor- 



13282 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

been conducted in the spirit of this decree, which decree, I may say, 
encompasses more reforms, I think, than any legislation that has been 
proposed in either House of Congress, looking toward the restoration 
of union democracy and the control of finances of the international. 

Senator Mundt. Why do you call them 2 instead of 3 ? 

Mr. Williams. Well, call all four of them, if you wish, Senator. 
But I suggested the chairmen. 

Senator Mundt. I thought there were three members. 

Mr. Williams. I suggest that you call the chairman who resigned 
in April because of the pressure of other business and the chairman 
who succeeded him, because they would be in a position to speak for 
the board. 

Senator Mundt. I thought you were talking about the entire board. 

May I say, speaking for myself, I think that is a very appropriate 
suggestion, provided this inquiry dips back into the general affairs of 
the Teamsters Union, and I am not sure whether it is going to or 
not. But if so, I would think that would be a very helpful suggestion. 
You do agree with me, then, that Mr. Hoffa appears here free from 
any legal restraints or restrictions in his capacity as a Teamster to 
freely respond to the questions ? 

Mr. Williams. Senator, I will make that decision with ]\Ir. Hoffa 
as each question is propounded. 

Senator Mundt. You must have some general idea of the degree 
in which he is exercising his authority now and the degree it is cir- 
cumvented by the court. That is the purpose of my inquiry, not being 
a lawyer. 

Mr. Williams. I don't have an}' general idea, Senator, what ques- 
tions are going to be propounded. 

Senator Mundt. I don't either, but I am trying to get a general 
idea of his status, vis-a-vis the court and vis-a-vis his office. 

The only thing I understand is that they entered into a voluntary 
consent decree and that Mr. Hoffa is here to accept or reject recom- 
mendations that are made by the board of monitors and, to his credit, 
you have testified that he has accepted all of them. 

But I thought you said he had the right to reject them. That would 
indicate to me that he was a free agent. 

Mr. Williams. Senator, perhaps this would answer your question. 
Mr. Hoffa is here to cooperate with this committee and answer any 
questions that are asked bona fides, which are relevant and germane 
to a legislative purpose, which is the sole function for which this com- 
mittee sits. 

He will answer questions which are pertinent and germane to a 
bona fide legislative purpose. 

Senator Mundt. I think that is a big enough kimona to cover all of 
the questions we are going to ask. 

Mr. Williams. I certainly hope so. 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Williams, these monitors who are officers of 
the court, as I understand it, are they confining their function to the 
current operation of the union ? 

They are not exercising any powers of investigation over past acts, 
are they ? 

Mr. Williams. Senator, I would have to say to you that it was my 
concept of this decree, when it was entered into, that thev would con- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13283 

fine themselves to the current operation of this union, but the fact is 
otherwise because they have looked into grievances which are very, 
very old. As a matter of fact, they have dipped back into grievances 
of rank and filers that are as old, to my knowledge, as 10 years, in 
some instances, and they have scrceened some cases which antedate 
the administration which is now in office. 

So that it isn't accurate to say that they are concerning themselves 
solely and exclusively with the current operation of the union. 

Senator Curtis. Did the monitors contend that there was a current 
problem by reason of some complaint, even though it was 10 years 

ago ? . . . 

Have they taken jurisdiction in regard to anywhere it was ad- 
mittedly it was a closed case and had no relevancy to any current 
operations ? 

Mr. Williams. Yes ; they have. I have a case in mind. 

Of course, it is in my mind because it struck me as being so fan- 
tastic. A rank and filer claimed that certain welfare benefits had 
not been paid to him, which were owing to him since 1948. The board 
of minitors went into that case and we conducted a thoroughgoing 
investigation of it, we conducted a field investigation of it, at the in- 
stance of the general president, and satisfied the board of monitors on 
the case. 

They have gone back into cases 

Senator Curtis. But that man claimed as of this date that he had 
something coming ? 

Mr. Williams. As a result of something that happened 10 years 
ago. 

Senator Curtis. But he alleged that he had a current claim? 

Mr, Williams. He alleged a current claim, yes. 

Senator Curtis. Could you provide me witli a copy of that decree? 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir; I will provide you with a copy of it as 
soon as we have a break in the recess. I will have a photostat made 
for you. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

Senator Ives. I would like to get something cleared up with counsel. 
He said that he was advising Mr. Hoffa to reply to all questions with- 
in the limitations of what is called appropriate legislative domain. 
Is that the term that you used ? 

Mr, Williams. It is not the term I used but I will adopt your term. 

Senator Ives. Wliat term did you use ? 

Mr. Williams. I said that I would advise the witness and he is free, 
of course, to accept or reject my advice, but I shall advise him to an- 
swer all questions which are relevant and germane to what I regard 
as a bona fide legislative purpose. 

Senator Ives. All right, I will accept that. 

Now, will you kindly tell me, that being the case, what you consider 
not to be a bona fide legislative purpose ? 

Mr. Williams. If tliis committee, for example, and I am sure or I 
certainly hope this isn't the case, were conducting a personal vendetta 
against Mr. Hoffa for the sole purpose of getting him removed from 
office, I would not think that that was a bona fide legislative purpose, 
Senator. In other words, if the committee had as its objective to 
humiliate and expose and castigate and degrade Mr. Hoffa in public 



13284 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

here, I would think it was outside of its legitimate function as a 
committee. 

I would then advise him, sir, not to cooperate in a vendetta against 
himself. 

Senator Ives. May I ask a question ? In that connection, has there 
ever been any evidence of anybody on this committee trying to do 
thattoMr. Hoffa? 

Mr. Williams. Senator, I am not under oath 

Senator Ives. Now wait a minute. There were times when some of 
us got kind of disgusted because he ducked questions. As I said once 
before, he has the most convenient f orgettery of anybody I have ever 
known. Now, just because we nail him on that account doesn't mean 
we are trying in any way to injure him. He brings that on himself. 
There is no vendetta here. Now go ahead. 

Mr. Williams. You asked me a question. 

Senator Ives. Go ahead and answer it. 

Mr. Williams. I would like to have the opportunity to answer it. 

Senator I\t:s. Go ahead. 

Mr. Williams. I feel, Senator, and I have examined the record 
very carefully that there were areas which were gone into during the 
life of the interrogation of this witness which could have no real rela- 
tionshp to a legislative purpose. I feel. Senator, and I must say this 
in all candor to you since you asked me, and I assume you will respect 
my views as a lawyer. 

Senator Ives. I certainly respect your views and I regard you very 
highly as a lawyer. 

Mr. Williams. I feel there were areas of interrogation when it 
appeared to me, at least, as a lawyer looking over the record when 
the questions were designed more to humiliate the witness than they 
w^ere to elicit information that would be helpful to this committee in 
proposing legislation to the United States Senate. 

Senator Ives. Now, just a minute. I know of no question that 
could possibly have been asked him during tlie previous hearing, a 
year ago this month, which in any way could humiliate him, that 
wasn't brought on by himself. 

Anybody who ducks questions the way he did is bound to bring on 
that kind of questioning, and he deserves it. It does have a legislative 
purpose. The way he acted here the last time is almost contempt of 
the Senate. The questions definitely had a legislative purpose. You 
and I may not agree. 

Mr. Williams. We don't. 

Senator I'S'es. I am very broad in this matter. I don't think that 
there is a thing in kingdom come that doesn't come within the pur- 
view of legislative activity or scope. Even if it is outside of the 
Constitution, it is not really outside because perhaps it calls for a 
constitutional amendment. So anything we do is within our limi- 
tations. 

Mr. Williams. I thought that was your view. 

Senator Ives. It is my view and it always has been. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

The Chair will make this observation: It is inherent in the law 
profession for lawyers to disagree and honestly so many times, and to 
make objections to the court as to the relevancy or pertinency of testi- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13285 

mony. So the fact that counsel may feel that some questions were 
not relevant or not pertinent or that the committee may feel they were 
is something that is not unordinary or unusual. 

It occurs daily in the trial of cases everywhere. While this is not 
a trial, the committee, of course, in this instance has the tinal judg- 
ment and final authority to rule as to whether a question is pertinent 
or whether it will serve the legislative purpose. I can assure counsel 
and his client that insofar as I am concerned, and I believe I speak 
for every member of the connnitte, there is no comfort or measure de- 
rived from this character of an investigation, insofar as I am con- 
cerned. But we do have a duty, and a very high duty, and a very re- 
sponsible mission here or function to perform because we all know 
that there are practices going on, and it has been demonstrated, and it 
has been placed on the record over and over again that there are prac- 
tices going on in management-labor relations which need legislative 
attention. 

We will try to conduct these hearings with propriety and dignity 
becoming tlie United States Senate committee. We may disagree, and 
we wil proceed. As long as the witness and his counsel respect the 
committee, I intend, so far as the Chair can control it, for the com- 
mittee to treat all who come before us accordingly. 

Proceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Senator Ervix. I wish to make an observation : If I ever should 
have occasion to need an advocate, I wouldn't want one who would 
regard things which affected me in a judicial manner. I would want 
him to be a little bit prejudiced in my favor. That is all. 

The Chairman. Now, there is one question, or one thing, I think we 
should get straight for the record. Counsel, you stated a few moments 
ago that you appeared here as general counsel for the international 
union. Now, there is some question might arise as to whether that con- 
forms or comes within the rule of the committee. So far as the Chair 
is concerned, he is willing to waive any technicality in that respect so 
long as counsel desires to act and Mr. Hoifa desires to have him act as 
his adviser in the course of these proceedings. He has a right to coun- 
sel of his choice, and the fact that you may represent the international 
union would not, in my opinion, in any way disqualify you, but you 
must place yourself in the position here at this time of representing 
Mr. HofTa. 

Mr. Williams. I understand that. 

The Chairman. And not as counsel for the union. 

All right, with that record straightened out now, we may proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, did jon know Mr. Joseph Holtzman ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was a close friend of yours, was he ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I knew .Toe Holtzman. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was a close friend of yours ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I knew Joe Holtzman. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was a close friend of yours ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I knew Joe Holtzman. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was a close friend of yours ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Just a moment. I knew Joe Holtzman, and he wasn't 
any particular friend of mine. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just answer the Question. 

21243--^8— pt. 36—2 



13286 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The CiTATRMAN. Let us start off riglit liere. This is public business. 
The question is wliether he was a close friend seems proper, and you 
know a lot of people who may not be close friends, and may just barely 
be acquaintances. In order to show the association and throw light on 
testimony that may be forthcoming, it is quite proper the witness to 
answer as to his acquaintanceship, whether it is one of friendship or 
one of business association, or any other pertinent factor that might 
help us to evaluate testimony as we proceed. 

Go ahead, Mr, Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he a close friend of yours ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I say he was an acquaintance. 

Mr. Kennedy. An acquaintance? 

Mr. HoFFA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You used to visit with him ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Occasionally. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he came to visit you ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Occasionally. 

Mr. Kennedy. "What was his business, Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. HoFFA. He had a dry-cleaning concern, and he was a labor- 
relations consultant. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you known him, or had you known 
him? 

Mr. Hoffa. Probably since 1934. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he have a partner ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Yes. 

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

Mr. Hoffa. Jack Bushkin. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is he still alive ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is a friend of yours ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is he a close friend of yours ? 

Mr. HoFFA. An acquaintance. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just an acquaintance ? 

Mr. Hoffa. He is a person that I know and he is a friend, but a 
friendly acquaintance. 

Mr. Kennedy. A friendly acquaintance ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you visit with him occasionally ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he visited with you occasionally ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Holtzman and Mr. Bushkin were in this labor- 
relations business together ; were they ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I believe they were. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever discuss any contracts with them ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I certainly did. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did on occasion ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you negotiate any contracts with them ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did do that ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13287 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive any money from Mr. Holtzman ? 
Mr. HoFFA. I borrowed money from Holtzman and Biishkin both. 
Mr. Kennedy. When was this ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I believe I will have to refer to the record because I 
Testified to that the last time I was here— did you say "when" ? 
Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 
Mr. HoFFA. Some time in 1952 or 1953. 
Mr. Kennedy. How much money did you receive ? 
Mr.HoFFA. $5,000. 
Mr. Kennedy. From each one ? 
Mr. HoFFA. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And I believe the record shows that that was in 
.cash that you got from them ? 
Mr. HoFFA. That is correct. 
Mr. Kennedy. And that there was no note on it ? 
Mr. HoFFA. That is correct. 
Mr. Kennedy. And did you pay them both back ? 
Mr. HoFFA. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And there was no interest paid ? 
Mr. HoFFA. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. So they at least were close enough friends that they 
^vould loan you money without interest in cash and without any evi- 
dence that there was in fact a loan ; is that correct ? 
Mr.HoFFA. They did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, do you know or did you know Mr. John Paris ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long ago did he die ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Three or four years. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long had you known him ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Probably 15 or more years, 10 or 15 years or more. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were a close friend of his ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Not necessarily. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he used to visit you ? 

Mr. HoFFA. You mean at home ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. HoFFA. I don't think that he ever did. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. He was a business agent of the Laundry Workers' 
Union, was he ? 

Mr. HoFFA. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was married to a woman by the name of Sylvia? 

Mr. HoFFA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. She is a friend of you and your family ? 

Mr. HoFFA. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they have a son ? 

Mr. HoFFA. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. "\Miat is his name ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Charles O'Brien. 

Mr, Kennedy. And he is with your union, is he ? 

Mr. HoFFA. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy, He used to be with the Retail Clerks' Union ? 

Mr. HoFFA, That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the Retail Clerks' Union had its headquarters 
in the Teamsters' Buildinsf ? 



13288 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. HoFFA. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. In Detroit ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he is now working for yonr union, local 299? 

Mr. HoFFA. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is a business agent for 299 ? 

Mr. HoFFA. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, on Mr. Holtzman and Mr. Bushkin, did they 
represent on any occasion the Detroit Institute of Laundry ? 

Mr. HoFFA. They may have, and I believe they did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have some discussions with them about 
that? 

Mr. HoFFA. I don't think tliat I discussed it with them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss the Detroit Institute of Laundry 
with Mr. Holtzman ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I may have. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you remember that? 

Mr. HoFFA. No ; I don't. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't remember? 

Mr. HoFFA. No ; I don't. 

Mr. Kennedy. In 1949, did they make arrangements for you to 
visit with any of the representatives of the Detroit Institute of 
Laundry ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I don't know whether they did or not, and I met some 
representatives of the laundry and I don't know who arranged the 
meeting. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't know how that was arranged ? 

Mr. HoFFA. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did they come to see you about ? 

Mr. HoFFA. With the question of the dispute between their organi- 
zation and our organization. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us about .what conversations you had 
with them ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Well, how long ago was that ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I said 1949. 

Mr. HoFFA. I believe that the contract was open for negotiations, 
and there arose a question between the employers and our union as 
to whether or not there was a right to strike or a necessity to arbi- 
trate the differences when they couldn't agree. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is not then, this is back in 1949. That was in 
1951 when there was a question about that. That is when the con- 
tract was up for renewal, and I believe the man conducting the nego- 
tiations was Mr. Isaac Litwak, of Local 295 of the Teamsters. 

Mr. HoFFA. Let us go back a step. You have asked me whether or 
not Holtzman had ever talked to me about the question of the laundry 
institute ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. HoFFA. To the best of my knowledge the only time that I ever 
knew Holtzman was engaged or involved in any way with the laundi'y 
institute was the one incident where he was involved Avitli Litwak. 

Mr. Kennedy. In 1951 ? 

Mr. HoFFA. That could have been, and I am not sure of the date. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they come to see you on two different occasions 
then, the representatives of the Detroit Institute of Laundry ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13289 

Mr, HoFFA. I don't know if it was once or twice, and they did come 
to see me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Going back to 1949 when the contract was np, and 
Mr. Litwak was negotiating the contract, do you remember they came 
to see you on that occasion ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I think that your facts are wrong. I think when they 
came to see me there was a question involving the contract as to 
wliether or not he could strike because I believe, and this is only from 
me, there were certain sections open for negotiations. When they got 
into a deadlock, I believe it was a question whether they could strike 
or had to arbitrate. And I don't recall any other incident that I 
■discussed with them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, all I asked you was whether in 1949, 
when this contract was up, and there were negotiations going on be- 
tween Mr. Isaac Litwak and this representative of the Detroit Insti- 
tute of Laundrv, they came to visit you on that occasion. 

Mr. Hoffa. I say they came to visit me, and the best I can recall 
was one contract. Whether it was the one you mentioned first or the 
second one, I don't recall but it seems to me that the question involved, 
as I stated before 

Mr. Kennedy. We have gone through that, and it was a 3-year con- 
tract. Let me see if this refreshes your recollection. It was a 3-year 
contract, I believe, signed in 1949, and in 1951 there was a question, 
as you explained, as to whether local 285 could strike. I believe that 
they came to see you on that occasion for you to make a determination 
as to whether local 285 had the right to strike at that time. 

Now, I am trying to find out, prior to that, in 1949, when there 
were negotiations on tliis contract, whether representatives of the 
Detroit Institute of Laundry came to see you ? 

Mr. Hoffa. It seems to nie unless you refresh my memory in some 
other direction, it seemed to me I only had one dealing with the 
question of the laundry institute and Litwak, and that was the ques- 
tion of the arbitration or the strike. I don't recall, and I don't think 
that I did meet with the laundry owners concerning the contract when 
it expired, because I don't remember any incident where there was a 
threat of strike other than the one time. 

Mr. Kennp:dy. Do you remember the representatives of the De- 
troit Institute of Laundry coming to your office and complaining about 
the difficulties that they were liaving with Isaac Litwak? 

Mr. Hoffa. I believe they did come to my office once or twice, and 
we did discuss it but it seems to me again that that was the particular 
time of the dispute whether you could or couldn't strike. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Holtzman arrange one or both of those 
meetings ? 

Mr, Hoffa. No; I believe an attorney arranged it if I recall 
rightly, and I don't think Holtzman arranged it, and I don't recall 
offhand, but I think there nnist have been an attorney. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was Mr. Holtzman doing in this matter ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, I wouldn't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. You said that you had talked to Mr. Holtzman 
about it. 

Mr. Hoffa, I didn't say that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hofi'a, you said that you thought originally 
xhnt Mr. Holtzman was involved in this. 



13290 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. HoFFA, I said if tliey employed liim and I understood tiiey 
did, why you would have to ask them what they employed him for. 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to ask you what conversations you liad. 

Mr. HoFFA. You can't ask me, because I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. I can ask you what conversations you had with 
them, and I can ask wdiether lie arranged any of the meetings. 

Mr. HoFFA. If he arranged them, and 1 don't think that he did, 
I think a lawyer arranged them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tliat is a slight change, with you that is all right. 

Mr. HoFFA. It might be a slight change, but it is the truth. In any 
event we had the meetings, put it that way. 

Mr. Kennedy. I understand that, and now I want to find out Mr. 
Holtzman's involvement, and did he have any conversations with you 
about this ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I think Holtzman represented them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did other people come when Mr. Ploltzmau was 
there? 

Mr. HoFFA. No, I don't believe Holtzman was present when they 
were in my office. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Holtzman just had his conversations alone with 
you then, is that right ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I don't think he had any conversations with me con- 
cerning the contract except the fact that his people wanted or may 
have wanted to meet. I don't know if he arranged it or not. 

Mr. Kennedy. What conversations did you have with Mr. Holtz- 
man about this contract? 

Mr. HoFFA. Well now, what conversations I had would probably 
concern the question of the dispute. Now what the exact conversa- 
tion was, I certainly couldn't recall. It Avasn't tliat important. 

Mr. Kennedy. You can't remember whether he arranged the meet- 
ing and you think it is possible, though ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I don't know if he did or not, either him or an attorney, 
and I don't know which one arranged it, and it seemed to me it was an 
attorney that arranged it. 

Mr. Kennedy. ^\^ien you had your conversations with Mr. Holtz- 
man, the representatives of the Detroit Institute of Laundry were not 
present, is that right ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I don't know if I had a discussion with Holtzman or 
not. 

Mr. Kennedy. I thought that you said that you did. 

Mr. HoFFA. No ; I didn't say that at all. 

Mr. Kennedy. You found out Mr. Holtzman was representing the 
Detroit Institute of Laundry ? 

Mr. HoFFA. He may have been. 

Mr. Kennedy. You understood that, Mr. Hoffa, and you must have 
understood it from what Mr. Holtzman said ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I think that you are right. 

Mr. Kennedy. So then any conversations that you had with Mr. 
Holtzman about this was just between you and Mr. Holtzman, and 
no one else present ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Not necessarily, and we may not have had a conversa- 
tion, no more than the fact of arranging a meeting ; I don't know. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13291 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any conversations about the Detroit 
Institute of Laundry or about the contract with Mr. Holtzman when 
anyone else was present ? 

Mr. HoFFA. 1 don't recall having a discussion Avith Holtzman about 
the contract. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Holtzman arrange it? 

Mr. HoFFA. He may have had. 

Mr. Kennedy. Ditl you participate in any of the contract negotia- 
tions for the contract in 1949 '? 

Mr. HoFFA. I don't think that I ever met with the negotiating com- 
mittee of the Laundry Institute. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you ordinarily go to meetings of the locals? 

Mr. HoFFA. Where there is a question involving a serious strike, that 
can involve other local unions, as president of the council, I do many 
times ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you go in 1949 to these negotiations ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I don't recall whether I did or not. I don't think that 
I did. 

Mr. Kennedy, Do you remember coming- into the Detroit Leland 
Hotel in 1949, in connection with those negotiations ? 

Mr. HoFFA. No ; I don't remember. If I did, I don't remember. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. You don't remember that ? 

Mr. HoFFA. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember giving instructions to Mr. Litwak 
to sign the contract at that time ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I never did instruct Litwak to sign the contract to my 
recollection. I told Litwak, the time that I can recall, that in my 
opinion he was bound by arbitration. I can't recall any other meet- 
ing I had with the Laundry Institute. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am talking about a meeting in 1949 at the Detroit 
Leland Hotel, Mr. Hoffa. Did you come into the meeting at the 
Detroit Leland Hotel when Mr. Litwak was meeting with the Detroit 
Institute of Laundry and have discussions with him at that time about 
signing the contract ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I could have easily, but don't recall. There would be 
nothing unusual about it. I go into hundreds of meetings every 

Mr. Kennedy. How many meetings of the Detroit Institute of 
Laundry did you ever go to when they were carrying on negotiations 
with your union representative ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't recall, and I don't believe I did, attend any 
meetings of the full negotiating board of the laundry companies. I 
believe that I met with the representatives of the association. 

Mr. Kennedy. So that your recollection is that you never went, 
is that right? 

Mr. HoFFA. My recollection is that I met with the representatives 
of the association, but I do not recall, and I don't think I did, meet- 
ing with the laundry owners. I possibly could have, 

Mr. Kennedy. I am talking about the representatives of the asso- 
ciation, and a meeting of it at the Detroit Leland Hotel. Did you 
go to such a meeting ? 



13292 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. HoFFA. If I did, I can't recall it and I don't believe I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever go to any meeting where there were 
negotiations on the contract between the Detroit Institute of Laundry 
and your union representative ? 

Mr, HoFFA. I don't thinlv I ever met tlie negotiating committee of 
the Laundry Institute. I don't believe I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never did^ You never went to a meeting be- 
tween the representatives of the Detroit Institute of Laundry and 
your own union representative, Mr. Isaac Litwak ? 

Mr, HoFFA. Well, if I did, it escapes my memory. 

Mr. Kennp:dy. You don't remember tliat? 

Mr. HoFFA, No, I don't. I met the representatives of the council, 
but I do not recall any negotiating meeting. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would it refresh your recollection that you told 
Mr. Litwak at that meeting that if he did not sign a contract, that 
you were going to take over the negotiations and settle these problems 
yourself ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I never told Isaac Litwak or any other business agent 
that. 

Mr. Kennedy, You never said anything like that? 

Mr. HoFFA. Just a moment. You asked me whether I said I would 
take over the negotiations, I had no authority as president of the 
council at that time, or president of my own local union, to take any 
such action. 

Mr. Kennedy, Do you deny that vou had such a conversation, 
Mr, Hoffa? 

The Chairman, The witness says he has no authority to do that or 
he never did it. 

The question is specific: Do you deny that you did it or did not 
doit? 

A man may say "I have no authority to do that" and yet would 
do it. To clarify, did you do it or did you not do it ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I don't recall the conversation or the meeting at all. 

But if I would have said any such a thing it would have been to 
the effect that if they had made an offer, that it should be submitted 
to the membership, and I would be bound by the membership, with 
no authority to change their vote. I may have told them to submit 
it to a membership meeting. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Do you remember telling them that at a meeting 
at the Detroit Leland Hotel ? 

Mr, HoFFA. I don't even remember the meeting. 

Mr, Kennedy, Do you remember in 1949 Mr. Litwak was dis- 
turbed about your interceding in this contract ? 

Mr, HoFFA. I don't believe he was. 

Mr. IvENNEDY, Do you remember that ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No, I don't. But I don't believe Isaac has ever been 
disturbed by what I do, 

Mr, Kennedy. Do you deny that he was disturbed at that time 
about your interceding in the contract ? 

Mr. HoFFA. He was very disturbed about tlie owners. 

Mr, Kennedy, What? 

Mr. HoFFA. He was very disturbed about the owners. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, you have not answered any questions 
for the last 25 minutes. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13293 

Mr. HoFFA. That isn't true. 

Mr. Williams. Mv. Chainnan, I think this is a good point to ask 
what pertinency this 1949 negotiation in an intracity dispute has to 
do with the legislative purpose of this committee. I don't see the 
pertinency of it. 

I have not objected, because I don't want to interrupt the continuity 
of this interrogation, but I seriously challenge the pertinency of this 
line of questions. 

The Chairman. The Chair will make this observation and ruling : 

As counsel well knows, in presenting a case, you cannot present every- 
thing in one sentence or with one witness. There are going to be wit- 
nesses here, I understand, who will testify regarding what occurred 
at that time. It will involve, I may say for your information, what 
appears on the face of it to be corruption. This committee and the 
Congress is interested in the administration of affairs of unions with 
respect to whether they are corrupt, or Avhether those who have the 
responsibility of representing unions keep faith with their responsi- 
bilities. 

That will be involved throughout these hearings as a part, only, of 
what the committee is interested in. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. In 1949, Mr. Hoffa, Mr. Isaac Litwak, was disturbed 
at your intercession in the contract, was he not ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Well, if he was, he didn't express it to me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never knew about tliat ? 

Mr. Hoffa. He was disturbed about the general president, if I recall, 
intervening in this dispute. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was disturbed about what ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I believe, now that I recall it, I believe he was disturbed 
about the general president intervening in this dispute. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was the general president ? 

Mr. HoFFA, Dave Beck. 

Mr. Kennedy. He intervened in this dispute in Detroit? 

Mr. HoFFA. If my memory serves me right, Dave Beck refused to 
grant strike authority. I am doing this from memory, but I think 
that the record will show that when Litwak filed for the question of 
strike sanction, that he was refused the right to have strike benefits by 
the international, wliich did not keep him from striking but would 
have kept him from having financial benefits. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. HoFFA. He was executive vice president, I am informed by 
Lawyer Williams, but he was having the same authority as president 
since he was generally operating the international union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then it was not the general president ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Well, it could very well have been Dave Beck who was 
acting as executive vice president. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it Mr. Tobin or Mr. Beck ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Well, it was probably — it was Mr. Beck. 

Mr. Kennedy. I thought you said it was the general president. 

Mr. HoFFA. Well, my memory happened to slip, and this is 9 years 
ago, and I am now correcting it, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did anybody give you any instructions to inject your- 
self into the contract negotiations? 

Mr. HoFFA. I probably gave myself instructions. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why? 



13294 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. HoFFA. Because I am president of joint council 43. 

Mr. Kennedy. So yon did inject yourself into this contract ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now we are making some progress. 

Mr. HoFFA. That is fine. 

Mr. Kennfjjy. Did you go to the meeting, then, at the Detroit 
Leland Hotel ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I don't know whether I did or not. I do not recall 
the meeting. It is possible. It is 9 years ago, and one meeting more 
or less doas not mean that much to me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have conversations w^th Mr. Holtzman 
about this contract ^ 

Mr. HoFFA. I may have had. I don't recall. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't remember that at all ? 

Mr. HoFFA. It wasn't that important. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't remember at all ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I don't even remember the contract except the one 
question of where we were involved in the dispute of arbitration or 
strike. That is the outstanding thing in my mind concerning any- 
thing to do with the laundry institute. 

The Chairman. Mr. Hoil'a, I believe you said you borrowed $5,000 
each from Mr. Buslikin and Mr. Holtzman. 

Mr. HoFFA. That is correct, sir. 

The Chaikman. Do you recall when you borrowed that money ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I think I said it was 1952 or 1953. Yes, I testified it 
was 1952 or 1953, Senator. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Now, prior to that time, had you had any financial transactions 
with either of these men ? 

Mr. HoFFA. No, not prior to that time. 

The Chairman. Did you subsequent to that time ? 

Mr. HoFFA. It is the only transaction I had with them concerning 
the loaning of money to myself. 

The Chairman. I beg your pardon ? 

Mr. PIoFFA. It is the only transaction I had of them loaning me 
any money. 

The Chairman. All right. That is a matter of loan. Is that the 
only business transaction you had with them in which money was 
involved ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Concerning money, yes. 

The Chairman. Either before or since ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. HoFFA. Yes, sir. 

Concerning the loaning of money, yes. 

The Chairman. I am not talking about just concerning the loan- 
ing of money. I am talking about any other financial transaction or 
business transaction with them in which money was involved. 

Mr. HoFFA. I may have asked Bushkin or I wanted him to buy me 
something at wholesale. I don't know. But so far as other than 
purchasing something from them, that is the only financial trans- 
action I had. 

The Chairman. In other words, the borrowing of the money that 
you have testified to, and the possibilities that you may have asked 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13295 

them to do you a favor, to get sometliing wholesale for you, according 
to your testimony, are the only business transactions you have had 
with them involving money or other valuable considerations, is that 
correct ? 

Mr. HoFFA. That is right. 

The Chairman. When were these Loans repaid, Mr. Ho if a ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. HoFFA. Well, apparently — I want to correct the record. I have 
had my accountant try to straighten out some of these answers since 
the last time. My accountant shows here money was borrowed the 
latter half of 1951 and was paid back in 1953, according to his records 
that he has been able to reconstruct. 

The Chairman. All right. 

In the transaction, I believe you said the money you received in the 
nature of loans was all cash ? 

Mr. HoFFA. That is right. 

The Chairman. From each one ? 

Mr. HoFFA. That is right. 

The Chairman. How were they repaid ? 

Mr. HoFFA. By, I believe, a money order. 

The Chairman. A post office money order ? 

Mr. HoFFA. My secretary had the order made out and I would 
assume that it was, Senator. It could have been a bank draft, but I 
believe that it was a money order. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions, gentlemen ? 

Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. Your secretary handled the repayment, the details 
■of transmitting i 

Mr. HoFFA. I believe she did. She normally does for me. That is 
why I said that. 

Senator Curtis. What is her name ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Diane Dubrescu. 

Senator Curtis. What is her current address ; do you know ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Offhand I don't know. 

Senator Curtis. She lives in Detroit ? 

Mr. HoFFA. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Kennedy. 

Senator Kennedy. You say, Mr. Hoffa, that your accountant pro- 
duced records which described the repayment of these funds ? 

Mr. HoFFA. No, I did not say he produced records. I said I have 
had him trying to reconstruct, talking to people, about certain loans 
that I have made as to the dates I paid them back and the dates I 
borrowed the money. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Hoft'a, liow did the accountant reconstruct 
this if he had no records ? 

Mr. HoFFA. He probably talked to the people. 

Senator Kennedy. Who did he talk to ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I imagine he talked to the people involved. 

Senator Kennedy. He talked to you ? 

Mr. HoFFA. We discussed the matter ; yes. 

Senator Kennedy. And you told him what had happened ? 



13296 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. HoFFA. No, I told him when I borrowed the money, when I 
thought I borrowed the money and when I thought I paid it back, and 
he checked it, and these are the records he gave me. 

This shows how your memory can shp. Instead of 1951, apparentlv 
it was 1952. 

Senator Kennedy. Who else did he talk to in making the report to 
you ? 

Mr. PIOFFA. I assume the people who were involved. 

Senator Kennedy. How many people were involved ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Offhand, do you mean the loans ? 

Senator Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. HoFFA. I would have to count them and tell you. 

Senator Kennedy. Did he talk to Mr. Holtzman ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Holtzman happens to be dead. 

Senator Kennedy. Who else did he talk to ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Probably Bushkin. 

Senator Kennedy. In other words, the people he talked to were you 
and Mr. Bushkin. Did he talk to others ? 

Mr. HoFJW. I don't know. 

Senator Kennedy. You come and make the statement that your 
accountant indicated that you borrowed the money in such and such 
a year and repaid the money in such and such a year. 

When did your accountant make this study ? 

Mr. HoFFA. "^Vlien did he make it? 

Senator Kennedy. Yes. Did he make it in the last few months? 

Mr. HoFFA. In the last few days. 

Senator Kennedy. And you can't tell us who he talked to beside.s 
you. Mr. Hoft'a, and the other gentleman who was involved? 

Mr. HoFFA. I think you will have to ask liim, Mr. Senator. 

Senator Kennedy. I am asking you. You are the one who made 
the report to the committee about what your accountant found, and 
now we find that there are no records, that he merely talked to you 
and the other gentleman involved, and that the whole transaction 
was in cash. 

Mr. HoFFA. Senator, I don't see anything strange about that, and 
I think I have answered your question. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Hoff'a, will you tell me? I am interested 
because you read a document here purporting to come from your 
accountant, and it looks like all your accountant relied on was your 
statement and the statement of the other gentleman. There are no 
other records in existence. 

Mr. HoFFA. '\^niat else would he rely on. Senator? 

Senator Kennedy. I would think usually when a loan is made, 
particularly to anyone in your position, or who represents an employer 
association, some record would be kept, and some record would be 
kept of the payments back. Instead, there are no records kept. 

It was a cash transaction between you and we only have your word 
and the word of the other gentleman as to whether the money was 
paid back. 

Mr. HoFFA. I guess you will have to take our word. 

Senator Kennedy. I want to say to your counsel, who raised the 
question as to whether these were proper questions for the committee, 
that the bill which passed the Senate does deal with the proprietor 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13297 

of an employer or employer association making a payment to a union 
leader. 

I think it is completely within the bounds and within the legis- 
lative area of this committee that we interrogate Mr. Hoffa on this 
; subject. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Not right now, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Mr. Holl'a, you may stand aside for the present. 

You will be recalled. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. William H. Miller. 

Mr. Hoft'a might like to stand by. 

The Chairman. Mr. Miller can sit over here. 

I think it is fair to the witness when we have testimony that he hear 
it and try to clear up these points as we go along. 

Mr. Miller, be sworn, please. 

Do you solemnly swear the evidence you shall give before this Sen- 
ate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so lielp you God ? 

Mr. Miller. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM H. MILLER 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Miller. Be seated. State your 
name, your place of residence, and your business or occupation. 

Mr. Miller. William H. Miller, Watersmeet, Mich. I operate a 
motel and restaurant up there. 

The Chairman. Do you have counsel or do vou waive counsel, 
Mr. Miller? 

Mr. Miller. I have no counsel. 

The Chairman. You waive counsel. All right. 

Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Miller, you were in the laundry business, were 
you, for a period of time? 

Mr. Miller. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long were you in the laundry business? 

Mr. Miller. Fifteen years. 

Mr. Kennedy. Up until when? 

Mr. Miller. 1950. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Miller, there were negotiations that took place 
in 1949, in connection with the contract between the representatives of 
llie Detroit Institute of Laundry and the Teamsters Union? 

Mr. Miller. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was local 285 of the Teamsters? 

Mr. Miijler. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the representatives of that local was Mr. Isaac 
Litwak; is that correct? 

Mr. Miller; That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have prepared a statement, have you not, that 
has been submitted to the committee, giving the background and the 
.-ituation that occurred in connection with those negotiations? 

Mr. Miller. Tliat is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I would like to liave permission for 
llie Avitness to read that statement. 



13298 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Was that statement submitted within the rules?: 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes ; it was. 

The Chairman. All rifjht. 

Mr. Miller, you are prepared, as you read that statement, to read it 
under oath, and the statements therein are your sworn testimony. 

Mr. Miller. Yes. Well, the first thing I would like to say on this 
is Mr. Salinger contacted me by telephone, and we had a very poor 
connection, so that I could not hear him on the phone, and he would 
have to tell the operator what he wanted to ask me, and then I would 
have to repeat to the operator, I believe he called me about three 
times, and we could not get a good connection. 

Then he called me and said he would be up there. He made arrange- 
ments, and I met him there. We talked this over, and he copied it 
down in shorthand. After he copied it down in shorthand, he typed 
it out on my typewriter, and I just read it over casually, not looking 
it over real good. So there are some questions in here and answers 
that will have to be clarified a little better than they are here. 

The Chairman. All right. 

You may read the statement if you choose to read it, and you may 
point out any discrepancies in there as relate to the truth and the 
facts. 

(The following is the affidavit submitted by Mr. Miller and ordered 
printed in the record at this point.) 

Affidavit 
State of Michigan, 

County of Gogebic, ss: 

I, William H. Miller, who resides at box 185, Watersnieet, Mich., do make 
the following voluntary statement to Pierre Salinger, who has identified 
himself to me as an investigator for the Senate Select Committee on Improper 
Activities in the Labor or Management Field. This statement is made as the 
result of no promise or threat to me and with the understanding that it may 
be read at a public session of the above-named committee. 

I am presently the owner of Bill Miller's Riverside Inn In Watersmeet. 
Mich. From 1935 to 19.50, I was the owner of the New Method Laundry in 
Detroit, Mich. 

For a number of years, Local 285 of the Teamsters Union, which was headed 
by Isaac Litwak, attempted to organize the drivers wJio worked for my com- 
pany. In the early 1940's. a representative of the Detroit Laundry Owners 
Association notified me he had had a visit from Isaac Litwak, and that unless 
my drivers joined the Teamsters Union, shipments of coal and soap to my 
place of business would be shut off. I called the men in and told them they 
would have the union. When some of them protested I told them I could not 
operate without coal and soap. Some of my drivers wanted to haul in the 
soap and coal on Sundays, but I told them they would get tired of that pretty 
soon. At any rate, at this time they became members of the union, and as an 
added inducement they were not required to pay the $50 initiation fee, but 
rather each paid $1. 

For some years, I was a member of the labor committee of the Detroit 
Laundry Owners Association. Other members of this committee were Horace 
McKnight, who was one of the owners of the Palace-Model Laundry, and Fritz 
Brady, the owner of the Modern Laundry. 

Also assisting us in the negotiations were Howard Balkwill. the president 
of the association, and John Meisner, the secretary of the association. 

To the best of my belief, the contract of the Detroit laiindries with the Team- 
sters Union came up for renegotiation in 1947. In an effort to reach a new 
contract with the union, a number of meetings were held with Isaac Litwak. 
Some of these meetings were held prior to the time the contract ran out in 
March and some after. I sat in on the negotiations after the contract ran out. 
One of the first things the managements agreed to do when the contract ran out 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13299 

was to pay retroactive wages back to the expiration day for any increases we 
might agree to. 

I attended 3 or 4 of these negotiating sessions after the contract ran out. 
These meetings were held at the Detroit Lelaiid Hotel and at tlie Old Wayne 
Club in downtown Detroit. Isaac Litwak was the principal negotiator for the 
union. He had other representatives with him. Litwak was adamant in all 
of these negotiations, asking for all kinds of new provisions in the contract. 
Fritz Brady and Horace McKnight had v/orked diligently getting up a memoran- 
dum on what the laundry owners felt they could do. Litwak took one look at 
this document and just discarded it and said he was not interested in reading 
it any further. 

Litwak kept meeting every request of the laundry owTiers with the threat of 
a strike. 

The negotiations kept dragging on and no progress was being made. Finally 
a lunch was arranged at which Meisner, Balkwill and I attended. This lunch 
was held in the lunchroom of the Detroiter Hotel. At this lunch, I suggested 
that perhaps we should go to someone higher up in the Teamsters and attempt 
to reach a settlement. Things had become critical and the union had already 
levied a .$10 per mend)er assessment as a strike fund. I didn't want a strike 
and neither did the other laundry owners. 

It was agreed by Meisner and Balkwill that something should be done. They 
then set up a meeting with James R. Hoffa. Either Meisner or Balkwill or both 
reported the outcome of this meeting to me at the offices of the association in 
the Detroiter Hotel. I was told that at the meeting with Hoffa it had been ar- 
ranged that a contract could be signed with the payment of $90 per truck by 
all the memliers of the association to Hoffa. At that time, the association repre- 
sented all the laundries in Detroit. This payment would assure a 3 year con- 
tract. I was told at this meeting by either Meisner or Balkwill or both that 
Hoffa told them that the laundry owners would have to make no further con- 
cessions to the union. Hoffa told them, however, that he could do nothing about 
the concessions that had already been made. The payment of the $90 to Hoffa 
was to be made over a 3-year period, $45 per truck the first year, $22.50 per truck 
the second year, and $22.50 per truck the third year. The payments wei-e to 
be made in cash. Meisner was chosen as the man who would make the collec- 
tions. Hofta said he would appear at the next meeting with Litwak and see 
that the contract was settled. Meisner came to me and collected the $450 first 
installment before the negotiating session was held. This first payment was 
made in cash in the oflSce of the New Method Laundry. I do not have knowledge 
of how the other laundries made their payments or which ones did. I also 
made the second and third payments of $225 each to Meisner, in cash, in the 
succeetling years. 

I did not attend the actual session but Meisner reported to me what happened 
there. Firstly, Hoffa was late in appearing. In fact, Meisner expressed the 
thought to me that he started worrying that the payoff might have gone down 
the di-ain. Then there was a knock at the door. This meeting was being held 
at the Detroit Leland Hotel. When the door opened, Hoffa was there with a 
couple of his men. Meisner said the color drained from Litwak's face when 
he saw Hoffa. Hoffa wanted to know what the meeting was all about. He then 
read the contract which had been worked out up to then and expressed the view 
that it was a good contract and there was nothing wrong with it. The negotia- 
tions were then broken off and the contract signed sometime after. 

It is my feeling and belief that Meisner and Balkwill were acting in the best 
interests of the laundry owners and that this type of arrangement had to be 
made to reach a contract. 

I believe all the above statement to be the truth to the best of my knowledge. 

William H. Miller. 
NicKOLAS J. Kolinsky, 
'Notary Public, Oogehic County, Mich. 

My commission expires March 2, 1962. 

Dated July 27, 1958. 

Mr. Miller. O.K. I, William 

Senator Mundt. You should make those corrections as you read it. 
Mr. Miller. Submit those ? 



13300 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mttndt. As you read it, when you come to something you 
want to correct, you should make the correction at that point. 

The Chairman. That is what the Chair indicated to him. 

As you come to something in there, if it is inaccurate in any sense 
or needs expLanation, you may pause and exphiin it. 

Mr, Miller (reading) : I, William H. Miller, who reside at Box 
185, Watersmeet, Mich., do make the following voluntary statement 
to Pierre Salinger, who has identified liimself to me as investigator 
for the Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor 
or Management Field. This statement is made as a result of no 
promise or threat to me and with the understanding that it may be 
read at a public session of the above-named committee. I am presently'' 
the owner of Bill Miller's Riverside Inn in Watersmeet, Mich. 

From 1935 to 1050 I was the owner of the New Method Laundry in 
Detroit, Mich. For a number of years local 285 of the Teamsters' 
Union, which was headed by Isaac Litwak, attempted to organize the 
drivers who worked for my company. In the early 1940's a repre- 
sentative of the Detroit Laundry Owners' Association notified me he 
had a visit from Isaac Litwak, and that unless my drivers joined the 
Teamsters' Union shipments of coal and soap to my place of business 
would be shut off. 

I called the men in and told them they would have the union. When 
some of them protested, I told them I could not operate without coal 
and soap. Some of my drivers wanted to haul in the soap and coal 
on Sundays, but I told them they would get tired of that pretty soon. 

The Chairman. Let me interrupt you there. There was a threat 
made against you by the president of the local union of the Teamsters 
that unless you forced your men to join the union that they would 
cut off deliveries to you ? 

Mr. Miller. The threat was not made directly to me. It was made 
through the association. They contacted the association as my plant 
was the last plant in the city of Detroit to have the drivers organized. 

The Chairman. You were a member of the association ? 

Mr. Miller. I was a member of the association, and Isaac Litwak 
had contacted me several times to have the drivers come into the union, 
and I told him it was up to the drivers. I can't tell them. 

The Chairman. He had previously contacted you personally about 
it? 

Mr. Miller. That is right. 

The Chairman. Trying to persuade you to have your employees 
join the union ? 

Mr. Miller. That is right. 

The Chairman. And when that effort failed, then he went to the 
association ? 

Mr. Miller. That is right. 

The Chairman. And he delivered, in a sense, an ultimatum to them, 
or to you through them, that if you did not have them join up, your 
supplies wotdd be cut off? 

Mr. Miller. That is right. 

The Chairman. All right. 

As we go along, we will get these things clarified. Proceed. 

Mr. Miller (reading) : Some of the drivers wanted to haul the soap 
and coal on Sundays, but I told them they would get tired of that 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13301 

pretty soon. At any rate, at this time they became members of the 
union, and as an added inducement they were not required to pay the 
$50 initiation fee, but, rather, each paid $1. For some years, I was 
a member of the hxbor committee of the Detroit Laundry Owners 
Association. Other members of this committee were Horace 
McKnight, who was one of the owners of the Palace-Model Laundry, 
and Fritz Brady, the owner of the Modern Laundry. 

Also assisting us in the negotiations were Howard Balkwill, the 
president of the association, and John Meisner, the secretary of the 
association. To the best of my belief, the contracts of the Detroit 
laundries with the Teamsters Union came up for renegotiation in 
1947. 

As I explained to Salinger, I was not sure of the year, as this had 
happened many years before. Since then I found it was 1949. 

The Chairman. So that is one correction you make in your state- 
ment ? 

Mr. Miller. Right there. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Miller (reading) : In an effort to reach a new contract with 
the union, a number of meetings were held with Isaac Litwak. Some 
of these meetings were held prior to the time the contract ran out in 
March and some after. I sat in on the negotiations after the contract 
ran out. One of the first things the management agreed to do when 
the contract ran out was to pay retroactive wages to the expiration 
day for any increases we might agree to. I attended the 

The Chairman. That was to prevent a strike ? In other words, if 
you agreed from that time on, from the time the contract ran out, from 
the time it expired, whatever you agreed to later would be retroactive 
back to the date of the expiration of the contract ? 

Mr. Miller. That is right. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Miller (reading) : I attended 3 or 4 of these negotiating ses- 
sions after the contract ran out. These meetings were held at the 
Detroit Leland Hotel and at the Old Wayne Club in downtown 
Detroit. Isaac Litwak was the principal negotiator for the union. 

He had other representatives with him. Litwak was adamant to all 
of these negotiations, asking for all kinds of new provisions in the 
contract. 

Fritz Brady and Horace McKnight worked diligently getting up a 
memorandum on what the laundry owners felt they could do. Litwak 
took one look at this document and just discarded it, and said he was 
not interested in reading it any farther. 

Litwak kept meeting every request of the laundry owners with the 
threat of a strike. The negotiations kept dragging on and no progress 
was being made. Finally a lunch was arranged. 

Well, that is wrong, we just happened to get together for a lunch. 
It wasn't arranged. 

The Chairman. It wasn't arranged, but you were together at lunch. 

Mr. Miller. We were together. 

The Chairman. That correction will be made. 

Mr. Miller (reading) : It was arranged at which Meisner, Balkwill 
and I attended. 

21243— 58— pt. 36 3 



13302 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

This lunch was held in the lunchroom of the Detroiter Hotel. 

At this lunch, I suggested that perhaps we go to someone higher 
up in the Teamsters and attempt to reach a settlement. Things had 
become critical and the union had already levied $10 per member 
assessment as a strike fund. 

I did not want a strike and neither did the other laundry owners. 

It was agreed by Meisner and Balkwill tliat something should be 
done. Then they set up a meeting with James Hoffa. 

I was not at that meeting, and I suggested that they meet Hoffa. 
Whether they met Hoffa or not, I don't know. 

The Chairman. Well, that was your suggestion. 

Mr. Miller. That was my suggestion. 

The Chairman. You may clarify it further in your statement. 
Was it reported back to you that such a meeting was held ? 

Mr. Miller. Well, it was reported back that they had a meeting, 
but they did not tell me who the meeting was with. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed. 

Mr. Miller. Either Meisner or Balkwill or both reported the out- 
come of this meeting at the offices of the association in the Detroiter 
Hotel. 

Well, that is not true. It was just a chance meeting or probably 
a telephone conversation that they had made the contact. 

Tlie Chairman. In other words, that part is in error there, or is 
not accurate, that they reported it at a meeting ? 

Mr. Miller. Yes. 

The Chairman. They did report it, but not necessarily at a meeting ? 

Mr. Miller. That is right. They had no reason to report it to me, 
because I was no official in the Institute of Laundering outside of the 
fact that I was on the labor committee and tiymg to work out a con- 
tract. 

I was told that at this meeting with Hoffa it had been arranged 

Well, the meeting, as I say, I don't know whether it was with Hoffa. 

The Chairman. You were told that a meeting had been arranged. 

Mr. Miller. A meeting had been arranged — that a contract could be 
signed with the payment of $90 per truck by all the members of the 
association, to Hoffa. 

Well, there again that is not true, because I don't know who the 
payments were to be made to. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Chairman ? 

Tlie Chairman. Just a moment. You were told, though as a result 
of the meeting, that a settlement could be arranged by the payment 
of $90 per truck? 

;Mr. ^IiLLER. That is right. 

The Chairman. Were you interested in knowing to whom the pay- 
ments were to be made ? 

Mr. Miller. Well, being as I suggested that it be made to Hoffa, I 
just took it for granted that that is who the payments were made to. 

The Chairman. Did you ever learn anything different, that the 
meeting was held with anyone other than Hoffa ? 
Mr. Miller. No, I did not. 

The Chairman. You never heard of it being held with anyone else 
to this day ? 

Mr. Miller. No, never did. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13303 

The Chairman. And you had suggested it with Hoffa ? 

Mr. Miller. That is right. 

The Chairman. And they reported to you that the meeting had 
been arranged ? 

Mr. Miller. They did not tell me who the meeting had been ar- 
ranged with. 

The Chairman. They said a meeting had been arranged? 

Mr. Miller. That is right. 

The Chairman. Later they told you what the terms were, that was 
the proposition made to them at the meeting ? 

Mr. Miller. That is right. 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. Do you at this time know with whom the meeting 
was held? 

Mr. Miller. No, I don't. 

Senator Curtis. No one ever told you ? 

Mr. Miller. They never told me. 

Senator Curtis. You never asked the question ? 

Mr. Miller. No, I did not. I never asked the question. 

Senator Mundt. Do you know to whom the $90 was paid ? 

Mr. Miller. Well, I paid it to John Meisner. 

Senator Mundt. You paid your $90 to Jolm Meisner ? 

Mr. Miller. To John Meisner. 

Senator Mundt. Was he a Teamster official ? 

Mr. Miller. Well, I didn't pay him the whole $90. It was $90 per 
tiTick, and I paid him $45 per truck at that time, and the following 
year I paid him $225, and then the third year $225. It was $90 per 
truck over a period of 3 years, with half to be paid the first year, one- 
quarter the second, and one-quarter the third. 

Senator Mundt. Identify for me who John Meisner is ? 

Mr. Miller. He was the secretary of the Detroit Institute of Laun- 
dering. 

Senator Curtis. Who is Howard Balkwill ? 

Mr. Miller. He was the president. 

Senator Curtis. Are both of those men living ? 

Mr. Miller. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Where do they live ? 

Mr. Miller. In Detroit. 

Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Proceed with your statement. 

Mr. Miller (reading) : At that time, the association represented all 
the laundries of Detroit. 

Well, they did not represent quite all of them, but nearly all of them. 

This payment would assure a 3-year contract. 

I have heard since that it was a 5-year contract. 

I was told at this meeting by either Meisner, Balkwill or both, that 
Hoffa told them that the laundry owners would have to make no fur- 
ther concessions to the union. 

Well, I don't know who they contacted, but that was the report, that 
they would have to make no further concessions. 

The Chairman. That the laundry owners would have to make no 
further concessions if they carried out their plan or accepted this pro- 
posal of paying $90 per truck ? 



13304 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Miller. That is right. 

Hoffa told them, however, that he could do nothing about the con- 
cessions that had already been made. 

The payment of $90 was to Hoffa, I said here, but I don't know for 
sure who got it, was to be made over a period of 3 years, $45 per truck 
the first year, $22.50 per truck the second year, and $22.50 per truck 
the third year. 

The payments were to be made in cash. Meisner was chosen as the 
man who would make the collections. Hoffa said he would appear at 
the next meeting — 

That is just hearsay. He did not tell me, but it is hearsay. 

The Chairman. Tliat is what they reported to you ? 

Mr. Miller. That is right. [Reading:] 

At the next meeting with Litwak, and see that the contract was 
settled. 

Meisner came to me and collected the $450 first installment before 
the negotiating session was lield. The first payment was made in cash 
in the office of the New Method Laundry. I do not have knowledge 
of how the other laundries made their payments or whicli ones did. 

I also made the second and third payment of $225 each to Meisner 
in cash in the succeeding years. I did not attend the actual session, 
but Meisner reported to me what happened. Firstly, Hoffa was late 
in appearing. In fact, Meisner expressed the thought to me that he 
started worrying that the payoff might have gone down the drain. 

The Chairman. Just a moment. He reported to you that Hoffa 
did appear at the meeting ? 

Mr. Miller. Tliat is right. 

The Chairman. And he had previously reported to you that Hoffa 
said he would settle it ? 

Mr. Miller. AVell, his contacts with Hoffa agreed they would settle 
it, yes. 

The Chairman. In other words, as a result of these folks contacting 
someone higher, whom at the time you had suggested as Hoff'a, and 
so far as you knew, you never knew anything to the contrary but 
what it was Hoffa? 

Mr. Miller. Well, I surmised it was Hoffa. 

The Chairman. Well, you have never known anything to the 
contrary ? 

Mr. Miller. That is right, I never knew anything to the contrary. 

The Chairman. When the test came at the negotiating session, it 
was reported to you that Hoffa showed up there ? 

Mr. Miller. That is right. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed. We will have other proof. 

Mr. Miller. This meeting was held at the Detroit Lei and Hotel. 
When the door opened, Hoffa was there with a couple of his men. 

Well, I am not sure who was with him. 

The Chairman. That is what was reported to you ? 

Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. 
• The Chairman. Say so. 

Mr. Miller (reading) : Miesner said the color drained from Lit- 
wak's face when he saw Hoffa. Hoffa wanted to know what the meet- 
ing was all about. He then read the contract which had been worked 
out up to then, and expressed the view that it was a good contract 
and that there was nothins: wrons: with it. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13305 

The negotiations were then broken off and the contract signed some 
time later. It is my feeling and belief that Meisner and Balkwill 
were acting in the best interests of the laundry owners and that this 
type of arrangement had to be made to reach contract. 

The Chairman. Is that still your honest belief about it from what 
you know and from what part you played in it ? 

Mr. Miller. Yes, that is right. 

The Chairman. In other words, there was no doubt in your mind 
but what there had to be a payoff to get this contract settled? 

Mr. Miller. Definitely. I know I paid $450 the first year, $225 
the second, and $225 the third. 

The Chairman. And you were paying to get a contract and pre- 
vent a strike ? 

Mr. Miller. That is right. 

The Chairman. And you were paying it in cash ? 

Mr. Miller. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. You paid it to a man by the name of Meisner? 

Mr. Miller. John Meisner. 

Senator Mundt. Who is still alive ? 

Mr. Miller. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. And who should be able to tell the committee 
what he did with the money ? 

Mr. JVIiLLER, He should be able to ; yes. 

Senator Mundt. The last you saw of your money it was in the 
hands of Mr. Meisner ? 

Mr. Miller. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. It should not be very hard to find out from him 
what he did with the money. 

Mr. Miller. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. He will be a witness, Senator. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Miller. Well, that is all there is to it. That is the end. 

The Chairman. Have you made the corrections in the written 
statement that you read where you found inaccuracies to be? 

Mr. Miller. Well, I never met Hoffa myself. 

In fact, I never seen him in my life until today, outside of pictures 
in the paper. But I knew that he was Litwak's boss, and whatever 
negotiating we had to get a contract would probably have to go 
through him. That is why I made the suggestion. 

The Chairman. In other words, you were under pressure about this 
contract, there was a strike threatened against the whole industry 

Mr. Miller. That is right. 

The Chairman. You had been negotiating with the president of 
the local time and again. 

Mr. Miller. That is right. 

The Chairman. You were on the negotiating board, were you? 

Mr. Miller. That is right. 

The Chairman. And you had done your best to get a contract, to 
get it settled ? 

Mr. Miller. That is right. 

The Chairman. And you had been unsuccessful ? 

Mr. Miller. That is right. 

The Chairman. Prior to Mr. Hoffa's appearance at the meeting — • 
and I think the proof will show that, if you were not present at that 



13306 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

meeting; — had you offered everything prior to that time that was 
accepted at the time that Mr. Hoffa intervened ? 

Mr. Miller. That is right. 

The Chairman. You had already made these proposals. What is 
the other man's name, the president of the local ? 

Mr. Miller. Isaac Litwak. 

The Chairman. Litwak was rejecting the proposals ? He was turn- 
ing them down. You failed to get anywhere with him ? 

Mr. Miller. That is right. 

The Chairman. But when Mr. Hoffa intervened, if he did inter- 
vene, it was immediately settled upon the terms that the laundry 
institute had offered ? 

Mr. Miller. That is right. 

The Chairman. But it cost a little money ? 

Mr. Miller. That is right. 

Senator I\'ls. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question ? 

The Chairman. Senator Ives. 

Senator Ives. I want to ask the witness if anybody has talked to 
him about testifying before this committee about this meeting? 

Mr. Miller. No ; only Mr. Salinger. 

Senator I\t:s. Nobody else has iDeen in touch with you at all about 
testifying? 

Mr. Miller. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, he talked to Mr. Meisner. 

You have talked to Mr. Meisner ; have you not ? 

Mr. Miller. Well, I talked to Meisner and Balkwill. 

Mr. Kennedy. Also, when you say you read this statement casually, 
do not your initials appear on each page ? 

Mr. AIiLLER. That is right 

Mr. Kennedy. It has been notarized ? 

Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You read it over ; did you not ? 

INIr. ;Miller. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You approved of the statement at that time ? 

Mr. Miller. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Your changes you made regarding your conversa- 
tions with Mr. Meisner and Mr. Meisner identifying the recipient as 
Mr. Hoffa, those changes have been made in the last 48 hours? 

Mr. Miller. Well, no, they weren't. 

Mr. Kennedy. Since last night ? 

Mr. ]\IiLLER. Not in the last 48 hours. I told Mr. Salinger I was 
not there. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am asking you if in your conversations with Mr. 
Meisner, Mr. Meisner identified Mr. Hoffa as the recipient of the 
money ; did he not, to you ? 

Mr. Miller. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is what appears in the statement ? 

Mr. Miller. That is what appears there, but I wanted to cor- 
rect it. 

Mr. Kennedy. As of yesterday, your statement was correct, as of 
the time I talked to you yesterday ? 

Mr. Miller. My statement is still correct, but I don't know 

Mr. Kennedy. John Meisner identified Hoffa as the man; did he 
not, to you ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13307 

]\Ir. Miller. Not in that many words ; no. 

JMr, Keistnedt. That is what you said in the statement ? 

Mr. Miller. I just took that for granted that Hoffa was the man. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. You did not discuss that with Meisner ? 

Mr. Miller. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tliat is what appears in your statement. 

Mr. Miller. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And as of yesterday you stated to me in the office 
that that was correct ? 

Mr. Miller. Well, that is true, but, as I say, that I wasn't sure of, 
and I am still not sure of that, because I wasn't there. 

Mr. Kennedy. But from what was reported to you, you still say 
that if it had not been for the intervention of Mr. Hoffa as it was 
related to you, this contract would not have been signed ? 

Mr. Miller. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Hoffa did come to negotiation at the De- 
troit Leland Hotel as it was related to you ? 

Mr. Miller. As it was related to me, that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. There is one more question I would like to ask the 
the witness. 

Wliat caused him to change his statement? 

Mr. Miller. Change my statement ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, to make corrections in it as you went along. 
Presumably it was right yesterday and now it is wrong. 

Mr. Miller. As I told Mr. Salinger when he come up to speak to 
me, this happened 10 or 11 years ago. He asked me things on the 
telephone. He couldn't ask me direct. He relayed it to the operator 
and the operator had to relay it back to me. Then when he came up 
there, it was quite late, and I was doing other things while he was 
typing it out. But as far as to know John Meisner made the pay- 
ments to Hoffa, that I don't know because I wasn't there. 

Mr, Kennedy. I know, but you read that statement before you 
signed it, did you not ? 

Mr. INIiller. Just casually. I only looked it over once. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Well, a statement like that is an important state- 
ment. Did you not make affidavit to it ? 

Mr. Miller. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. When you do that, is it your custom to just casually 
glance at an affidavit before you swear to it ? 

I am just curious to know what made you change that statement. 
Are you scared of something ? 

Mr. Miller. No ; I am not. 

Mr. Kennedy. You act that way. 

Mr. Miller. No ; I am not a bit scared. But what I am trying to 
say is that I can't prove that John Meisner had any connections or 
paid any money directly to Hoffa. 

Mr. Kennedy. You knew that when you signed the statement, did 
you not ? 

Mr. Miller. Sure I knew it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliy did you sign the statement ? 

Mr. Miller. I told Mr. Salinger that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Salinger did not make you swear to it, did he? 

Mr. Miller. No. 



13308 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. I^NNEDT. You swore to it yourself freely, did you not, of your 
own will ? 

Mr. Miller. That is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yet you come along today and make all of these 
revisions in it. There is something very peculiar about this. 

Senator Mundt. This man looks like a good, honest American. He 
probably has not had much experience in appearing before a commit- 
tee, testifying under oath and making affidavits. 

How many affidavits have you made out in your lifetime? 

Mr. Miller. That is the first one. 

Senator Mundt. You get up here and testify under oath and you 
simply do not want to say something that you are not sure of under 
oath ? 

Mr. Miller. That is true. 

Senator Mundt. Now you want to tell us the true facts as you 
understand them ? 

Mr. Miller. That is true. 

Senator Mundt. I commend you for that. If there are any changes 
to be made, you should make them, because you are testifying under 
oath, and you do not want to get in trouble. 

Mr. Miller. That is true. 

Senator ]Mundt. I think your testimony has been helpful, and the 
greatest significance of it, as I see it, is that you have at least told us 
the name of the man who told you that they met with Mr. Hoffa in 
the Detroit Leland Hotel. 

Mr. Miller. That is right. 

Senator IMundt. There is no question in your mind but what they 
told you that? 

Mr. Miller. They were at the meeting. 

Senator Mundt. That they were at the meeting with Hoffa? 

Mr. Miller. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. And their names are Meisner and — who is the 
other one ? 

Mr. ]\IiLLER. Balkwill. 

Senator Mundt. It seems to me that that is enough contribution 
for one fellow to make, and I do not criticize you at all for the fact 
that you are simply trying to be sure that what you tell us is the 
absolute truth. 

Mr. Miller. That is true. 

The Chairman. The Chair undertook to give the witness every 
opportunity to make any correction he wished to as he presented his 
statement. The corrections have been made, according to his testi- 
mony. 

Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Miller, I want to ask you about the happenings 
when your drivers were first organized. You say you were the last 
one to have your drivers unionized ? 

Mr. Miller. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Were your supplies of coal and soap actually cut 
off? 

Mr. Miller. No. 

Senator Curtis. They were threatened ? 

Mr. Miller. Threatened, that is right. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13309 

Senator Curtis. Did those communications that amounted to a 
threat come to you or to the suppliers of coal and soap ? 

Mr. Miller. Well, Mr. Litwak had made me 3 or 4 visits, and he 
wanted to organize the drivers. I told him to go ahead. He talked to 
the drivers, and said he couldn't get them organized, that they didn't 
want to join the union. I said, "That is up to you. Wliat do you 
want me to do, put them in ?" 

So he contacted the institute and they give me a telephone call and 
told me I better join the union, because they could stop my coal and 
soap supplies coming in. 

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

Senator Curtis. In other words, your drivers didn't want to join 
the Teamsters Union ? 

Mr. Miller. They definitely didn't want to. 

Senator Curtis. And the organizer reported to you that they did 
not want to join? 

Mr. Miller. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Did you personally know your drivers ? 

Mr. Miller. That is right ; I did. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could have order 
in the room ? I can't hear. 

The Chairman. Let us have order. 

Senator Curtis. You believed that was the opinion of the majority 
of your drivers, they didn't want to join the union ? 

Mr. Miller. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. So then the approach was made to you that you 
put them in the union, that is correct ? 

Mr. Miller. That is right. 

Senator Curtis, And you were threatened with having your sup- 
plies of coal and soap and anything else you might use shut off if you 
didn't force your drivers into the union ? 

Mr. Miller. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Were any other supplies involved besides coal and 
soap ? 

Mr. Miller. No, sir; it was just a telephone threat, and that is what 
it was. They said there are other supplies that could be shut off, but 
there was only soap and coal mentioned. 

Senator Curtis. Was your place ever picketed ? 

Mr. Miller. No. 

Senator Curtis. Was anything said about picketing ? 

Mr. Miller. It was never mentioned. They never mentioned any 
picket lines. 

Senator Curtis. Did you put your men in the union ? 

Mr. Miller. I did. 

Senator Curtis. Was there reaction to that? 

Mr. Miller. Well, they were very unhappy, and their remark was 
that they accused me of selling them down the river. 

Senator Curtis. And they were put in the miion against their will 
because you were threatened with being shut up if you didn't force 
them to join? 

Mr. Miller. That is true. 

Senator Curtis. Well, I think that is a very bad set of facts. It is 
not unusual, however. The law gives to workers the right to organize 



13310 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

and bargain collectively, and it doesn't give to unions any rights to 
organize somebody that doesn't want to be organized. That is just 
illustrative of certain elements of unlawful conduct. 

That is all. 

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

Senator Church. Mr. Miller, in connection with the testimony that 
you have just given, in this telephone conversation when you were ad- 
vised that unless your truckers joined the Teamsters Union these sup- 
plies would be cut off, with whom was that telephone conversation? 

Mr. Miliar. Well, it came from the institute.. 

Senator Church. Do you recall who gave you that inf onnation ? 

Mr. Miller. Mr. Balkwill. 

Senator Church. Of the institute ? 

Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. 

Senator Church. You had no direct communication from the rep- 
resentatives of the Teamsters themselves ? 

Mr. Miller. No. 

Senator Church, But it was Mr. Balkwill, of the institute, who 
told you that he had been advised by the Teamsters that unless your 
truckers were put into the Teamsters Union, these supplies would be 
cut off ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Miller. That is true. 

Senator Church. There is one other aspect. Let me follow that up 
with this question : Then you proceeded to put these truckers into the 
Teamsters' local ? 

Mr. Miller. That is true. 

Senator Church. Did I understand you to testify that as a part 
of that arrangement, each paid $1 instead of the customary initiation 
fee? 

Mr. Miller. That is true. 

Senator Church. ^Yho paid that ? Did the employees pay it, or did 
you pay it ? 

Mr. Miller. The employees paid it. 

Senator Church. And after you put them into the Teamsters, you 
had no further difficulties with regard to your supplies or any further 
troubles in that connection ? 

Mr. Miller. No. 

Senator Church. Now, as far as you can personally testify of your 
own knowledge, you were a member of the negotiating committee of 
the institute that was attempting to get a new contract with the Team- 
sters Union for all of the members of the institute ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Miller. That is true. 

Senator Church. And certain offers had been made, and these offers 
had not been accepted by the president of the Teamsters' local with 
whom you were dealing ? 

Mr. Miller. That is correct. 

Senator Church. And then, if I understood, and correct me if 1 
misunderstood your testimony, you directly testified that you were ad- 
vised by Mr. Meissner and Balkwill that a payment should be made 
by the members, and the payment was $90 per truck. 
^ Now, were thev the ones who told you this ? 

Mr. Miller. Well, I don't know how they agreed on the $90. 

Senator Church. But were they the ones who told you that that 
would be the amount required ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13311 

Mr. Miller. Well, when Jolin Meissner came to me, he said it 
would be $90. 

Senator Church. Did he tell you that this $90 per truck would have 
to be paid in order to get a contract ? Was that his explanation to 
you? 

Mr. Miller. Oh, yes ; we understood that. 

Senator Church. It was clearly understood that this was in pay- 
ment for a contract ? 

Mr. Miller. That is right. 

Senator Church. And then later these same two men informed 
you that Mr. Hoffa did appear at a meeting in which these negotia- 
tions for a contract were being discussed ? 

Mr. Miller. Well, as I say, we were having lunch and there was 
probably several of us there, and he wasn't at the meeting, but the 
report did come back that Mr. Hoffa came to the Leland Hotel 
in 1949. 

Senator Church. And the report came from whom? Who told 
you this ? That is what I was trying to get. 

Mr. Miller. John Meissner told me that. 

Senator Church. Then you paid the $90 per truck, in 3 install- 
ments ? 

Mr. Miller. That is right. 

Senator Church. And to your knowledge did other laundry owners 
also make this payment ? 

Mr. Miller. I don't know. 

Senator Church. But any way, you made the payment ? 

Mr. Miller. I made it. 

Senator Church. Shortly thereafter, a contract was entered into, 
and the contract consisted of the same terms that had been previously 
offered but not accepted by the union ? 

Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the local union official who had been conduct- 
ing the negotiations, Mr. Isaac Litwak, was very upset that Mr. Hoffa 
had gone over his head ? 

Mr. Miller. That is as they told it to me ; that is right. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Senator Curtiss. I have one other question. At the time that this 
attempt was made to organize your drivers, did you have any con- 
troversy or trouble with your drivers or any dispute with them ? 

Mr. Miller. None whatsoever. 

Senator Curtis. They were not complaining about their pay and 
their working conditions ? 

Mr. Miller. No. 

Senator Curtis. Did any of them belong to the Teamsters Union 
at that time ? 

Mr. ]\IiLLER. Well, that I don't know for sure, but previous to that 
there had been one or two who had belonged to it, but whether any of 
them belonged to it at that particular time, I don't know. 

Senator Curtis. You had 10 drivers ? 

Mr. JNIiLLER. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. So far as the Teamsters Union was concerned, 
they were just outsiders butting in, were they not, and they did not 
represent your drivers ? 

Mr. Miller. No. 



13312 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

The Chairman. Tlie committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. 
(Whereupon, at 12 : 25, the committee recessed, to reconvene at 
2 p. m., the same day.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

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

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Vincent Watldns. 

The Chairman. Will stand and be sworn ? 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. Watkins. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF VINCENT B. WATKINS 

The Chairman. Mr. Watkins, state your name and your place of 
residence and your business or occupation. 

Mr. Watkins. Vincent B. Watkins, 587 Henley, Birmingham, 
Mich. I am a partner of the Grand Laundry. 

The Chairman. Mr. Watkins, do you waive counsel ? 

Mr. Watkins. I do, sir. 

The Chairman. How long have you been in the laundry business ? 

Mr. Watkins. I have been in the business about 30 years. I have 
owned the Grand Laundry since 1944, and I have been a partner of 
it since 1944. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Watkins, were you a member of the 
negotiating committee of the Detroit Institute of Laundry in 1949? 

Mr. Watkins. Yes, sir, 

Mr. Kennedy. The others that were on that committee with you 
were Mr. Horace McKnight ? 

Mr. Watkins. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Charles Ladides, Howard Balkwill, and John 
Meisner; is that correct? 

Mr. Watkins. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, were you having difficulties reaching an agree- 
ment with Mr. Isaac Litwak of local 285 of the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Watkins. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was very adamant in his position about signing 
a contract with you ? 

Mr. Watkins. Quite so. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he particularly wanted to go into a 5-day week, 
which you felt would be very costly ; is that right ? 

Mr. Watkins. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it ultimately discussed that it would be neces- 
sary or steps should be taken to get somebody higher up in the 
Teamsters Union ? 

Mr. Watkins. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That took place at a meeting of your group, did it? 

Mr. Watkins. That some arrangements should be made to ap- 
proach someboy higher up in the Teamsters ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13313 

Mr. Watkins. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How long had these negotiations been going on 
before you decided to go to someone higher up ? 

Mr. Watkins. If I remember correctly, it was a couple of months. 

The Chairman, Iu the meantime had the contract expired ? 

Mr. Watkins. I don't remember. 

The Chairman. But you do know that the negotiations had been 
going on for around 2 months at least before you decided to try to 
go over the head of the president of the local union ? 

Mr. Watkins. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, I believe the record shows that the_ contract 
expired in February and your negotiations were going on in April, 
May, and June of that year ? 

Mr. Watkins. Yes. 

Mr. Ivennedy. After you had this discussion about going to a 
higher up in the Teamsters Union, did a report then come back ta 
you that it was going to cost some money i 

Mr. Watkins. It did, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who gave you that report? 

Mr. Watkins. I don't remember correctly, but I remember at the 
meeting that the gentlemen whose names you have read off were 
present, and I can't say which one made the report. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. One of this group made a report that it was going 
to cost some money ? 

Mr. Watkins. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then did you discuss or did he report to you how 
much money it was going to cost ? 

Mr. Watkins. To my recollection, not at that particular meeting. 

Mr. Kennedy. This money was to be paid to the higher up in the 
Teamsters Union, as you understood it ? 

Mr. Watkins. Presumably so, yes. 

Mr. ICennedy. Now, were you ultimately told how much it was 
going to cost ? 

Mr. Watkins. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you remember w4io told you that? 

Mr. Watkins. No ; I don't remember for certain, but I would say 
it was probably Mr, Balkwill or Mr. Meisner. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Now, liow mucli did you understand it was going 
to cost each laundry owner? 

Mr. Watkins. Up to yesterday when your Mr. Willse refreshed 
my memory, I didn't remember exactly. But the figure that he men- 
tioned of $90 a truck, that has been discussed here today, sounds 
reasonable to me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that to be paid all at one time? 

Mr. Watkins. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was $90 a truck, to be paid over a 3-year period ? 

Mr. Watkins. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And it was $90 a truck for the first year ? 

Mr. Watkins. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. $45 for the first year ? 

Mr. Watkins. I believe so, yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then it was to be followed bv 2 payments, the suc- 
ceeding years of $22.50, is that right ? 



13314 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Watkins. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Over a 3-year period ? 

Mr. Watkins. Yes, sir. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Did you decide to make that payment ? 

Mr. Watkins. I did. 

Mr. Ivennedy. And did you collect the money ? 

Mr. Watkins. Did I pay the money, you mean ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Watkins. Yes, sir. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. How much money did you pay altogether ? 

Mr. Watkins. I don't remember. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. Do you know approximately how much ? 

Mr. Watkins. I think at that time we had someplace between 
12 and 15 trucks. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you paid $1,000 or $1,200 ? 

Mr. Watkins. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. To whom did you give this money ? 

Mr. Watkins. Mr. Meissner. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Was it explained to you that the money would 
have to be in the form of cash ? 

Mr. Watkins. I think so, and at least that was the medium of 
exchange. 

Mr. Kennedy. After you paid the cash to Mr. Meissner, did the 
Detroit Institute of Laundry go get the contract signed ? 

Mr. Watkins. I don't remember the chronology of it. 

Mr. Ivennedy. But subsequently ? 

Mr. Watkins. ^Vliether it was after the payment or whether it 
was after the meeting where they said that they had had a discussion 
with someone, but nevertheless the contract was ultimately signed. 

Mr. Kennedy. And it was generally or basically on the terms that 
you wished to have the contract signed at that time ? 

Mr. Watkins. Yes, because we had already given up so much we 
couldn't get back, that what was left we felt we had to keep. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not have to give anything more ? 

Mr. Watkins. No ; we did not give the 5-day week. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was explained to you that the concessions already 
made would have to remain in effect, but you wouldn't have to give 
any more ? 

^Ir. Watkins. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you didn't have to give in to any more points 
and the contract was signed, is that right ? 

Mr. Watkins. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand that Mr. Litwak was upset at 
the fact that Mr. Hoffa had gone over his head in this matter? 

Mr. Watkins. I don't think so. I don't think I had any knowledge 
of that situation. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it ever reported to you ? 

Mr. Watkins. Yes, sir; I think it was discussed years afterwards, 
that there was some upsetment. But I don't remember exactly. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand Mr. Hoffa had intervened in 
this contract ? 

Mr. Watkins. No ; I did not. 

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



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13315 

The Chairman. Do you know whether the other laundry owners 
had to pay the same as you did ? 

Mr. Watkins. No; I presumed that they did, but I don't know. 

The Chairman. Was that the understanding that all of them 
would have to pay ? 

Mr. Watkins. Yes, sir ; I would say that substantially is correct. 

The Chairman. You were not agreeing to something that was not 
applicable to all of your associates, were you? 

^Ir. Watkins. I hope not. 

The Chairman. Well, you tried to make a little certain about it at 
the time ? 

Mr. AYatkins. I expected that they were all contributing some- 
thing. 

The Chairman. That was the general idea ? 

Mr. Watkins. That is correct. 

The Chairman. What was the purpose of the contribution ? 

Mr. Watkins. Presumably to get a contract closed that we were 
having great difficulty in closing, despite what we felt was a ];)resenta- 
tion of good facts and figures. 

The Chairman. Well, placing it in another terminology, you were 
paying off, is that correct ? 

Mr. Watkins. In the vernacular ; yes. 

The Chairman. Can you give any other appropriate description 
for it? 

JNIr. Watkins. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you regard that as a legitimate transaction? 

Mr. Watkins. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Why not ? 

Mr. Watkins. Because I think it is morally wrong. 

The Chairman. You think, too, that it was an exploitation of the 
situation ? 

Mr. Watkins. Yes. 

The Chairman. Did you understand that money was going into the 
union treasury ? 

Mr. Watkins. No ; I don't think that I had any such understanding. 

The Chairman. You never even had any such suspicion, did you ? 

Mr. Watkins. No ; I don't believe so. 

The Chairman. Then what you actually paid it for or what you all 
paid it for was to keep from having further trouble with the union? 

Mr. Watkins. Yes, sir. 

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

The Chairman. In other words, it was an exaction that was made of 
you in order to let you have peace ? 

Mr. Watkins. That is right. 

The Chairman. But you felt you had no other alternative under 
the circumstances, was that correct ? 

Mr. Watkins. I am afraid so ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Well, you know how you felt about it at the time, 
and I don't think that you would just 

Mr. Watkins. I had made a commitment that they would go higher 
up before I realized that it would cost money, and I am afraid if I knew 
it would cost money to start with I would not have been in favor of it. 

The Chairman. In other words, if you had known that going higher 



13316 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

up was going to involve you in this kind of a shady deal, you wouldn't 
have agreed to it ? 

Mr. Watkins. That is correct. 

The Chairman. And you do regard it as a form of extortion, do 
you not ? 

Mr. Watkins. Yes. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Actually, if you had 12 trucks, it cost a total of more than $1,000? 

Mr. Wx\TKiNS. That is right. 

The Chairman. And you paid it ? 

Mr. Watkins. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And you paid it in cash ? 

Mr. Watkins. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. So that there would be no record of it ? 

Mr. Watkins. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? Are there any further 
questions? 

All right, thank you, you may stand aside. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Conrad Lantz. 

The Chairman. Do you solemnly swear that the evidence, given 
before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, 
and notliing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Lantz. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF CONRAD LANTZ 

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

Mr. Lantz. My name is Conrad Lantz, I live in Bellriver, Ontario, 
and I am general manager of the LaMeasure Bros. Laundry. 

The Chairman. Do you waive counsel ? 

Mr. Lantz. Yes : I do. 

The Chairman. Have you formerly lived in the United States ? 

Mr. Lantz. Yes. 

The Chairman. Are you a citizen of this country or of Canada ? 

Mr. Lantz. Of the United States. 

The Chairman. A citizen of the United States ? 

Mr. Lantz. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What business did you operate in this country? 

Mr. Lantz. The Pilgrim Laundry. 

The Chairman. Where ? 

Mr. Lantz. 1949, from 1939 and they still own it. 

The Chairman. And 3'ou stiH operate it ? 

Mr. Lantz. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Where is it located ? 

Mr. Lantz. In Detroit. 

The Chairman. All right, you may proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are the manager of the LaMeasure Bros. 
Laundry ? 

Mr. Lantz. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you held that position ? 

Mr. Lantz. About 3 yeare. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13317 

Mr. Kennedy. What position did you have in the laundry business 
in 1949? 

Mr. Lantz. I was an owner of the Pilgrim Laimdiy, and I still am. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have difficulties in negotiating a contract 
with the Teamsters Local 285, Mr. Isaac Litwak in 1949 ? 

Mr. Lantz. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he taking a very adamant position in connec- 
tion with the signing of the contract ? 

Mr. Lantz. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you were having a great number of problems^ 
is that right ? 

Mr. Lantz. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it then discussed among your committee that 
you would make an approach to someone higher up in the Teamsters 
Union ? 

Mr. Lantz. That is correct. 

Mr. Ivennedy. And could you tell the committee what you were 
told then? After it was decided to make that approach to someone 
higher up in the Teamsters Union, was it then reported back to you 
that it would be necessai-y for some money to be paid ? 

Mr. Lantz. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us how much money it was decided 
upon ? 

Mr. Lantz. I believe it was around $90 per truck. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, was it explained to you as to whom the money 
would be given ? 

Mr. Lantz. I was told it would be given to Mr. Holtzman who was 
engaged as labor relations man. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you understand why it was to be given to 
Mr. Holtzman ? 

Mr. Lantz. I presume because he had the contract with the higher- 
ups. 

Mr. Kennedy. Specifically were you told as to who Mr, Holtzman 
was close to ? 

Mr. Lantz. I presume the name of Mr, Hoffa was mentioned. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not asking what you presume, and weren't you 
told? 

Mr. Lantz. Frankly, I can't remember. It was quite some time ago. 

Mr. Kennedy. Weren't you told, or you remembered about 5 hours 
ago in my office downstairs ? 

Mr. Lantz. I am sorry, Mr. Kennedy. Vriiat was that again ? 

Mr, Kennedy. You remember about 5 hours ago in my office down- 
stairs. Let me just ask you this : When it was stated that money would 
be paid to Mr. Holtzman, why was it explained to you that the money 
would go to him ? 

Mr. Lantz. Well, he was in the labor-relations business, and I pre- 
sume as such was entitled to a fee, 

Mr. Kennedy. What else was explained to you about Mr. Holtz- 
man? 

Mr. Lantz. That was it. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was all that was said about Mr. Holtzman? 

21243—58 — pt. 36— 4 



13318 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Lantz. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was anything said about his connection with any 
individual in the Teamsters Union ? 

Mr. Lantz. As I said, I presume. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not asking what you presume. I am asking 
what was said at that time. 

Mr. Lantz. I can't remember that far back. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you tell me this morning at 9 : 30 in my office 
that tlie reason the money was to be paid to Mr. Holtzman is because, 
"he had the ear of Mr. Hoffa" ? 

Mr. Lantz. Possibly, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, there is no question about "possibly." You 
told me that. 

Mr. Lantz. I don't remember the exact words and perhaps you 
have it written down, but I don't, and I didn't write them down. 

Mr. Kennedy. You told me that this morning, and isn't that correct, 
as to why the money was paid ? 

Mr. Lantz. I believe I told you that he was in the labor relations, 
and he had a direct communication with Mr. Hoffa. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that was the reason the money was paid to 
him ; was it not ? 

Mr. Lantz. Well, as a consultant, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. But also because of the fact that he was a close 
friend or he had the ear of Mr. James Hoffa ? 

]Mr. Lantz. And apparently was quite conversant with our problem 
in connection with the 5-day week. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it correct that at least part of the reason the 
money was going to be paid to Mr. Holtzman, and I will say the only 
reason you gave me in my office downstairs, was that he had tlie ear 
of Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. Lantz. That was probably very close to it. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is not probably very close to the truth ; that is 
the truth ; is it not ? 

Mr. Lantz. Mr. Kennedy, perhaps you have it written down, and 
I don't remember it. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is what you told me this morning. Isn't that 
correct, the reason the money was paid to Mr. Holtzman ? 

Mr. Lantz. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. 

Now, did Mr. Holtzman ever go on a negotiating session for the 
Detroit Institute of Laundry ? 

Mr. Lantz. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you ever present when Mr. Holtzman had 
any conversations about your problems with any union official ? 

Mr. Lantz. None whatsoever. 

Mr. Kennedy. He never particij^ated in any open negotiations that 
you know of ? 

Mr. Lantz. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the money was to be paid in cash, was it not? 

Mr. Lantz, That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. To him ? 

Mr. Lantz. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand then that Mr. Hoffa intervened 
in this contract? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13319 

Mr. Lantz. We did have a meeting with Mr. Hoffa shortly after 
that. 

Mr. Kennedy, After this was arranged ? 

Mr. Lantz. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Hokzman arranged for you to meet with 
Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. Lantz. I can't say that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who arranged for the meeting ? 

Mr. Lantz. I am sorry, I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. But shortly after the arrangements were made to 
pay Mr. Holtzman, you did meet with Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. Lantz. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did Mr. Hoffa then inject himself into the ne- 
gotiations for this contract ? 

Mr. Lantz. Yes, we met on Trumbull Avenue, at the Teamsters 
headquarters. 

Mr. Kennedy. You went there, and also didn't he come to the 
negotiations for the contract at the Detroit Leland Hotel? 

Mr. Lantz. I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that reported to you ? 

Mr. Lantz. No, not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. All right, but you did go to see him after the money 
was paid to Mr. Holtzman ? 

Mr. Lantz. That is correct, yes, on Trumbull Avenue. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to ask about this item. 

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

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you a photostatic copy of 
a check dated May 2, 1949, made payable to you in the amount of 
$1,000 drawn on the account of the Detroit Institute of Laundry. 
I ask you to examine this check and state if you identify it. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Lantz. Yes. 

The Chairman. Do you identify the check ? 

Mr. Lantz. Yes, I do. Senator. 

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

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 1" for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 13707.) 

Mr. Kennedy. This is a check dated May 2, 1949, pay to the order 
of Conrad S. Lantz, for $1,000. It is written on the account of the 
Detroit Institute of Laundry, and it is endorsed on the back by Conrad 
S. Lantz. You received this $1,000? 

Mr. Lantz. I received the check, that is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you cashed the check ? 

Mr. Lantz. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Wliat did you do with the cash ? 

Mr. Lantz. I gave it to John Meisner. 

Mr. Kennedy. For what purpose ? 

Mr. Lantz. I believe it had something to do with the inside laundry 
workers union. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is another laundry workers imion ? 

Mr. Lantz. That is correct. 



13320 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

JVIr. Kennedy. And this money was to be given to a member of 
that union? 

Mr. Lantz. I believe so. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yon were told that? 

Mr. Lantz. It probably came up in our conversations. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yon were told that, were you not ? 

Mr. Lantz. I would say probably, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. This was to go to whom in that union ? 

Mr. Lantz. Jolm Paris. 

Mr. Kennedy. P-a-r-i-s? 

Mr. Lantz. I think that is the spelling. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he receiving payments of money periodically ? 

Mr. Lantz. That I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is this the only check you know about ? 

Mv. Lantz. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. "What was the purpose of paying Mr. Paris money ? 

Mr. Lantz. I believe it was pretty much we were in negotiations 
at that time, on the inside contract, and I believe it was to expedite the 
contract. 

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

The Chairman. Who was Paris representing, the laundiy men or 
the union? 

Mr. Lantz. The inside workers, the laundry workers. 

The Chairman. Inside workers ? 

Mr. Lantz. Yes ; representing the union. 

The Chairman. Well, then, let's see. This was another payoff to 
a union man ? Is that what you are saying ? 

Mr. Lantz. I say this is ; yes. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. How much money did you pay — I don't know 
whether I asked you this — how much money did you pay on the other 
payoff that you made ? 

Mr. Lantz. I don't recall how many trucks I had, but it was prob- 
ably at the rate of $90 per truck. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you paid over a 3-year period ? 

Mr. Lantz. I believe so ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa's name was mentioned frequently in con- 
nection with this, was it not, the meetings ? 

Mr. Lantz. I can't say that, Mr. Kennedy. 

The Chairman. Approximately how much did you pay on the 
other transactions ? 

Mr. Lantz. "VYliat transaction. Senator? 

The Chairman. Well, your part, at so much per truck. About liow 
many trucks did you have? 

Mr. Lantz. I think I probably had about eight trucks. 

The Chairman. About how many ? 

JSIr. Lantz, About nine. 

The Chairman. About nine ? 

Mr. Lantz. Yes. So it would be about $800. 

The Chairman. It cost you about $800, $400 in casli at that time 
and then $400 after that time for each of the 2 years ( . 

Mr. Lantz. That is correct. 

The Chairman. You didn't sret anv of tliis J*>1.(H)>'). did vou ( 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13321 

Mr. Lantz. No; I did not. 

The Chairman. This came out of the treasury of the Detroit Insti- 
tute of Laundry. 

Mr. Lantz. That is right. 

The Chairman. You were a member of that institute, were you? 

Mr. Lantz. Yes. 

The Chairman. And part of this was dues or money that you had 
paid in for your membership ? 

Mr. Lantz. Right. 

The Chairman. And it was known at the time that this whole 
thing was a payoff, that it was extortion, tliat you had to do it in orde>' 
to save your businesses and get a contract. 

Mr. Lantz. I would say so. 

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

Mr. Lantz. Yes. 

The Chairman. Is that the way all of you felt about it as you dis- 
cussed it? 

Mr. Lantz. I would say so. 

The Chairman. Well, there is no other explanation for it, is there? 
You didn't want to have to just hand out $90 per truck to somebody, 
did you ? 

Mr. Lantz. I sure didn't want to. 

The Chairman. But you had that alternative of either doing that 
or. continuing to have trouble over the contract and any consequences 
that might follow that truck ? 

Mr. Lantz. I would say so. 

The Chairman. Do you know any other name for this except ex- 
tortion ? 

Mr. Lantz. No. 

• The Chairman. Thank you. Are there any other questions ? 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. What would have happened if you had not paid 
the money? 

Mr. Lantz. We probably would have had a strike. 

Senator Curtis. What would have taken place then ? 

Mr. Lantz, We probably would have gone out of business. 

Senator Curtis. What I mean is, would it have been your own 
employees going on strike ? 

Were your own employees dissatisfied ? 

Mr. Lantz. Believe you me, I don't know. The union had represent- 
atives of the various plants there, and they were demanding a contract 
that we just could not see our way clear to fulfill. 

Senator Curtis. Did you ever go through a strike ? 

Mr. Lantz. No ; never have. 

Senator Curtis. Did you explore what the result would be had you 
refused to pay and sought some relief in court ? 

Mr. Lantz. I believe it was shortly before that, Senator, when they 
did have a strike situation in one of the large cities. I believe it was 
Philadelphia. The results were pretty drastic. They could not get 
relief from the courts. 

Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 



13322 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Do you know why this check was not just made 
out to Mr. Paris to begin with ? 

Mr. Lantz. No. 

The Chairman. You have a pretty good idea, don't you ? 

Mr. Lantz. Yes. 

The Chairman. He woukhi't accept the check, would he? 

Mr. Lantz. I don't know. I don't talk to Mr. Paris. We have a 
contract with a different union than Mr. Paris'. 

The Chairman. You must have talked to him or seen him or some- 
body to get this money to him. 

Mr. Lantz. I am sorry ; I turned it over to Mr. Meisner. 

The Chairman. Mr. Meisner? 

Mr. Lantz. That is correct. 

The Chairman. You cashed the check and turned it back to Mr. 
Meisner ? 

Mr. Lantz. That is right. 

The Chairman. Who is Mr. Meisner ? 

Mr. Lantz. The executive secretary of the trade institute of 
laundry. 

The Chairman. In other words, he needed the cash ? 

Mr. Lantz. That is right. 

The Chairman. He couldn't handle the transaction by check ? 

Mr. Lantz. That is correct. 

The Chairman. So he used you as the man to get the money in 
cash and made the check to you ? 

Mr. Lantz. That is correct. 

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

If not, thank you very much. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. William Ballovill. 

The Chairman. Be sworn, please, sir. You do solemnly swear the 
evidence you shall give before this Senate Select Committee shall be 
the truth, the wliole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you 
God? 

Mr. Balkwill. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM H. BALKWILL 

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

Mr. Balkwill. William H. Balkwill, 2522 West Grand Boulevard, 
Detroit, executive secretary of the Detroit Institute of Laundry. 

The Chairman. You waive counsel, do you, Mr. Balkwill ? 

Mr. Balkwill. I do, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Kennedy, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are an executive secretary of the Detroit Insti- 
tute of Laundry ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have held that position for how long? 

Mr. Balkwill. Since 1953. 

Mr. Kennedy. What position did you hold in 1949 ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Well, I was operating a laundry, and I was presi- 
dent of the Detroit Institute of Laundry. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were president at that time ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13323 

Mr. Balkwtll. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the name of the laundry that you were 
operating ? 

Mr. Balkwill. The Fine Arts Laundry in Detroit. 

Mr. Kennedy. The contract with Local 285 of the Teamsters came 
up for renewal in 1949, did it not? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Isaac Litwak was the negotiator for local 
285? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you having considerable difficulty with Mr. 
Litwak during the negotiations in 1949 ? 

Mr. Balkwill. That is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. That would be in the beginning of the year, would 
it not? 

Mr. Balkwill. I believe we started to discuss it in December 1948. 
It expired in February. 

Mr. Kennedy. February of 1949 ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you went on and had discussions after that time? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Litwak indicated that he was going to 
strike all the laundries, is that right, unless he could get a contract? 

Mr. Balkwill. That is always his position. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, it was his position during this period of time? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes, it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you and the rest of the institute and the mem- 
bers of the institute were quite concerned; is that right? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not seem to be getting anywhere with 
them? 

Mr. Balkwill. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it then decided or discussed about going then 
and making an approach to a higher union official ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Of the Teamsters ? 

ISIr. Balkwill. That is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. You made the decision that you should go and 
see a higher union official. Could you tell us who suggested the 
arrangements as to how that could be handled ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Well, I couldn't state the individual. Some of our 
committee suggested how we might approach it was through a labor 
councilor or labor relations man, Mr. Joe Holtzman. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who suggested that you go see Mr. Holtzman? 

Mr. Balkwill. Well, I couldn't say just who the individual was. 
It was one of our committee. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was it that made the suggestion ? 

Mr. Balkwill. I have never stated, and I don't know exactly the 
name. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you been told as to who made the suggestion 
that you go see Mr. Holtzman ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes, we were told that. We were told that Mr 
Holtzman might be able to do us some irood. 



13324 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Who told you that ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Well, I say I don't know just who told me at first. 

Mr. Kennedy. You knew yesterday. 

Mr. Balkwill. Well, no, I don't believe you are asking me the same 
question you did yesterday. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who introduced you to Mr. Holtzman ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Mr. Moe Dalitz. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who is Mr. Moe Dalitz ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Well, he is a man about the country, I would say. 
At that time he was interested and possibly still is interested in a 
laundry in Detroit. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he now also has the interest in Havana and in 
Las Vegas, is that right ? 

Mr. Balkwill. I believe so. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he made the suggestion that you talk to Mr. 
Holtzman ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Well, I don't know as he made the suggestion to me. 
I did not know him, you see. 

But someone made a contact with Mr. Moe Dalitz, and the word was 
given me that we go to lunch at a place in Detroit and he would meet 
us there. 

Mr. Kennedy. IVliat was the name of the lunch place ? 

Mr. Balkwill. It was Charles' Chop House. 

Mr Kennedy. Charles' Chop House? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Charles Chop House that is close to the Teamsters' 
headquarters? 

Mr. Balkwill. Well, it is not too far. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was going to meet you there ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Well, I did not know at the time, but it was Mr. Moe 
Dalitz that did meet us, and he introduced me to — well, I say me, he 
introduced Mr. Meisner and I to Mr. Holtzman, and possibly 4 or 5 
other gentlemen that were there, 

Mr. Kennedy. Was Mr. Buslikin also present at that luncheon? 

Mr. Balkwill. I did not Iniow it. I believe he was. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was understood that it was Mr. Holtzman that was 
going to be able to do you some good in this matter ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes ; that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have some conversations with Mr. Holtz- 
man, then ? 

Mr. Blakwill. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Wliat did he say he would do, what arrangements 
would he make ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Well, he heard our story, if I remember right, and 
we had the contract there, the demands that Mr. Litwak had made. 
We outlined to him how far we had got to that time, the offer we 
had made, and the differences involved. 

He made notes of that. I am not sure whether he took a copy of the 
contract with him, though I believe he did. 

And that he would see what he could do about it. He was going to 
study it and see what he could do. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then did he come back later on and have another 
conversation with you ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13325 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. What did he tell you then ? 

Mr. Balkwill. He said that — I couldn't get all the detail right 
now — he could get it very much as we had suggested it. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much was it going to cost you ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Well, the first proposition, I believe, was $25,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. In cash ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were to pay $25,000 in cash, is that right? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was your reaction to that ? 

Mr, Balkwill. Well, we nearly fainted. It is a lot of money. 
We just couldn't pay it. 

The Chairman. What was that money to go for ? 

Mr. Balkwill. I beg your pardon ? 

The Chairman. What was that money to go for, the $25,000 in 
cash ? 

Mr. Blackwell. Well, it was for his expense. Just what he was 
going to do with it, I don't know. He naturally didn't tell us. 

The Chairman. He just told you that that is what it would cost 
you ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes ; that is what it would cost for him to handle it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You knew he was very close to Mr. Hojffa, did you 
not? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes. We knew that he knew Mr. Hoffa. He knew 
all the teamster fellows there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell him you couldn't pay the $25,000? 

Mr. Balkwill. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You negotiated back and forth ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you finally reach another figure that you would 
pay him ? 

Mr. Balkwill. We finally reached a figure. If I remember rightly, 
it was $17,500. 

Mr. Kennedy. You agreed to pay the $17,500 ? 

Mr. Balkwill. We couldn't pay that at that time, but we did set- 
tle on getting him, I believe, $7,500, and then the balance in 2 annual 
payments. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that would be $7,500 the first year, and $5,000 
each succeeding year, is that correct ? 

Mr. Balkwill. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. All of those payments were to be in cash? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. He then said that with this payment he could deliver 
to you the contract, basically as you wished to have it, is that right, 
or as it was at that particular stage ? 

Mr. Balkwill. I believe with a few adjustments that he said would 
be necessary. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you would not have to make any more major 
concessions, is that right ? 

Mr. Balkwill. I guess that is correct ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't that correct ? 

Mr. Balkwill. I think so. 



13326 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy, And that you would not have a strike, that Mr. 
Litwak would sign the contract ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Tliat is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then did you have a meeting with Mr. Hoffa him- 
self? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes, some time after that. 

Mr. Kennedy. You went to see Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. Balkavill. Well, there was a meeting arranged with Mr. Hoffa 
and some of his board, I assumed it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was at the Teamster headquarters ? 

Mr, Balkwill. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that meeting was arranged by Mr. Holtzman? 

Mr, Balkwill. I believe so. We were not notified by Mr, Holtz- 
man, I don't believe. I believe our attorney made the arrangements. 
I am not sure about that. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was either Mr. Holtzman or your attorney ? 

Mr, Balkwell, Yes. 

Mr, Kennedy. Who was your attorney ? 

Mr, Balkwill, Mr, Thomas LoCicero, 

Mr, Kennedy. You say that either he or Mr, Holtzman made the 
arrangements ? 

Mr, Balkw^ill, I believe so ; yes, 

Mr, Kennedy, But you think it is very possible Mr. Holtzman 
arranged for you to meet with Mr. Hoffa then ? 

Mr. Balkwill, Well, he was an expensive counsel, I assume he 
made it possible, 

Mr, Kennedy, Well, you paid him the money. You expected to get 
something out of it. So shortly after you arranged to meet with 
Mr, Hoffa, 

Mr, Balkwill. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. So it would appear that Mr. Holtzman at least, 
whether you knew it or not, had made the arrangements. 

Mr, Balkwill. Yes, 

Mr. Kennedy. After that, you explained to Mr. Hoffa the difficulties 
you were having with Mr. Litwak ? 

Mr. Balkwill. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Hoffa then intercede in the contract, in the 
negotiations for the contract ? 

Mr, Balkwill. Well, not immediately. He did discuss it with us, 
with our group. It was sort of a hearing, 

I don't believe we got anywhere with it that day. But we went on 
negotiating with Mr. Litwak. We had several meetings, and we did 
get it boiled down closer to a conclusion. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then did Mr. Hoffa ever actually come to a nego- 
tiating session? 

Mr, Balkwill, Yes, Once, 

Mr, Kennedy, Mr, Hoffa came, himself? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes. The last meeting we had in concluding the 
contract was at the Detroit Leland Hotel. 

Mr, Kennedy, This was the last meeting that you had? The last 
major meeting? 

Mr, Balkwill, Major meeting ; yes, 

Mr, Kennedy. And Mr, Hoffa came to that meeting ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13327 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was Mr. Litwak surprised to see him there? 

Mr. Balkwill. Well, I don't know. You vSee, we were invited on 
each side, as we are here, and he come in from the other door. 

He didn't come at the time the meeting started 

Mr, Kennedy. Had you requested that Mr. Hoffa come ? 

Mr. Balkwill. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was IMr. Litwak angry that Mr. Hoffa had come 
, and was intervening in this contract ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Well, he was angry before he arrived. I don't know 
that that aggravated it. 

Mr. Kennedy. During this period of time after you made the pay- 
ments to Mr. Holtzman, was Mr. Litwak angry at the intervention of 
Mr. Hoila in this contract? 

Mr. Balkwill. Well, I believe it would be normal to say "Yes," 
because he did not appreciate it, I am sure. 

Mr. Kennedy. He knew about the fact that Mr. Hoffa was inter- 
vening in the contract? 

Mr. Balkwill. Well, he was there. 

Mr. Kennedy. And lie indicated to you and stated to you on that 
occasion, or on a later occasion, that he was angry at the inteiwention 
of Mr. Hoffa, and that you had gone over his head ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Not at that time he didn't ; no. 

Mr. Kennedy. Subsequently? 

Mr. Balkwill. Well, subsequently, since that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. He obviously did not do it while Mr. Hoffa was 
present. 

Mr. Balkwill. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. But at a subsequent date he did make those state- 
ments to you ; did he not ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And following Mr. Hoffa's appearance at the De- 
troit Leland Hotel, the contract, the major matters in the contract, 
were signed ; is that right ? 

They were agreed to? 

Mr. Balkwill. I am sorry, I didn't get the question. 

Mr. Kennedy. After Mr. Hoffa's appearance at the Detroit Leland 
Hotel, the major matters in the contract were agreed to between the 
Detroit Institute of Laundry and local 285 ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes ; that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And it is your belief, is it not, that it was the inter- 
vention of Mr. Hoffa that brought about a settlement? 

Mr. Balkwili.. We felt it was ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you also believe, in discussions that you had, 
that the payment that you had been making to Mr. Holtzman, at least 
a part of that went to Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Well, we wouldn't have any right to say that it did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you believe that? 

Mr. Balkwill. We would assume maybe it did. We had not any 
conversation to say that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, Mr. Hoffa most probably would not take the 
payment directly from you in a situation such as this? 

Mr. Balkwill. I am sure he would not. 



13328 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. It would be going through a third party. 

Where did you believe the money was going 'i 

Mr. Balkwill. Well, we knew it went to Mr. Holtzman. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you believed from there it went on to a third 
party ? 

Mr. Balkwill. How many assistants he had, we did not know. He 
led us to believe, just by inference, because he did not mention any 
names, except to say that he had been instrumental in settling some 
waitress' contract, and he understood the problem so well. Pie didn't, 
as I say, mention any names, but he inferred there were a bunch of 
people to be paid with that money. So in the light of that, it was 
not so much. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he told you specifically he had to take care of 
somebody ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Some people, yes. 

The Chairman. In otlier words, there was never any doubt in your 
mind at all except that this was a payoff? 

Mr. Balkwill. No. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Balkwill, you got generally what you paid for, 
did you not? The contract was signed generally on the terms that 
you had reached at that time ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Generally speaking, yes. 

The Chairman. Senator Ives. 

Senator I\^s. I would like to ask the witness if he realizes that, 
under the Taft-Hartley Act, that is a direct violation ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Well, I know much better now than I did then. 

Senator Ives. You know it is now ? 

Mr. Balkwill. I have been told that. 

Senator I\tes. Well, it is a pretty serious offense. It violates sec- 
tion 302 of the Taft-Hartley Act, if you are operating under that act. 
It is a criminal offense under it. I simply wanted to point out the 
seriousness of all this. 

Mr. Kennedy. I have some other checks that I would like to ask 
you about. 

Senator Curtis. Have you completed this transaction ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

The Chairman. Senator Kennedy. 

Senator Kennedy. You never believed that the money you were 
giving to Mr. Holtzman was going to Mr. Litwak, did you? For 
payment ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Well, no, I would not. 

Senator Ivennedy. You never assumed that from any conversations 
or any of the negotiating procedure which you had with Mr. Litwak ? 

You never assumed that he was looking for a payoff, did you ? 

Mr. Balkwill. No. 

Senator Kennedy. There was no evidence of that ? 

]Mr. Balkwill. No . 

Senator Kennedy. You are stating very clearly in your mind what 
was the opinion of you and your associates, that whatever INIr. Holtz- 
man was going to do with the money, he was not going to give it to 
Mr. Litwak, is that what you are telling us ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13329 

Mr. Kennedy. Just on that point, Mr. Litwak actually would not 
Gven take a cigar, as I understand it. Isn't that generally his repu- 
tation ? 

Mr. Balkwill. That is true. 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Balkwill, how was this $17,500 raised ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Well, it was figured out how many trucks was in- 
volved, and it was divided up, so much per truck. 

Senator Curtis. Your members were assessed for that, according 
to the number of trucks they drove ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes, those that had trucks. They didn't all have 
trucks. That is why it was a separate fund. It was not handled 
through the institute, you see, because they did not all participate. 

Senator Curtis. Those that had trucks, did it run about $90 a truck ? 

Mr. Balkwill. I believe that would be about the sum. 

Senator Curtis. And they paid it in three payments ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Now, is this incident involving the $17,500 the same 
incident that the witness this morning, Mr. Miller, testified about? 

Mr, Balkwill. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. You were present when he testified ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. How long had this strike gone along before you 
abandoned your efforts to try to get a settlement ? 

Mr. Balkwill. It was not a strike as yet, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Or the negotiations, I meant. 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes, the negotiations. Possibly it was a couple of 
months. 

Senator Curtis. Then at that point, some of your members came 
forth with the suggestion that they ought to take it up with somebody 
else ? 

Mr. Balkwill. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Now, in this discussion that they ought to take it 
up with someone else, was any higher up in particular mentioned ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes ; I would say there was. We only know who in 
Detroit is higher up, Mr. Hoffa, and Mr. Brennan. We know they 
have associates, but we look to them as the head of the joint council, 
Mr. Litwak's superior. 

Senator Curtis. But instead of getting in touch with any direct 
officers of the Teamsters Union, you got in touch with Mr. Dalitz ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes; it was one of those things that came up, and 
we didn't know Mr. Hoffa that well, to go and discuss the matter with 
him, and we thought Mr. Holtzman did possibly. 

Senator Curtis. Was Holtzman the man you were seeking out to 
contact or did that suggestion come from Mr. Dalitz ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Well, I say the suggestion. Our introduction was 
by Mr. Dalitz. I didn't have any conversations with him, only that 
I met him at the Chop House. They were there at lunch and so when 
we came in, we sat down, or we went in there and he introduced us 
and he left. 

Senator CuRns. Has Mr. Dalitz been interested in the laundry 
business, too ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes. 



13330 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. Was he at that time ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes ; not active in Detroit, though. 

Senator Curtis. Was this arrangement to pay $17,500 arrived at 
before or after your first conference with Hoff a ? 

Mr. Balkwill. It was before. 

Senator Curtis. How long before ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Well, I don't just recall. 

Senator Curtis A week or two, would you say ? 

Mr. Balkwill. It would be a week or two possibly. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just in summary on this particular thing, sum- 
marizing your testimony, you had trouble with the union, that is 
No.l? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Litwak would not sign the contract, that is 
No.2? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And it was then suggested that you take it up with 
a higher union official ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Which would be either Mr. Hoffa or Mr. Brennan? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You saw Mr. Holtzman, and arrangements were 
made to pay him in cash ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that he then said that lie could arrange the 
contract ? 

Mr. Balkwill. He thought he could. 

Mr. Kennedy. That shortly after these arrangements were made, 
Mr. Hoffa intervened in the contract, in the negotiations for the 
contract ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. The contract was signed on the terms generally that 
were agreed, and Mr. Litwak, the local union official, was angry about 
the situation ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Well, he didn't express too much anger in the con- 
clusion. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is generally correct, that he was angry with 
the situation as it had developed ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes ; I think so. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, I want to ask you about these other checks. 

The Chairman. Wlien you in the course of these negotiations and 
conferences with your associates referred to "higher ups," whom did 
you mean ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Well, it depended on which union was involved. 

The Chairman. Well, I am talking about the Teamsters Union. 

Mr. Balkwill. Well, the Teamsters, I had said Mr. Hoffa and Mr. 
Brennan. 

The Chairman. Wlien they referred to higher ups, whom did you 
understand them to mean ? 

Mr. Balkwill. They mean Mr. Hoffa. 

The Chairman. I mean your associates. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13331 

Mr. Balkwill. They mean the same people ; yes. 
The Chairman. There wasn't any misunderstanding, was there? 
Mr. Balkwill. No ; I don't think so. 
The Chairman. Well, I hand you here three checks. 
Senator Curtis. I have one more question before you go into this 
other transaction. Did Mr. Holtzman at any time either name or 
indicate in any way who was to get the $17,500 ? 
Mr. Balkwill. No. 

Senator Curtis. Did you have any knowledge as to who was to 
get it ? 

Mr, Balkwill. No, not beyond Mr. Holtzman. 
Senator Curtis. That is all. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just so we get the record clear, you understood, did 
you not, in your discussions with one another, that the money was to 
go to Mr. Hoff a, or at least part of it ? 
Mr. Balkwill. We only assumed that. 

Mr. Kennedy, You understood from the conversations that you 
had had originally, and what you wanted to accomplish, and the con- 
versations that you had with Mr. Holtzman, that part of the money 
was to go to Mr. Hoff a ? 

Mr. Balkwill. The conversations with Mr. Holtzman didn't in- 
fluence that. He didn't mention it. 

Mr, Kennedy. He said he wanted the money in cash ? 
Mr. Balkwill. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. And he said he could get the terms of the contract 
and he would see somebody ? 
Mr. Balkwill. That is true. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Well, from the conversations that you had with him 
and the facts that were developed, you understood that the money, 
at least in part, was to go to Mr. Hoffa, isn't that right ? 
Mr. Balkwill. Or someone higher up. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is Mv. Hoffa or Mr. Brennan, and you under- 
stood that it was to go to Mr. Hoffa, did you not ? 
Mr. Balkwill. Well, I only had my own imagination to use. 
Mr. Kennedy, Based on the facts, and based on working with it at 
that time, you understood that the money was to go to Mr. Hoffa, did 
you not ? 

Mr. Balkwill. That is what I understood, and I didn't talk ta 
anybody about it, and I might have thought so. But there was no 
imderstanding with anybody. 
Mr. Kennedy. You believed that it was to go to Mr. Hoffa ? 
Mr. Balkwill. Well, I wouldn't make that statement either. 
The Chairman. You had no curiosity about it? 
Mr. Balkwell. Well, yes ; I did. 

The Chairman. And you kind of satisfied your curiosity in your 
thinking a little, didn't you ? 

Mr, Balkwill. It was not much satisfaction. 
The Chairman. There wasn't much satisfaction? 
Mr. Balkwill. No. 

The Chairman. Because he felt that you were simply being ex- 
ploited and that this was actually extortion money ? 
Mr. Balkwell. Yes ; that is right. 
The Chairman. That is tlie way you felt about it? 
Mr. Balkwill. That is rig-ht. 



13332 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. And you know who the higher up was, don't you ? 

Mr. Balkwill.. Yes. 

The Chairman. And you know the manipulations that went on 
that caused that higher up to walk in and settle that contract, don't 
you? 

Mr. Balkwill. I don't know it. 

The Chairman. You were there ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Well, not when that was done. 

The Chairman. You were not there at the negotiations ? 

Mr. Balkwill. At the negotiations? 

The Chairman. The last negotiation meeting when the contract was 
agreed upon. 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Who came in there and influenced the decision to 
make that contract ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Well, Mr. Hoffa. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Now I present to you 3 checks, photostatic copies, and 1 dated 
September 30, 1948, in the amount of $1,000, drawn on the Detroit 
Institute of Laundering, and made payable to cash, and apparently 
it bears your signature as president of the Detroit Institute of Laun- 
dering. I wish you would examine that check. And then I present 
to you another check drawn in like manner, payable to cash, on April 
17, 1950, in the amount of $2,000, and bearing your signature as presi- 
dent of the Detroit Institute of Laundering. And then I present 
you a third clieck in the amount of $1,000, dated April 24, 1949, made 
payable to W. H. Balkwill in the amount of $1,000, and drawn on 
the Detroit Institute of Laundering, and signed by W. H. Balkwill 
as president of that institute. 

Will 3'ou please examine the three clicks that I have referred to 
and state if you can identify them. 

(The checks were handed to the witness.) 

The Chairman. You do identify each of the checks that I have 
presented to you? 

]Mr. Balkwill. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Are the checks drawn by you on the account of the 
Detroit Institute of Laundering? 

Mr. Balkwill. They are, sir. 

The Chairman. Let the cliecks be made exhibits 2-A, B, and C, in 
order in which I presented them. 

(Documents referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 2-A, B, and C," 
for identification and will be found in the appendix on pp. 13708- 
13710.) 

The Chairman. Now, then proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Senator Kennedy. As I understand it, you were not told by Mr. 
Holtzman what union official he would intervene with; is that correct? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. But you understood that he would intervene with 
a higlier union official, who was higher than JNIr. Litwak, is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. Now, Mr. Litwak's title at that time was presi- 
dent of the local ? 

Mr. Balkwill. He was president and business manager. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13333 

Senator Kexnedy. Now, who besides Mr. Hotta and Mr. Brenan 
Jiad authority over these negotiations, with higher union officials than 
Mr. Litwak ? Was there anyone ? 

Mr. Balkwill. I wouldn't know. 

Senator Kennedy. Is the reason that you have presumed, and we 
don't w'ant to be inaccurate here, but the reason all along, or the only 
reason that you have presumed that Mr. Holtzman may have given the 
money to Mr. Hoffa is because. No. 1, he is a higher union official than 
Mr. Litwak, and No. 2, he did intervene in the case and Mr. Brenan did 
not. Is that the reason for your opinion or do you have other informa- 
tion ? 

Mr. Balkw^ill. I previously stated Mr. Brenan w^as present at one 
of the meetings. 

Senator Kennedy. You think the money could have gone to either 
Mr. Brenan or ]Mr. Ilotl'a ? 

Mr. Balkwill. It could have. 

Senator Kennedy. Who else could it have gone to or did it go to 
neither one ? 

Mr. Balkw^ill. Well, I don't know^ the setup over there. There 
are quite a number of union officials, and I don't know how many might 
be higher than Mr. Litwak. He is j ust one local. 

Senator Kennedy. What is the reason tluit you presume that it 
might have gone to Mr. Hotfa ? 

Mr. Balkw^ill. Well 

Senator Kennedy. Because he intervened in the case, and you say 
Mr. Brenan did too ? 

Mr. Balkw^ill. I didn't say that I presumed it went to jNIr. Hoffa ; 
I am sorry. I said I thought it was possible. 

Senator Kennedy. Are you of the opinion that Mr. Holtzman made 
some arrangement with somebody in a higher position than Mr. Lit- 
wak '? Is that what you are saying ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes; I didn't get along so good myself, and so he 
did better than I could in getting the settlement. 

Senator Kennedy. Who did better than you did ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Mr. Holtzman, and so I assume that he did have 
somebody's ear more than I did. 

Senator Kennedy. In other words, it wasn't Mr. Litwak's ear in 
your opinion, from your experience with Mv. Litwak, and so it is higher 
than Mr. Litwak, and you don't know who that might be ? 

Mv. Balkwill. Not for sure. 

Senator Kennedy. But the only two union officials that you know- 
that intervened with either Mr. Brenan and/or Mr. Hoffa, is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes, that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa was close to Mr. Holtzman, was he not ? 
You understood that? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes, I understood that. 

Senator Kennedy. Was Mr. Brenan close to Mr. Holtzman ? 

Mr. Balkw'ill. Well, I have seen them quite often, all 3 or 5 union 
officials, and sometimes Mr. Holtzman at lunch, in the past, since 
then, and before. 

21243—58 — pt. 30 5 



13334 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR P'lELD 

The Chairman. We have presented these checks and they have been 
identified. Are there any questions about them? Can you give us 
some explanation of the checks? 

You wrote 1 check for $2,000 to cash, and another 1 for $1,000 to 
cash, and those checks written to cash appear to have your endorse- 
ment on the back. 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes, it appears that I cash them, sir. 

The Chairman. You identify your signature ? 

Mr. Balkwell. Yes, it is my signature. 

The Chairman. You cashed those two checks for cash '. 

Mr. Balkwill. Three of them, sir. 

The Chairman. You also cashed one that vou made out to your- 
self? 

Mr. Balkwill. Well, yes, that was probably made direct to me. 
I don't believe that is my writing, is it'? 

The Chairman. Well, you signed the check made out to yourself. 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes, possibly if I had made it out, I would have 
made it out to cash, and the other part I made it out. 

The (^HAiRMAX. You have 8 checks involving $4,000, and tell us 
what this is all about ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Sir, could you tell me if the dates are all the same \ 

The Chairman. No, I gave you the dates, and the earliest one i> 
September 80, 1948, $1,000. The next one is April 24, 1949, $1,000, 
and the third one is April 17, 1950, $2,000. 

Mr. ]1\LKWH.L. Those were in the same category, but to a ditfei'enl 
party. 

The Chairman. In the same category, but to difl'ereut parties? 

Mr. Balkwill. It was a ])ayoti' the same as the other. I mean to 
influence a contract, but a different union. 

The Chairman. A different union ? 

Mr. llvLKwiLL. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What other miion now is that ? 

Mr. Balkwill. That is the inside workers aixl it lias I>een men- 
tioned here previously. 

The C^hair:max. The inside workers union ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes, the AFL. 

The Chairman. You cashed these checks? 

Mr. Balkwill. And I gave them the money. 

The Chairman. Gave who the money ? 

Mr. Balkwill. It was a man by the name of John Paris. 

The Chairman. A^^io? 

Mr. Balkwill. Paris, P-a-r-i-s. 

The Chairman. "\A^iat position did he hold ? 

Mr. Balkwill. He was, I believe, executive business agent of the 
International Laundry Workers Local 129. That was the inside 
AYorkers. 

The Chairman. You had to sweeten him up, too ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How much did you pay him altogether ? 

Mr. Balkv/ill. Well, those dates, I believe, represents all of 1 
year, or ])0ssibly part of 2 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to call Jilr. Bellino. if I may, at rliis 
time, and he can put the rest of the checks in. 



IIVIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13335 

The Chairman. At the time that you were carrying on this nego- 
tiation with the Teamsters, you also carried on the negotiation with 
the laundry workers ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes. It was at different times. 

The Chairmax. I know at different times, but all along about the 
same time ? 

Mr. Balkwill. It was in operation. 

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

The Chairmax. So you had to make a payoff' to the Teamsters to 
get a contract, and you also had to make a payoff' to the laundry 
workers* representative to get a contract ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Well, let's say it was necessary to employ counsel 
on the Teamsters. 

The Chairmax. This guy you paid this to was not counsel, he was 
representing the other side. 

Mr. Balkwill. Xo, but you involve the other item in your ques- 
tion. 

The Chairmax. In the other case, you say you employed counsel? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes. 

The Chairmax. In this case, you say j^ou paid it directly ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Tliat is right. 

The Chairmax. And you say they come in tlie same category? 
Tliat is wliat you said 'i 

Mr. Balkwill. You are possibly right. 

The Chairmax. 1 am not possibly. Isn't it exactly what you said? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes, I did. 

Senator CrRTis. Where is Mr. Paris now? 

Mr. Balkwill. He is dead. 

Senator Curtis. What was his official position ? 

Mr. Balkwill. 'Well, he was business manager. I am not sure 
lie was president at that time. 

Senator Curtis. Did he represent your workers ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. He already liad them organized ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes. 

Senator Cl'rtis. This was during the process of negotiating with 
tliem? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. He was a local official? 

Mr. Balkwill. He was a local official. He was the head of this 
local, and that arrangement was made direct with him. It was a 
consideration that was necessary for us to get f^nj settlement on the 
contract at that time. It run over more than 1 year. It was more 
tlian one contract, I believe. It was a situation that we were in- 
voh-ed in there that I just did not know aiw other way to do it, 
because lie insisted on doing it that way. 

I don't know what he got for it, if anything, but he insisted tliat 
it was well worth it. And he could not operate without it. 

That is actually what happened. 

Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Kexxedt. Mr. Chairman? 



13336 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chaikman. Mr. Bellino, be sworn. You solemnly swear that 
the evidence you shall give before this Senate select committee shall 
be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you 
God? 

Mr. Belling. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF CARMINE S. BELLINO 

The Chairman. Mr. Bellino, state your name, your place of resi- 
dence, and your business or occuj)ation. 

Mr. Belling. My name is Carmine S. Bellino. I reside in Be- 
thescla, Md. My occupation is certified public accountant. 

The Chairman. How long have you been a certified public ac- 
countant ? 

Mr. Belling. Since 1932. 

The Chairman. How long have you been employed by the com- 
mittees of Congress in that cai)acity ? 

Mr. Belling. Since 1947. 

The Chairman. And you have been working for this committee 
since it was established ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Mr. Bellino, liave you made a study of the Detroit 
Institute of Laundry books and records? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Their financial records ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are there certain checks that we found which were 
of questionable nature? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. That is over a period of what time ? 

Mr. Belling. From 1948 through 1951. 

Mr. Kennedy. And what is the total amount involved ? 

Mr. Belling. $16,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. For that i-year period, is that right ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

IMr. Kennedy. Could you tell us about the checks we are interested 
in? 

The Chairman. Does that include the checks here for $4,000 that 
the witness has identified ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That includes the $4,000, and then we had a wit- 
ness identify a $1,000 check also this afternoon. 

Mr. Belling. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. That includes $5,000. It was $16,000 altogether? 

Mr. Belling. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that total amount of money paid to Mv. Paris? 

jMr. Balkwill. Yes ; if tlie the checks are that amount. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Would you tell us about the checks and how they are 
marked on tlie books and records ? 

Mv. Belling. The first check was dated June 2, 1948, payable to 
John C. Meissner, in the amount of $1,500. It was shown to reimburse 
for check from him, indicating that Meissner may liave used his own 
check and this was reimbursement to him. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13337 

The Chairman. It shows reimbursement or what? 

Mr. Belling. In this case on the check stnb book, it merely says to 
reimburse for check from him, account 21. Account 21 is legal 
ex])enses. It is charged to legal expenses. 

The Chairman. So if that money went to Paris, it was charged as 
legal expenses ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Belling. The next check is No. 1159, dated June IT, 1948; that 
is payable to cash. It was cashed by John Meissner on June IT, 1948. 
The records show for extra legal expenses. 

The Chairman. Extra legal expenses i 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. The next one is dated September 30, 1948, 
check No. 1203, payable to cash, in the amount of $1,000, and en- 
dorsed by Mr. Balkwill. That is shown for labor counsel expenses. 

The Chairman. What kind ? 

Mr. Belling. Labor counsel expense. 

The CiiAiRMA.N O. K. 

Mr. Belling. That was $4,000 in 1948. In 1949, on April 24, 1949, 
a check to W. H. Balkwdll in the amount of $1,000, cashed by him. 
That is shown as special expenses for drivers contract. 

The Chairman. That was a little more accurate. 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. The next one was check No. 1351, dated 
May 2, 1949, payable to Samuel P. Baker, in the amount of $1,000. 
That was shown as expenses negotiating committee. The next one, 
check No. 1352, dated May 2, 1949, payable to Conrad S. Lantz, $1,000. 

It is shown as reimbursed expenses in negotiating union contracts. 
May 2, 1949, check No. 1353, to John C. Meissner, in the amount of 
$1,000. That is shown as leimbursed expenses negotiating union con- 
tracts. That makes another total of $4,000 in 1949. 

In 1950, on April IT, 1950, is a check payable to cash in the amount 
of $2,000, endorsed by Mr. Balkwill. That is shown as legal. The 
next one is May 18, 1950, check No. 1549, payable to cash, $1,000, 
endorsed by J. W. Meissner. 

That is shown for legal expenses. 

The next one is check No. 1563, dated June 16, 1950, payable to cash, 
$1,000, endorsed by John C. Meissner, That is shown as legal expenses. 

December 19, 1950, check No. 1645, John C. Meissner, $2,000, en- 
dorsed by Meissner, shown in the books as legal expenses. 

In addition, there are 4 checks issued in 1951, which were charged 
to travel and entertainment. Check No. ITOO, dated April 2T, 1951, 
payable to S. P. Baker, $380.50, endorsed by Baker and cashed. 

Check No. ITOl, of the same date, to C. S. Lantz, $560.25, endorsed 
by Lantz. Check No. 1T02, dated April 2T, 1951, W. H. Balkwill, 
$805.T5, endorsed by Balkw^ill; and check No. 1T03, dated April 2T, 
1951, to John C. Meissner, $253.50, endorsed by Meissner. The total 
of those 4 checks is $2,000. 

Senator Curtis. What was that money used for ? 

Mr. Belling. According to the testimony it was used to pay off 
John Paris, the business agent of the inside workers laundry union. 

Senator Curtis. How much of it ? 

Mr. Belling. All of it, according to Mr. Balkwill, 

Senator Curtis. All $16,000? 



13338 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman, Let nie at this luoment make all those checks to 
which this witness has testified exhibit No. 3 A, B, C, D, and such 
further letters as you need. 

(The document's referred to were marked "Exhibits 3 A through O" 
for reference and may be fomid in the tiles of the select committee.) 

The CiiAmMAx. Let the ])hotostatic copies of the check stubs and 
ledo:er be attached and further lettered accordingly. 

(The docnnients referred to were marked "Exhibits 3P through 
DD'' for reference and may be found in the tiles of the select com- 
mittee.) 

TESTIMONY OF HOWARD BALKWILI^— Resumed 

The Chairman. Senator (\n'tis. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Balkwill, do you know of any payoffs to any- 
bod}' where the recii)ient is still alive ^ 

Mr. Balkwill. Xo, 1 don't, Senator. 

Senator Curtis. Either in your business or any otliei- '. 

Mr. Balkwill. No, I don't know. 

Senator Church. Mr. Chairman i* 

The^CHAiRMAN. Senator Church. 

Senator Church. Mr. IValkwill, at this time, this period under in- 
quiry, you were president of the Detroit Institute of Lanndry; were 
you not? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes, Senator. 

Senator Chitrch. Could you tell me something about the Detroit 
Institute of Laundry ? Does it comprise all the operating laundries or 
nearly all the operating laundries in the Detroit area? 

Mr. Balkwill. The majority, the larger laundries. 

Senator Church. The larger portion of the laundries? 

]\Ir. Balkwill. Yes, the larger laundries. There are a lot of small 
laundries. 

Sen.ator Church. Would it be a fair statement to say that your 
membership comprises the bulk of the laundry business, volumewise, 
in Detroit? 

JMr. Balkwill. It did at that time. 

Senator Church, These negotiations that you were condncting 
with the — well, let's refer to the negotiations with the Teamsters 
Union — tliese negotiations had to do with a contract tliat would affect 
all of your members? 

Mr, Balkwill. The one with the Teamsters Union only affected 
those that had drivers. 

Senator Church. Those that had drivers? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes, sir. 

Senator Church. But all of those that had drivers would have 
been affected by these negotiations? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes, that is right. 

Senator Church. In other words, in this sense it was industrywide, 
the negotiations ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes ; that is right. 

Senator Church. You referred to the payments that were made in 
this connection to Mr. Holtzman as a payoff. From the testimony 
that has come into the committee thus far, I would regard that as 
seemingly an accurate description of what was in fact involved. 



IMPROPER ACTRITIt.S IX THV. LAEOR FIELD 13339 

This committee has as its objective the investigation of improper 
practices in tlie hibor-manaoement fiekh Very rarely have I found 
that all the angels are ever in one camp. A payoff is a practice that 
enables you to secure an objective by sweetening the pot, so to speak, 
with certain people with whoni you can deal to secure that objective. 

Now, didn't you and the other members of the institute regard that 
payoff that you made as a ver\' improper practice, so far as manage- 
ment was concerned ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes ; we felt that way about it. 

Senator Church. Yet you testified that it was not as the result of 
any direct contact on the part of the Teamster leadership in the first 
instance, but it was, rather, as the result of certain suggestions that 
were made among your own membership, that the initiative was taken 
to contact Mr. Holt /man in order that this payoff could be arranged. 

You were the ones that motivated this from the time that you 
decided to get hold of Mr. Holtzman to see if you could go upstairs and 
get the thing settled. 

Mr. Balkwill. Well, as I say, it was self-defense. 

Senator Churcfi. Self-defense? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes; that is right. 

Senator Ciiurcii. You had a contract and you could not come to 
terms with Mi". Litwak, and he was negotiating on behalf of the truck- 
drivers he represented. 

You weren't able to come to terms. In other words, your offer was 
unacceptable to him, and his demands were unacceptable to you; is 
that correct ? 

Mr. Balkwill. That is right. 

Senator Church. So in order to make a contract acceptable to you, 
it was suggested among your membership that perhaps you could 
arrange a payoff through Mr. Holtzman with those higher up in the 
union. 

This seems to me to be a very improper practice. You say it was 
a matter of self-defense. "Why? 

Mr. Balkwill. Well, it was a matter of doing it one of two ways, 
probably, and the question was which might be successful. 

Now, other parties had taken the method of employing ex])ensive 
counsel, lawyers with political influence, new people in Washington. 
These are facts. You know them. And we knew that cost a lot of 
money, more than involved in this case. 

So Ave discussed those angles. We did not have that much money. 
We ended up paying more money than we ever thought we would. 
However, it was spread over the contract, the 3 years. After we had 
gotten started, we got carried along with it. 

We didn't feel we had any choice because the demands were so 
heavy. So we went along with the deal. As has been mentioned here 
before, I am sure some of our members would never have listened to 
the idea had they known what they were going to get into. 

After we had got started with it and committed ourselves to ])ay 
the man, we could not back out very well without Avelching on a deal 
Ave had made with him. He Avas to handle the deal. 

Plow he did it we did not know, hoAv he was going to do it, any 
more than if we had employed counsel. There Avas no laAV AA^e knew 



13340 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

tliat we could employ to compel the man, Mr. Litwak, to accept a- 
reasonable ot^'er which we had offered him. 

Senator Church. Ordinarily, when management and labor try to 
come to terms over a bar<iainin_<>- table, they negotiate back and forth 
and they finally reach common oround. 

Always yoii feel that your last offer is reasonable and their demands 
are unreasonable. 

But in this case you paid $17,500 in what you have described as a 
payoff to get yourself a contract that strongly conformed, basically 
conformed witli, the last offer that management made; is that not 
correct ? 

Mr. Balkw^ll. Well, there was one big item involved. We avoided 
accepting that at that time. Now, if you are familiar with what that 
was, you would know that we got off cheaply. 

Senator Ciiurcit. You got off cheap ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes. 

Senator Church. In other words, the $17,500 was cheap enough 
a price to pay as compared to what Mr. Litwak was asking for the 
people, the t]-uckers, that he represented ? 

(At this ])oint. Senator ^fcClellan withdrew from the hearing 
room.) 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes; his demand was not good for iis or his people 
either. 

It has ruined the industry. It has been forced on us since then. 
We did not pay any further than that. It has since been forced on us, 
after that contract expired, and it has put half of the laundries out of 
business, and the others are dying on their feet. You can understand 
why we did fight that; that we went to that extent to avoid accepting 
it at that time. 

We did avoid half of it for, I believe it was, 18 months. This con- 
tract was for 5 years, I believe. In the middle of the contract, we 
had agreed in there to consider the issue again; we were forced to 
accept a portion of the demand. The other was delayed until the 
end of the contract. Then it was opened. They could strike ajrain. 
We didn't choose to do this all over again, so we had to take it. I was 
going to say live with it, but we could not do that. Many of our 
launclries have passed out. That is just the essence of it and the truth. 
If we did wrong — I don't think that is any question about it. We 
are over 21 and we know — I am sure we could not have gotten permis- 
sion from any court to do it. 

That is why it had to be cash. 

Senator IvENXEDY. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator Ives. Senator Kennedy. 

Senator Kenxedt. In answer to Senator Church, you stated that it 
was your initative which secured the services of Mr. Holtzman. Why 
did you go to Mr. Holtzman instead of someone else to make this 
payoff? 

What was it about Mr. Holtzman that made him particularly quali- 
fied to handle this arangement? 

Mr. Balkwill. Well, he was known to have handled some other 
cases labor cases like that; not in our industry, but he was quite well 
known in some circles in Detroit. I didn't know him, but he had been 
in the dry-cleaning field. He was in that business himself. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13341 

Senator Kenxp^dy. He had done what in the fields Writmg in 
the field? 

Mr. Balkwill. He had done some work liiniself simihir to this. 

Senator Kennedy. Do you mean some payoli' work before 't 

Mr. Balkwill. I woukhi't say ''payoff." Negotiations. How suc- 
cessful they were, I don't know. J3ut these were common conversa- 
tions. I could not say who said 

Senator Kennedy. It takes a little more than going to someone you 
regard as an expert in the field and asking him to be the intermediary 
in the payoff to the union leaders. What was there about Holtzman? 

Mr. BxVLKwiLL. Vre did not ask him to do that. 

Sejiator Kennedy. Was it the fact that he was friendly with the 
top leadership of the union ? 

Is that the reason ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Most successful men in that field are. 

Senator Kennedy. Are what? 

Mr. Balkwill. Are on friendly terms with the officials of the union. 
I try to liold that position myself. I haven't been too successful. 

Senator Kennedy. You can't be any more precise as to why Mr. 
Ploltzman was tlie man that you would go to on what is an outrageous 
offer ? 

Mr. BxVLKAViLL. I didn't know much more about it myself. I was 
just told. I did not know Mr. Holtzman to speak to him even. 

Senator Kennedy. Was it because you were looking for someone 
who was friendly with the top officials of the Teamsters i 

Mr. Balkwile. We were looking for someone tliat could do the job. 
We didn't think anyone else could. 

Senator Kennedy. There is no sense beating around the bush. 
What was the reason you tliought Mr. Holtzman could do the job? 

Mr. Balkwill. I did not say ; I just thought so. We thought so. 

Senator Kennedy. Whoever thought so among your group. 

Mr. Balkwill. I believe that w;is the motivating idea ; yes. 

Senator Kennedy. That you thougiit Mr. Holtzman was on terms 
wdth the leadership of the Teamsters wliicli would make such an offer 
through him acceptable to that leadership ; is that correct? 

Mr. Balkwill. He would be able to convince them in some manner. 

Senator Kennedy. You knew the manner he was going to convince 
them in was to be through this money. Did you understand in obtain- 
ing the services of Mr. Holtzman, that Mr. Holtzman was on terms of 
such intimacy w^ith the leaders of the union that he would be the inter- 
mediary for such an offer to secure for you the prevention of having to 
place in your laundries the 5-day week instead of the 6-day week ? 

You felt Mr. Holtzman was the best intermediary to pay off the lead- 
ership of the teamsters so that you would not have to put in a 5-day 
week in your laundry. 

Is that correct or not correct ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Well, after discussing it with Mr. Holtzman, he 
convinced us that he could handle it if it could be done. 

Senator Kennedy. How did he convince you ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Well — — 

Senator Kennedy. Did lie inform you that he was on a condition of 
intimacy with the leadership of tlie teamsters so that this arrangement 
could be worked out ? 



13342 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

( Senator McClellrtii, at this point, entered the hearinir room.) 

Mr. Balkwill. I don't know that he told us that. 

Senator Kexnedy. You knew it, didn't you ? 

Mr. Balkwill. We somehow knew it ; yes. 

Senator Kennedy. How could yon give $17,000 to just somebody 
that comes along? You have to have some assurances that they will 
deliver when you give him cash. 

Mr. Balkwill. He was a neigliborho<^)(l boy, in business there in 
Grand Iviver. He was not going to run awa}'. He agreed to get this,^ 
or we did not pay him the rest of it. 

Senator Kennedy. You went on for 3 years. 

During that 3-year period when you had gotten tiie deal you wanted 
with this money, who tlid you think was getting this money? 

Mr. Balkwill. 1 tried not to think about it, sir. It v as very painful. 

Senator Kennedy. I know you tried not to, but every now and then 
you did. Who did you think was getting it ? 

Mr. Balkwili.. Well, somebody 

Senator Kennedy. I am just asking you who you thought was get- 
ting it. 

Mr. Balkwill. Well, somebody who had intluence with Mr. Litwak. 

Senator Kennedy. Who was above Mr. Litwak i 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes. 

Senator Kennedy. But you never knew more precisely than that? 

Mr. Balkwill. No. 

Senator Kennedy. Previous to this you thought it was Mr. ?Iotfa ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Who did I tell that f 

Senator Kennedy. I thought you told the connuittee. 

Mr. Balkwill. Well, they wrote it down for me, and I agreed to 

Senator Kennedy. I am asking you questions that afternoon. I 
am trying to get at it. Who did you think i That is all. 

Mr. Balkwill. Well, I say, that is as far as I could go with it. 
There was somebody higher up than Mr. Litwak. 

Mr. Kennedy. You discussed with your fellow people that it went 
to Mr. Holf a, did you not ? 

Mr. Balkwill. We discussed who it went to. 

Mr. Kennedy. And reached tlie conclusion that it went to Mr. 
Hoffa? 

Mr. Balkwill. We arrived at the conclusion that it went to some 
people, or some of that did. 

Mr. Kennedy. To Mr. Hoffa? 

Mr. Balkwill. We don't think that they got all of it anyway. We 
think that Joe — and we thought sometimes we might have been saps, 
that he might have kept most of it; but we don't knoAv. I don't 
hardly think he did. 

Senator Ives. Counsel, is this witness' testimony now varying from 
what he told you personally 5 hours or 6 hours ago ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Generally, in the last couple of days. When I first 
talked to him a week ago in Detroit, it is quite different. 

Is that right? 

Mr. Balkwill. Well, I refused to give you these statements at that 
time. You told me I had to come down here, so I hated to talk about 
it. 

Mr. Kennedy. In fact, you told an entirely different story. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13343 

Mr. Balkwill. No, I did not, I am sorry. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator Ives. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. Where is Litwak now ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Well, he is in Detroit, I think, if he is not here. I 
don't know whether he is. 

Senator Curtis. I am looking for a live witness who knows some- 
thing about this. 

Is he still with the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Did he know anything about this $17,500 deal ? 

Mr. Balkwill. He has not told me. 

Senator Curtis. I did not ask you that. 

Did he know anything about it? 

Mr. Balkwill. I don't know. If he did, I think he would tell the 
world. 

Senator Curtis. Was it a pretty closely guarded secret ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Well, apparently not too closely. 

Senator Curtis. Some of your members had to make financial ar- 
rangements to raise their money, didn't they ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Each one had his own problem ; yes. 

Senator Curtis. The}' knew about it. 

Some of their bankers knew about it. 

Mr. Balkwill. I don't know. 

Senator Curtis. Some of their secretaries. Probably some of their 
families. This was not any real secret, was it ? 

Mr. Balkwill. It should have been. It wasn't guarded too closely, 
I don't believe. But in fairness to the man we were dealing with, it 
was necessary that we not tell the public about it. 

Senator Curtis. What was Litwak's position at that time ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Very impossible. 

Senator Curtis. No. Was he president of a union ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Is he still president of the union ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. And he is still living under that contract ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Well, not that same one. 

Senator Curtis. But he did live under that contract ? 

Mr. Balkwill. I just negotiated one with him the other day. But 
that one run out long ago, but we have continued a contract with him 
since then. 

Senator Curtis. Was he present when the final negotiations were 
made ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Well, he always was, so he was then. He has been 
for about 20 years. 

Senator Curtis. Did he sign the contract ? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Did he take it to his membership ? 

Mr. Balkwill. He said he did. 

Senator Curtis. He said he did? 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Did they vote on it ? 

Mr. Balkwill. He said they did. 



13344 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. I would like to find out. 

Mr. Balkwill. Well, I was not there. 

Senator Curtis. I know you were not there. 

Mr. Balkwill. I hear stories about it, how they voted on it, but 
then that isn't my business. I don't know. He said that they voted 
on it. Pie said he had to take it to tliem before he could accept it. 
There was a meeting, and they O. K.'d it. Usually, I perhaps could 
say they always do. If Mr. Litwak O. K.'s it, he takes it to his mem- 
bers and they O. K. it. 

Senator Curtis. Was any of tlie $17,500 used to get it O. K.'d? 

Mr. Balkwill. Well, sir, I don't tliink so. 

Senator Curtis. It seems to me Mr. Litwak is our most important 
witness. If he was running the union and still is, signing the con- 
tracts and taking it to his membership and getting it voted upon. 

Mr. Blackwill. That particular local, he was running that; yes. 

Senator Curtis. That was tlie h)cal vou were dealin<>- with, wasn't 
it? . . 

Mr. Balkwill. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. And that was the only local? 

Mr. Blackwill. Of the Teamsters; yes. 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

That is all, Mr. Chairman, 

The Chairman. Is there anything further? 

If not, thank you very much. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. John Charles Meissner. 

The Chairman. Be sworn, please, sir. 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. ]\Ieissner. Yes, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN C. MEISSNEK 

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

Mr. Meissner. Jolm C. JMeissner, 14260 Longacre Eoad, Detroit, 
Mich. 

I am a CPA, and at tluit time was executive secretary of the 
Laundry Institute. 

The Chairman. Do you waive counsel, Mr. Meissner ? 

Mr. Meissner. I do.' 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. In 1949 you were having difficulties getting a con- 
tract signed with Mr. Litwak of local 285; is that right? 

Mr. Meissner. Right. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was discussed at that time that you should go to 
a higher union official to see if you could not get some arrangements 
made; is that right? 

Mr. Meissner. That is right. Excuse me a moment. You said 
some higher officials ? 

Mr. Kennedy. It was discussed that you should approach a higher 
union official ? 

Mr. jVIeissner. Someone that could handle the situation ; ves. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13345 

Mr. Kexxedy. Somebody that could handle the situation i 

Mr. MEishsNEE. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you referred to anyone in particular, Mr. 
^leissner ? 

Mr. Meissnek. AVell, as has been testified liere, the suggestion from 
Moe Dalitz tliat we a[)proacli Joe Holtzman, wliicli was followed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you had some discussions witli Mr. Holtzman, 
and Mr. Holtzman said that lie thought he could do something for 
yovi if you paid him $25,000 in cash; is that right? 

Mr. Meissner. To start with ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You ultimately bargained back and forth and 
reached a figure of $17,500, in cash ? 

Mr. Meissnek. About that, yes, as far as my memory serves. 

Mr. Kennedy. You then went back and collected so nuicli money 
from each laundry owner; is that right? 

Mr. Meissnek. Y^es ; some laundries, not all of them. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you corrected approximately $90 per truck; is 
that right? 

Mr. jIeissnek. That is over a o-year period. 

Mr. Kennedy. Over a o-year period. You couldn't afi'ord to pay 
in 1 year, so you paid over a 8-year period ? 

Mr. Meissnek. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Holtzman explained that that money would 
have to be in cash ? 

Mr. Meissnek. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And this payment that was made was never entered 
into any books oi- records of the Detroit Institute ? 

Mr. Meissnek. Well, I don't believe he said that. But he wanted it 
in cash. 

Mr. Kennedy. I mean you never entered this into any books or 
records { 

Mr. Meissnek. No. It was supposed to be a separate fund. 

Mr. Kennedy. There is nothing in the minutes that you were hiring 
Mr. Holtzman as a labor consultant, a labor relations consultant? 

Mr. Meissnek. There, there wasn't. 

Air. Kennedy. It was to be a secret arrangement ? 

Mr. Meissnek. It was not a direct affair of the Institute of Laundry, 
officially. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was to get a contract signed ? 

Mr. ^Ieissnek. It was a group of laundry men that wanted a sepa- 
rate fund for that purpose. 

Mr. Kennedy. After you made payment to Holtzman, then was it 
arranged for you to visit with Mr. Hofi'a ? 

Mr. Meissnek. Xot in that connection. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, did you go see Mr. Hoff a ? 

Mr. Meissnek. We went to see him in regard to see if he could do 
something for us. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have discussions with him along those lines? 

Mr. Meissnek. I believe we did ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell the connnittee who arranged that 
a])pointment? 

Air. Meissnek. That I am not clear on. 



13346 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. You do not know? 

Mr. Meissner. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. LoCicero, your attorney, never knew that you 
were making this payment, did he ? 

Mr. Meissner. He did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then following the meeting with Holla, you then 
had some further negotiations with Mr. Litwak ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Meissner. I believe so ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And toward the end of the negotiations, at one of the 
final meetings, did Mr. T Toff a come to the meeting at the Detroit 
Leland Hotel ? 

Mr. Meissner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He did ? 

Mr. IMeissner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He came in ? 

Mr. Meissner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you loll Ihe committee what he stated as of 
that time? 

Mr. Meissner. I don't believe he made any definite statement. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he have a conference with Mr. Litwak? 

Mr. Meissner. If my memory serves me, he did talk to Mr. Litwak 
on the side. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he call him to the side ? 

Mr. Meissner. To the side ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. He did call him to the side ? 

Mr. Meissner. Yes ; I believe he did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he had a talk with him, himself? 

Mr. Meissner. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Following this, you reached a general arrangement, 
an agreement as to the terms of the contract, is that right ? 

Mr. Meissner. Following that : yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the Detroit Institute of Laundry did not have 
to make any more major concessions after you made the arrange- 
ments with Mr. Holtzman, is that correct ? 

]\Ir. Meissner. I believe there Avere some concessions and some con- 
cessions on his part. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not make any major concessions? 

Mr. Meissner. I don't believe there were any major concessions. 

Mr. Kennedy. You kept your 6-day week ? 

INIr. Meissner. I believe we did at that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you did not have a strike? 

Mr. Meissner. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it correct tliat Mr. Litwak was furious at ^h: 
Hoffa coming to the meeting, and you people going over his head? 

Mr. Meissner. Yes, but I don't consider that of any moment, be- 
cause he was infuriated any time that he was crossed or butted into, 
what he did. 

j\Ir. Kennedy. You say he was furious all the time? 

Mr. Meissner. Yes ; very much. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Did he use as a reason for being furious, or did he 
say, at this time, at least, that he was furious because you had gone 
over his head to Mr. Hoffa in this contract ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13347 

Mr. Meissner. I presume he was. 

Mr. Kennedy. From what he said, and from the conversations that 
you had with him subsequently ? 

Mr. Meissner. From insinuations and remarks made by him, I pre- 
sume he was ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You understood that he was ? 

Mr. Meissner. Yes; that is riglit. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you made the payment over the 3-year period ? 

Mr. Meissner. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand that this money was to be paid, 
to be passed, at least part of it was to be passed, on to a miion official ? 

Mr. Meissner. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not ? 

Mr. JVIeissner. Xo. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did you pay it in cash ? 

Mr. Meissner. He asked it that way. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand that that was the reason? 

Mr. Meissner. No; I didn't. He told us nothing about what he was 
going to do with the money. 

Mr. Kennedy. It never occurred to you that it was going on to any 
union official ? 

Mr. Meissner. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. It never did? 

Mr. Meissner. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. It never entered your mind ? 

Mr. Meissner. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then why was it handled in this fashion ? 

Mr. Meissner. I didn't know whether he was trying to evade income 
tax or what. He wanted it in cash. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Meissner, what you were looking for in this 
contract was you were looking for someone who could make an ar- 
rangement or an approach to a higher union official, were you not? 

Mr. Meissner. Not necessarily. Men have influence in that line in 
labor relations. I did not know what his connections were. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is what you were looking for, somebody to 
influence Mr. Litwak. 

Mr. Meissner. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. I'ltimately somebody did influence Mr. Litwak in 
this case. 

Mr. Meissner. After we were introduced to him, and from his sales 
talk and so on, we presumed that he could, and we decided that was 
going to be in our favor. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tlien you did pay, you did make arrangements to 
make a payoff of $17,500. 

Mr. Meissner. To pay him his fees, not a payoff. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Balk will described it as a payoff. 

Mr. Meissner. I can't help what Mr. Balkwill says. 

Mr. Kennedy. Every other laundry owner who contributed and 
who has testified has presumed it was a payoff. 

Mr. Meissner. Let them presume what "they want. 

Mr. Kennedy. They paid the money to you ? 

Mr. Meissner. That is right. 



13348 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. They understood from you tliat it was to be a pay- 
off. 

Mr. Meissner. No ; they did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Miller testified this mornina" that you came back 
and reported about Mr. Hofl'a being- at the meetino-, that he was late 
in arriving, and you felt the money was goiuo- down the drain, because 
he was late at the meeting. 

Mr. ]\fEissNER. The visit from Mr. IForta did not liave anything to 
do with Joe Holtzman. Our deal was with Joe IToltzman and him 
alone, and he never once inferred or insinuated who he was paying or 
Avhat influence he had. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you deny, Mr. Meissner, that you told Mr. Miller, 
after his conference with Mr. Litwak and Mr. Hoffa, that you were 
worried that ]Mr. Tloffa would be late coming in, and you thought the 
money had gone down the drain '. 

Mr. Meissnkk. I never said such a think to Mr. Miller. 

Mr. Kennedy. You nevei- said anything like that I 

Mr. Meissner. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. So Mr. Miller's testimony this morning to the con- 
trarv is incorrect, is that I'ight ? 

Mr. Meissner. Tt is, if he made th.at assei'tion. but not from his 
testimony this morning. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is what he testified to this moi-nino'. 

]\rr. :Meis8Ner. He didn't testify to that, that I heard. 

(At this point. Senator Kennedy entered the hearing I'oom.) 

Mr. Kennedy (reading) : 

I (lid not attend the actual session, hut ileissner reported to nie what ha))- 
pened. Firstly. Hoffa was late in appearing. In fact. Meissner expressed the 
thought t(» nie he started worrying that the iiayoff might have gone down the 
drain. 

That is what he testified to this morning. 

Mr. ]Metssner. I never told them there was ;inv connection between 
Mr. Hofi'a's visit and our fees to Joe IToltzman. 
lyir. Kennedy (reading) : 

Then there was a knock at the door, this meeting was being held at the 
Detroit Leland Hotel, when the door opened. Hoffa was there with a couple of 
his men. 

Meissner said the color drained from liitwak's face when he saw Hoffa. 
Iloft'a wanted to know what the meeting was all about. He then read the 
contract which had been worked out to then and expressed the view that it 
was a good contract, there was nothing wrong with it. The negotiations were 
then broken off and the contract signed sometime after. 

Mr. Meissner. Mr. Miller has quite an inutginatiou to make those 
remarks. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is what he testified to. 

You were the one that was going around and collecting this money 
in cash. We have had every one of the people that testified here 
understand that it was going to be a payoff. 

Mr. Meissner. I can't help what they consider it to be. AVe had 
an arrangement with Joe Holtzman to ])ay him the fees. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then why didn't you enter it into any books? 

Mr. Meissner. He asked for it in cash. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why didn't you enter it in the books and records? 

Mr. Meissner. Why should we? It was not a part of the insti- 
tute transactions. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13349 

Mr. Kennedy. Why didn't you tell tliis to me wlien I wiis out seeing 
yon last Monday? 

Mr. Meissner. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never told nie about any payments like this, 
did you ? 

Mr. Meissner. No, I didn't tell vou anything- at that time. Why 
should I? 

Mr. Kennedy. It Mas because you AA'anted to cover up. That is why 
you didn't. 

Mr. Meissner. I did not cover up anything. I was not ready to talk 
at that time, and 1 wanted to recollect what did happen. 

Senator Curtis. Who drew the contract? 

Mr. Meissner. l^sually the union man drew the contract, or the at- 
torne}'. 

Senator (\'Rtis. Do you know who drew this one ? 

Mr. Meissner. Not oli'hand, I don't. 

Senator Curtis. You don't recall whether it was pre])ared V)y the 
union or by managfnient ? 

Mr. Meissner. I couldn't tell unless I saw the contract, and I don't 
know. 

Senator ( 'urtis. Do we have the contract here ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Here is the contract. 

Senator Cirtis. This appears to be a copy. It is not the contract. 

Mr. Chairman, if we could have this identified, I would like to ask 
him about it. 

The Chairman. May I have the contract? 

The Chair presents to you what ])ur])orts to be a copy of the con- 
tract that was entered into. I ask you to examine it and state if you 
identify it as such. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Meissner. This is not a signed copy of the contract. 

The Chairman. That is not a signed copy, but you may identify it, 
1 would assume, from its terms and provisions. 

Mr. Meissner. This is just one of the mimeographed copies. I 
presume it to be that contract; I wouldn't know. 

The Chairman. Who of our stalf would know about this? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Salinger. 

The Chairman. Have you been sworn ? I will help you identify it. 

Do you solemnly swear that the evidence given before this Senate 
select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth and notliing but the 
truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Salin(;er. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF PIEREE E. G. SALINGER 

The CHAiR?>rAN. You have not been previously sworn in this series? 

Mr. Salinger. No, sir. 

The Chairman. State your name and your place of residence and 
and your present employment. 

Mr. Salinger. My name is Pierre Salinger, and I reside at 3611 O 
Street, NW., Washington, D. C. I am an investigator on the staff of 
this committee. 

2124.3— oS—pt. .3(5 6 



13350 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Did you make an investigation in connection with 
the contract that we have been referring to? 

Mr. Salinger, I did, sir. 

The (^HAiRMAN. Did you procure a copy of tliat contract ? 

Mr. Salinger. I did, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you have such a copy now ? 

Mr. Salinger. I have it in front of me. 

The C^HAiRMAN. Wliere did you procure it ? 

Mr. Salin(;er. This contract was turned over to me by Mr. Horace 
McKnight, the owner of the Palace ]Model Laundiy, in Detroit, Mich., 
and it is a copy of tlie contract signed on the 27th day of June 1949, 
and shows that tlie contract was signed by Mr. W. H. Balkwill, and 
Mr. Jolm C. Meissner, representing tlie Detroit Institute of Launder- 
ing, and Mr. Isaac Litwak, reprasenting the Laundrymen and Linen 
Drivers LTnion. 

The Chair:\ian. Have you examined the original or photostatic 
copy of it 'i 

Mr. Salinger. I have examined this copy, which was told me by 
Mr. ]McKnight to be a copy. 

The Chairman. Who was Mr. McKnight? 

Mr. Salingj:r. He is the owner of the Palace Model Laundiy and 
was a member of the labor committee of the institute at the time this 
contract was entered into. 

The Chairman. He was a member of the negotiating committee 
that negotiated the contract? 

Mr. Salinger. Yes, sir. 

The Chaip.man. And he gave you that as a copy of the contract that 
was negotiated at that time? 

Mr. Salinger. He did, sir. 

The Chairman. That copy may be made exhibit No. 4 for reference 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 4" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. Now, do you want to make any statement as to 
wliether that is a copv of the contract ? You may examine it if you 
like. 

]Mr. Meissner. I don't say that isn't an exact copy of the contract, 
but it is only a photostat that I saw. 

The Chairman. If there is anybody that doubts it, they can j^ro- 
duce anything to the contrary, and we will correct the record. But 
for the purposes of interrogation, we will proceed on the basis that 
this is a contract, and it was obtained fi-om one of your associates wlio 
negotiated it. 

Mr. Meissner. T was asked whether Mr. LoCicero, or an attorney 
wrote the contract, and I can't tell from merely a mimeographed copy. 

The Chairman. Perhaps j'ou are not able to immediately identify 
it. 

Mr. Meissner. I am trying to answer the question. 

Senator Curtis. I think in fairness to the witness, I would like to 
ask ]Mr. Salinger, this is not a carbon copy, and neither is it a photo- 
stat? 

Mr. Salinger. That is correct. 

Senator Cfrtis. It is a copy that somebody has made? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13351 

Mr. Meissner. Sometimes we find in industrywide contracts sncli 
as this, tliey make up a number of copies so that all of the laundries 
involved can have a copy of the contract. 

Senator Cuktis. It purports to be a copy of the contract as distin- 
guished from a photostat or a pictiu-e of the contract or as distin- 
guished from a carbon copy ? 

Mr. Salinger. That is correct. 

Mr. Meissner. May I clarify the atmosphere^ 

Senator Curtis. My sole question is, Who drew it ^ Do you know '^ 

Mr. Meissner. That, oti'hand, I don't know. I understand some- 
times our attorney would draw it and sometimes Mr, Litwak would 
draw it. Not it was a habit in the institute on account of the num- 
ber of members that we coiddn't pass on the original or the duplicate, 
so we made a mimeographed copy, and each member got a mimeo- 
graphed copy, and the original stayed in the institute. 

The Chairman. So it was your practice whenever you made an 
industrywide contract, to provide each member of your association 
who was affected by the contract a mimeographed copy of it? 

Mr. Meissner. That is right. 

The Chairman. So we would know the terms of it? 

Mr. Meissner. That is right. 

The Chairman. I assume then that if Mr. McKnight says this is his 
copy, we can substantially rely on that? 

Mr, Meissner. I wouldn't doubt Mr. McKnight's word. 

Senator Curtis. Now, I see that this copy that someone has pre- 
pared is signed by two people on the part of the institute, Mr. Balk- 
will and Mr. Meissner, and for the Laundry and Linen Drivers Union, 
Local 285, it is signed by Isaac Litwak. 

Mr. Meissner. That "is right. 

Senator Curtis. That appears to be the only union signature on 
there. 

Mr. Meissner. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Were you present when it was signed ? 

Mr. Meissner. I imagine I was. My signature is on there. 

Senator Citrtis. When Mr. Litwak signed it? 

Mr. Meissner. That I couldn't say exactly. He may liave signed 
it and returned it, you understand. 

Senator Curtis.' Did j\Ir. Litwak know about this $17,500 deal ? 

Mr. Meissner. He did not. 

Senator Curtis. He knew nothing about it ? 

Mr. Meissner. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. How do you know he did not ? 

Mr. Meissner, Not from ine. 

Senator Curtis. How do you know he did not knf)w it from any 
other source, and I do not know tliat he did t 

Mr. Meissner. Tlint I don't knov,-. 

Senator Curtis. Did Mr. Litwak report that this was taken to the 
membership ? 

Mr. Meissner. Well, we usually presumed he did, and he would 
bring it back and say the membership OK'd it, but we didn't know 
whether he actually did, or whether it was a presumption. 

Senator Curtis. Did Mr. Litwak protest the terms of it ? 

Mr. Meissner. The finished contract, you mean ? 



13352 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Meissner. Xo, I don't believe, he liad no right to, because it was. 
concluded. 

Senator Curtis. I mean when it was taking form. 

Mr. Meissxer. Until the bargaining- was through and we arrixetl 
at the conclusion, he always protested. 

Senator Curtis. He alwa3's protested? 

Mr. Meissnp:r. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Xow, did you know that the bargaining had beeui 
concluded l)et'ore Mr. Litwak did? 

Mr. Meissxer. Xo, 1 don't believe so. We always concluded witli 
him. 

Senator Curtis. Who told you that an agreement had been arrived 
at and it would be reduced to writing ? 

Mr. Meissner. I was usuall}^ present. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Litwak told you that ? 

Mr. Meissner. X"o. 

What was the question, })lease ? 

Senator Citrtis. Who told you that an agreement had been arrived! 
at or who agreed on behalf of the union as to the terms that were 
later incorparted in this written document? 

Mr. Meissner. 1 was usually present when the conclusion was ar- 
rived at. 

Senator Ci Rtis. ]^ut who spoke up for the union '. 

^\v. Meissner. Mr. Litwak. 

Senator Curtis. He did? 

Mr. Meissner. Yes. 

Senator Cirtis. Where did that occur '. 

Mr. Meissner. "Well, wherever we were holding our bargainings^ 
sessions. 

Senator Cirtis. Li this i)articular case, tlo you remember where- 
it was { 

Mr. Meissner. I do not. 

Senator Curtis. Do you remember what other union oiKcials, if 
any, were present ? 

Mr. Meissner. Well, 1 only can assume from the signing of that 
contract that Isaac Litwak was usually theiv at the end of the session 
and concluded tlie contract. 

Xow, which man was on his committee ; usuall}', he had a committee' 
with him, and we usually had a committee, and we arrived at a conclu- 
sion, and it was agreed that that was the contract. Then it was reduced 
to typing, and it was typed up because usually it was nothing but a 
bunch of scratch paper, really. 

Senator Curtis. Well, during this negotiation that ended up in a 
contract dated June 27, 1949, did Mr. Litwak have a conmiittee from 
his membership ? 

Mr. Meissner. I think he did : yes. 

Senator Curtis. And he had it present during the negotiations I 

Mr. Meissner. Yes, sir ; he usually did. I don't remember that one 
particularly, understand, but he always did, and that is the way it 
happened. 

Senator Curtis. Is it your opinion that Mr. Holtzman arranged 
terms of this contract over the protest of Mr. Litwak ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13353 

Mr. Meissner. That I don't know. 

Senator Curtis. Was there anything in the cuhninating of the 
agreement that indicated to you that it was not the agreement of Mr. 
Litwak and his bargaining committee and its membership ? 

Mr. Meissner. No one told me that. 

Senator Curtis. "Was there any tiling that happened or took place 
that put YOU on notice that this was not the voluntary agreement of Mr. 
Litwak and his committee and his membership ? 

Mr. Meissner. No. 

The Chairman. May I ask you a question there ? 

You say there was nothing to put you on notice of it. How many of 
the negotiating meetings had Mr. Hoila attended before ? 

Mr. Meissner. Before the conclusion of this, I believe one. 

The Chairman. That was the only one ? 

Mr. Meissner. That is right. 

The Chairman. He walked in the door, and he said, "What goes on 
here?" 

Mr. Meissner. No. 

The Chairman. What did he say ? 

Mr. Meissner. I don't think that he said anything, and I think he 
walked into the meeting, and he said "Hello." 

The Chairman. What did you do ? 

Mr. Meissner. He sat down and he listened. 

The CiiAiR^iAN. When did he call Litwak otf and talk to him ? 
" Mr. Meissner. During the session. 

The Chairman. Then what happened ? 

Mr. Meissner. Then Mr. Hotla went out after a while. 

The Chairman. And then what happened ? 

Mr. Meissner. We kept on bargaining. 

The Chairman. And Litwak agreed ? 

Mr. Meissner. No ; not at that sitting. 

The Chairman. I understand he agreed at that time and wrote up 
the contract later. 

Mr. Meissner. No. 

The Chairman. Did you have anv more negotiating meetings after 
that? 

Mr. Meissner. Possibly I did. 

The Chairman. Not possibly, and now^ it has been testified here 
that was the last negotiating meeting. 

Mr. Meissner. I don't recollect whether it was or not. 

The Chairman. Did you make any record of this transaction at all? 

Mr. Meissner. What transaction ? 

The Chairman. The $17,500. 

Mr. Meissner. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you have any authorization from your board 
of directors of your Detroit Laundrymen's Institute to employ counsel 
at a rate of $17*500? 

Mr. Meissner. Not from the board of directors ; no. 

The Chairman. Was there ever any authorization for you to take 
such action by the duly constituted board of directors of that institute ? 

Mr. Meissner. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Therefore, no minutes were made of it ? 

Mr. Meissner. No, sir. 



13354 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. All transactions were handled in cash ? 

Mr. Meissner. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And, therefore, on that basis, you state that you 
had nothing to conceal ? 

Mr. Meissner. I don't state that. 

The Chairman. Well, yon did have somethino; to conceal ? 

Mr. Meissner. We kept it quiet. 

The Chairman. You were concealing the Avhole transaction ? 

Mr. Meissner. That is right. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Senator Kennedy. Were you interviewed on August 2 by Mr. Pierre 
Salinger, of this committee, and Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Bellino? 

Mr. Meissner. Yes ; I believe at my home. 

Senator Kennedy. Now, here is a report of that conversation sub- 
mitted, which you had with the three people, and it said : 

Mr. Meissner said, as a result of their inability to get anywliere with Litwak, 
he and Harold Balkwill went to see Jimmy Iloffa, and he said they told Hoffa 
thta Litwak was absolutely out of order, and Meissner said they told Hoffa that 
the laundry industry did not want a strike, and Hoffa said he would take up 
the matter with Litwak. And he said that thereafter negotiations began to be 
much easier and the contract was signed. 

Did you say that or did you not ? 

Mr. Meissner. I probably did. 

Senator Kennedy. You said that ? 

Mr. Meissner. Yes. I don't know what he wrote down on the paper. 

Senator Kennedy. Is that a report of your conversation? 

Mr. Meissner. Approximately it is right; yes. 

Sena<^or Kennedy. Now, JVfr. JMeissner, did you understand that 
the money that was given to Mr. Holtzman was for a payoff? 

Mr. Meissner. I never made that remark, and we hired Mr. Holtz- 
man as a management counsel. 

Senator Kennedy. What did you think he was going to do with 
the cash ? 

Mr. Meissner. I didn't have any right to think, and he didn't 
tell me. 

Senator Kennedy. Did you have anv idea? Did you ever discuss 
it with Mr. Balkwill ? " 

Mr. Meissner. I might have talked about it, but I don't think we 
ever arrived at any conclusion. 

Senator Kennedy. You did not think it was going to be a payoff? 

Mr. Meissner. We didn't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. This witness is under oath, and you have heard 
Mr. Balkwill's testimony before this committee that he understood it 
was a payoff, and are you stating now that you never understood it 
was a payoff ? 

Mr. Meissner. I didn't know. 

Senator Kennedy. Did you think it was a payoff? Did you sur- 
mise it was a payoff? You are not going to give someone $17,000 
W' ithout knowing what they are going to do with it. 

Mr. Meissner. Do you want me to testify here ? 

Senator Kennedy. I want you to answer that question and testify 
whether you assumed, when you gave Mr, Holtzman the $17,000, that 
it was for the purposes of a payoff. Did you or did you not ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13355 

Mr. Meissner. I didirt know what Mr. Holtzmaii did, or wliether 
he had a staff he had to pay, or whether he would pay the union offi- 
cial, and I didn't Icnow anything about it. 

Senator Ives. Will the Senator yield '^ 

I would like to laise this question: Did it make any ditt'erenee to 
you whether it was or was not a payolf i 

Mr. Meissner. After we turned it over to Mr. Holtznian, I 

Senator Ives. You did not care whether it was a payoff or not ? 

Mr. Meissner. I couldn't do anything about it. 

Sen.ator Ives. I still raise the point ; you did not care whether it 
was a pa^'oft' or not, apparently 'i 

Mr. JMeissnkr. No, really. 

Senator Ives. All right. 

Senator Kennedy. 1 do not think that Ave can accept this answer 
as it stands. I think that we ought to know what purpose you had 
in mind in giving the $17,000 to Mr. Holtzman. 

Mr. Meissner. General Motors has a counsel, or legal counsel, in 
connection with their labor relations, and we hired Mr, Holtzman as 
an outside representative to handle this situation. 

Senator Kennedy. Now, Mr. Meissner, that statement that you be- 
lieved that the purpose in giving Mr. Holtzman the $17,000 in cash 
was for the purpose of doing normal labor relations; is that correct? 

Mr. Meissner. I didn't know. 

Senator Kennedy. What did you give him the money for, then 'I 

Mr. Meissner. For doing the labor-relations work. 

Senator Kennedy. What kind of labor-relations work ? 

Mr. Meissner. Whether he used it to pay off someone or not, I don't 
know. 

Senator Kennedy. Did you ever assume that he did ? 

Mr.3lEissNER. I had no right to assume. 

Senator Kennedy. Yes you did; you paid him the money, and 
did you have a discussion with Mi-. BalkAvill to that effect? 

Mr. Meissner. We talked about it. 

Senator Kennedy. He has testified very clearly, and he left no 
doubt in anyone's mind it was for a payoff, and you must have had 
a discussion with him. 

Mr. Meissner. What Mr. Balkwill assumed in his own mind and 
what I assumed in my mind are two different things. 

Senator Kennedy. You were a participant, and you were the one 
who, I believe, secured the services of Mr. Holtzman ; did you not ? 

Mr. Meissner. I was the hired man, the legman. 

Senator Kennedy. Did you pay off Mr. Paris ? 

Mr. JNIeissner. Yes ; but not all of it. 

Senator Kennedy. That w^as a payoff' ? 

Mr. Meissner. That is right. 

Senator Kennedy. Was it not the same in this case of Mr. Holtz- 
man ? 

Mr. Meissner. No; we hired a labor-relations counsel in that case. 

Senator Kennedy. All right; now, I want to ask you, and I want 
you to answer it, or I would like to have Mr. Salinger put under oath : 
Did you tell Mr. Salinger last evening that you understood that this 



13356 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

money for Mr. Holtznian was going to be paid to Mr. Hoff a, and that 
was the understanding ? 

Mr. Meissner. I didn't tell that to him. 

Senator Kennedy. I would like to have Mr. Salinger sworn to 
testify on that point. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Salinger has already been sworn. 

Senator Kennedy. Will you come ai'ound and answer that ques- 
tion? Did you have a conversation last night with Mr. Meissner? 

Mr. Salinger. I had a conversation with both Mr. Meissner and Mr. 
Balkwill. 

Senator Kennedy. "Where did that conversation take place ? 

Mr. Salinger. At the Carroll Arms Hotel. 

Senator Kennedy. In the conversation, did you discuss what Mr. 
Holtzman had done witli the $17,000 in cash i 

Mr, Salinger. I asked both ^Ir. Balkwill and Mr. Meissner wliether 
they had any idea as to wliat Mr. Holtzman had done with the $17,500. 

Senator Kennedy. What was the answer Mr, Meissner gave you? 

Mr. Salinger. Mr. Meissner said that they had had a discussion; 
he and Mr. Balkwill had a discussion, and, while they couldn't prove 
it, it was their assumption that the money had gone to ]Mr. lloil'a. 

Senator Kennedy. Did you have that discusssion last night ? 

Mr. Meissner. I never told him I presumed Mr, Hoffa got it. 

Senator Kennedy. Do you deny what Mr. Salinger has just said? 

Mr. Meissner. That is right. 

Senator Kennedy. You did not have any such conversation with 
him ? 

Mr. Meissner. That is right. 

Senator Kennedy, Did you have a conversation witli him? 

Mr. Meissner. Yes, sir; I did. 

Senator Kennedy. Did the question come up as to what Mr. Holtz- 
man had done with the money ? 

Mr. Meissner. He was asking about it. 

Senator Kennedy. A^Hiat did you say ? 

Mr. Meissner. I don't recollect, exactly. 

Senator Kennedy. Do you deny that you stated what Mr. Salinger 
stated you did state ? 

Mr. Meissneb. I did not state that I presumed ]\Ir. Hoffa got it. 

Senator Kennedy. You never mentioned that ? 

Mr. Meissner. If somebody got it, I don't know. 

Senator Kerr. But you never stated that? 

Mr. Meissner. If Mr. Hoft'a got it all, I don't know. 

Senator Kennedy. You never stated to Mr. Salinger hLst night at 
the Carroll Arms Hotel, to a member of this committee staff, that you 
and Mr. Balkwill had discussed the matter after the payment to Mr. 
Holtzman, and that you had assumed Mr. Iloff'a had gotten the money. 
You deny you made that statement? 

Mr. Meissner. You are using the wrong word, "assumed," and I 
didn't assume anything. We might have talked in conjecture about it. 

Senator Kennedy. Did you conjecture that Mr. Hoffa got it ? 

Mr. Meissner. What is that ? 

Senator Kennedy. Did you conjecture he got it ? 

Mr. Meissner. We conjectured that Mr. Hoffa might have gotten 
some of it. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13357 

Senator Kexnedy. Is tliat what you stiid last nifilit to Mr. Salinger? 
Mr. ]Meissnee. I presume something along that line. 
Senator Kennedy. That is all right. Thank yon. 
Senator I^^F:s. Mr. Counsel, do you have any further question.s of the 
witness ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Not right now. 

Senator Ives. You are excused for tl\e time heing, and please stand 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. LoCicero. 

Senator Ives. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are 
about to give will be' the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. LoCicEEO. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS LoCICERO 

Senator Ives. Do you have counsel? 

Mr. LoCicero. I have none, sir. 

Senator Ives. Will you kindly state your name, your profession, and 
3'our address, and so forth ? 

Mr. LoCiCERO. My name is Thomas LoCicero and I live at 1105 
Three Mill Drive, West Park Point, Midi., and I am an attorney. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. LoCicero, I just have a few questions to ask 

You were the attorney for the Detroit Institute of Launderino- in 
1919? 

Mr. LoCicero. Yes ; our office has been their attorney since 1941. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever know that they had made any financial 
arrangements with Mr. Bushkin and Mr. Holtzman or Mr. Hoft' a ? 

a\Ir. LoCicero. None whatever. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never knew about it at all ? 

Mr. LoCicero. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never knew anything about the $17,500 ? 

Mr. LoCicero. I heard it last night or this morning, and I have for- 
gotten when. 

Mr. Kennedy. They never told you about it ? 

Mr. LoCiOERo. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never knew that anybody was being hired or 
l>eing jiaid any money in connection with this contract? 

Mr. LoCicero. Nobody ever mentioned it to me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never knew up until last night ? 

Mr. LoCicero. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, you attended the negotiation meeting with Mr. 
Litwak which Mr. Hoffa attended also ? 

Mr. LoCicero. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa came late, did he ? 

Mr. LoCicero. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. All right, strike that. 

Mr. Balkwill and Mr. Meissner went to see Mr. Hoffa at the Team- 
ster headquarters? 

Mr. LoCicero. I don't know that. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not arrange the meeting ? 

Mr. LoCicero. No. sir. 



13358 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kexxedy. You did not arrange for the appointment of Mr. 
Balkwill and Mr. Meissner at the Teamster headquarters with Mr. 
Holfa? 

Mr. LoCiCERo. No, sir ; I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the second point. 

Now, the third point is this : Mr. Plofi'a attended a negotiation meet- 
ing at tlie Detroit Leland Hotel. 

Mr. LoCiCERO. We had had about, I dare say, 20 or 22 sessions with 
Mr. Litwak, and his committee, and our committee. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were liaving diiHcuky with Mr. Litwak ? 

INIr. LoCiCERO. We always had difficulty with Mr. Litwak. We had 
difficulty with him in 1946, and 1949, and 1954, and 1957. He is a very 
tough bargainer. 

Mr. Kennj:dy. In 1949 you were having difficulty, as well as every 
other year ? 

yir. LoCiCERO. That year was the first year. T take that back, or 
194G was the first year in which we got a so-called industrywide con- 
tract covering the drivers. Prior to that time, each company had had 
individual contracts. In 1949, we felt that there had to be a major 
revision of that contract, and so we made a number of demands that 
the contract be revised. Mr. Litwak objected, and he said, "What is 
wrong with the old contract?" 

As a result of that, we started with the very first paragraj)h of the 
contract, wliich, incidentally, a question came up a little while ago, 
I prepared, and I repaired all of the contracts that had been negoti- 
ated. We started with the very first paragraph, and liad difficulty 
with every paragraph in the wording of it. That continued right on 
through to the end of the contract. 

I believe that I still have the rough copies where we worked out 
the wording of each paragi'aph at those sessions. 

Mr. Kennedy'. Did Mr. Hoffa attend one of those meetings? 

Mr. LoCiCERO. At about the last day, I would say around the 20th 
or 22d meeting, but not da^'S, because these were not day after day, but 
about the 22d day I went to the Detroit Leland, and in connection with 
their negotiations to be continued, our sessions at that time were from 
about 4 o'clock until 11 o'clock in the evening, and I found Mr. Hoffa 
there with Mr. Litwak and his committee, and a number of our people 
were there. 

Mr. Kennedy*. Was that unusual for him to come to a bargaining 
negotiation like this ? 

Mr. LoCiCERO. Who? 

]Mr. Kennedy'. Mr. Hoffa. 

Mr. LoCiCERO. Well, yes, I thought it was a bit because he had never 
attended any of our sessions at any time, and as a matter of fact, he has 
never attended any since. 

Mr. Kennedy*. That was the only one that he ever attended ? 

Mr. LoCiCERO. That I recall. 

Mr. Kennedy'. Could you tell us whether Mr. Hoffa made any state- 
ment when he attended this meeting? 

Mr. LoCiCERO. Well, as I got there I made some remark, "Hello, 
Jimmy, what are you doing here?" tnd he said, "What have you got to 
discuss or bargain with, Isaac?" and I said, "We have a few points 
left." To the best of my recollection, most of the major points of the 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13359 

"Contract had been already agreed upon, but as I indicated to you, we 
were having difficulty with the wording of eveiy paragraph. Eveiy 
word had to be argued out. 

I told Mr. Hoffa that we had these few points, and I don't recall 
'exactly what they were. He said, "Well, look, you fellows, get going 
•on this thing. You have been at it for a long time, and get this done 
■or I will do it for you." 

As a result, we sat down around the table and the committee was 
there, and all of the parties that had been negotiating before, includ- 
ing myself — I was primaiy spokesman for our group — and we con- 
tinued with our negotiations. The same thing went on, and we 
worded each paragraph as we went along and completed the contract, 
and the agreement on it; that is, the essence of it was agreed upon 
just about that time, but Mr. Litwak and I continued with several 
meetings after that in connection with the wording. 

(x\t this point, the follow^ing members were present: Senators 
McClellan, Ives, Church, Kennedy, and Curtis.) 

Mr. Kennedy. But the essence was agreed on it at that date? 

Mr. LoCiCERO. I would say so. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Did you understand subsequently that Mr. Litwak 
was upset with you for having brought Mr. Hoffa to the meeting ? 

Mr. LoCicERO. Well, a i-emark was niade at one time that he thought 
I had called Mr. Hoffa in, and I had not called him in. As a matter 
of fact, wlien I went to the meeting, I assumed that Mr. Litwak had 
called him in, because it was logical for him to be there. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was obvious from the remark that he made that 
Mr. Litwak had not brought Mr. Hoffa to the meeting. 

Mr. LoCiCERO. As I say, a remark was made that he had not called 
him in. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he thought you had gone over his head and 
brought him? 

Mr. LoCicERo. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know why or how Mr. Hoffa happened to 
'corne to that meeting? 

Mr. LoCiCERO. I know nothing about it. 

Senator Cltitis. About how long did these negotiations run ? 

Mr. LoCiCERO. Well, I believe there were at least 20 or 22 sessions. 
By sessions, I mean at different days, over a period of weeks, where we 
would start, perhaps, at 4 or 5 o'clock in the afternoon, and some of 
them continued until 3 or 4 o'clock in the moi'ning. 

However, we did have a rule at that time that we would not con- 
tinue beyond 11 o'clock, unless it was necessary to do so, because in 
the 1946 negotiations we had had an extremely difficult time, and we 
could not get any agreement from Mr. Litwak until about 3 o'clock 
in the morning. 

Senator Curtis. There was a disagreement over the wording of 
practically all the paragraphs, you say, or at least the contest over 
them ? 

Mr. LoCiCERO. Well, as I told the committee, as I am telling you 
now, Mr. Litwak does not like to have words changed in a contract. 

The contract had been made in 1946, and he did not want this one 
changed. Yet we insisted that it had to be changed. For example, 
definitions of what a connnercial laundiy driver was. a house driver. 



13360 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

and various other types of drivers. Not alone the matters relating 
to wages and so forth, but even the definitions in the contract. 

Senator Curtis. That leads me up to my question. Those issues 
involved relating to wages and other economic issues, so far as the 
drivers were concerned, were they the last thing agreed upon''^ 

Mr. LoCiCERO. No, sir. We went along in this contract and took 
them up as we went along. If you have a copy of the contract, you 
can get the continuity of our discussions practically from following 
that contract out, because that is one time when we took it paragraph 
by paragraph. 

Senator Curtis. Will you examine the contract and tell me prob- 
ably about when the negotiations on the matter of wages and compen- 
sation and fringe benehts if any, were granted, or an agreement 
arrived at? 

Mr. LoCiCERO. I will attempt to do that, sir. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

The Chairman. Mr. Witness, will you identify that as a copy of 
the contract, specifically ? 

Mr. LoCiCERO. Yes, sir. This is apparently a mimeographed copy 
of the contract. It is entitled "Agreement and scale of wages of the 
Detroit Institute of Laundering and Laundry and Linen Drivers 
Union, Local 285", and so forth. 

The Chairman. Let the record show the witness is examining 
exhibit 4. 

Mr. LoCiGERO. Now, sir, may I have your question ? 

Senator Curtis. How early in the negotiations did you come to an 
agreement on the matter of wages and fringe benefits, if there are any 
covered ? 

Mr. LoCiCERO. Well, as I recall it, our first problem was definitions, 
and that is contained in article III on page 3. 

The next problem was that of the wage scale for domestic laundry 
drivers. 

We had a very strong argument about base pay, and about com- 
missions. Minimum pay was a very hotly contested item. 

Senator Curtis. Do you think you arrived at the agreement on pay^ 
say, in the first half of your meetings ? 

Mr. LoCiCERO. In a sense, I will have to be guessing, but I would 
say it was about the middle or perhaps two-thirds of the way through. 

Senator Curtis. ,That answers the question. 

That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I have one point. 

The Chairman. Senator Kennedy. 

Senator Kennedy. I just want to emphasize that the real basic issue 
involved here in the dispute between you and Mr. Litwak was on the 
question of the 5- or 6-day week, and that it is my understanding that 
the point you could not get together on until this meeting at which 
Mr. Hoffa attended was on this basic question, and then that you did 
get together on it. 

Is that correct ? 

Mr. LoCiCERO. Senator, that is correct, according to the best of my 
recollection. 

Senator Kennedy. What was the issue? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13361 

Mr. LoCiCERo. In 194(), the issue of the H-day week was brought up 
for the tirst time. 

Senator Kennedy, Right. 

Mr. LoCiCEKO. At that time, Mr. Lester E. Deely, my predecessor 
in this work, was associated with me and we negotiated at the same 
time. At tliat time, tlie union agreed that whatever phmts were 
iilready on a oi/o-day week would remain that way, but those that were 
over that woukftry to reach the r)i/2-day mark within a period of time. 

Mr. Litwak's attitude was always this, that he knew that it was a 
difficult change from a 5-day to a 6-day week, that it would have to take 
time. Therefore, in the 1946 contract he gave us the opportunity of 
working out, say, to a 51/2-day week, as soon as we possibly could. 

I believe the contract has some provision along that line. And in 
the 1949 contract, the agreement was finally made and, frankly, I know 
of no one else that made it other than myself, tliat the contract would 
require a 5-day week after 18 months of that contract. 

In other words, foi- the first 18 months of that contract we would 
continue on the present basis, but in the meantime we would start 
making efforts toward reducing it to a 5-day week. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Balkwill informed us that the issue which 
they felt was ruinous was the acceptance of the 5-day week in the 
laundry industry and it was for that reason that he felt, and I think 
in his colloquy with Senator Church, he said, they got off cheap, by 
paying $17,000 and avoiding the 5-day week. 

They felt that that was a substantial savings. I have gone under 
the assum]:)tion that this was a basic issue between the association and 
Mr. Litwak. 

Mr. LoCiCEKo. AVell, it was a very important one, as events later on 
proved. But it was not the only one. Senator. 

Senator Kennedy. Would you say it was basic one ? 

Mr. LoCioERO. No, it was just one of the major items. 

Senator Kennedy. Very important, though ? 

Mr. LoCiCERO. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. As I understand it, you had not reached a deci- 
sion, and agreement with Mi-. Litwak on that question of the 5-day 
week. 

Mr. LoCkt.ro. No, I don't agree Avith him on that. 

Senator Kennedy. I have not finished yet. 

Had you reached an agreement with Mr. Litwak ? 

Mr. LoC^icERO. It is my recollection. Senator, as I testified before, 
that when Mr. Hoffa came to this meeting, we had covered practically 
all of the terms of that contract, other than 3 or 4 points. I don't know 
which ones they w^ere. 

My notes may reveal what they were. 

Senator Kennedy. Let me ask you this: What was the payoff all 
about, then? 

Mr. LoCk'ero. I don't know, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. You don't know? 

Mr. LoCiCERo. I don't know a thing about it. 

Senator Kennedy. We have heard very clear testimony. Was Mr. 
Balkwill a participant in this whole transaction ? 

Mr. LoCiCERo. I don't know who ]>artici)iated in it. 



13362 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Kennedy. Balkwill ? 

Mr. I^tCiCERo. I don't know who participated in it. 

Senator Kennedy. He signed the contract? 

Mr. LoCicERo. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. He lias testified before this committee, just tlii.- 
afternoon 

]Mr. LoCicp:ro. I lieard him, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. That the 5-day week was the issue that he- 
thonglit would ruin the laundry industry, so 1 would consider it very 
important. He said since it has gone in in lOoo or 1954, it has put a 
lot of laundi'ies out of business. 

He said that was tlie issue they could not settle on. \'ou may dis- 
agree and say it was a vei'v important one, but he said it was the im- 
portant one. He said to get that matter settled was why thev made- 
the payotl' of $17,000. 

Mr. LoCicERo. 1 know nothing about it, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. The only point 1 wanted to get at was this m;it- 
ter, according to his testimony, and you indicate you don't know any- 
thing about it. was not settled until they made the payotl' to Mr„ 
Holtziiian. 

"^'ou don't know anything about that. 

Mr. LoCicERO. 1 don't know. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Holtzman did not attend any of the bar- 
gaining sessions ; is that correct? 

Mr. Lo( 'icERo. No, sir, he did not. 

Seiuitor Kennedy. They employed him as a labor relations counsel, 
so-called, but you don't know anything al)out anything that lie did? 

Mr. LoCiCERo. No, sii*. 

Senator Kennedy. The only point I want to make, and it seems 
clear to me from the testimony this afternoon, and you are not able 
to shed any light on it. your testimony only is that Mr. Hoft'a attended 
the meeting, this matter of the 5-(hiv week was the basic matter of 
dispute between you and Mr. Litwak, and there was a pavotf made 
in order to get an agreement which did not gi-ant the 5-d;>,y week in 
this contract, and that Mr. Holfa attended the meeting. 

AVe have heard the ])resum])tions of the othei' witnesses. I \ ;»uld 
think that Mi'. Hotl'a would have to indicate quite clearly in his testi- 
mony to the committee the reasons that he received the money from 
Mr. Holtzman were entirely unrelated to this contract agi*eement. 

I am hopeful that he will make that statement and give evidence to 
that. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. We have some further information. 

Senator Church. Mr. (Miairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Church. 

Senator Church. Mi*. LoCicero, you are a practicing attorney in 
th^ Sta^e of Michigan ? 

Mr. LoCicERo. Yes. sir, for the i^ast 25 years. 

S-^na^or Cii trch. The |)ast 25 years ? 

Mr. LoCirp:Ro. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ciei rch. And from the competence that you liave displayed 
todav on tl^-- vitiK'^*; sta^nl. I wo;dd havp little d.onb^ but ^^•hat you 
.-.yf. f,-< •u_'r:\]]\- f;>n'^b"!M' wiih llu^ bnvs. witii Uie Federal l;i ws and 



IMPROPf:R ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13363 

Mith the laws of the State of Michi«;an. Are these laundries that 
we have been (liscussin<>;, are these lanndry ojjerations, in yonr opinion, 
subject to the Taft-IIaitley Act ? 

Mr. LoCicp:ro. 1 believe not, sii'. 

Senator Chirch. You avouIcI assume, by virtue of the fact that 
they are local operations, that they would not come within the scope 
of the Federal law 'i 

Mr. LoCicERo. That is right, sir, I tried to hnd some authority 
for it, 1 have none, but my opinion has been that it is iu)t. 

Senator C^hukch. If the fact that has been ijenerally indicated 
here in the course of the testimony that has been given before this 
conunittee, if the fact were — assuming that the fact were — that either 
all or part of the $17,500 did go to Mr. Hoii'a or to a member of the 
Teamsters l^nion higher up in the Detroit area, and if the fact were 
tliat the money was accepted by that union official as an inducement 
for intervening and assisting in the settlement of the contract that 
you were negotiating, would that, in your opinion, constitute a viola- 
tion of the laws of Michigan '( 

Mr. Ia)Cicero. Well, Mr. Senator, 1 really don't know. I hate to 
render an ()j)inion on it. I think my best answer on that would be 
that liad I known anything about this, I probably would not be 
representing the institute today. 

Senator Cutkch. And if they had told you that they were going 
to pay any amount of money in this way, you would have advised 
them against it? 

Mr. LoCicKRo. Yes, sii'. 

Senator Chiiuh. In fact you have just indicated that you w(udd 
no longer be theii' representative, had you kr>own about it. 

Mr. LoCicERo. Yes, sir. 

Senator Church. I think that is a sufficient answer. 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to see if 1 can't summarize this. You 
were, during 11)41), responsible for negotiating the contract? 

Mr. LoCicERo. Yes, sir, 

Mr. Kennedy. You never knew that Holtzman or any labor con- 
sultant firm had been retained, is that correct ? 

Mr. LoCicero. I did not know. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you never kneAv that there was a ])avment in 
cash of $17,000? 

Mr. LoC^iCERO. I did not. All the payments to me were by check 
every month. I invoiced them each month. We have done so since 
1941 until th.is date. We have received it by check. 

.Mr. Kennedy. The third point is that Mr. Balkwill and Mr. 
Meissner went to see Mr. Hoffa. That Avas a meeting that you kno^^^ 
nothing about ? 

Mr. LoCicERo. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you had not airanged that meeting? 

Mr. L()( ^i('ER( ». That is right. 

Ml". Kennedy. And the fourth point is that it was at the meeting 
that Mr. Hoffa attended that the final points were made on the con- 
tract, and it reached its culmination ? 

Ml'. T/)(^(i:r(). Well, that was about the last session we had. I have 
t;^uvt]int. 



13364 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. The last session, all right. And that Mr. Iloffa 
made a statement at that time to the ett'ect that if the contract was not 
signed, he was going to take the situation over himself ? 

Mr. LoCicERo. Well, in effect he said that "If you can't negotiate 
it yourself, I will do it for you."' 

Mr. Kennedy. And the final point is that Mr. Litwak indicated to 
you at a later date that he had not invited Mr. Hotl'a to attend the 
meeting ? 

Mr. LoCicero. As I told you, I don't remember if it was Mr. Lit- 
wak. It may have been him, it may have been someone else. 

I really don't remember that. 

Mr. Kennedy. You received that information, that Mr. Litwak 
was upset about Mr. Hoffa coming i 

Mr. LoCiCERO. I received information that he thought I had called 
him in. Where I got that information, I just don't remember. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Cjiaikman. I didn't hear the earlier part of your testimony, but 
from the response you gave to Senator Church a moment ago, I assume 
you never knew anything about the arrangements that were made with 
Mr. Iloltzman. Is that correct 'i 

Mv. LoCicero. I knew nothing about it, sir. 

The first time I heard anything about it was eitlier last night or 
this morning in discussing it with Mr. Salinger. I think perhaps yes- 
terday wiien I talked to him by telephone. 

The Chairman. Had you been consulted about such an arrangement, 
as I understand you, you would have advised against it i 

Mr. LoCicERO. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. You would have considered it improper ;' 

Mr. LoCicERO. I believe so. 

The Chairman. And you would not have participated in it or know- 
ingh' represented them if they were engaged in those practices^ 

Mr. LoCicERO. That is right. I handled my negotiations also by 
myself. I need no help from anybody else. If they had hired some- 
one else, and I knew about it, I would want to get out of it. 

The Chairman. You were laboring under the impression, when the 
contract was signed, that it was the result of your efforts when repre- 
senting them? 

Mr. Ix)CiCERo. Mr. Chairman, my fee has not changed since 1943. 

The Chairman. I mean when you 

^Ir. LoCiCERO. I am just bringing this out. Had I know any such 
thing, I probably would have asked a much higher fee. 

The Chairman. In other words, you did the work and he got the 
pay. 

Mr. LoCiCERo. I don't know who did the work. I still think that 
I did the work. 

The Chair3ian. You are the one that attended the negotiations. 

Mr. LoCiCERo. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And drew the contract. 

Mr. LoCicero. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And battled with them across the table ? 

Mr. LoCuERO. That is riglit, sir. 

Tlie Chairman. This fellow Holtzman was never tliere ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13365 

Mr. LoCicERO. Not to my knowledge. He was never there when 
I was there. 

The Chairman. He was never visibly present ? 

Mr. LoCicERO. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You don't know where his influence was, or what 
was happening to that ? 

Mr. L/(^CiCERo. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. I can well appreciate an attorney's embarrassment 
we will call it, or his surprise, at least, when he thought he was render- 
ing a good service and accomplishing something for his client, and 
then finding out that somebody else was paid to sit behind the scenes 
to get the results that he thought he was getting in the use of proper ef- 
forts in the exercise of his professional talents. 

Mr. LoCicero. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

Mr. LoCicERO. Thank you, sir. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I would like to call Mr. Holtzman's 
partner who attended the first meeting, and see what light he can throw 
on it. 

Mr. Bushkin. 

The Chairman. Mr, Bushkin, come forward, please. 

Mr. Bushkin, be sworn. 

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

Mr. Bushkin. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JACK BUSHKIN, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
JAMES E. HAGGERTY 

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

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Bushkin. My name is Jack Bushkin. I live at 1890 Cherry- 
lawn Avenue, Detroit, Mich. 

The Chairman. And what is your business or occupation, please, 
sir? 

Mr. Bushkin. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. I see. Will you answer this question for me, then. 
Do you have counsel present ? 

Mr. Bushkin. Yes. 

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

Mr. Haggerty. My name is James E. Haggerty, an attorney at law, 
Detroit, Mich. 

The Chairman, Proceed. 

Mr. Haggerty, is that correct ? 

Mr. Haggerty. I have identified myself. Senator. 

The Chairman. I did not hear you. Did I get your name correctly ? 

21243— 58— pt. 36 7 



13366 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Haggertt. James E. Haggerty. 

Senator Ives. Your middle initial is E ? 

Mr. Haggerty. Yes. 

Senator Ives. Not C ? 

Mr. Haggerty. No, E. 

The Chairman. Mr. Kennedy, proceed with the witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. ]\Ir. Bushkin, yon have been in the labor consulting 
business for a number of years, have you not ? 

Mr. Bushkin. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself i 

(At this point, Senator Church Avithdrew from the hearing room.) 

The Chairman. Mr. Bushkin, let tlie Chair ask you: Do you hon- 
estly believe that if you answered that question truthfully as to whether 
you have been engaged in management-labor relations consultant 
business for a period of years, a truthful answer to that question 
might tend to incriminate you (^ 

Mr. Bushkin. I honestly believe that if I am forced to answer the 
question, 1 will be forced to be a witness against myself in violation 
of my rights under the iifth amendment of the United States Con- 
stitution. 

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

INIr. Kennedy. According to the testimony we have had before this 
committee, INIr. Bushkin, you were present at a luncheon at which it 
was arranged for Mr. Holtzman, supposedly, to take over these dis- 
cussions of negotiations and make an approach to a higher official 
of the Teamsters Union. Could you tell us about that luncheon? 

Mr. Bushkin. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that the $17,500 was paid in cash for that pur- 
pose. Could you tell us about that ? 

Mr. Bushkin. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. You and Mr. Hoffa have always been veiy close, 
have you, Mr. Bushkin ? 

Mr. Bushkin. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fiftli amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a Avitness against myself. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you : Did a'ou make Mr. Hoffa a loan 
of $5,000? 

Mr. Bushkin. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a Avitness against myself. 

The Chairman. Mr. Hoffa has so testified. Now, do you honestly 
believe that if you admitted his testimony Avas true, and that you 
did make him a loan for $5,000, that to state that as the truth and a 
fact Avould tend to incriminate you ? 

Mr. Bushkin. I honestly believe that if I am forced to answer the 
question I Avill be forced to be a Avitness against myself in violation 
of my rights under the fifth amendment of the United States Con- 
stitution. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13367 

The Chairman. Are yoii sincere in that statement? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Can't you just say "Yes" or "No" ? 

Senator I\t.s. Mr. Chairman ^ 

The Chairman. Let him answer the question. 

I said, are you sincere in that statement ? 

Mr. BusiiKiN. I honestly believe that if I am forced to answer the 
question I will be forced to be a witness against myself in violation 
of my rights under the fifth amendment of the United States Con- 
stitution. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

Senator Ives. 

Senator Ives. I would like to inquire of our counsel, Mr. Kennedy, 
whether this witness is under indictment. 

Mr. Kennedy. I don't believe so. No. 

Senator Ives. Has he been convicted of anything ? Is he awaiting 
sentence ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No, sir. 

Senator Ives. That is all I wanted to know. I was trying to find 
out what his reason was. 

Mr. Kennedy. I might say he has probably one of the most effective 
and successful labor-management consultant firms in the Detroit area. 

Isn't that correct, Mr. Bushkin ? 

Mr. Bushkin. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Senator Ives. Do you mean to tell me he is supposed to be an expert 
in the labor-management field ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct ; he is. 

Senator Ives. May I ask him that question ? 

Are you an expert in the labor-management field? 

Mr. Bushkin. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Senator Ives. I though that was the field you were in. 

The Chairman. Let me ask the witness: This is pretty serious.^ 
There is testimony here that reflects upon people. There is testimony 
here from whence there certainly can be conclusions drawn that 
something improper and illegal went on, something reprehensible took 
place in connection with this money, this $17,500. 

In taking this position and assuming that attitude you are not only 
giving indirectly, at least, if not directly, credence to some assumptions 
that may well be arrived at from the record being made here, but I 
think you oAve it to your friend, James R. Hoffa, to come up here like 
a man, under oath, and state tlie truth, and if he is not involved in 
this in any way, say so under oath. That could not incriminate you, if 
it is a fact. Will you change your mind now and change your attitude 
and answer definitely whether any of this money went to Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. Bushkin. I respectfully clecline to answer the question and ex- 
ercise my privilege under the' fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. You are not going to be cooperative, helpful in any 
way, are you ? 



13368 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. BusHKiN. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us why you made the loan, you and 
Mr. Holtzman both made the alleged loan, to Mr. Hoffa in cash, 
$5,000 apiece? 

Mr. BusHKiN. I respectfully decline to answer the question and ex- 
ercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Many of the stores that you represent, Mr. Bushkin, 
are the chainstores, are they not? 

Mr. Bushkin. I respectfully decline to answer the question and ex- 
ercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the union that deals with them primarily was 
the retail clerks, was it not ? 

Mr. Bushkin. I respectfully decline to answer the question and ex- 
ercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the headquarters of that union was, up until last 
year, in the headquarters of the Teamsters Union, was it not? 

Mr. Bushkin. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witiiess a<2"ainst myself. 

Mr, Kennedy. And your brother, Herman Bushkin, was on the 
payroll of the retail clerks ; was he not ? 

Mr. Bushkin. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my ]Drivilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. As well as getting many of the chainstores in De- 
troit, you have also been able to get your coin-operated machines into 
those stores; have you not? 

Mr. Bushkin. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the market vending company ; is it not, Mr. 
Bushkin? 

Mr. Bushkin. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. You received, for instance, from the Big Bear Mar- 
ket, from 1951 through 1956, this $118,480. Could you tell us what you 
did for them ? 

Mr. Bushkin. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. You received from Cunningham's Drugstore over 
that period of 1952 to 1956, $31,500. Can you tell us what you did 
for them as far as labor relations were concerned ? 

Mr. Bushkin, I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13369 

Mr. Kenxedy. And then Fintex, you received from 1954: to 1956, 
$19,1250 from them ; did you not ? 

Mr. BusHKix. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privileo;e under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness a(»:ainst myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then the biggest one has been the ACF Wrig- 
ley's. Inc. ; has it not? From 1951 to 1956, you received $123,510 from 
them. 

Mr. BusHKiN. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Food Fair, you received $18,780 in the last 
3 years from them. Is that right? 

Mr. Bushkin. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. May I ask Mr. Bellino to put the total in? 

The Chairman. Mr. Bellino has been sworn. 

You have examined the record and can give the information. You 
may give the totals. 

Mr. Belling. The total from 1951 through 1956 is $528,795. 

The Chairman. How much ? 

Mr. Bellino. $528,795. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us what you did to earn that amount 
of money ? 

^ Mr. Bushkin. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are very close and have been very close to Mr. 
Ben Dranow, of the Thomas Department Store in Minneapolis, have 
you not, Mr. Bushkin ? 

Mr. Bushkin. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. You played an active role, did you not, in the 
Teamsters advancing to the Thomas Department Store some $1,200,- 
000? 

Mr. Bushkin. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Bushkin, among the people that we find that you 
are close to, or maybe you will tell us about that, are such as Mr. Jerry 
Connelly, from the Minneapolis local of Teamsters, who used to be in 
that local and is now in prison, is that right ? 

Mr. Bushkin. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about Mr. Milton Holt, who was a close friend 
of Johnny Dio's, in New York ? 

Mr. Bushkin. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 



13370 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Abe Lew, of the Retail Clerks, who was close to 
Mr. Sheffermaji ? 

Mr. BusHKiN. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy, Mr, Turk Prujanski, were you close to him also? 

Mr. BusHKiN. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Vincent Meli ? 

Were you also close to him ? 

Mr, BusHKiN, I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself, 

Mr, Kennedy, Could you tell us if you have ever been out to Las 
Vegas, Mr. Bushkin? 

Mr. Bushkin. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

My. Kennedy. Do you remember when Mr. Ben Dranow was out 
at Las Vegas? 

Mr. Bushkin. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you identify these three checks for the com- 
mittee, please ? 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you photostatic copies of 
three checks : One in the amount of $500, dated March 15, 1955 ; the 
other in the amount of $1,100, dated March 15, 1955; and the other in 
the amount of $1,500, dated March 15, 1955. These checks appear to 
be signed by the same person — do they ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, sir. 

The Chair]man. They appear to be signed by the same person. The 
first one I read is made payable to cash. In fact, all three of them are 
made payable to cash. 

]\Ir. Kennedy, The Hotel Flamingo was the endorser on the one for 
$1,100. 

The Chairman. Wlio is the author ? 

Mr. Kennedy, Benjamin Dranow, The Desert Inn is the one on 
the other two. 

The Chairman, I present you these checks and ask you to examine 
them and state if you identify them, please, sir. 

(Documents handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Bushkin. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. You have looked at the checks? They are lying 
before you. You see them, do you not ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Iyes. Mr. Chairman, I protest. 

The witness is not answering. A nod of the head is not an answer. 

The Chairman. I could not see him nod his head. 

Mr. Bushkin. I didn't hear the question. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13371 

The Chairman. The question is: You have looked at the checks, 
have you ? 

Mr. BusiiKiN". I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. The Chair orders and directs you to lo6k at those 
checks spread on the table right in front of you. 

Now, you have looked at them, have you not? 

Mr. BusHKiN. Yes, I have looked at them. 

The Chairman. All right. Thank you. 

Have you ever seen them before ? 

Mr. BusHKiN. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Did you handle those checks, the originals? 

Mr. Bushkin. I respectfully decline to ansAver the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The CiiAHiMAN. Did you get the money from them ? 

Mr, Bushkin. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. What did you do with the money you got? 

Mr. Bushkin. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could I liave the checks back ? 

Mr. (^hairman, these are 3 checks, 1 of $1,100, 1 of $1,500, and 1 of 
$500. The $1,100 is to the Hotel Flamingo, and the $1,500 to the 
Desert Inn and the other $500 to the Desert Inn. The checks were 
stopped, and Mr. Drano had an account there where he had passed 
these bad checks. 

The information that Ave have is that Mr. Bushkin then came along 
and made these checks good and paid the account of Mr. Drano at 
these hotels. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. Bushkin. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. The checks about which the witness has been in- 
terrogated, and Avhich were exhibited to him, and which he looked at, 
may be made exhibit No. 5-A, B, and C. 

(Material referred to was marked "Exhibits 5-A, B, and C" for 
reference and will be found in the appendix on pp. 13711-13713.) 

Mr. Kennedy. May I ask Mr. Salinger if he has examined the 
records at the Desert Inn to determine who made good on Mr. Drano's 
account ? 

Mr. Salinger. I have. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you tell us what happened ? 

Mr. S^ALiNGER. The checks were made good by Mr. Bushkin. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you tell us why you did that ? 



13372 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. BusHKiN. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privileo;e under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you also receive some merchandise, two fur 
pieces, from Mr. Ben Drano ? 

Mr. BusHKiN. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. And those fur pieces cost some $4,430, that is right, 
two of them ? 

Mr. BusHKiN. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you tell us what happened to those two fur 
pieces? 

jSIr. BusHKiN. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am sorry. I did not describe them correctly. 
They are mink coats ; is that right ? 

Mr. BusHKiN. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. We will go into that with another witness, I guess, 
Mr. Chairman. 

There are just a couple of other matters that I want to make sure 
about. 

Also, a large customer of yours in Detroit has been the Kinsel Drug- 
store ; is that right ? 

Mr. BusHKiN. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you have also been in business in the Gantz Co. ? 

Mr. BusHKiN. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. And in that company, you were a partner, were you 
not, of Herbert Grosberg, who is the accountant for the Teamsters? 

Mr. BusHKiN. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you sell your products to the various grocery 
chains in Detroit ; do you not ? 

Mr. BusHKiN. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you also had an interest, and have an interest, 
in the Globe Linen Supply Co. ? 

Mr. BusHKiN. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that evidently went out of business in 1957. 
Your partner in that company was Danny Litwak, who is the son 
of Isaac Litwak, the head of the Teamsters local, is he not? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13373 

Mr. BusHKiN. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the LTnited States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr, Kennedy. And you were put in that business when you bought 
out the interest of Mr, Moe Dalitz in that company, were you not? 

Mr. BusHKiN. I respectively decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United 
States Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr, Kennedy. Another individual that you were close to is Mr. 
Mike Rubino, is that right ? 

Mr. BusHKiN. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you wouldn't tell us anything now about your 
financial arrangements with Mr. Hoffa? 

Mr. BusHKiN. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth r.mendment of the United 
States Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have had this close working relationship with 
individuals who are very close to Mr. Hotfa, you have advanced him 
some money, according to his own testimony, and your partner, Mr. 
Holtzman, and advanced him some money. You had your brother on 
the payroll of the Retail Clerks w^hile it was in the Teamster head- 
quarters. With all of these things, can you tell us anything more 
about your relationship with Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. BusHKiN. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss this payoff from the Detroit Insti- 
tute of Laundry with Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. BusHKiN. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Have you testified or will you state whether you 
and Mr. Holtzman were partners ? 

Mr. BusiiKiN. I respectfully decline to ansAver the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the IJnited States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Do you know anyone that you will admit know- 
ing, on the basis that it would not incriminate you ? 

jNIr. BusHKiN. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Do you Imow Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr, BusHKiN. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Are you an American citizen ? 

Mr. BusHKiN. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

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



13374 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Are you an American citizen ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr, BusHKiN. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Are you married ? 

(The witness conferred with his counseL) 

Mr. BusHKiN. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Senator Ervin. You will probably have to answer that to your 
wife wlien you get home. 

Mr. BusHKiN. It could be. 

The Chairman. Do you have any children? I mean legitimate 
children? 

Mr. BusHKiN. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness againts myself. 

The Chairman. Will you enlighten us and all others who may read 
this record and who may hear you on how you honestly believe that 
it could possibl}^ tend to incriminate you to state whether or not you 
are married ? 

Mr. BusiiKiN. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Will you tell this committee and enlighten it and 
others who may hear you or read this record how you can state that 
you honestly believe that if you answered the question truthfully, 
whether or not you have children, that a truthful answer to that ques- 
tion miglit tend to incriminate you ? 

Mr. BusHKiN. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Do you consider yourself a loyal American ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. BrsHKiN. Yes. sir. 

The Chairman. Will you help your country and cooperate with 
this committee, its duly constituted agency and authority to inquire 
into the practices in labor-management relations? 

Mr. BusHKiN. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. You honestly believe that if you cooperated with 
this committee and gave it the information you have, that it needs and 
desires as the representative of your Government, do you honestly 
believe that that information might tend to incriminate you ? 

Mr. BusHKTN. I honestly believe that if I am forced to answer the 
question, I will be forced to be a witness against myself in violation 
of my rights under the fifth amendment of the United States Con- 
stitution. 

The Chairman. Have you done anything, do you know anything, 
that you can tell us about, that might not tend to incriminate you ? 

Mr. BusHKiN, I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Is there any further questioning ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13375 

Senator Kennedy? 

Senator Kennedy. You are a labor relations counselor now? 

Mr. BusHKiN. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Senator Kennedy. Under the Taft-Hartley Act, there is no obliga- 
tion for you to make reports of any legitimate activities that you 
carry out. It seems to me that your refusal to testify, the fact that 
your partner and you were involved in improper financial arrange- 
ments involving payments to union officials for employers and other 
arrangements we have heard described today, indicates the necessity 
for legislation which will make it a matter of public record, all money 
you receive from employers, and all payments you make to unions or 
representatives of unions. 

I am hopeful, after hearing your testimony today, that it will be 
possible for the Congress to enact legislation in this field, in spite 
of the fact that the Teamsters organization opposes the legislation. 
I am hopeful for the legislation passed by the Senate which will put 
you on record every year, both you and your late partner, with all of 
these activities. 

I am hopeful, after listening to you today, more than ever, that that 
legislation will pass the Congress this year. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

This witness will remain under his present subpena. He will be 
subject to recall at such time as the committee may desire further 
testimony from him. 

Will you recognize that recognizance ? 

Mr. BusHKiN. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And agree to it, then, for further interrogation 
upon reasonable notice ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Bushkin. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

It appears the committee has continued these hearings this after- 
noon about as long as we can. The hour is now almost 5 o'clock. 

The Chair will have to be a little late in the morning. Otherwise, 
we would convene at 10 o'clock. I will have to make it 10 : 30 in the 
morning. 

The committee stands in recess until that time. 

(Members present at the taking of the recess were: Senators 
McClellan, Kennedy, Cinlis, and Ervin.) 

(Thereupon, at 5 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 
10 : 30 a. m., Wednesday, August 6, 1958.) 



'^OA jn^i 



IIWESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 6, 1958 

United States Senate, 
Select Committee on Improper Activities 

IN the Labor or Management Field, 

Washington^ D. C. 
, , The select committee met at 10 : 30 a. m., pursuant to recess in the 
caucus room, Senate Office Building, Senator John L. McClellan 
(chaii-man of the select committee) presiding. 

Present: Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Senator 
John F. Kennedy, Democrat, Massachusetts; Senator Sam J. 
Ervin, Jr., Democrat, North Carolina ; Senator Frank Church, Demo- 
crat, Idaho ; Senator Irving M. Ives, Republican, New York ; Senator 
Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; Senator Carl T, Curtis, 
Republican, Nebraska. 

Also present: Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel; Paul Tierney, 
assistant counsel; John J. McGovern, assistant counsel; Carmine S. 
Bellino, accountant; Pierre E. Salinger, investigator; Leo C. Nulty, 
investigator; James P. Kelly, investigator; James Mundie, investi- 
gator. Treasury Department; John Flanagan, investigator, GAO; 
Alfred Vitarelli, investigator, GAO ; Ruth Y. Watt, chief clerk. 

(At the convening of the session, the following members were pres- 
ent: Senators McClellan, Ives, Ervin, Kennedy, Curtis, and Church.) 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

Mr. Counsel, you have a matter to place in the record ; have you ? 

Mr, Kennedy. Yes, Senator. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. In the interim report of the Senate Select Commit- 
tee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Management Field, there 
is contained the following statement on page 218, and I quote: 

Although the charter (of local 102 of the UAW-AFL) was in the name of one 
Sam Zaknian, a former Communist Party functionary, the committee had what 
it considered clear proof that Berger, Dorfman, Previant, and Doria knew that 
Dio was the man who was actually going to acquire the charter and run the local. 

The reference to Previant in this statement is to Mr. David 
Previant, of Milwaukee, Wis., attorney for the Central States' Con- 
ference of Teamsters and other labor unions. Mr. Previant objected 
to his inclusion on this point. 

The Chairman. He filed objection with the committee ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes; that he had no knowledge whatever that 
Johnny Dioguardi was going to get the charter for local 102. He 
stated that his role in this matter was to arrange a meeting for Sam 
Berger, an official of the International Ladies' Garment Workers' 

13377 



13378 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Union, with Mr. Anthony Doria, secretary-treasurer of the UAW- 
AFL, for which Mr. Pi-eviant acted as general counseL 

After consuhations with the staff, Mr. Previant submitted a sworn 
affidavit in wliich he cateoorically denied that he knew Mr. Dio was 
going to have anything to do with local 102. 

The connnittee adopted the conclusion that Mr. Previant had knowl- 
edge of Mr. Dio's connection Avitli the local as a logical inference from 
the testimony which it heard. The committee still feels there is no 
doubt that Sam Berger, Paul Dorfman, and Anthony Doria knew 
of John Dio's involvement in this charter. 

In the case of ]Mr. Previant, however, the committee believes it 
should accept at face value his sworn affidavit that he had no knowl- 
edge of Dio's interest in this charter. 

The ChaiUman. In fairness to Mr. Previant, we feel that the record 
should be cleared up, and whenever the committee makes an error, 
and if we make tliem we want to correct them, and without objection 
the affidavit of Mr. Previant will be placed in the record. I think it 
conforms to the rules of the committee and I think that he is entitled 
to have liis statement about it which, as far as we know now, is truth- 
ful, and have it placed in the record. 

Without objection, it is so ordered. 

(The affidavit is as follows :) 

State of Wisconsin, 

Milwaukee County, ss: 

David Previant being first duly sworn, on oath, deposes and says, that he is 
a practicing attorney having his offices at 212 West Wisconsin Avenue, in the 
city of Milwaukee, Wis., and at 2550 Guardian Building in the city of Detroit, 
Mich. ; that he has been admitted to the bar of the State of Wisconsin, the State 
of Michigan, and of the Supreme Court of the United States, as well as the bar 
of a number of lower Federal courts and administrative agencies. 

That affiant was admitted to the practice of law in the State of Wisconsin 
in 1935 and has been associated with the law offices of Padway, Goldberg & 
Previant of Milwaukee, Wis., since 1936, first as an employee, and subsequently 
as a partner ; that this ofiice has specialized in the law of trade unions for over 
45 years. 

That this affidavit is made in answer to, and in contravention of, a statement 
appearing at page 218 of the interim report of the Select Committee on Improper 
Activities in the Labor or Management Field, United States Senate, to the 
effect that the acquisition of a charter from the United Automobile Woiivers 
of America, AFL (hereinafter referred to as UAW-AFL) by one John Dio- 
guardi was "facilitated" by your affiant, and that your affiant knew that the 
aforesaid John Dioguardi was the man who was actully going to acquire the 
charter and run the local. 

That your affiant and the law firm with which he is associated has been general 
counsel for the UAW-AFL since 1939 ; that, during such entire period of time, 
neither your affiant nor any member of the firm with which he is associated has 
ever been called upon to recommend the issuance of a charter, nor have they ever 
recommended the issuance of a charter, to any person or group of persons. 

That, late in August or early in September of 1950, your affiant received a 
telephone call at his office in Milwaukee from one Paul Dorfman, then an officer of 
an A. F. of L. Federal Labor Union in Chicago, whom your affiant had met in 
connection with trade-union matters ; that the aforesaid Paul Dorfman, knowing 
your affiant was general counsel for the UAW-AFL, and that its headquarters 
were in Milwaukee, inquired whether affiant would arrange an appointment for 
some unnamed persons residing in New York who were then or had recently 
b°en officers of a labor union affiliated with the CIO, and who were desii'ous of 
changing such affiliation to the UAW-AFL; that, as an accommodation to both 
Mr. Dorfman and the UAW-AFL, your affiant called Anthony Doria, its secretary- 
treasurer, and Lester Washburn, its president, and arranged such an appointment. 

That your affiant was present at the headquarters offices of the UAW-AFL at 
the time when such appointment was kept by its officers and the aforesaid Paul 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD . 13379 

Dorf man and one Sam Berber ; that said Sam Berger was introduced and identi- 
fied as the business manager of a h:»cal miion afiiliated with tlie International 
Ladies' Garment Workers Union, AFL : that your affiant liad never met nor heard 
of the aforesaid Sam Berger before such meeting. 

That the aforesaid Sam Berger stated that he was speaking on behalf of a 
group of organized workingmen in the city of New York whose jurisdiction fell 
within the jurisdiction of the UAW-AFL. and who had been dissatisfied with their 
representation by both UAW-CIO and independent unions ; that, during the entire 
time that your affiant was present at the meeting between the persons mentioned 
above, neither the aforesaid Paul Dorfman nor the aforesaid Sam Berger nor any 
other person mentioned the name of John Dioguardi nor described him in any 
way, nor did they indicate in any manner that the requested charter would 
go to any person or persons other than bona fiide workingmen employed within 
the jurisdiction of the UAW-AFL. 

That, while your affiant was present at siich meeting, the officers of the UAW- 
AFL described in detail the steps which would be required for the issuance of 
a charter to the persons involved, and arranged to provide the aforesaid Sam 
Berger with the application blanks and necessary materials. 

That at such meeting your affiant was not asked for his opinions or recom- 
mendations, nor did he offer them, with respect to any of the matters discussed. 

That, at the time of such meeting and for a very long period thereafter, your 
affiant did not know John Dioguardi or any of the persons elected as officers or 
hired as employees of the New York local unions. 

That, after leaving such meeting, your affiant did not participate in, or receive 
any further knowledge or information with res]Dect to, the issuance of such 
charter. 

That thereafter your aflBant had no connection with any New York local 
unions which were chartered by the UAW-AFL until more than a year later, 
at which time, in his capacity as general counsel for the international union, 
he was called upon to advise with the officers of the international union and 
the local unions concerning legal problems which arise in connection with the 
requested certification of collective-bargaining representatives in New York 
State Labor Board and National Labor Relations Board elections and in con- 
nection with court proceedings involving the trusteeship of a local union in New 
York. 

That, at all times in connection with the aforementioned matters, your affiant 
acted only in his capacity as general counsel for the international union, and 
had no pei'sonal interest in the persons or the unions involved. 

Further affiant sayeth not. 

(Signed) David Previant. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 29th day of April 1958. 

(Signed) David Leo Uelmen, 
Notary Puhlic, Milwaukee County, Wis. 

My commission expires November 30, 1958. 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES R. HOTTA, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
EDWARD BENNETT WILLIAMS, GEORGE FITZGERALD, AND 
DAVID PREVIANT— Resumed 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, before the interrogation begins to- 
day, I should like to register with the committee an objection to the 
procedure that is being followed. I would like to state my reasons 
after making the objection. 

The Chairmax. You may. 

Mr. Williams. Senator, I know you to be a very fine lawyer, and 
in my dealings with you you have always been eminently fair, and 
I want to appeal to your sense of fair play as I make this objection. 

I object, Mr. Chairman, to the procedure that is being followed, 
whereby this witness is put on the stand and interrogated for a short 
time, and then withdrawn from the stand and rebuttal witnesses are 



13380 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

put on in juxtaposition to him. I object to this for two reasons, Mr. 
Chairman. 

I feel that the effect of this procedure is to create what we know in 
the law to be a legislative trial in its most ignominious sense. By 
way of illustrating it, I just want to state as my reasons for this ob- 
jection wliat occurred here yesterday. This witness took the stand, 
and he was interrogated about a matter which took place almost a 
decade ago. He was then temporarily excused and 7 witnesses were 
called in juxtaposition to him, plus 2 committee members who testified 
briefly. 

The Chairman. Those were staff members, 

Mr. WiLLiAiMS. I am sorry ; they were staff members. 

Now, the effect of that was to create the impression in the context 
of the testimony that was given either that the witness had perjured 
himself or that some member of this union had taken a payoff. Now, 
as the testimony unfolded during the day, seven witnesses took the 
stand, and each of them was permitted to speculate and conjecture 
and make assumptions on an alleged payoff. There was no one wit- 
ness, and there isn't a line of testimony in this record, and I searched 
it carefully last night; no witness testified to a single fact concerning 
any moneys received by any member of the International Brother- 
hood of Teamsters, Warehousemen, Chauffeurs, and Helpers. Yet 
each of them did speculate and conjecture. 

Now, when they speculated adversely to the union, counsel for the 
committee summarized their testimony. When they did not specu- 
late adversely to the union, they were reminded, as I read the record, 
that tliey were under oath, and an attempt was made to refresh their 
recollection that they had speculated at some previous date adversely 
to the union, and then one of the staff members was brought around in 
front of the table and sworn and testified to this speculation. 

So that we had, if the Chair please, hearsay, rumor, assumptions, 
and speculations on this subject, which struck at the very heart of the 
integrity of the members of this union who were involved in the 
negotiations in effect. 

I was not able, and as I read the rules of the committee I am not 
able, to cross-examine effectively any of these witnesses. I feel that 
the net effect of this, Mr. Chairman, is a legislative trial wherein 
rumor, speculation, goes into the record without the advantage of 
cross-examination. The witness is interrogated preliminarily, and 
he is not apprised of the nature of the charge against him, although 
there is, obviously, a charge against him from the way that the hear- 
ing is being conducted. 

Now, the second effect of this procedure, Mr. Chairman, I think, is 
one of manifest unfairness to the witness. I read the record carefully 
last night, and there are almost 250 pages of testimony taken here 
yesterday. We sat here for about 5 hours. I have been advised by 
counsel for the committee that he expects this witness to remain here 
under the mandate of the subpena of this committee for about 3 weeks. 
He was on the stand for approximately 30 minutes of the 5 hours, and 
he testified for 27 pages out of 250. 

Now, I think that is harassment, of which this committee should 
certainly not want to be culpable, to hold him here and put him on in 
what amounts, I submit, respectfully, to a legislative trial, and put 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13381 

testimony on in juxtaposition, and to suggest either that he has testi- 
fied perjuriously or he has been guilty of some wrongdoing about 
which the future rebuttal witnesses are going to speculate and make 
assumptions. 

So, I respectfully ask, Mr. Chairman, that this witness be per- 
mitted to give his testimony that is being called for, helpful to a 
legislative purpose, and give it with continuity through to a con- 
clusion, either now or at the end of the hearings, when all of the otJier 
witnesses have testified, so that he may give his testimony and have it 
over with, and so that he may be about his business as president of this 
union. 

I ask that he be permitted to do it at the outset now and go through 
to a conclusion, or, if the committee prefers, that after all of the other 
evidence is heard adverse to the union that he come in and answer it, 
but that he be permitted to do it with continuity. 

I suggest to the Chair that, certainly, the legislative function and 
purpose of this committee could otfer no reason for not having the 
testimony conducted in this fashion. 

The Chairman. May the Chair say this: I certainly cannot sub- 
scribe to the fact that this is a legislative trial. I do not think that 
this committee has the authority, and I do not think it is its function, 
to conduct a legislative trial. Its duty is to inquire into practices, 
activities, and policies in labor-management relations that may or 
may not be improper, but to ascertain the propriety of those practices. 

I think counsel will agree that this committee has one of the most 
difficult tasks ever assigned a legislative investigating committee. As 
we move into these areas where collusion and bribery and violence and 
brutality and vandalism exist, in those areas where those acts have 
occurred and where there can be no doubt that they have occurred, 
we are met with obstruction after obstruction. Witnesses exercise a 
privilege that may be their right, and I am not questioning that, of 
taking the fifth amendment, refusing to cooperate with their Govern- 
ment and refusing to help us get this information. Certainly, no 
witness was interrogated yesterday about any fact that was not 
pertinent to this inquiry. 

The strongest point you have, Counsel, in my judgment, is that 
what you say is hearsay would not be admissible in a trial with a 
charge, if a criminal charge were pending against either your client 
or anyone else. But, traditionally, I know of no investigating com- 
mittee that has simply adhered solely to the procedure established 
for the prosecution of one charged with crime. We frequently take 
opinion, and we have to. That is a legislative function, to get these 
views. 

I want to say that, so far as I am concerned, Mr. Hoffa, as Mr. Hoffa, 
is not on trial. But these practices and these activities that are so 
reprehensible that they cry out to the Congress of the United States 
for corrective action are on trial. We are trying to find out exactly 
what they are, and in wliat areas. It is incumbent on the Congress 
to legislate to try to remedy those conditions. 

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

The Chairman. As to the procedure to which you object here, 
regarding having your client present when there is derogatory testi- 

21243— 58— pt. 36 8 



13382 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

mony being received, and other derogatory testimony anticipated, and 
as to calling him from time to time to give his explanation and refute 
it, I will be perfectly happy to submit that to the committee in execu- 
tive session. I thought, and maybe I am wrong, that that was the 
fairest way in wliich to do it. If you think difl'erently, we will take 
it under consideration. 

I know no fairer way than to have him present, and, as we put on 
the testimony, to let him refute it or explain it. If I get your posi- 
tion correctly, you would let us go ahead here for 5 weeks putting on 
all this testimony and then have him come in. 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That is your position. 

Mr. Williams. Yes. sir. 

The Chairman. But there are times when we do need to try to get 
his viewpoint first, to get him to state what he did or did not do at a 
given time, and then to try to relate other testimony to it. 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Otherwise, you will say that we are indulging 
assumptions and spending 3 or 4 weeks here smearing your client with- 
out giving him an opportunity to be heard. We have had just the 
opposite confront us here in the course of these hearings. That is, 
when we start along and build it up, then we have the objection; we 
have had that, the objection of "all you are doing is not giving him 
a chance to answer. You are keeping him sitting back there for a 
week or two and just building up and smearing this man." 

I think counsel can agree with me that we get criticized either way 
we go. 

Mr. Williams. Well, you wouldn't get criticized from me, Mr. 
Chairman, if you adopt the practice that I earnestly implore you to 
adopt; namely, that you go through with the interrogation of this 
witness to a conclusion at this point, or that you suspend his examina- 
tion now until j'ou have heard all of what you have described as a 
derogatory or adverse testimony, and then let us return and answer 
it without having what I conceive to be — and I say this respectfully 
to you, Mr. Chairman — what I conceive to be a series of legislative 
trials during the course of these hearings. 

The Chairman. Mr. Williams, I have great respect for you as a 
lawyer, and, so far as my limited acquaintance and associations with 
you are concerned, a high regard for you as a man. I know you have 
ability as an attorney. I think, if you could just reverse the thing 
and place yourself in our position, charged with the duty that this 
committee is charged with, and if you are familiar, and you probably 
are, with the difficulties I have pointed out to you, you would realize 
that this committee cannot and will not be able to please your client 
or others who may be the subject of inquiry or whose activities may 
be the subject of inquiry. 

We cannot expect commendation from them. On the contrary, 
we not only expect, but we are receiving, their condemnation for 
everything we are trying to do. 

I may say, and this is not in any spirit of anger or offense, those criti- 
cisms are not going to deter this committee from doing what it con- 
ceives to be its duty. So you may bear that in mind as we proceed, I 
do want to be fair. We will proceed this morning. During the noon 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13383 

hour or before we reassemble this afternoon, I will submit your request 
to the committee and we will consider it, I trust, impartially, in line 
with what we conceive to be our duty. 

Mr. Williams. Thank you, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, I think probably it is fair that I 
go on record a little bit in regard to this. I yield absolutely to the 
Chair in the right to determine the order of witnesses and the conduct 
of this investigation. 

It is a matter that depends upon certain research and procedure. 
Someone has to run the committee, and that is why we have a chairman. 
I think at the present time the chairman has stated ample reason for 
the procedure of taking testimony and then having the witness step 
aside and take any conflicting testimony. I think the chairman has 
a good case for that. I do want to say something about the rules of 
evidence followed. This is certainly no criticism of anyone involved, 
either the chairman, the committee, or the staff, in any way. As the 
chairman has stated, this has been one of the most difficult investiga- 
tions that has ever been undertaken by a congressional committee. 

The country is crying out for legislation. Everyone who has 
studied the matter and who is interested in our economy and in the 
rights of people realize that we must have legislation, and I believe 
that every fact and idea that has been ofl'ered here throughout the 
months does make a contribution to legislative purposes. 

I would say this in regard to the evidence, and again I remind you 
that this is not criticism of anyone — we have a big job, w^e have to 
move rapidly, there are many witnesses to interview — I think insofar 
as possible in future conduct we should, as nearly as we can, follow 
the rule of the best evidence available. 

I would not favor following a rule that barred hearsay and opinion 
testimony. I think for legislative purposes that if a proper founda- 
tion is laid, and wdiat a person actually heard and saw, even though 
it is hearsay, it may have a very valuable legislative purpose. Now 
as to opinions that speculate on guilt of a particular individual, it is 
my feeling that if that opinion w\as possessed at the time the acts were 
performed, that the witness should be able to tell what his understand- 
ing of w^hat took place is. I think probably it should stop there. One 
of my reasons for saying that is that to go further into it is unnecessary. 

Just let the witnesses tell what happened, give their opinion as to 
what they understood was taking place, tell what they heard, if it is 
direct and specific, and then, I believe, Mr. Chairman, w^e w^ill have a 
stronger record for legislative purposes and for all other purposes 
for anybody that reads it as if Ave go a little beyond that in permitting 
witnesses to speculate and conjecture. But I certainly would be 
opposed to this committee binding themselves to absolutely bar opinion 
evidence and hearsay if it is somewhat circumscribed. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, please understand me, that this is not criti- 
cism of anyone. I did not bring up the subject. 

It was being discussed, and as one member I wanted to express my 
opinion on it. 

The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Curtis. 



13384 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chair stated that we will have an executive session, at which 
time all members may feel free to discuss it. If the witness prefers 
to have the other procedure, I don't know just to what extent at the 
moment we can accommodate him, but maybe we can accommodate him 
sufficiently. However, I certainly want the record to stand that 
whenever we do it the other way, it is being done at the request of 
counsel representing the witness, and my judgment is that it will be 
less fair to tlie witness than the procedure we are now following, 
giving him the day by day opportunity — I say day by day, not neces- 
sarily every day, but as the things are presented — to give him the 
opportunity to refute them or to explain them, as the case may be. 

However, gentlemen, I will arrange later with you as to the time, 
and we will have an executive session during the noon hour. In the 
meantime, we will proceed. Are there any other comments? 

Senator Ervin. Except, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say this: 
I don't think people know or realize the difficulty under which this 
committee functions. We have, and this is not applying particularly 
to the Teamsters, but generally, summoned witnesses, the committee 
subpenas witnesses, and the witnesses after their subpena, or after their 
interviews, on several occasions, have received threats from anonymous 
sources. We had on one occasion a witness subpenaed who cooperated,, 
with the committee. He had his place of business burned. 

We have a situation in which witnesses make statements of one- 
nature to the investigators, and then when they come to testify, I 
wouldn't say frequently but on occasion, they change their testimony 
from direct testimony to heai-say testimony, as we witnessed an 
example yesterday. We have situations where nobody on earth, sa 
far as I know, connected with this committee, has any idea of who was 
responsible for it, but a situation like this occurred in the case of Frank 
Kierdorf . It happened during the pendency of the hearing. 

Witnesses are subject constantly to a species of psychological 
coercion and duress. Who is responsible for these things, I don't 
have the slightest idea, and I certainly don't intimate that the man 
who is now the witness is the man responsible. 

But those are the circumstances under which this committee has 
to conduct its hearings. I am astounded. We have men who are 
supposed to have been honest labor leaders, exercising authority over 
their fellow Americans, coming here before this committee man after 
man and when they are asked about their conduct as officials of 
unions, they take the fifth amendment, which is a privilege of every 
American to take, if he honestly believes that what he would say would 
tend to incriminate him. I realize that sometimes an innocent man 
can invoke the privileges of the fifth amendment. 

I also know from long experience as a lawyer that those occasions 
are rare, indeed. But either the guilty or the innocent are entitled 
to invoke it. If I was the head of a labor union and discovered an 
officer who could not make a full, frank and truthful disclosure about 
his activities as a union officer without incriminating himself, if I had 
the authority he would not remain an officer until the sun went down — 
if I had the authority to remove him. I don't think men that invoke 
the fifth amendment are privileged to exercise authority over other 
Americans. 

They may, as an individual, have a right to hide individual acts 
behind the fifth amendment but not their official acts, and when 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13385 

rhey invoke it to hide their official actvS they ought to be forthwith 
removed from their positions. 

The OiiAiRMAN. Are there any further comments ? The Chair will 
say this about the fifth amendment. I don't want any misunder- 
standing with respect to my position about it. 1 think any witness 
has the right to invoke it if he honestly believes that if he gave a 
truthful answer to tlie question that a truthful answer might tend 
to incriminate him. 

But I do not think he has the right to take the fifth amendment 
because a truthful answer might incriminate another. I know the 
rule with respect to the fifth amendment, and I know the rule of 
presumption of innocence that attends everyone charged with a crime. 
But there is no court and there is no rule that can keep the human 
mind from forming its own oj)inion and conclusion with respect to 
the character of those who do invoke the fifth amendment under 
circumstances where tlie^^ owe an obligation and duty not only to 
their country but to those whom they rejjresent and serve to tell 
the truth about their activities, particularly those activities that are 
I'elated to the obligation that they have assumed, and particularly in 
respect to stewardship. 

All right, we will proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy, proceed with your interrogation. 
- Mr. Williams. Yesterday I promised Senator Curtis that I would 
produce here a copy of the consent order about which we talked, and 
I have copies of it for everyone. 

The Chairman, You may sul)mit them, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, the testimony that was given yesterday 
morning and yesterday afternoon, did that serve to refresh your 
recollection at all regarding your relationship Avith the Detroit Insti- 
tute of Laundry ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I made it my business during the noon recess to call 
Detroit and talk to Isaac Litwak to find out whether or not I had 
attended a meeting in the Detroit Leland Hotel. I believe it was the 
Leland. 

In any event I did attend one meeting, and I dropped in at the one 
meeting of the negotiating committee. I may say also, Mr. Chairman, 
if I may, to clear the record, so there will be no questions as to what 
happened in that meeting, tliat I have here a prepared statement 
from the files and records of local 285 concerning the New Method 
Laundry and concerning the questions of increases and contract con- 
'Cessions that were made during those negotiations. 

For the committee's information, and for legislative purposes, it 
might be well if you Avould know what those were, with your 
permission. 

The Chairman. Do you have a statement that you wish to read ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Yes, sir; I do. 

The Chairman. Has it been submitted? 

Mr. Kennedy. I haven't seen it. 

Mr. HoFFA. It was in answer to questions yesterday and that is 
wliv I didn't file it as a statement to the committee. 
The Chairman. Is it a brief statement? 
Mr. HoFFA. It is. 



13386 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairiman. I think that there is no objection. We have a rule 
here where testimony that is going to be read should be submitted. 
We will waive that rule. Proceed. 

Mr. HoFFA. People signing application cards at New Method 
Laundry. 

The Chairman. Do yon have extra copies ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I would be happy to leave this with you. 

The Chairman. I thought we might follow you better. 

Mr. HoFFA (reading). Edward H. Grooms joined the union June 2, 
1948; Edward Supkask, July 22, 1945; George Gray, December 5, 
1948 ; Perry Mirk, September 1942 ; Frank J. Greenmiller, August 30, 
1947; Israel W. Dunbar, 1946; Alfred Leo Coleman, November 5, 
1948 ; and Nick Hurghis, June 6, 1943. 

New Method Laundry signed an individual contract and the con- 
tract was effective the 28th day of February 1949. It was signed by 
Irvine: Miller and Casimer Miholzozah, or something of tliat nature, 
and the same time there was an association contract signed by mem- 
bers of the association, and on that contract appears the signature of 
Irving Miller, signed on the 27th day of June 1949. Contract bene- 
fits — and this may be of interest concerning some assertions that it was 
a "sweetheart" agreement. It is the highest rated contract in the 
United States, to the best of our research department's infonnation. 

All drivers receiving a base pay of less than $15 per week shall be increased 
to $15. B. All drivers receiving less than 15 percent increase receive an increase 
of (a) one-half of 1 percent, effective February 28, 1040; (b) an additional one- 
half of 1 percent effective August 28, 1958. These drivers worked on a per dollar 
sales volume. 

Drivers were increased from $50 to $55 mininnim weekly guaranty. Wholesale 
drivers receiAed an increase from $()0 plus 4 percent over $500 per week business, 
to $62.50 plus 4 percent over $500 \yor week business. 

Effective August 28, 1950, the drivers would receive $65 per week, plus 4 percent 
of all business over $500. Helpers receiving an increase from $35 phis 1 percent 
for all business over $1,000 per week, to $40 per week plus 1 percent for all busi- 
ness over $1,000 per week. Commercial drivers received an increase as follows : 

Fifty dollars base pay, plus 5 percent over $500 to $52.50 plus 5 percent over 
$500, effective February 28. $55 base pay plus $500 per week for base pay, plus 
5 percent per week, effective August 28, 1950. New drivers are to receive 
minimum weekly guaranty base pay from $35 to $40 after the first week proba- 
tionary period. Apprentice relief drivers from $50 to $55. Relay drivers from 
$55 to $60. 

There is also a provision in the contract for reopening the contract after Sep- 
tember 1, 1951. in order to reconsider the changing or converting from 6-day 
week to 5-day week. This contract was supplemented on the 2d day of January 
1953, converting from a 6-day week to a 5-day week, with 3 months grace period 
with which to convert. Note, and this is important : The New Method Laundry 
re-signed a contract on the 27th day of February 1946 with William H. Miller, 
and also the-e is a health and welfare program calling for $2 per week in this 
particular agreement at that time. That has been increased since. 

"VVlien thev made statements yesterday concerning "sweetheart" 
agreements, if you take time to check, for legislative purposes, the 
balance of the contracts in the United States, you will find that this 
doesn't take second to any contract in the United States in language 
or cost value. 

The Chaieman. Mr. Hoffa, I do not recall that any witness who 
testified referred to it as a "sweetheart" contract, 

Mr. HoFFA. The committee insinuated that it was such. 

The Chairman. On the contrary, they were referring to the harsh- 
ness of the contract and their desire to keep it from being made more 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13387 

oppressive from their standpoint. I am not saying it is. But to keep 
it from being made more oppressive or to avoid a strike, the payoff 
was made or arrangements were made to have you intervene, accord- 
ing to their testimony, you or someone higher up, higher than the 
president of the locaL 

I don't recall, and I think I am right about it, and I don't recall 
anyone maintained it was a "sweetheart" contract. The benefits that 
may have gone to the worker from the contract may be very good and 
very commendable. I don't question that, and I do like to see men 
get increases where it can be justified. But the issue here was that 
after long negotiations, and after they had made these concessions, 
still they were unable to get a contract and were threatened with a 
strike, and therefore they had to resort, from their viewpoint, and T 
don't say they had to, but from their viewpoint, from the testimony 
that they gave, they finally had to resort to going to a higher author- 
ity in the Teamsters Union. 

Now, let me just say this, while I am talking about it : Again this 
is not a trial, but here are circumstances that have been sworn to 
about this particular negotiation that went on, the length of time of 
it, and concessions they claim they had made, and they still couldn't 
get a contract. The industry was under threat of a strike. They 
went to some source higher up, and there is no question about that. 
At the final test there is evidence to indicate that you are the one who 
stepped in, and when you stepped in, then they were able to proceed 
to negotiate a contract. 

It was substantially, according to the testimony, on the same terms 
that the management or the laundry institute had been ofl'ering. 

There is no doubt, and I don't think you would even challenge the 
fact, that they did raise $17,500 and paid it to one who from every 
indication now was close to you, and from a circumstance which you 
testified to yourself, one from whom you could borrow $5,000 and from 
his partner another $5,000 without note, and without interest, and with- 
out security, and of which you kept no record, and from which you 
can only testify now from what an accountant reported to you from 
sources yet unknown, so far as I know, as to where he got his informa- 
tion, because there is no record for him to get it from, with respect 
to your having paid the loan back. 

Now those are things that I tliink call for explanation, if any fur- 
ther explanation can be given. I think this committee would be dere- 
lict in its duty, and it would show lack of moral courage if on the face 
of those circumstances it didn't try to search for the final answer and 
the truth. 

Again I think in giving you this opportunity, as we develop these 
tilings, we are being fair to you. If you think that is unfair, and if 
you want to let these things go on here for 3 or 4 weeks and then come 
in, I am going to submit it to the committee. 

Let me ask you this question : Can you give any better explanation 
than you gave yesterday, after hearing this testimony, about your 
connection with this contract and with these two men who were your 
friends, and who interceded and who got the money, and from whom 
you borrowed money ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Senator, I will give you an explanation concerning my 
activities as president of the joint council 43, and I will let my record 



13388 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

speak for itself. I am not interested in havin<»: strikes for tlie benefit 
or tjlorification of certain people. I am interested in our members 
and the contracts will speak for themselves, because in Michigan we 
have the highest contracts in the United States, and they are going to 
be higher. But the question is, sir, as president of the joint coun- 
cil 43 when there is a strike takes place in the city of Detroit, it l^ecomes 
my strike and not the local union's strike. Because under our rules I 
must assume the responsibility of seeing that that strike is won by 
using the economic forces of our organization on a combined basis for 
the benefit of au}^ one individual local union. 

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

Mr. HoFFA. I am not about to let any local union go on strike when 
there is no reason to go on sti'ike. I vetoed many strikes and I will 
continue to do so. 

If I think they are wrong, I will continue to intervene in contracts 
fis long as I am president of the joint council, or as long as I am presi- 
dent of this international union. Where I think there is a fair offer 
made, or I think for self-glorification somebody wants to call a strike, 
I will intervene and see that the strike isn't called, if possible, when 
there is a contract already negotiated beneficial to our members. And 
if they have a strike, and they are striking simply because of language 
or because of some particular provision that I can foresee we can 
get in a reasonable period of time in the future without a strike, I 
will not advocate a strike. 

Insofar as my friendship with Holtzman and Bushkin, I have 
friendship with hundreds of labor relations men. I have friendships 
with hundreds of lawyers who deal for employers in handling con- 
tracts. I find that it is hard to deal with an enemy, but sometimes it is 
easy to deal with a person you know a little bit better than a stranger. 

Tlierefore, I do intervene in these contracts, and I did intervene in 
this contract. I am very happy, and I think the record speaks for 
itself, that my suggestion, whatever it may have been at that time, 
was the better of the two suggestions because there was no strike, and 
they still got, in a reasonable period of time, everything they were at- 
tempting to strike for. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman, may I break in here ? 

The Chairman. Senator Ives. 

Senator I^xs. I would like to ask Mr. Hoffa a question about Mr. 
Bushkin who appeared yesterday. I believe, Mr. Hoffa, j^ou stated 
that Mr. Bushkin is a friend of yours. 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right, sir. 

Senator Ives. Of long standing ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right, sir. 

Senator Ives. One you value very highly ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't say I value him highly, but he is a friend of 
mine, a friendly acquaintance. 

Senator Ives. Value him the way you want to. I w^ould like to ask 
you this. Do you know why he took the fifth amendment yesterday ? 

So far as we could ascertain, there was no reason for doing it, unless 
he was shielding somebody. 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't know, Senator, but I had an opportunity to get 
from my lawyer a copy of the Supreme Court's latest decision con- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13389 

cerning: people's right to take the fifth amendment. I would like to 
read it to you 

Senator Ives. Wait a minute. I am not questionino- anybody's right 
to take the fifth amendment. I am asking you if you knew why he took 
it. 

Mr. HoFFA. You are insinuating — he has a right vuider the Supreme 
Court's decision that I have here in front of me, even if he is innocent, 
to take it. 

Senator Ives. On that basis, anybody that comes before us can take 
the fifth amendment all the way through, before any legislative com- 
mittee. 

Mr. HoFFA. Why don't you let him take it and leave him alone ^ 

Senator Ives. Where would we learn anything so we can legislate? 

Mr. HoFFA. I can only answer for myself. I cannot answer for 
somebody who desires to take the fifth. 

Senator Ives. I am asking if you know why he took the fifth. 

Mr. HoFFA. I cannot answer between that person taking the fifth 
and myself. 

Senator Ives. I am not asking about yourself. 

Mr. HoFFA. That is what you are insinuating. 

Senator I^^i;s. Not at all. 

You don't choose to take the fifth. You talk around it another way. 

Mr. HoFFA. I answer the question to the best of my recollection. I 
am not here to commit perjury. 

Senator Ives. You don't seem to know what you are talking about 
half the time. 

Mr. HoFFA. That is your opinion. 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman ? 

Senator Ives. What are you talking about ? 

The Chairman. Just a moment. Let's ask questions and have the 
witness answer. 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, I want to register an objection to 
anyone shouting at this witnesss. It isn't necessary that he be shouted 
at. I think the procedure will go along a lot more orderly if it is con- 
ducted in a courteous way. 

I don't think it is necessary for any member of the committee to cas- 
tigate the witness. We are not here for moral judgments on anybody. 
I think any questions directed at him as to the motivations of someone 
else is grossly improper. There is no way that this witness would 
know why some other man sought to invoke his constitutional privi- 
lege. 

The Chairman. Well, let the Chair answer you now. In this ordeal 
that we are going through sometimes it is difficult to restrain our emo- 
tions. I find it difficult myself at times. But I think it is quite proper, 
in view of the friendship and in view of the transactions, to ask Mr. 
HofFa if he can give us any reason or knows any reason why his friend 
takes the fifth amendment when asked what he did with the money, 
in view of the implications that are certainly present in the testimony 
before lis. Mr. Hoffa can say he has no reason why. We need not 
argue about his right to take it. I have expressed my view with re- 
spect to that. 

I don't think he has a right to take the fifth amendment unless he 
honestly believes that the testimony he would give, truthful testimony, 



13390 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

would tend to incriminate him. When they take it on the basis that 
they are taking it simply because they are apprehensive or because they 
know their testimony would incriminate another, I think it is a dis- 
tortion of the fifth amendment. I think it is a flagrant travesty of 
justice. We are concerned about it, and I think it poses a real problem 
for the Congress and for the American people if this practice can be 
indulged and if a witness can simply choose to take the fifth amend- 
ment rather than give testimony against another. The fifth amend- 
ment as it is today, and if it is to operate that way, can undermine law 
enforcement and decency and justice throughout the land. 

Now let's proceed to ask questions. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment a little bit on 
what the counselor said about my shouting. It so happens I have a 
voice of considerable volume. We have these microphones in front of 
us so that what is said will be heard. I can just as well fill this room 
without this microphone, except it would not be carried on the televi- 
sion or anything else. I am not going to whisper here just for your 
sake, Mr. Counselor, I can tell you that. 

Mr. Willia:sis. I did not think we were conducting this hearing for 
television. Senator. 

Senator Ives. '\^niat? 

Mr. Williams. I did not think we were conducting this for televi- 
sion. I thought we were conducting this so we can get information 
helpful to this committee. 

Senator Im3s. I can get information just as well if I shout as if I 
don't. It does not bother me in getting information. 

Tlie Chairman. Let's proceed. 

Senator ER^^N. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question ? 

The Chairman. Senator Ervin. 

Senator Erv^n. You stated that this witness was a friend of yours, 
who took the fifth yesterday ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Yes, sir. 

Senator ER\^N. Did you ask your friend whether or not he would 
not give testimony in exoneration of you ? 

I believe it was asked concerning whether you had participated in 
this matter ; was it not ? 

I was not here all dscj. 

Mr. HoFFA. Yes, sir ; they did. 

Senator Ervin. Did you ask your friend if he would give testimony 
tending to sustain your innocence rather than — your innocence of any 
receipt of this money — rather than take the fifth amendment? 

Mr. HoFFA. Frankly, I did not care what he said. Senator, because 
it could not affect me. 

Senator Ervin. It just occurred to me that if I had a friend who 
knew something which would tend to corroborate my testimony, I 
believe I would make that request of him. 

Mr. HoFFA. Well, I would not. 

Senator Ervin. Well, we have different opinions on that point, 
apparently. 

The Chairman. May the Chair ask 1 or 2 questions in view of the 
comment of the witness a moment ago. 

Are we to assume that from your remarks and from your testimony, 
that in securing benefits and improving the condition and welfare of 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIEIS IN THE LABOR FIELD 13391 

the union members wliom yon represent, that as you point to the gains 
and advances you make for them in contracts, their increase in wages 
and so forth, are we to assume from your remarks as you made them 
tliat you feel the end justifies the means, and if it takes criminals and 
thugs and crooks and violence and bribery to accomplish those ends, 
that they are justified ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Senator, I did not say that, and I don't believe that, and 
I don't mean that. 

The Chairman. You Inaow that is tlie big problem that this com- 
mittee has today, in what we are inquiring into. You know that is 
true. When you were before this committee before you said you were 
going to clean up some of these things. We are going to inquire into 
that. 

I am not going into it at the moment, but your statement that you 
are going to clean them up, and your actions will liave to be weighed 
against each other. All right, Mr. Kennedy, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did you intervene in this contract ? 

Mr. HoFFA. It was brought to my attention that there was a pending 
strike. I was desirous, as president of the joint council and a vice 
president of the area, or in charge of central conference — I don't guess 
I was a vice president at that time — of not having a strike. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you intervene at all times when there is about to 
be a strike ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I reserve the right to intervene in every contract. 

Mr. Kennedy. There is a situation in this case where, according to 
the sworn testimony, no hearsay wdiatsoever but the sw^orn testimony 
of yesterday, there was a payment made of $17,500, a payoff, in order 
to get an intervention from a higher-up in the Teamsters Union. 
Then you intervened. Can you give us 

Mr. HoFFA. What does that mean ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you give us any more explanation of that ? 

Mr. HoFFA. What does that mean? That I got the $17,500? Is 
that what you are insinuating? If you do, I did not get it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not get that money ? 

Mr. HoFFA. And I deny under oath that I got it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not get any of the money i 

Mr. HoFFA. I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have always had a very close relationship with 
employers, have you not, Mr. Hoff a ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I have very good relationship with the employers I do 
business with, and I am proud to say that that relationship resulted 
in the finest contracts there is in this country and has prevented strikes 
in this country, which I hope that is what you are here for. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't intervene every time there is going to be 
a strike. We had some testimony last week where there was a strike 
called, pickets appeared before the company that was owned by a 
brother of a man who was involved in a labor dispute. 

Mr. HoFFA. Where ? 

Mr. Kennedy. In Detroit? 

Mr.HoFFA. What? 

Mr. Kennedy. Hanley Dawson Chevrolet. 



13392 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. HoFFA. For your information, I was interested in that strike. 
For your information, I was conversant with everythino; that took 
place concernino- the picketing; of that particuhir operation. 

Mr, Kennedy. Why were the picket lines allowed to continue there ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Because Hanley Dawson would not recognize our union. 
And for your information, further, Mr. Kennedy, and edification of 
the whole committee, if you would correct the Taft-Hartley law as 
you are trying to do, you would not have areas where employers can 
duck behind the "no man's land'' and refuse to deal with the union 
when the employers" employees want the union. 

Senator Kennp:dy. I am glad you brought that up. The bill tliat 
passed the Senate, as you know, makes it compulsory for the National 
Labor Relations Board to assume its jurisdiction over the full Fed- 
eral area. I understand that the Teamsters oppose this bill and you do. 

Mr. HoFFA. Yes, we oppose it, because that was not the only thing 
you had in the bill. 

Senator Kennedy. What is it you object to in the bill ^ To having 
j)rohibition of reporting middlemen or payoffs? What were your 
objections to the bill ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I don't care to discuss the bill. Senator, because to dis- 
cuss that bill, I will have to discuss it with our lawyers and our de- 
partment that deals with that, and I am not fully familiar, except I 
did read a memorandum we submitted. But I say to you that you. 
the Senators of the United States, left a "no man's land*' where a 
certain group of employers decided to refuse to deal with unions even 
though their employees wanted a union. 

And they were not hesitant very much, and I don't see you bringing 
them in, wasn't hesitant about hiring lawyers who resorted to every 
tactic in this country to refuse to recognize our union. 

That is what created the strike. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, in the bill that passed the Senate, 
there is an attempt to deal with the "no man's land" problem which 
you have brought up this morning, and you are opposed to the bill. 
Tell lis the explanation of that. 

Mr. HoFFA. It don't deal with it. I have been advised by our peo- 
ple that it don't deal with the "no man's land.'" 

Senator Kennedy. Why doesn't it deal with it ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I don't know. 

Senator Kennedy. You brought it up ? 

Mr. HoFFA. So I am going to keep on bringing it up. 

Senator Kennedy. Can't you give an explanation as to why you 
brought it up ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I submitted a brief and you can read the brief. 

Senator Kennedy. In other words, you don't know, do you. Mr. 
Hoffa, what the language provides in the bill you are opposed to? 

Mr. Hoffa. I read the brief and discussed it with our people, but 
I am not in a position at this moment without refreshing myself 
exactly as to what the legal reasons were we objected to it. 

Senator Kennedy. I understand you don't know the legal reasons 
yet you are criticizing the Members of the Senate about not dealing 
with this problem of the "No man's land" and yet we have attempted 
to deal with the problem and you are opposed to the bill The only 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13393 

;Li,roiips opposed to it are the NAM, the chambers of commerce, and 
the Teamsters. 

Mr HopTA. Well, the NAM and the chambers of commerce are not 
affiliates of the Teamsters, but the Teamsters will continue to oppose 
any legislation they don't believe is right for the benefits of the mem- 
bers. 

Senator Kennedy. You can't tell me what it is in the bill you are 
opposed to ^ 

Mr. HoFFA. You have our brief, if you take time to read it, you will 
know what it is. 

Senator Kennedy. Can you tell me ? 

Mr. HoFFA. No, I am not going to take time to tell you, because I 
haven't the brief in front of me. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to get the information on the strike that you 
say you know about. Do you know the situation as far as the Dawson 
Taylor strike 'i 

Mr. HoFFA. I know some of the details of it, and we authorized 
tlie strike. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the picket line also, according to the sworn 
testimony before the committee, appeared before the companies that 
were owned by Mr. Dawson Taylor, his brother, Mr. Hanley Taylor. 
He liad nothing to do with it and there was no effort to organize his 
employees. Can you explain that to us ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I don't believe that the statement is true, and I am 
.going on assumptions as other witnesses have here. I am going on 
the assumption that our organization has attempted to organize every 
automobile dealer agency in the city of Detroit, and I personally have 
attended mass meetings, trying to get the individuals into our union, 
and for oi/^ years we have had nothing but continuous trouble and 
interference of every sort there is without anybody worrying about 
the salesman who is starving to death, working and trying to sell 
automobiles. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, all I am saying is that you did intervene 
in this situation involvinc' the Detroit Institute of Laundry, that there 
was a payoff' made of $17,500 to get the intervention of a higher-up. 
You did intervene. 

You say, "Well, I intervened to stop strikes." 

We had a situation that was developed last week before the com- 
mittee where there was an attempt to organize one brother and there 
was no attempt to organize another brother who ran some companies, 
but yet picket lines appeared in front of his place of business. Obvi- 
ously, the picket lines lasted for some weeks and you did not intervene 
in that. 

Mr. HoFFA. I recognized the fact in that particular instance of my 
inability to do anything other than picket employers who consistently 
refuse to recognize the law of the land, and I did not see anybody inter- 
vening to help me. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you a question at that point. Where 
the workers themselves do not want a union, do you think you have 
tlie right, and you may have under existing law, do you w^ant the right 



13394 IMPROPER ACTn^ITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

to coerce and compel them to join a union by the power, economic 
power, of a strike, of a picket line ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Senator, I will answer that question by saying this to 
you: That each unoroanized individual in any particular craft or 
industry is a jeopardy to the organized worker in the particular same 
business. I believe that it is our responsibility as an organization to 
advertise wherever unfair slavery wages exist below the standards of 
union people in a hope and a desire that the general public will not 
patronize that particular concern but will recognize that the American 
worker is entitled to a decent wage scale and decent conditions. 

The Chairmax. You go further than that, don't you, Mr. Hoffa? 
You withhold supplies from that place of business. 

Mr. HoFFA. I believe that every member belonging to any organiza- 
tion as an American citizen has a perfect right, whether it is passed 
by legislation or otherwise, but an inborn right, to decide whether or 
not he will be a party to destroying the conditions that he is able to 
give to his wife, his children, for the benefits of a union contract, and 
thereby recognizing and supporting any placard that announces an 
employer is unfair. 

The Chairman. What you are saying and what you mean and what 
you practice is that you believe in forcing them into the union whether 
they want to come in or not. 

Mr. HoFFA. An employer necessarily does not have to join the union 
to remove a picket line advertising unfair conditions in his plant. All 
he has to do is put into effect decent, honorable union wages, and the 
picket line then does not affect his employees. 

The CiiAiRMAx. The great mass of testimony before us completely 
refutes everything you are saying. 

Mr. HoFFA. Show us the case of the Teamsters where you are talk- 
ing about it. 

The Chairman. I can show it to you in the record. Just read the 
record. 

Mr. Hoffa. I have read every bit of it. 

The Chairmax. There is plenty of it. That is what you have been 
doing. That is one of the improper and evil practices we are looking 
into. It is a practice, I think, which must be corrected by legislation. 

Mr. HoFFA. Then you will destroy the unions and have nothing but 
back to 1932 wages, because you will allow the employer who refuses 
to sit down and honorably deal with the union, but hide behind skill- 
ful lawyers, to refuse to deal v.itli the unions, to be able to pay his 
employees less money, working more hours, no fringe benefits, and 
thereby destroy the union benefits of the union workers. 

The Chairman. Nobody wants to destroy the unions. 

Mr. HoFFA. That is what you will be doing. 

The Chairmax'^. We are not going to permit, if we can prevent it, 
unions, and some union leaders, destroying the liberty and freedom of 
the American people guaranteed to them under the Constitution. 

Mr. HoFFA. I think they are entitled also, Senator, under the Amer- 
ican Constitution, to expect the rights of being able to organize and 
being able to go into their employer and get benefits without being 
destroyed from employers who are nonunion. 

The Chairman. Just a minute. TYlien I talk, you are going to 
listen. I want you to get that straight. We are not going to permit^ 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13395 

if I can prevent it, by law, compulsion that makes people join a union 
and bow down to a force that tends and is trying to be bigger than 
government itself. 

I want that understood. 

I was a laboring man. I do not want to destroy unions. But I 
do not want your union or you as the head of it, to become above and 
beyond the law of the land. 

Mr. HoFFA. Senator, I — excuse me. 

The Chairman. I am not going to permit it if I can help it. 

Mr. HoFFA. In response to what you have said concerning our 
activities, Senator, if you will look around certain sections of this 
country, you will find that there is less than average wages paid in 
those particular areas to our type of member, our type of potential 
member, where there is nothing except harassment by State law, 
harassment by courts, to where when a person does want to join the 
union voluntarily, he finds himself in the position of losing his job. 

That is the thing we are here to prevent. 

The Chairman. I don't believe in them losing their job because 
they join a union, but I don't believe in their losing their job either 
because they decline to join the union. 

Mr. HoFFA. Well, there is a strike in your country, sir, that has 
been going on for a considerable time, where the people all joined 
the union, are all on the picket line, and this employer wouldn't 
recognize them. 

The Chairman. "We have a law to protect you in that. 

Mr. HoFFA. Where is it ? 

The Chairman. You have your power of force, your economic 
force, and you know it. 

Mr. HoFFA. There is no such law. 

The Chairman. You can call a strike, and that may be wholly 
justified if an employer will not Becognize the union where his em- 
ployees, a majority of them, belong to it and ask for a union. We 
have provided the remedy and you have it. A^'liat I am objecting 
to, what the American people are objecting to, is when you have a 
remedy, when you have not met the conditions, the precedents, to 
exercise that remedy, then you choose to take other means, the means 
of force to compel. 

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

The Chairman. That is my objection to it. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask tlie witness one 
question. 

This is not confined to cases already heard by the committee. 

Have the Teamsters Union offered a contract that has meant a 
reduction in wages for employees in order to have the Teamsters 
Union recognized ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I don't know of any particular instance where that has 
happened. But in your particular State, Senator, people are working 
below substandard wages of the entire Middle West because of the 
laws you have been able to pass to restrict unions to the tune of about 
40 cents. 

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

Senator Curtis. I am not going to enter into an argument on that. 



13396 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

That is not within the purview of this investigation, to fix wages. 
But I wanted to know whether or not the Teamsters have offered 
contracts that meant a reduction in wages in order tliat they miglit 
be recognized as tlie bargaining agent. 

Mr. HorrA. If such a contract exists, I would be more than happy 
to know, so that I can persona ll}^ intervene in tlie next negotiation 
and adjust tlie wages comparable to the locality of the contract. If 
you are talking about the intrastate carriers in Nebraska, then I can 
give you a history of that particular incident which has been goin^ 
on for 3 long years, and many a dollar spent on both sides, to try and 
get decent wages. It is true, so we will understand each other, it is 
true. Senator, that in some instances where people were working on 
a flat rate for unlimited numbers of hours, that when we signed a 
union contract and the hours became limited before overtime, their 
employers saw fit to reduce the number of hours they worked, thereby 
in some instances reducing the take-home pay they originally had. 

But that is being corrected as we perfect our organization in 
Nebraska to where we will raise the hourly rates sufficiently high that 
it will more than take care of the loss of hours that the employer 
saw lit to take away from them. 

Senator Curtis. Then it is true that some contracts have been 
offered that have reduced the pay of employees if the Teamsters 
Union is recognized as the bargaining agent 'i 

Mr. HoFFA. Only to the extent that the employer, instead of work- 
ing them 100 hours a week, now works them 40 hours a week, and the 
em})ioyee has not been able j-et to get his wage scale up to compensate 
him for the long hours he used to work at substandard wages. 

But that will be corrected, Senator. And the hourly rates are much 
higher currently than they were, sir. 

Senator Curtis. I don't know of anybody working 100 hours a 
week. But I am interested in knowing whether or not Teamsters 
admit or deny that they offer contracts which call for a reduction in 
the income of their workers in order to gain recognition and collect 
dues. 

Mr. HoFFA. I deny that we offer any contract, to my knowledge, 
to workers of a lesser hourly rate or less fringe benefits than they 
previously had. 

And also the workers vote on the contract before accepting it. 

Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoft'a, you did intervene in this contract. Wlio 
suggested that you go to the meeting ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I am not quite sure. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Holtzman ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Mr. Tom Lo Cicero said yesterday that he did not, and 
I assume maybe that Holtzeman did ask me to attend the meeting. 
I don't remember. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Holtzman discuss the matter with you ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Not to my recollection, but he may have. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yesterday, you could not remember anything about 
it. Today, through the hearing we have had, you have been able to 
refresh your recollection a little bit, and I am happy about that. 

Mr. HoFFA. That isn't true. I refreshed my recollection by calling 
my office in Detroit. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 13397 

Mr. KJENNEDT. Wliat was the purpose of going to the meeting, Mr. 
Hoffa? 

Mr. HoFFA. My purpose of going into any meeting is attempting 
to get the contract signed without a strike, and attempting to get for 
the workers the best wages, hours, and conditions that can possibly 
be got, recognizing the cost factor of an individual who goes out on 
strike for any extended period of time, and recognizing the differ- 
ence between what we are asking, what we think we can get by a 
strike, and what a strike will cost the worker. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you were going to go in there and discuss these 
negotiations with them ; is that right ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I did go in, from what I find out now. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlio accompanied you to that meeting? 

Mr. HoFFA. I understand nobody did. From what I can gather 
from my office, I appeared there alone. 

Mr. Kennedy. On page 43 yesterday, you were asked the question : 

Would it refresh your recollection that you told Mr. Litwak at the meeting 
that if he did not sign a contract, that you were going to take over the negotia- 
tions and settle these problems yourself? 

That is what we had in testimony yesterday. That was, I believe, 
Mr. Lo Cicero who made a statement to that effect. Can you tell us 
anything about that 'f Does that refresh your recollection as to what 
you stated at the meeting ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Hoffa. I talked to Litwak yesterday, who happens to be a very 
personal friend of mine for twenty-some-odd years standing. 

Mr, Kennedy. Did you make such a statement ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Litwak doesn't recall it. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am asking you. 

Mr. HoFFA. I am telling you what he told me, and he can't recall it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just answer the question. 

Mr. HoFFA. I do not recall what I said in that particular meeting, 
but as I said yesterday, I have never told any business agent that I 
would take over the negotiations. 

Mr. Kennedy. You can't remember that ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, it isn't a question of "can't remember," and I 
never told any business agent I would take over negotiations in any 
contract. 

Mr. Kennedy. You stated here further on, on page 43, you never 
said anything like that, Mr. Hoffa. Just a moment. 

You asked me whether I said I would take over negotiations and I had no 
authority as president of the council at that time or president of my own local 
union to take any such action. 

Now you say in your testimony today you do have such authority. 

Mr. Hoffa. I have authority as president of our council to inter- 
vene, I said, in any contract. That doesn't mean taking over, and it 
means intervening. 

Mr, Kennedy. But you cannot intervene ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I have a perfect right to intervene. 

Mr, Kennedy, When you intervene, Mr. Hoffa, certainly that is 
tantamount to taking over the negotiations ? 

Mr. HoFFA, It is absolutely not correct, because it may be only an 
advisory intervention, 

21243— 58— pt. 36 9 



13398 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. And that is what this was ? 

Mr. HoFFA, That is right. 

Mr, Kennedy. Just advisory ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Hoffa, you said you did not receive any 
of this money ; is that right ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I said I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us what the money is that you de- 
clare on your income tax each year, what you call "collections,-' and 
what are you collecting from ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Gambling games. 

Mr. Kennedy. Gambling games ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat kind ? 

The Chairman. Are teamsters in gambling operations? 

Mr. Hoffa. No; the teamsters are not in gambling, sir, but there- 
is racetracks in Detroit, and my partner has some horses, and my 
business associate in Detroit has some horses, and he places some bete 
and we are fortunate to win some money. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have any records on that? 

Mr. Hoffa. Mr. Owen B. Brennan keeps the records, and I don't 
do the betting and I don't keep the records. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to call Mr. Brennan around and see if 
we cannot get this cleared up right away. 

The Chairman. Is Mr. Brennan here ? 

Mr. Williams. I want to repeat my objection to this procedure 
whereby this witness is yanked on and off the witness stand, and 
other witnesses are called in juxtaposition to him. 

The Chairman. "Well, this procedure has been followed. 

Come around here, please. This procedure has been followed by 
the committee continuously, and I think it keeps it in proper perspec- 
tive. Come around, please. 

Mr. Hoffa. Are we excused ? 

The Chairman. Not for the present. You may sit right here. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Could we sit here, Your Honor ? 

The Chairman. If you want him to sit there, I have no objection. 
You may sit there and, Counsel, you may sit next to him or you may 
sit right behind him, Mr. Hoffa, if it will make everybody more com- 
fortable. 

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. Brennan. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF OWEN B. BRENNAN, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
GEORGE FITZGERALD 

The Chairman. ^\^1 you state your name and your place of resi- 
dence, and your business or occupation ? 

Mr. Brennan. Owen Bernard Brennan, 41801 Wilcox Road- 
Plymouth. Mich. I am vice j^resident of tlie International Brother- 
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen, and Warehousemen of 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13399 

America, and president of local No. 337 of the Teamsters Union in 
Detroit. 

The Chairman. All right. Thank you. 

You have counsel. Counsel, identify yourself . 

Mr. Fitzgerald. George Fitzgerald, an attorney in Detroit, Mich. 

The Chairman. All right ; we will proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. We are going into many things with Mr. Bren- 
nan at this time. This is a matter that is of some interest about these 
moneys that appear on Mr. Hoffa's income-tax returns, and the 
source of the moneys in view of the testimony that we had yesterday, 
and in view of some of the things we expect to go into. I would like to 
have Mr. Brennan tell the committee what the source of this money 
is that Mr. Hoffa has. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. May I address the Chair very briefly? 

Mr. Brennan appeared as a witness in September of last year. I 
made a statement to the committee at that time and stated that Mi\ 
Brennan, if asked questions or interrogated, would exercise his privi- 
lege under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution. 
After Mr. Brennan, or after I was advised that Mr. Brennan would 
be called before the committee, I told the committee counsel that Mr. 
Brennan, if called, would again exercise his privilege imder the fifth 
amendment to the Constitution. I stated that there was no change in 
circumstances that he could find or Mr. Brennan could find that 
would change his mind. 

I told the counsel further, and I would like to repeat it to the com- 
mittee, that I am advised by Mr. Brennan, he has made the decision 
to exercise his privilege under the fifth amendment not to be a witness 
against himself, and I believe that it would serve no legitimate legis- 
lative purpose to interrogate Mr. Brennan under those particular cir- 
cumstances. We are advising you of that at this time, because he is 
going to exercise the privilege, and, therefore, any interrogation of 
him, since it will elicit nothing, and he desires to exercise that privilege, 
would accomplish nothing as far as the purposes of this particular 
committee are concerned. 

Senator Mundt. I would like to ask Mr. Fitzgerald whether or not 
the witness is under indictment or there is some special reason why he 
is pleading the fifth amendment. I do not know what you told the 
counsel, but the implication is that the witness must be involved in 
some legal situation wliich would make it difficult for him to testify. 

Now, is that the case, or is he being prosecuted for something, or is 
he under indictment, or is there some special reason why this highly 
unusual request of yours should be granted ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. In the first place, the witness is not presently under 
indictment, but the witness is presently under an internal-revenue in- 
vestigation by both the internal revenue agents, and by the special 
agents of the Internal Revenue Department. 

Senator Mundt. I suppose we are all under internal-revenue inspec- 
tion all of the time. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Not specifically. 

Senator Mundt. That would open up a pretty big field, and is there 
something special about this investigation ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. There is something special about it when they are 
knocking on our door, and when they are waiting until he gets through 



13400 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

with this committee problem to continue their investigation and inter- 
rogation of Mr. Brennan. 

Senator Mundt. Then I assume from what you say, Mr. Fitzgerald, 
that your witness would take the fifth amendment for that reason on 
questions only dealing with fiscal matters? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Senator Mundt, I suppose I am the average coun- 
try lawyer, but I wouldn't attempt to sit here under the problem of 
advising my witness on the fifth amendment to draAv any liairlines. 
The Supreme Court has not sufficiently cleared it up, and finer law- 
yers than myself on this have warned all of us ordinary lawyers that 
we cannot draw any line of demarcation. 

So my advice to him has to be, and it has been, that if he desires to 
take the fifth amendment, that even reluctantly he must take the fifth 
amendment to all matters upon which he is interrogated in order to 
properly protect himself, because he is, as he has advised me, in fear of 
apprehension, and of the future consequences. 

Senator Mundt. As one member of the committee, may I say, Mr. 
Chairman, we have sufficient difficulty with this fifth amendment pro- 
cedure. I do not think that we should grant the request of the counsel 
because if we start showing s]:)ecial consideration to fifth amendment 
cases in advance, and not ask them questions, we are just about dead 
as a committee. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman, as a country lawyer, I would like to 
put a question to Mr. Fitzgerald, who professes he is a country lawyer, 
in the hope of increasing this country lawyer's knowledge of law. 

Is it a criminal oifense in the State of Michigan to bet on horse 
races ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No ; I don't know of any. 

Senator Ervin. That is all. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. At least they do it at the tracks, and we get quite 
a bit of money for the State, I understand, from it. 

The Chairman. The Chair will have to make this observation, and 
then we will proceed. 

If the committee should gi-ant this request, we would set a precedent 
so that every time anyone or any witness that we wanted to interro- 
gate, all he would have to do would be to advise his counsel he is going 
to take the fifth amendment and in turn the counsel would advise the 
committee and then we would not hear the witness. I do not know 
what others think, and again I say that the fifth amendment can be 
properly used and it may be properly used in this instance, I do not 
know, but we have no alternative except to ask the Avitness and we 
would be derelict in our duty if we did not pursue it. The witness, of 
course, can exercise his privilege. But if we let a record stand like 
this, without pursuing our duty, we would be subject to and deserve 
criticism and condemnation. 

Whether the witness will deserve criticism or condemnation in ex- 
ercising his privilege may become a matter of individual opinion, on 
which opinions may differ. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. May I say one word so that the committee will be 
acquainted with it ? 

Mr. Brennan is the president of local 337 in the city of Detroit, and 
that is local 337 of the Teamsters. From the first time a year ago 
when the committee investigators called upon the local for the pro- 



I]\IPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13401 

duction of all union books and records, those union books and records 
of local 337, or any other unit of the Teamsters over which Mr. Bren- 
nan has any supervisory control, were turned over to the committee 
staff and they have constantly been checking those records. 

The Chairman. All right, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out on page 
5480 and the preceding page, that Mr. Fitzgerald, who appeared with 
Mr. Brennan at the last hearing, stated that, although he might have 
to take the fifth amendment, and I quote him : 

If this questioning of Mr. Brennan is deferred, it is quite likely that Mr. Bren- 
nan could come before this committee at a later date, subsequent to the 15th of 
October, and then answer the questions. 

Now^ lie is being recalled at the present time. He took the fifth 
amendment before, but he was made a vice president of the Teamsters 
after he appeared before the committee and took the fifth amendment. 
He was elevated in rank. He has been called before the committee to 
give a vejy important explanation as to where this money came from 
that appears on Mr. Hoff'a's income tax returns under the category 
of "collections." 

Now, could you tell us that ? 

Mr. Hoffa testifies that you have the answer to it. Could you tell 
us about it ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Brennan. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa says this comes from gambling games. 
How can you continuously win at gambling games over a period of 8 
years, Mr. Brennan ? 

Mr. Brennan. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. The Chair will make this observation, and give the 
witness, with the approval of the committee, my assurances with 
respect to your winnings. We will ask you nothing with respect to 
your personal finances at this time. Mr. Hoffa has said you could 
give the answer. Now, you can corroborate him without in any way, 
so far as I can observe, incriminating yourself. 

If you received money for Mr. Hoffa and made bets and turned over 
the proceeds or winnings to him, you can give that testimony without 
any self-incrimination and it would corroborate Mr. Hoffa. We leave 
these things dangling, and we get to the proper man. One will say 
the other has the answer and we bring him up here, and then he takes 
the fifth amendment. 

Now, what are intelligent people to assume, and what are they to 
judge, and how are they to judge such actions ? 

I am asking you to be helpful to Mr. Hoffa, and I will ask the com- 
mittee not to ask you any questions at this time, and I cannot promise 
later, and at a later time you can judge then whether you take the fifth 
amendment or not. 

But at this time I will ask you to open up here and tell us what you 
know with respect to this transaction insofar as Mr. Hoffa is concerned. 

Mr. Brennan. May I speak to my counsel, Mr. Chairman ? 



13402 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. You may, 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Brennan, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Senator, in my judgment, it 
would be very difficult for me to differentiate between myself and Mr. 
Hoffa, and I therefore must respectfully decline to answer the question 
and exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United 
States Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. All right ; proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to call Mr. Bellino to put the figures 
into the record as to what the income-tax returns of Mr. Hoffa show. 

The Chairman. Come around. 

Senator MuNDT. I would like to ask Mr. Brennan a question. Did I 
understand that you are the vice president of the International 
Teamsters ? 

Mr. Brennan. One of them, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Is that the same union of which Mr. Hoffa is the 
president ? 

Mr. Brennan. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. You heard Mr. Hoffa, did you not, say to our com- 
mittee this morning that you were the man who could tell us what 
these financial transactions were, and did you hear him make that 
statement ? 

Mr. Brennan. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Senator Mundt. Well, everybody else in the room heard him make 
it, anyhow, Mr. Brennan, and so I think it is clear in the record that 
he did make it. 

I think the chairman made you a very fair and sporting proposi- 
tion; that we would not ask you any questions involving your personal 
transactions, but here Mr. Hoffa, through no prodding of the com- 
mittee, brought your name into the hearing and said you were his 
financial agent, as it were, in this connection, and that you knew how 
this money was made, and suggested that we ask you questions about 
it. Now, you cannot escape the fact that, after Mr. Hoffa brings you 
in as a character witness as to the financial justification of these state- 
ments that he has been making, you take the fifth amendment. I 
think you are leaving Mr. Hoffa pretty badly in the lurch. Wliat good 
is a character witness who will not talk ? 

I just think that you should accept that from one member of the 
committee, my pledge not to ask you any questions about your own 
financial transactions, and to limit it exactly to the testimony to which 
you were publicly assigned by Mr. Hoffa. If the other members of 
the committee will do that, it seems to me then that you are free from 
any complications about the fifth amendment, and you can answer 
those questions and leave the stand, and you cannot get involved be- 
cause you have, by answering one question, perhaps opened the door 
to answering of others. 

Is that not a fair proposition ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Brennan. Do you want me to answer you ? 

Senator Mundt. That is why I asked you the question. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13403 

Mr. Brennan. I am sorry. I respectfully decline to answer the 
•question, and exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the 
United States Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Let us proceed. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Bellino. 

The Chairman. Mr. Bellino has been previously sworn. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell us w^hat the records of Mr. Hoffa's 
income tax show, which were provided by him ? 

Mr. Bellino. The income-tax returns for the years for which we 
have information extend from 1948 to 1956. 

Senator Curtis. Whose income-tax returns ? 

Mr. Bellino. James R. Hoffa. I understand he has not filed his 
1957 income-tax return as yet. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa has not filed his 1957 income-tax return? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about Mr. Brennan ? 

Mr. Bellino. I understand he has not filed his, either. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about the accountant for the union ? 

Mr. Bellino. I understand he has not filed his, either. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Grosberg ? 

Mr. Bellino. Mr. Grosberg and, also, Mr. Fitzgerald. 

Mr. Kennedy. Four of them have not filed ? 

Mr. Bellino. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Has any extension been granted ? 

Mr. Bellino. I understand it has been granted j yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Bellino. The total amount shown as either gambling gains or 
miscellaneous income or collections received during this period was 
$60,322.30. Breaking them down by years : In 1948, $3,000, shown as 
gambling gains; 1949, $1,500, miscellaneous earnings; 1950, $2,095.80, 
miscellaneous; 1951, $5,500, miscellaneous income; 1952, $5,535, collec- 
tions received ; 1953, $10,505, collections received ; 1954, $7,700, collec- 
tions received; 1955, $13,799.50, collections received; 1956, $10,682, 
wagering ; making a total of $60,322.30. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the last item ? 

Mr. Bellino. Wagering. 

Mr. Kennedy. How^ much was involved ? 

Mr. Bellino. $10,682. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us about that, Mr. Brennan ? 

The Chairman. You are asking Mr. Brennan because Mr. Hoffa 
stated that Mr. Brennan could give the answer to it ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Correct it. 

Mr. Brennan, Do you want me to answer you ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Brennan. I respectfully decline to answer the question, and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr, Brennan is one of the vice presidents of 
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. 



13404 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. When did you become vice president of the Inter- 
national Teamsters, Mr. Brennan ? 

(The witness conferred with his coimseL) 

Mr. Brennan. At the last convention, sir. 

The Chairman. What was that date? I don't recall exactly. 

Mr. Brennan. It was in October of 1957. 

The Chairman. October of 1957? 

Mr. Brennan. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Was that after you testified before this committee 
or declined to testify, rather? 

( The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. Brennan. It was afterwards, sir. Unanimously, sir. 

The Chairman. Yes, sir. I understand how it was made unanimous. 

Senator Mundt. That does not prove anything. That is the same 
thing with Khrushchev, so we don't pay much attention to that. 

Mr. Brennan. Well, I don't put myself in 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Bellino, the figures that you give don't include 
the monies that Mr. Hoffa receives and has received from various 
trucking companies in which he has had an interest? 

Mr. Belling. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Such as the Test Fleet Co. ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have the figures on that ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, it might be well, as long as we are 
talking about the relationship of ISIr. Hoffa, and certain employers, 
and the situation that developed yesterday, we might put in some 
other figures on the earnings that came from certain trucking com- 
panies to Mr. Hoffa. 

The Chairman. In the meantime, may I ask you, Mr. Bellino, is the 
taking of the fifth amendment one of the prerequisite qualifications 
for advancement to vice presidency? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Brennan. Do you want me to answer you, sir? 

The Chairman. I believe so. 

Mr. Brennan. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed with Mr. Bellino. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Bellino, I wanted to ask you about the Test Fleet 
Co. That was set up when ? 

Mr. Bellino. About March 1949. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that was set up with the help of the Commercial 
Carriers ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. The officials of the Commercial Carriers? 

Mr. Belling. Mr. Bert Beveridge. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Bert Beveridge of Commercial Carriers? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir, and also through the Matheson Bros. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlio were they? 

Mr. Belling. Carney Matheson and Albert Matheson. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do they represent the trucking companies in con- 
tract neo-otiations with the Teamsters Union ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13405 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And this was set up by Commercial Carriers at 
approximately the same time they were having some trouble with the 
local of the Teamsters Union ? 

Mr. Belling. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy, That was the time that Mr. Hoffa intervened in that 
strike and settled it, is that right ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And was the company set up in Mr. Hoffa's own 
name? 

Mr. Belling. No, sir. The stock was issued in the names of the 
wives of both Mr. Holfa and Mr. Brennan, or Josephine Poszywak 
and Alice Johnson. 

Mr. Kennedy. We had some figures on this at the last hearing, 
which I believe were incorrect or not complete. 

Would you put the figures of earnings of that company into the 
record ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. The gross equipment records, the gross 
earnings, of the company, for the period from the time it was or- 
ganized to March 31, 1958, was $1,008,057.89. The gross profit was 
$263,730.01, or 26 percent of the gross equipment rentals. 

Senator Curtis. At that point, would you define gross profit, that 
is the gross profit from a business before personal exemptions are 
granted ? 

Mr. Belling. Gross profit in this case is after operating expenses 
and before administrative expenses, and before profit, before there 
are dividends and so on. 

Senator Curtis. Before administrative expenses? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Have you the net profit figures ? 

Mr. Belling. The net income is $155,092.04, or 15.38 percent earn- 
ings of gross income. 

Mr. Kennedy. "VYliat was the investment of Mr. Hoffa and Mr. 
Brennan in that company? 

Mr. Belling. I believe it was $4,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. And is it correct also that from the testimony that 
was developed last year, the Commercial Carriers placed their own 
attorney in this company? 

Mr. Belling. They handled the whole transaction. In fact, their 
wives had nothing to do with the operation of the business. 

It was all done 

Mr. Kennedy. By officials of Commercial Carriers ? 

Mr. Belling. That is right. 

Mr, Kennedy. They received the income from it ? 

Mr. Belling. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. This was set up by them and their lawyers in Mrs. 
Hoffa and Mrs. Brennan's maiden names ? 

Mr. Belling. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And officials of Commercial Carriers ran the entire 
operation ? 

Mr. Belling. They ran the entire operation. 

Mr. Kennedy. And this was a trucking company which had a 
contract with the Teamsters ? 



13406 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir, in fact, they were associated in possibly a 
dozen different trucking companies. 

Mr. Kennedy. I will read you from page 131 of the Hoffman hear- 
ing. Mr. Biedler — what was Mr. Biedler's connection ? 

Mr. Belling. He was the accountant. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was asked, talking about Bert Beveridge — 

Did he at that time tell you in substance "I am going to put some friends of 
mine in business, and I want you to handle the account"? — 

and Mr. Biedler's answer to that question was — 

That is true. 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was not the only trucking company of Mr. 
Hoft'a and Mr. Brennan's ? 

Mr. Belijng. Xo, sir. They started off* initiallj'^ with J & H Sales 
& Equipment Co., two trucks. Then they went into National Equip- 
ment Co. with 10 trucks. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you tell us how the trucks of National Equip- 
ment were purchased ? This is something we did not know last year. 

Mr. Belling. The trucks of National Equipment were purchased 
through Mr. Bert Beveridge and Albert Matheson. 

Mr. Kennedy. This, again, is the owner of a trucking company and 
the attorney for the negotiating committee of the truckers ? 

Mr. Belling. That is correct. In other words, neither Mrs. Hoffa 
nor Mrs. Brennan nor Mr. Hoffa nor Mr. Brennan had anything to do 
with the arranging for the acquiring of these trucks. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was any money advanced by Mr. Beveridge in con- 
nection with this ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much was advanced ? 

Mr. Belling. They advanced $5,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. $5,000 or $20,000 altogether, initially ? 

Mr. Belling. The loan from the bank was 

Mr. Kennedy. He advanced $5,000 ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was any interest paid on that loan ? 

Mr. Belling. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was outstanding for how long ? 

Mr. Belling. That was outstanding for 1 month. 

Biedler arranged for a personal loan from his own bank and was 
reimbursed. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was in addition ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much was the loan from the bank ? 

Mr. Belling. Approximately $35,000 or $36,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you make any comment on that, Mr. Brennan ? 
Your relationship with these employers and Bert Beveridge and the 
formation of these trucking companies ? 

Mr. Brennan. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you explain briefly, Mr. Bellino, what their 
business was ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13407 

Mr. Belling. As I understand it, they were carriers, transporting 
Cadillac cars and other automobiles out of Detroit. 

Mr. Kennedy. The three companies, J. & H. Sales, National Equip- 
ment, and Test Fleet ; is that right ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that correct, Mr. Brennan ? 

Mr. Brennan. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

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

(Whereupon, at 12 : 20 p. m. the hearing recessed, to reconvene at 
2 p. m. of the same day, with the following members present : Senators 
McClellan, Ervin, Kennedy, Curtis, and Mundt.) 

afternoon session 

(At the reconvening of the session, the following members were 
present: Senators McClellan, Ives, Church, Kennedy, and Curtis.) 
The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES E. HOFFA, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
EDWAKD BENNETT WILLIAMS, GEORGE FITZGERALD, AND 
DAVID PREVIANT— Resumed 

The Chairman. During the session this morning, counsel for Mr. 
Hoffa made a request of tlie committee, after stating an objection to 
some parts of the committee's procedure. The Chair announced at 
that time that he would call a meeting of the committee in executive 
session during the noon hour to consider the request of counsel. 

The committee met in executive session with six members present. 
The matter was discussed, and those who were present unanimously 
agreed upon what the Chair is about to announce. In the first place, 
this committee retains jurisdiction, and in no way surrenders its pre- 
rogatives or its discretion. From time to time as situations arise, the 
committee will have to make, and has in the past made, decisions. 

No one in the course of a proceeding of this kind, nor even in a 
judicial proceeding, can necessarily always foresee and anticipate 
developments. The Chair believed that we were proceeding in a way 
that gave the greatest advantage to the witness in that he was being 
given an opportunity, practically at each instance, where testimony 
was received about which we believed him to have information, and 
about which he would be very much concerned, to give him the oppor- 
tunity to explain or refute or comment upon such testimony. 

In the past, the committee has been criticized, or we have had just 
the opposite objection or complaint from that which was interposed 
this morning, because, as I stated earlier, it was felt that we were 
unduly prolonging or taking testimony without giving the party 
involved the opportunity to appear at the same time or immediately 
afterward, and make his explanation, on the theory that the story 
goes out today, and the story tomorrow or 2 or 3 weeks later doesn't 
overtake it. 

Now we find ourselves trying to handle it this way and find objec- 
tion to it. Again I say that the committee will retain not only 
jurisdiction but discretion and the right to act from time to time 
as the situations arise. 



13408 IMPROPER ACTRTTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

In the meantime, the request will be granted to this extent : The 
committee will not require Mr. Hoffa to remain present in the chamber 
at all times. If he desires not to be here, he may be wherever he 
cares to be, except available subject to call. 

The committee will not find and has not found it proper or advisable 
to hear some 2 or 3 weeks' testimony here and then call Mr. Hoffa. 

As we conclude each phase of the hearings from other witnesses, 
and if at the conclusion of that phase of the hearings Mr. Hoffa's 
testimony is desired in connection with that aspect of the inquiry, 
he will be called to the witness stand and interrogated about it. That 
will not, of course, require his presence here at all times. 

But he will be subject to call and will appear upon reasonable notice 
of the call. Fortuuately for him and for us, I think his headquarters 
here are very convenient, and very little delay would be incurred. 

The committee will always try to grant reasonable requests, insofar 
as they can do so, without impairing in any way its function and its 
ability to perform that function. 

So Mr. Hoffa Avill be recalled this afternoon and possibly tomorrow. 
As I stated, we will continue today as we are, because I know you will 
be recalled this afternoon, or anticipate you will be, at least. After 
today, if ]Mr. Hoft'a does not want to be present, he understands, I 
am sure, that he is invited to be present at all times, but if he chooses 
not to be present, just so he remains available here in the city where 
we can reach him when we may need him, it would be all right. 

I think Avith that reservation, based upon the information we have 
and the procedures that we have in mind, Mr. Hoffa will be needed 
occasionally at least, if not from time to time, during the course of 
these hearings. 

There will come a time, I am contemplating, when Mr. Hoffa may 
be interrogated about things beyond what will be developed by others. 
I believe I have stated this, gentlemen, as correctly as I understood it. 
Is there any comment about what I have said ? 

Senator Curtis. I have no comment. 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Mr. Williams. 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, I think so we will all have a com- 
plete understanding, that I should say for the record that if I under- 
stand your ruling correctly, sir, that does not meet the objection which 
I lodged this morning, the suggested procedure. The objection that 
I lodged, Mr. Chairman, and maybe I don't understand your ruling, 
and perhaps it does meet it but you can clarify it if I am wrong, the 
objection which we lodged was to have this witness testify to certain 
facets of his activities over the year, and then having rebuttal wit- 
nesses or adverse witnesses, if you will, called in juxtaposition to his 
testimony, and then having him recalled to testify to another facet. 

The reason that we objected to that, Mr. Chairman, is because we 
felt that it constituted a legislative trial. If what we believe to be a 
legislative trial is going to continue, then, of course, the defendant 
would want to hear the testimony against him which he would be 
called upon to meet, unless he were given an opportunity to read the 
record before he were called. 

If your ruling contemplates that there will be a sufficient time 
hiatus for him to familiarize himself by reading the record as to the 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13409 

testimony that is offered by adverse witnesses, then that would be 
meeting our objection. Otherwise, I 

The Chairman. Let the Chair say this : I see the pomt counsel is 
making. 

This is public business, of course. I don't want to impose any im- 
position upon anyone. But I do not feel that the committee would 
be called upon to recess its hearings until someone could read the 
record, when certainly your client is present or at least invited to be 
present and hear the testimony. 

But I have in mind that this is not unqualified. It is subject to the 
committee's determining from time to time and from circumstance to 
circumstance what is the best course for it to pursue, keeping in mind 
always the purpose to be fair but also effective. 

Now, generally, and I do not tell you that there will be no excep- 
tion, but generally, we expect, as I have indicated, to develop a case 
or circumstance or a phase of the inquiry and then, if we feel that it 
is proper and well for the committee to call Mr. Hoffa in at that in- 
terval and interrogate him further, we shall do so. 

Whether there will be any exception where we may want to call 
him ahead, I cannot say now. But generally I have stated how we will 
proceed. 

I may say this: We are spending taxpayer's money. I have al- 
ways confessed when being accused of being conservative, I have 
readily plead guilty. But in spending taxpayer's money, I feel an 
obligation, and I know every member of the committee does, to do the 
job and do it as economically as we can. 

You can see the circumstances developed liere this morning. Sup- 
pose we had not asked Mr. Hoffa about this financial matter, and he 
says "Well, ask Mr. Brennan." Well, we had already heard Bremian, 
and Brennan had gone back. 

Again, we would have to subpena him or keep him under subpena, 
and pay his expenses. That comes out of taxpayers' money. I am 
going to be careful to do this as economically as we can, without being 
unfair or causing any imposition to fall on one unjustly. 

So I believe that we have resolved this aspect as best we can at the 
moment. I hope it will be satisfactory. Again, Mr. Hoffa, of course, 
and anyone else — when I say him, it is just because you as his counsel 
raised the question — any of those who may be involved, directly or 
indirectly in the investigation, of course, are welcome to be present. 

I am sure even when Mr. Hoffa is not present, counsel, wise counsel 
that he is, will see that someone is here to follow the proceedings. 

Is there anything further ? 

If not, thank you very much. 

Mr. Hoffa, you may stand aside for the present. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. The next witness will not be too long. 

The Chairman. All right. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Herbert Grosberg. 

The Chairman. Be sworn, please, sir. 

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

Mr. Grosberg. I do. 



13410 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

TESTIMONY OF HERBERT L. GROSBERG, ACCOMPANIED BY 
COUNSEL, BELEORD V. LAWSON, JR., AND GEORGE FITZGERALD 

The CHAiRMAisr. Mr. Grosberg, state your name, your place of resi- 
dence, and your business or occupation, please, sir, 

Mr. Grosberg. My name is Herbert L. Grosberg. I live in Hunt- 
ington Woods, Mich. I am a certified public accountant. 

The Chairman. Thank you, sir. You have counsel present ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I do. 

The Chairman. Counsel, identify yourself for the record. 

Mr. Lawson. Belford V. Lawson of the bar of the District of Co- 
lumbia, and Mr. George Fitzgerald, of the Detroit bar, is associated 
with me in this representation. 

The Chairman. All right. The record will so show. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Grosberg, you have been an accountant for how 
long? 

Mr. Grosberg. I have been a certified public acountant since 1952, 
and I have been in accounting since 1945 or 1946. 

Mr. Kennedy. You handled the books and records of local 299 of 
the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I do. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the local of Mr. James Hoffa ; is that correct ? 

Mr, Grosberg, That is correct, 

Mr, Kennedy- And you also handle the books and records of local 
237? 

Mr. Grosberg. I do. 

Mr, Kennedy. That is the local of Mr, Owen Brennan, 

Mr, Grosberg. That is correct. 

Mr, Kennedy. And you also handle, do you not, the personal books 
and records of ISIr. Hoffa and Mr. Brennan ? 

Mr. Grosberg, I do. 

Mr. Kennedy, We have had some testimony this morning about the 
records or the source of income that appear on the tax returns of Mr. 
Hoffa from the year of 1948 to 1956. I would like to ask you what 
books and records you maintain for Mr, Hoffa that we could examine 
to determine the source of money that he reports on his income tax, 

Mr, Grosberg. I have no books and records for Mr, Hoffa. 

Mr. Kennedy, You don't have any books and records ? 

Mr, Grosberg, No ; I don't, 

Mr, Kennedy, Don't you keep the books and records of Mr, Hoffa ? 

Mr, Grosberg. There are no records. The only thing I had of Mr. 
Hoffa which I gave to Mr. Bellino were copies of the income-tax 
returns. 

Mr, Kennedy, How can you draw up his income-tax return without 
any papers of any kind ? 

Mr, Grosberg, Well, Mr, Hoffa submits to me the information on 
his tax return, and from that point on it becomes a matter of 
computation. 

Mr, Kennedy, "Wliat kind of documents does he submit to you ? 

Mr, Grosberg, "V\n^iat do you mean what kind of documents ? 

Mr. Kennedy. "Wliat kind of documents does he submit to you that 
you make up his tax return ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13411 

Mr. Grosberg. It would be the copy of the W-2 that the local union 
and international would give him, the 1099 regarding the dividend, 
and then he gives me the information regarding the wagering. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have some worksheets that you figure out 
his tax from ? 

Mr. Grosberg. No; the computation is done on a sheet of paper. 

Mr. Kennedy. What has happened to those sheets of paper ? 

Mr. Grosberg. After I am through computing it, what do I need 
them for ? 

Mr. Kennedy. What have you done with them ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Will you please repeat the question ? 

Mr. Kennedy. What have you done with the sheets of paper on 
which you compute Mr. Hoff a's tax returns ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I don't keep the sheet of paper. 

Mr. Kennedy. What do you do with them ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Probably just throw them away in the wastebasket. 

Mr. Kennedy. You just destroy them, is that all ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I wouldn't say I just destroy them. I would say I 
just throw them away in the wastebasket. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is another way of saying destroy. How can 
you figure out, Mr. Grosberg, where he has a number of sources of in- 
come ? Who keeps those records for him ? 

Mr. Grosberg. There are no records, as far as the 

Mr. Kennedy. There are no what ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I don't understand your question. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is not very difficult. Where he has a number of 
different sources of income, how are you able to keep those records 
straight, or how are you able to compute his tax without examining 
some records ? 

Mr. Grosberg. What records would I have to examine in order to 
prepare his tax ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Now he has the Test Fleet Co. Do you examine 
those? 

Mr. Grosberg. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. How is it figured out what his earnings are for Test 
Fleet? 

Mr. Grosberg. There is a 1099 which shows the dividend. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about the rent ? Doesn't he have some income 
from rent that he receives ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I don't think so. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, he reports it on his income tax return. 

Mr. Grosberg. Are you talking about Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Grosberg. I don't remember. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't Iniow anything about that ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I don't remember. Mr. Bellino has the returns. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman, while these data are being looked up, 
I would like to ask the witness a question. 

The Chairman. Senator Ives. 

Senator Ives. Is that the way you treat all income tax returns that 
you make up, or is this the only one you make up for a client ? 

Mr. Grosberg. No ; I make up several income taxes. 

Senator Ives. You make up several ? 



13412 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Grosberg. Yes ; I do. 

Senator Ives. You have no worksheets for any of them that you 
keep ? 
Mr. Grosberg. No : there is 



Senator Ives. You throw them all in the wastebasket ? 

Mr. Grosberg. He asked me about computations. 

Senator Ives. I am not asking you about computations. You said 
you threw away all the worksheets, everything connected with it that 
you received. 

Mr. Grosberg. May I talk to counsel, please ? 

Senator Ives. Except for the copy of the return, in this instance, 
which the counsel now has. Yes, you can talk to him. I would like 
to find out how j^ou do treat these matters. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Grosberg. Senator, are you talking about individual returns, 
corporation returns, or 

Senator Ives. I am talking about any kind of returns you make up. 
You say you threw away the worksheets that you received, or any 
other sheets that you received, containing information which was 
necessary to the compilation of this return of Mr. Hoffa^ — ^you threw 
those in the wastebasket. Is that the way you treat all income tax re- 
turns that you make up ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I think we would have to discuss each category of 
return. 

Senator I^-es. There is no such thing as a category of return. 

Mr. Grosberg. I beg your pardon, sir, there is. 

Senator I\tes. Aren't you a CPA ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Yes, I am. 

Senator Ives. Where did you get your CPA ? Here in the District ? 

Mr. Grosberg. No. In Michigan. 

Senator Ives. ISIichigan is a very reputable State and they have very 
high standards. You know that as well as I do. I am very sure as 
a CPA you are not throwing away those records. Are you ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I was not throwing away any records. Senator. 

Senator Ives. You said you did. 

Mr. Grosberg. I did not. 

Senator Ives. What did you call those matters that you threw in 
the wastebasket, that had the information concerning the return of 
Mr.Hoffa? 

Mr. Grosberg. I said that I threw in the wastebasket the sheets on 
which I computed the tax return. It was just merely a computation, 
and multiplication. 

Senator I\^s. You didn't keep any of the worksheets ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I had no worksheets. 

Senator Ives. I make out my own returns and I know something 
about this business. I have to keep some record of it and you have 
to keep a record of your worksheet. You have to keep those and a 
record of all of the information that go in the returns. 

Mr. Grosberg. I had no worksheets for Mr. HofFa, I am sorry. 

Senator Ives. You had no worksheets for Mr. Hoff a ? 

Mr. Grosberg, No, sir. 

Senator Imss. I thought you just said you threw them in the waste- 
basket ? 



IIMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13413 

Mr. Grosberg. If you are going to call a computation a worksheet, 
then I threw the computation in the wastebasket. 

Senator Ives. That is a worksheet in my book. 

Mr. Grosberg. I don't think so, sir. 

Senator Ives. I don't care ; you have no record, then, and you kept 
no records on this return at all ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I had no records, Senator. 

Senator Ives. Who did keep them ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I don't know who kept records, and I have no records. 

Senator Ives. In other words, if the Internal Revenue Service came 
after you and wanted to know certain facts, you couldn't tell them a 
thing, and you would have to rely on Mr. Holla's memory ? 

Mr. Grosberg. May I talk to counsel, please ? 

(Witness consulted with counsel. ) ' ^ 

Mr. Grosberg. Senator, I think perhaps you and I are trying to dis- 
cuss the same thing, but using two different definitions. I think a 
worksheet is going to be a substantiation of information, whereas a 
computation is just going to take the figures upon the return and com- 
pute the tax necessary for the payment of the tax on that return. 

Now, the information for the return was submitted to me, and that 
was placed upon the return, and after everything is on that return it 
is added or subtracted, whichever the case may be, and then the multi- 
plications are done for the computation. I think it could be done on 
a sheet of paper like this. 

Senator Ives. You don't keep that sheet of paper ? 

Mr. Grosberg. No. 

Senator Ives. I do. That is a difference in our bookkeeping. You 
don't keep any of the other records that you receive ; is that right ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I beg your pardon. 

Senator Ives. You don't keep any of the other records that you re- 
ceived, and you are talking about the information you get from which 
the computation is made up — you don't keep any of that ; is that right ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I beg your pardon. The information that I had 
Mr. Bellino was given. 

Senator Ives. I am not talking about this particular return. I am 
talking about all returns you make up, and this applies also to Mr. 
Hoffa in his case. 

Mr. Grosberg. The computations I do not keep. 

Senator I\t:s. I am not talking about computations; I am talking 
about the information you receive from which you derive the com- 
putation. 

Mr. Grosberg. On corporations, or labor returns, I keep worksheets ; 
yes. But on individuals they are generally not worksheets ; they are 
W-2's, that could be constituted as part of a worksheet, and Mr. Bellino 
has those. 

Senator I^'l:s. You keep your W-2's, don't you ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ives. Is that all you ever make up returns from, W-2's ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Well, if a W-2 is submitted, I would have to use it. 

Senator Ives. I asked you if that was all you ever made up returns 
from,W-2's. 

Mr. Grosberg. I make up returns, Senator, from the information 
that is submitted to me. 

21243— 58— pt. 36 10 



13414 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Ives. And you don't keep that information; you throw 
away the information ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Senator, that information is not thrown away; it 
is put on the return. I don't understand what you are trying to 
drive at. 

Senator Ives, I am trying to drive at the information — counsel, 
where is he ? I don't want to shout. 

The Chairman. Let us proceed. 

Senator I\t:s. I am trying to find out what you do with the informa- 
tion that you receive from w^hich you make up the return. You talk 
about computations. That is something in itself, and you throw that 
in the wastebasket ? 

Mr. Grosberg. That is rigjit. 

Senator Ives. That is all right, and then you say you put all of the 
information you receive on the return, and that is that. Wlien you are 
all through, you have nothing to show for anything except somebody's 
recollection ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I beg your pardon ; I have the tax return. 

Senator Ives. I am trying to find out something. I overlooked one 
thing in this connection in asking for this information. Perhaps you 
don't receive this information in writing. Do you receive it orally, 
any of it? 

Mr. Grosberg. Yes ; quite a bit, I would say. 

Senator Ives. Well, then, that answers the question. Naturally, 
you have no written record of that except what you have on the return, 
unless you write it down ? 

Mr. Grosberg. On the return, I write it down. 

Senator Ives. In other words, you make out a return as this infor- 
mation is given to you orally ; is that right ? 

ISIr. Grosberg. That is right. 

Senator Ives. You must be a wizard. I never heard of anybody 
being able to make out income-tax returns by that process. Go ahead ; 
I have asked all of the questions I want to ask. 

Senator Curtis. It might be helpful if you would tell us what 
services you do render for Mr. Hoffa. By that I mean you periodi- 
cally audit his records, and do you supervise his books and records, 
and do you maintain them, or what services do you perform for Mr. 
Hoffa? 

Mr. Grosberg. Do you mean Mr. Hoffa as an individual or Mr. 
Hoffa in the labor movement ? 

Senator Curtis. As an individual. 

Mr. Grosberg. I perform no services for Mr. Hoffa as an individual 
except his preparation of his income-tax return. 

Senator Curtis. You are not his accountant in the sense that you 
set up a set of books for him and direct him how or supervise Mr. 
Hoffa or anyone else in keeping them ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I have answered that one, Senator. 

Senator Curtis. Do you assume any responsibility for the main- 
tenance of day-to-day and month-to-month records for Mr. Hoffa? 

Mr. Grosberg. I have answered that one, too, Senator. 

Senator Curtis. I am trying to get the record here to see what 
area you are familiar with. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13415 

Mr. Grosberg. I just prepare his Federal tax return each year. 
That is the services I render to Mr. Hoffa as an individuaL 

Senator Curtis. You have no responsibility beyond that ? 

Mr. Grosberg. No ; I don't. 

Senator Curtis. You prepare that information or that tax on the 
basis of the information that Mr. Hoffa brings to you, which is made 
up of forms provided by employer and forms provided by companies, 
plus what you elicit in questions and answers from Mr. Hoffa? Is 
that the size of it ? 

Mr. Grosberg. That is correct, Senator. 

Senator Curtis. So, in a sense, you are not Mr. Hoffa's accountant, 
but you are the individual who prepares his tax return ? 

Mr. Grosberg. That is correct. 

Senator Ives. Will the Senator yield ? 

Senator Curtis. I didn't want to put words in your mouth, but 
I wanted to understand what area of the facts you are competent 
to testify about. 

Senator Ives. Will the Senator yield on that ? He told me he made 
up his return from the data that you are talking about, plus the 
verbal information, or oral information you received from Mr. Hoffa, 
and I take it you sit right down there as Mr. Hoffa tells you these 
things, and you fix up the return ; don't you ? 

Mr. Grosberg. That is correct. 

Senator Ives. You have Mr. Hoffa right at your elbow telling you 
what to put down ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I don't have Mr. Hoffa at my elbow telling me what 
to put down. 

Senator Ives. Who does tell you ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I ask Mr. Hoffa some questions regarding various 
aspects on the tax return, and then he, perhaps, will answer those 
questions and, from the information he gives me, I put it down where 
I think it is proper. 

Senator Ives. What do you put it down on first? Do you carry 
all of that in your mind ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I put it down on the tax return. 

Senator Ives. You carry it all in your mind until you get around 
to making the tax return up ; is that right ? 

Mr. Grosberg. No, Senator ; you misunderstood me. 

Senator Ives. You do 1 of 2 things, and you do it with Mr. Hoffa 
there to tell you what to do and put it down while he is there, or 
you do it someplace else and put it dow^n some place else first. You 
can't carry that all in your mind ; can you ? 

Mr. Grosberg. If you would have let me finish. Senator 

Senator Ives. Pardon me ; I didn't mean to block you off. 

Mr. Grosberg. I started to tell you; as I am asking these questions 
and he is answering them, I put them on the return in what I think 
would be the proper place. 

Senator Ives. That is exactly the question he raised; perhaps he 
wasn't at your elbow; perhaps he stood somewhere else, but that is 
the expression I applied to that, and you said, "No." 

In other words, you do it in such a way that there is no record any- 
where except the income-tax return ; is that right? 



13416 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Grosberg. That is correct. 

Senator Ives. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you : As I understand your testimony^ 
you keep no records after you make out the return, except a copy of 
the return ? 

Mr. Grosberg. The tax return, Mr. Chairman, and the W-2 forms, 
the 1099, whatever forms are submitted to me. 

The Chairman. They are forms of tax returns, aren't they ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I beg your pardon ? 

The Chairman. Are those tax returns that show what he may have 
received from this corporation or that one ? 

Mr. Grosberg. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Now, the question is, you are a certified public 
accountant, and let us assume that the Internal Revenue Service 
became interested in a return and came to you and said, ""WHiere did 
you get this figure, and how did you arrive at that?*' and what records 
have you to fortify and support the return which you submitted? 

jNIr. Grosberg. The tax return in itself. Senator. 

The Chairman. The tax return itself doesn't support itself. I am 
talking about what will support it. 

Mr. Grosberg. As far as the payroll is concerned, or his pay. the 
local union would be the substantiating factor. 

The Chairman. I am not talking about that ; I am talking about 
other things. For instance, he lists $10,000 of collections and miscel- 
laneous income or wager income. What records do you have to sub- 
stantiate that? 

Mr. Grosberg. ]May I talk to my counsel a moment ? 

The Chairman. Yes ; perhaps he can tell you. 

(The witness consulted with counsel.) 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Grosberg. May I see a copy of the tax return ? 

The Chairman. Oh, yes : you may. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Grosberg. Do you wish me to go over it with you ? 

The Chairman. I didn't ask you to go over it. 

Mr. Grosberg. ^"^Hiat is it 3^011 would like to know ? 

The Chairman. I want to know what supporting documents you 
have for the figures and information you provided in that return. 

Mr. Grosberg. The supporting documents I would have would be 
the W-2's, the 1099's, and the information that Mr. Hoffa himself 
submitted to me. 

The Chairman. Did he submit information to you in the form of 
documents ? 

Mr. Grosberg. No. 

The Chairman. Well, then, you don't have a document then ? 

Mr. Grosberg. No ; I don't. 

The Chairman. What you have is nothing except his word: he 
said, "I won so much gambling'' ? 

Mr. Grosberg. That is right. 

The Chairman. And you just put it down ? 

Mr. Grosberg. That is right. 

(At this point, tlie following members were prer-ent : Senators Mc- 
Clellan, Ives, Kennedy, and Curtis.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13417 

The Chairman. You have no documents to substantiate it ? 

Mr. Grosberg. No ; I don't. 

The Chairman. Do you keep anything other than the naked copy of 
the tax return you prepare for him ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Nothing other than the tax return and the W-2's 
and 1099's. 

The Chairivian. Do you treat all of your clients that way ? Is that 
the kind of service you give to all of them ? 

Mr. Grosberg. As individuals, now, Senator ? 

The Chairman. Yes ; collectively or otherwise. 

Mr. Grosberg. Wlien an individual gets income from wages or from 
wagering, it is one matter. When a man is in a business as an indi- 
vidual, as a sole proprietorship, you would have to list on his schedule 
C the total receipts, total expenses, depreciation, and what have you. 
Then I would have more records. But Mr. Hoffa, through his tax 
return, is not in a business. As far as his income is concerned from 
dividends and from wages, they can be easily substantiated. As far as 
his income from wagering is concerned, that, Mr. Hoffa submits to me. 

The Chairman. Do you have any record of his rents ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I still don't remember the rents. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Grosberg. This is an item of $62 on a land contract. In fact, 
I paid this myself for Mr. Hoffa, and he reimburses me for it. The 
party with whom he had this land contract paid 1 item of $62 in rent, 
and that was the last bit of information that we had. 

The Chairman. You don't have any documents supporting the de- 
ductions of expenses ? 

Mr. Grosberg. As far as the tax 

The Chairman. That is, claimed as business expense ? 

Mr. Grosberg. As far as the taxes and the interest, yes ; I have the 
deductions in my own records. 

The Chairman. You have those in your own records ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What do you have in that connection ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I have the principal payments, the interest payments, 
and the taxes that I paid. 

The Chairman. You have those ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I beg your pardon ? 

The Chairman. You say now you have those ? 

Mr. Grosberg. In fact, Mr. Bellino has them. 

The Chairman. I thought you said a moment ago all you had was 
these forms that came in. 

Mr. Grosberg. You misunderstood me. You misunderstood me, 
Senator. I said I have these in my own personal records on this $62 
rent ; not as far as the client is concerned, but in my own personal rec- 
ords, and Mr. Bellino has them. 

The Chairman. That is the thought here. I am not a certified pub- 
lic accountant, but I think most of us have learned from experience 
that it is very wise to keep the supporting evidence of what we certify 
in an income-tax return. 

Mr. Grosberg. The supporting evidence is kept, Senator. 

The Chairman. The what ? 

Mr. Grosberg. The evidence is kept. 



13418 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. I have not been able to find it. We have been trying 
to find where the supporting evidence is. 

Mr. Grosberg. I have the information on the $62, on the interest 
and on the taxes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about the collections ? 

Mr. Grosberg. That I don't have. Thatis just oral information sup- 
plied to me. 

The Chairman. You have no record of these collections ? 

Mr. Grosberg. No. 

Tlie Chairman. You don't know the source of them ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Other than the fact I have been told. 

The Chairman. Other than he said. Well, where it says miscella- 
neous, I think we had some here this morning which said miscellaneous 
income ; did you show the source of that ? 

Mr. Grosberg. He told me. That was it. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. For instance, here in the 1956 one, you have collec- 
tions received under the title "Collections Received," then MCT 
$10,000. What is that ? 

Mr. Grosberg. May I see that, please? 

Mr. Kennedy. Michigan Conference of Teamsters, I expect. MCT ? 
Was that a bonus ? 

Mr. Grosberg. May I see it, please ? 

Mr. Lawson. This is 1954 that we have. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

IMr. Grosberg. l^Hiich item are you asking about ? 

Mr. Kennedy. The Michigan Conference of Teamsters, $10,000? 

Mr. Grosberg. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. That you would obtain from what? How would 
you get that information ? 

Mr. Grosberg. There is a 1099 included with this copy that I gave 
Mr. Bellino showing $10,000 from the Michigan Conference of Team- 
sters payable to James R. Hoffa. 

Mr. Kennedy. T^Hiat is the next item under that ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Wagering. 

Mr. Kennedy. How mucli is there ? 

Mr. Grosberg. $10,682. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where did you get that information ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Mr. Hoffa. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Hoffa say that he just received that on that 
day, $10,682? 

Mr. Grosberg. Did he receive it on that day ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Grosberg. I don't think he received it on that day. 

Mr. Kennedy. He could not possibly remember over a period of a 
year that he received $10,682. He must have written that down some- 
where. Didn't he show you any documents at all ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Maybe he had it written down and then told me what 
the information was. 

Mr. Kennedy. He says he does not have any documents, either. 

Mr. Grosberg. I don't know, but he told me it was $10,682. 

Mr. Kennedy. He must have a fantastic memory that he can remem- 
ber that figure. 



IIMPROPER ACTH'ITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 13419 

Mr. Grosberg. This isn't for 1 day. This is a period of a year, Mr. 
Kennedy. 

Mr. Kexxedt. How did he know that that was the amount that he 
collected over a period of a year i 

Mr. Grosberg. I don't know. 

Mr. Kexxedt. Didn't you ask him to verify this, to substantiate it ? 

Mr. Grosberg. No. 

Mr. Kexxedy. You did not? 

Mr. Grosberg. No. 

Mr. Kexx'edt. You are a certified public accountant and you just 
put that figure down ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I did not swear to the return, Mr. Kennedy. 

]\Ir. Kex'xedt. "\Miat is the figure under that ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Expenses. 

Mr. Kex-^xedy. "What is the figure ? 

Mr. Grosberg. $4,813.97. 

Mr. Kexx-^edy. $4,000 — would you read that again ? 

Mr. Grosberg. $4,813.97. 

Mr. Kexxedt. A^liat verification did he give you for that ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Grosberg. These were the expenses from the international 
union. 

Mr. Kex'X'edy. The what ? 

Mr. Grosberg. The expenses from the international union. 

Mr. Kex'^x'edt. Have you got some verification on that ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I don't remember if I saw a letter regarding it or if 
there was a 1099 regarding it. 

I really don't. 

Mr. Kex'X'edt. This is what he declares as income? 

Mr. Grosberg. I beg your pardon ? 

Mr. Kexx'edt. This is what he declares as income on that ? 

Mr. Grosberg. That is what I suggested he declare as expenses for 
1956. 

Mr. Kex'X'edy. Did you sign this tax return ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Yes : I do. 

Mr. Kennedy. "\Mien you sign the tax return, don't you take some 
responsibility for what is on the tax return ? 

Mr. Grosberg. No : I don't. 

Mr. Kex'x-^edy. You don't take any responsibility ? 

Mr. Grosberg. No. 

Mr. Kex'x-edy. Tliis states here — you say you don't take any respon- 
sibility for the tax return as a certified public accountant? 

Mr. Grosberg. I am pretty sure I don't have a responsibility on the 
tax return. 

Mr. Kex'X'edy, It says here : 

I declare under the penalties of perjury that this return, including any accom- 
panying schedules and statements, has been examined by me and to the best of 
my knowledge and belief is a true, correct, and complete form. 

Mr. Grosberg. May I talk to counsel, please ? 

Mr. Kex'xedy. I don't see why you have to keep talking to Mr. 
Fitzgerald, who is Mr. Hoffa's attorney. This is a question of fact, 
this is something that you dealt with. 

Mr. Grosberg. I am talking to Mr. Lawson. 



13420 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. The witness has a right to consult counsel respect- 
ing his legal rights. I hope counsel is observing and respecting the 
rule of the committee. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you answer that ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I actually certify only to the information that is 
given to me. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. When you certify and put your name down on a tax 
return, you have to have some information on which you base this 
tax return. You are not going to put down some $10,000 that the tax- 
payer said he received and not have any documentation on it whatso- 
ever. 

Mr. Grosberg. I am not going to use my imagination, Mr. Kennedy, 
as far as the $10,000 is concerned. If that is the figure that is given 
to me, that is the figure that I am going to put down. 

Mr. Kennedy. I'V^iat good does it do j^ou putting your name down to 
this thing? 

Mr. Grosberg. Actually, I think it is a matter of identification. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you make up the tax returns of ISIr. Owen Bert 
Brennan ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you keep documents on his ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Dot? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Grosberg. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't keep any ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Other than tlie tax returns. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't have any documents on either Mr. Bren- 
nan or Mr. Hoila, Mr. Grosberg ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I do not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me ask you this. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that the statement says, "I 
declare under the penalties of perjury that this is a true, correct, and 
complete return." 

Mr. Grosberg. Doesn't it say a little more than that ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. As I read it before, "I declare under the penal- 
ties of perjury that this return, including any accompanying schedules 
and statements has been examined by me and to the best of my knowl- 
edge and belief is a true, correct, and complete return." 

Mr. Grosberg. That is the answer, Mr. Kennedy, to the best of my 
knowledge and belief. Mr. Hoffa had $10,682 income from wagering, 
and I don't think there is any better source as to the information, 
really, than Mr. Hoffa himself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Except any documentation he might have. 

Mr. Grosberg. I don't know about any documentation. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think that most certified public accountants when 
they are going to sign a tax return like this, would demand documenta- 
tion. I have never heard of a certified public accountant who had 
not. 

Mr. Grosberg. I asked Mr. Hoffa and he said he had not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat did he say ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13421 

Mr. Grosberg. That he had not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ask Mr. Brennan if he had any documenta- 
tion on the things he reported on his tax return ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I probably did. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did he say ? 

Mr. Grosberg. May 1 1 alk to my counsel ? 

Mr. Kennedy. What did he say ? 

That is not a legal question. I don't see that that is a legal ques- 
tion. 

Mr. Grosberg. May I talk to my counsel ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Grosberg. Mr. Brennan has records. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you examine those records ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Actually, I did not examine them, but I have seen 
them. 

Mr. Kenendy. What records does he have to indicate or show that 
Mr. Hoff a made this money from gambling ? 

Mr. Grosberg. That I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you look at them for that purpose ? 

Mr. Grosberg. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. "VVliat did Mr. Hoffa say was the source of this 
money ? 

Mr, Grosberg. He said Mr. Brennan was the source. 

Mr. Kennedy. When you examined his books, did you find this 
money ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I did not examine his books. He gave me the in- 
formation also. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you never tried to verify the information he 
gave you, either ? 

Mr. Grosberg. No ; I don't think I have to verify the information. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about the loans that Mr. Hoffa received ? 

Did you keep records on the loans he was getting ? 

Mr. Grosberg. No ; I did not keep records on the loans. 

Mr. Kennedy. How could he keep all of that in his mind, Mr. 
Grosberg ? 

Mr. Grosberg. You are going back now some period of time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. I want to know how he was able to come be- 
fore the committee last year and give us a list of the loans. 

Mr. Grosberg. I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have not any idea ? 

Mr. Grosberg. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. He has the most fabulous memory of anybody that 
ever lived. 

Mr. Grosberg. I guess he has. 

The Chairman. The question for this witness is: Even though 
Mr. Hoffa keeps no records, that may not be your fault. But when 
you go to certifying to income tax returns, I think, just as a matter 
of self-assurance, wanting to know that what you are certifying to is 
correct insofar as you can verify it, you would want some records, 
some documentary evidence, something, especially where you got the 
opportunity, when he says "I got this money from Mr. Brennan," 
that you would want to check those records to verify it. 



13422 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Grosberg. I asked for the information, Senator. The infor- 
mation was given to me orally. There was nothing written. If the 
man does not have it, that I cannot help. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Hofl'a yesterday, talking on page 49, stated 
in regard to the loan that he received from Mr. Holtzman, he said, 
"I had my accountant try to straighten out some of these answers 
since the last time. My accountant shows here money was borrowed 
in the latter half of 1951 and was paid back in 1953, according to the 
records that he has been able to reconstruct." 

The accountant that he is talking about there ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Yes, I am. 

Senator Kennedy. "Wliat are the records that you reconstructed ? 

Mr. Grosberg. There are actually no records. What I did was I 
called Mr. Bushkin, because I think Mr. Hoffa also testified that he 
borrowed money from Mr. Bushkin. 

Senator Kennedy. That is correct. When did you call Mr. Bush- 
Mn? 

Mr. Grosberg. I think it was Monday. 

Senator Kennedy. Monday ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Yes. 

Senator Kennedy. Do you mean Monday of this week ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Either Saturday or Monday. I think it was Mon- 
day of this week. 

Senator Kennedy. What did Mr. Bushkin tell you ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I asked him when he had loaned the monev to Mr. 
Hoffa. 

Senator Kennedy. What did he say ? 

Mr. Grosberg. He said the end of 1951. 

Senator Kennedy. He loaned how much ? 

Mr. Grosberg. $5,000. 

Senator Kennedy. He loaned $5,000 ? 

Mr. Grosberg. And Mr. Holtzman likewise loaned $5,000 at the 
same time. 

Senator Kennedy. Those are the records you had ? 

Mr. Grosberg. That is the information I had. 

Senator Kennedy. But Mr. Hoffa stated, "According to his records 
that he has been able to reconstruct." That is the quote : 

My accountant shows here money was borrowed in the latter half of 1951 and 
was paid back in 1953. 

"VAHiere did you show it ? 

Where? 

Mr. Grosberg. I think actually there is an exchange of words there. 
I think Mr. Hoffa is using records instead of information. 

Senator Kennedy. That is an entirely different type of word, 
though. 

Mr. Grosberg. No; I don't know if it is an entirely different type 
of word ; no, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. You don't think it is ? 

Mr. Grosberg. No, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. By records, I assume it is something in writing. 
That is the general meaning of the word "records." Do you have 
anything in writing of this, except your conversation with Mr. Bush- 
kin on the phone ? Where did you reach him ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13423 

Mr. Grosberg. At his office. 

Senator Kennedy. Where ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Where did I reach Mr. Bushkin? 

Senator Kennedy. That is right ; Monday. 

Mr. Grosberg. In his office on Grand Kiver Avenue. 

Senator Kennedy. You called him at his office ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Yes. 

Senator Kennedy. And he told you on the phone he gave $5,000 
and when it was paid back. 

Mr. Grosberg. I beg your pardon ? 

Senator Kennedy. What ? 

Mr. Grosberg. He told me he gave him $5,000. 

Senator Ejennedy. Did he tell you he had any record of the loan 
when it was made or any record of the payment back? 

Mr. Grosberg. I did not ask him. I just asked him when he loaned 
it and when he got it back. 

Senator Kennedy. All right. To your information, are there any 
records that you know of when Mr. Bushkin loaned him the money, 
$5,000 in cash, without interest, if there was any exchange in writing 
to certify that it was a loan and not a payment ? 

Mr. Grosberg. For that, you will have to ask Mr. Bushkin. 

Senator Kennedy. We asked Mr. Bushkin, and he has taken the fifth 
amendment, as you know. The other party involved is Mr. Holtz- 
man, and he is dead, Mr. Grosberg, so that the two people involved, one 
is unable to talk and one will not talk, so we come to you who has, 
according to Mr. Hoffa, reconstructed the records. All you tell us is 
you talked to Mr. Bushkin. That is the only record you have; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Grosberg. That is the information I have. Senator; that is 
correct. 

Senator Kennedy. I would say it is an entirely different impres- 
sion, then, from what Mr. Hofl'a gave yesterday about the records, 
about his accountant reconstructing it. 

Mr. Grosberg. I think it is a matter of seipantics, Mr. Senator. 

Senator Kennedy. It states, "I said I tried to have them recon- 
structed. He talked to people." Who were the people you talked to ? 
It was only one person, wasn't it, not people ? 

Mr. Grosberg. No. 

Senator Kennedy. Who else? 

Mr. Grosberg. Mr. Keeshin. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Keeshin ? Who is Mr. Keeshin ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Another individual who loaned Mr. Hoffa some 
money. 

Senator Kennedy. When did you talk to him ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Monday. 

Senator Kennedy, Wlio is he ? 

Mr. Grosberg. He is a gentleman in Chicago. 

Senator Ivennedy. What does he do ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I am not too sure of what he does. 

Senator Kennedy. Where did you get him ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I think he was in Wisconsin, actually. 

Senator Ivennedy, You got him on the phone ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Yes. 



13424 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Kennedy. You don't remember where ? 

Mr. Grosberg. In Wisconsin. I don't remember the city. 

Senator Kennedy. What does he do ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I am not too sure what he was. 

Senator Kennedy. What did he give a loan to Mr. HofFa for ? You 
don't know why ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I don't know why. 

Senator Kennedy. How much was it ? 

Mr. Grosberg. $5,000. 

Senator Kennedy. Cash ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I did not ask him. 

Senator Kennedy. What did you call him for ? 

Mr. Grosberg. To find out when. 

Senator Kennedy. What did lie tell you ? 

Mr. Grosberg. It was either 1950 or 1951, September. 

Senator Kennedy. Who told you to call him ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I beg your pardon ? 

Senator Kennedy. Who told you to call him ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Mr. Hoffa. 

Senator Kennedy. Is he a truckowner ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I don't know. He might be. 

Senator Kennedy. I don't think that is a very good reconstruction 
of events, if you are not able to give us any more precise information. 
You might as well have taken Mr. Hoffa's word for it. 

Mr. Grosberg. Wlien I called to find out the information on the 
phone, actually, I am not trying to find out what the man does for 
a living or anything else. 

Senator Kennedy. I don't really see any value in your participating 
in this at all. All we have is what you said Mr. Bushkin said, and 
we have no evidence from Mr. Bushkin, and Mr. Holtzman is not 
around, and the other gentleman is somebody you talked to, and you 
don't know who he was or why he gave the loan or you have Ho 
records of it. 

Mr. Grosberg. I have no rex^ords. 

Senator Kennedy. You are a certified public accountant, which im- 
plies that you have some degree of responsibility to the people of 
Michigan. I hope the State of Michigan will examine this transcript 
to see if you are meeting that responsibility as a certified public ac- 
countant. I hope the Internal Revenue Service will, too. Will you 
tell us where you placed that call on Monday from ? 

Mr. Grosberg. The call was placed from Mr. Fitzsimmons' office. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Fitzsimmons ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Yes. 

Senator Kennedy. Who is he ? 

Mr. Grosberg. A vice president, I believe, of local 299, 

Senator Kennedy. It was placed from his office in Detroit ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know at the time that Mr. Hoffa had bor- 
rowed this money from Mr. Keeshin ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Did I know at one time ? 

Mr. Kennedy. In 1950 or 1951 ? 

Mr. Grosberg. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know that Mr. Keeshin is a major truck- 
owner in the United States ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13425 

Mr. Grosberg. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. You do not know that ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I did not know that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know what Mr. Hoffa borrowed the money 
for? 

Mr. Grosberg. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know he was borrowing the money from the 
business agents of the Teamsters' Union ? 

Mr. Grosberg. No ; I didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never knew during 1952 or 1953 he was sup- 
posed to be borrowing money from the business agents ? 

Mr. Grosberg. In 1953 1 knew. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know that then ? 

Mr. Grosberg. During the Hoffman committee. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know prior to that ? 

Mr. Grosberg. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. He never told you anything about it ? 

Mr. Grosberg. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you reconstruct the list of the loans that he had 
received that he used at the last hearing back last year ? 

Mr. Grosberg. That list was reconstructed, actually, I think, from 
the testimony of the Hoffman committee. 

Mr. Kennedy. He also stated that, supposedly, he had paid those 
loans back, and where was that information obtained from ? 

Mr. Grosberg. What do you mean ? 

Mr. Kennedy. With the paying of the loans back, the ones, for in- 
stance, to Mr. Keeshin and Mr. Bushkin ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I don't know where that came from, and he had the 
information. 

Mr. Kennedy. How could he remember that ? He couldn't remem- 
ber anything last year. 

Mr. Grosberg. I don't know ; you will have to ask him, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know that he had the cash in his possession 
during 1952 and 1953 ? * 

Mr. Grosberg. What cash ? 

Mr. Kennedy. The cash that came from these various sources. 

Mr. Grosberg. No ; I didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now just let me ask you this : You keep the books of 
the joint council 43 also ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Yes ; I do. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you been a partner of Mr. Bushkin in any enter- 
prise ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the name of the business ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Dave Gantz, food broker and sales representative, or 
something like that. 

Mr. Kennedy. What do you do, or what does Dave Gantz Co. do ? 

Mr. Grosberg. It is a food-brokerage company. 

Mr. Kennedy. You and Mr. Bushkin are partners together ? 

Mr. Grosberg. With Mr. Gantz. 

Mr. Kennedy. The three of you ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did your uncle have any interest in any of the chain- 
stores in Detroit ? 



13426 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Grosberg. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What company? 

Mr. Grosberg. A. C. F. Wrigley. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was his name? 

Mr. Grosberg. Charles Grosberg. 

JNIr, Kennedy. Does he still have an interest ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I imagine he does. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is one of the biggest clients of Bushkin, is it 
not, in his labor-relations consultants? 

Mr. Grosberg. I believe he is. 

Mr. Kennedy. TAHiat about your father, and does he have an in- 
terest in any business or any chainstores ? 

Mr. Grosberg. No ; he does not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you received any loans from the union ? 

Mr. Grosberg, Yes, sir: I have. 

Mr. Kennedy. What loans have you received ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I received a loan from local 299 of $37,500. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is that? 

Mr. Grosberg. $37,500. 

Mr. Kennedy. From local 299? 

Mr. Grosberg. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. T^Hien was that? 

Mr. Grosberg. I don't remember the date, and I think it "was Septem- 
ber or October of 1955. 

Mr. Kennedy. Go ahead. 

Mr. Grosberg. And local 337, $37,500, but these moneys were not 
loaned directly to me. 

Mr. Kennedy. To whom were they loaned ? 

Mr. Grosberg. To Marberry Construction Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is Mr. Fitzgerald in that company with you ? 

]\Ir. Grosberg. Yes, sir. 

]Mr. Kennedy. You and Mr. Fitzgerald? 

^Ir. Grosberg. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, have you received any other moneys from the 
union ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What other moneys? 

Mr. Grosberg. Not from the union. 

]Mr. Kennedy. From whom ? 

Mr. Grosberg. From the welfare fund. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much have vou received from the welfare 
tund? 

Mr. Grosberg. We received $100,000 for the Marberry Construction 
Co., and that is after we paid off the $75,000 to the other 2 locals, and 
then we received $135,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. $135,000 from the welfare fund? When did vou 
get that? 

Mr. Grosberg. I believe it was in June or July of 1957. 

Senator Curtis. Would you yield at that point, ]Mr. Counsel ? T 
am interested, so far as the regulations of welfare funds and their 
preservation is concerned. ^^Hiat security, if anything, was given for 
that, for those loans? 

Mr. Grosberg. Four homes, a note from my father, vested right? 
were given for that $135,000. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13427 

Senator Curtis. Will you elaborate on what you mean by "vested 
rights" ? 

Mr. Grosberg. From an insurance company on commissions on 
policies. 

Senator Curtis. Future commissions already earned, or on sales to* 
be made in the future ? 

Mr, Grosberg. Earned. I wouldn't say they are sales to be made 
in the future, and they are already in existence, and they are, actually, 
I would call them earned. 

Senator Curtis. What was the full title of the debtor in these 
loans ? You said some construction company, and I did not get it. 

Mr. Grosberg. You are talking about two different loans now. 

Senator Curtis. I am talking about the loans made by the welfare 
fund. Who borrowed that money ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Marberry Construction Co. 

Senator Curtis. And where are they located ? 

Mr. Grosberg. In Detroit. 

Senator Curtis. What is their business ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Building, home building. 

Senator Curtis. Home building ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Who are the principal stockholders ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Silberg, my father, and myself. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Fitzgerald is the man that is connected with 
one of the unions ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Yes ; that is correct. 

Senator Curtis. Who is the other one ? 

Mr. Grosberg. My father. 

Senator Curtis. And who else ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Mr. Silberg. He is the builder. 

Senator Curtis. He is the builder ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Is he in any way connected with the union ? 

Mr. Grosberg. No. 

Senator Curtis. And that is all ; is that right ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Now, what security was given by the construction 
company ? 

Mr. Grosberg. We did not get this money directly. This money 
was given to the Abstract & Title Guaranty Co. and placed in a revolv- 
ing fund, and the first mortgages would be given for this money when 
we would present waivers to the Abstract Co., which is the normal pro- 
cedure which any building company would get construction loans from 
a bank or from a mortgage company. 

Senator Curtis. These were loans made after a portion or all of the 
construction was completed; that you would borrow money pending 
the sale of the property ; is that the type of loan ? 

Mr. Grosberg. It is that type of loan, yes. 

Senator Curtis. Well now, would the title company part with any 
of the money prior to the delivery of the first mortgages ? 

Mr. Grosberg. No. 

Senator Curtis. To what extent of the actual building costs would 
the mortgages be made, the full amount of the building costs? 



13428 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Grosberg. No, the maximum, Senator, that they would give on 
each house was $15,000, and the houses were houses that were selling 
for around $30,000. 

Senator Curtis. Now, this construction company had one member at 
least directly connected with the union, which in turn may have had 
some interest in the welfare fund. There were two people, rather, who 
examined the transactions or what lawyer for the welfare fund? 

Mr. Grosberg. The lawyer for the welfare fund. 

Senator Curtis. Wlio were those ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I answered you, and I said the lawyer for the welfare 
fund. 

Senator Curtis. Who is that ? 

Mr, Grosberg. Well, I understand from Mr. Fitzgerald, the commit- 
tee has the record, but Mr. Fitzgerald had checked it through with the 
lawyer from the abstract company. 

Senator Curtis. What rate of interest do these mortgages bear? 

Mr. Grosberg. Six percent. 

Senator Curtis. Have they all been paid ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I beg your pardon ? 

Senator Curtis. Has all of this indebtedness been paid back to the 
welfare fund ? 

Mr. Grosberg. No. 

Senator Curtis. What is the total amount that was borrowed? 

Mr. Grosberg. $100,000. 

Senator Curtis. That is $100,000 ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. I thought there was also another one of $135,000. 

]\Ir. Grosberg. That is a different one. 

Senator Curtis. I am talking about the total from the welfare fund, 
and what was the total ? 

Mr. Grosberg. $235,000. 

Senator Curtis. How much of that remains outstanding ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Just a moment. We paid back $52,000 on the $100,- 
000 loan, and we paid back roughly twelve to fifteen thousand dollars 
on tlie otlier loan, plus interest. 

Senator Curtis. How many homes were mortgaged to secure these 
two loans to the welfare fund ? 

Mr. Grosberg. You are talking about two different loans here? 

Senator Curtis. I am talking about both of them. 

Mr. Grosberg. We can't discuss both of them together. 

Senator Curtis. Were they not both made to the same person, or the 
same entity ? 

Mr. Grosberg. No, they were not. 

Senator Curtis. Were they not both made to the same construction 
company ? 

Mr. Grosberg. No, they were not. 

Senator Curtis. All right, to whom was the $100,000 loan made? 

Mr. Grosberg. To the Marberry Construction Co., and that is the 
one I have been discussing with you. 

Senator Curtis. How many homes were mortgaged to secure that 
one? 

Mr. Grosberg. For each $15,000 that we would take out of the 
abstract company, a first mortgage was given. If the abstract com- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13429 

pany held any money, we didn't have to present a first mortgage 
because we didn't have possession of that money, nor did we have the 
right to take it. So as we took $15,000 we presented or we gave a 
first mortgage. 

Senator Curtis. I understand that, and now how many first mort- 
gages on homes did you execute and deliver for that $100,000 ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I don't remember offhand, but we did build around 
19 homes. 

Senator Curtis. How many of those homes have been sold? 

Mr. Grosberg. All but three. 

Senator (Curtis. All but three ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. And you still owe $46,000 ? 

Mr. Grosberg. We still have a lot of building to do, too. 

Senator Curtis. Some of them are not completed 'I 

Mr. Grosberg. No, actually a construction loan is a loan that is 
given in process of construction. As you reach certain stages, like 
m any mortgage institution, or a banking institution, according to 
the laws of the State of Michigan, you are allowed to draw so much 
funds. As you go into certain other stages, you are allowed to draw 
so many more funds until you reach a certain limit, and we completed 
that in complete accordance with the abstract company and the laws 
of Michigan ; that is the way we have been drawing it. 

Senator Curtis. This is a revolving fund ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Yes, it is. 

Senator Curtis. How many mortgages do tliey have novr I 

Mr. Grosberg. Three. 

Senator Curtis. Three mortgages for n total of $48,000 ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I am sorry, it is $45,000. I thought it was ^^^48,000. 

Senator Curtis. There are three mortgages ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. And to what degi*ee of completion aro tliose tlu-ee 
homes ? 

Mr. Grosberg. About 96 percent completed, and actually the only 
thing incomplete is just the painting on the inside. 

Senator Curtis. Now, to whom was the $135,000 loan made ? 

Mr. Grosberg. That was made to my father. 

Senator Curtis. As an individual ? 

Mr. Grosberg. As an individual. 

Senator Curtis. Wliat rate of interest ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Six percent. 

Senator Curtis. What security was given ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Four residence homes, plus a note from my father, 
and the vested rights in future commissions, as I was discussing with 
you before. 

Senator Curtis. That is vested rights on continuing insurance ? 

Mr. Grosberg. That is right, it is about $300,000 worth, Senator. 

Senator Curtis. What type of insurance is that, life insurance or 
group insurance or is it insurance written to the union or for the 
union ? 

Mr. Grosberg. No ; there was no Teamster insurance on that. The 
whole vested rights were not Teamster insurance. 

Senator Curtis. Was it all with one insurance company ? 

21243 — 58— -pt. 36 11 



13430 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Grosberg. Yes, it is. 

Senator Curtis. What is the name of that insurance company ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Union Labor Life Insurance Co. 

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

Senator Curtis. It is insurance written in connection with labor 
organizations but not Teamsters ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Grosberg. That is correct. Senator. 

Senator Curtis. And some of that loan has been paid ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Yes. We pay $1,100 a month plus interest on that 
loan. 

Senator Curtis. Is there any delinquency on either of these loans ? 

Mr. Grosberg. No; I don't believe there is any delinquency. 

I think they are all paid up. 

Senator Curtis. Who are the trustees of the welfare fund that mad& 
these loans ? 

Mr. Grosberg. There are four trustees. 

Senator Curtis. Who are they ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Mr. Holmes and Mr. Fitzsimmons, from the labor 
side, and Mr. Minick and Mr. Dady, from the management side. 

Senator Curtis. Is it Mr. Fitzsimmons who was a trustee of the 
fund the same Mr. Fitzsimmons who was one of the borrowers? 

Mr. Grosberg. Mr. Fitzsinmions was not a borrower. It was Fitz- 
gerald. 

Senator Curtis. I beg your pardon. I have my "Fitz" mixed up. I 
beg your pardon. 

Do you happen to know whether the trustees of the welfare fund 
have complete authority to make loans of any size without a vote of 
the membership ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I don't think there is a membership in a welfare 
fund. They do have authority to make loans ; yes. 

Senator Curtis. Are you the accountant for the welfare fund? 

Mr. Grosberg. I am, yes. 

Senator Curtis. Are reports made of the investments and loans 
made by the welfare fund, made to the beneficiaries thereof ? 

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

Mr. Grosberg. I assume so. 

They are always available, Senator. Keports are made up. 

Senator Curtis. Reports are made that are available to the union 
members who are the beneficiaries, is that correct ? 

IMr. Grosberg. I believe so, yes. 

Senator Curtis. How often are they made ? 

Mr. Grosberg. We make quarterly audits. 

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

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

Senator Ives. Senator Kennedy. 

Senator Kennedy. As I understand it, would you tell me how much 
money you invested, you and the other three participants in this 
arrangement ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Marbury Construction Co. — well, Mr. Bellino has 
the records. 

Senator Kennedy. Have you any idea how much you, Mr. Fitz- 
gerald and the other two gentlemen invested in this construction 
company ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13431 

Mr. Grosbeeg. Well, there are $18,000 of stock. 

Senator Kennedy. $18,000. How much did you invest ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I beg your pardon ? 

Senator Kjennedy. Do you mean that you invested $18,000, the 
4 of you ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Yes, plus the land. We owned the land. 

Senator Kennedy. How much is that worth ? 
■ Mr. Grosberg. The land? 

Senator Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Grosberg. Well, about $5,000 a lot. 

Senator Kennedy. How much did you put in of that $23,000 ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Of the $18,000? 

Senator Kennedy. Yes. It is $23,000 now in assets of this company ; 
is that correct ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I beg your pardon. 

Senator Kennedy. Then we will start again, $18,000 for the 4 of 
you, is that correct ? 

Mr. Grosberg. That is right. 

Senator Kennedy. How much did you put in ? 

( The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. Grosberg. I put in $9,000. 

Senator Kennedy. How much ? 

Mr. Grosberg. $9,000. 

Senator Kennedy. $9,000? 

Mr. Grosberg. Yes. 

Senator Kennedy. Where did you get the $9,000 ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I had the money, some of which I borrowed. 

Senator Kennedy. Did you borrow some of that from the union ? 

Mr. Grosberg. No, I did not, I beg your pardon, I borrowed it from 
the bank. Mr. Bellino has the record on that. 

Senator Kjennedy. You put in $9,000, none of which you secured 
from the union ? 

Mr. Grosberg. That is correct. 

Senator Ivennedy. Part your own and part you borrowed. Wliat 
did you put up for your security for the money you borrowed ? 

Mr. Grosberg. From the bank ; do you mean ? 

Senator Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Grosberg. My signature. 

Senator Kennedy. You did not put up any equity ? 

Mr. Grosberg. No. 

Senator Kennedy. Wliat bank ? 

Mr. Grosberg. The Bank of Commerce. 

Senator Kennedy. Do the Teamsters have any money there ? 

Mr. Grosberg. No. 

Senator Kennedy. The rest of the other $9,000 was put up by the 
other three gentlemen, is that correct ? 

Mr. Grosberg. That is correct. 

Senator Kennedy. Who owned the land for $5,000 ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Actually, the land was bought. We bought the land 
from an individual, Mr. Grosville, and the company now owns it 
and we have a contract against it. 

Senator Kennedy. The 4 of you bought the $5,000 worth of land, 
is that correct ? 

Mr. Grosberg. The land cost more than $5,000. 



13432 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD ' 

Senator Kjennedt. I thought you said it was worth $5,000. 

Mr. Grosberg. I said it was worth $5,000 a lot. 

Senator Ivennedy. How much is the land totally worth ? 

Mr. Grosberg. How much is it worth ? 

Senator Kennedy. How much is your investment in the lands? 
None, is that correct ? 

Mr. Grosberg. We have an investment of 

Senator Kennedy. How much did you personally? I know you 
may have put some of the money that you borrowed from the pension 
and welfare plan into it. How much did you personally start this 
proposition off with before you borrowed money either from the union 
or the pension and welfare fund ? 

You told me $18,000, of which you ]mt in $9,000; is that a correct 
statement ? 

Mr. Grosberg. That is correct. 

Senator Kennedy. Therefore, you had an equity of $18,000 in it. 
Then you borrowed $37,000? 

Mr. Grosberg. We borrowed $37,000. 

Senator Kennedy. You did, personally ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Just a moment, please. May I talk to my counsel ? 

Senator Kennedy. Yes. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. The Chair is being very indulgent about this con- 
sulting counsel. You can only consult counsel with respect to your 
legal rights. Of course, if counsel can rpfresh your memory, I'm not 
going to stop him, if that is what he is doing, but it seems to me that 
many of these questions are peculiarly within your own knowledge, 
primarily. I am just giving you a little suggestion. I want to be 
tolerant, but if I find this committee is being im])osed on, there will 
be a different attitude on the part of the Chair and the committee. 

Senator Kennedy. Before we get to the 37, would you tell me how 
much George Fitzgerald put in of the 18? We know you put in nine. 
How much did he put in ? 

Mr. Grosberg. He put in $3,000. 

Senator Kennedy. He put in three. All right. That leaves six. 

Did each of the other 2 gentlemen put in 3 ? 

Mr. Grosberg. My father put in three. 

Senator Kennedy. That is $18,000. Then you borrowed $37,000 
from the union ; is that correct? 

$37,500? 

Mr. Grosberg. That is correct. 

Senator Kennedy. That was not from the pension fund ; that was 
from what? 

Mr. Grosberg. That was from the local union, and that was given to 
the Abstract & Title Co. under exactly the same terms upon which 
I explained to Senator Curtis when we borrowed the funds from the 
welfare. 

Senator Kennedy. "\Y1io is the head of that union ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Well, $37,500 came from local 299 and $37,500 came 
from local 337. 

Senator Kennedy. Who are the presidents of those locals? 

Mr. Grosberg. 299, Mr. Hoffa, and 337, Mr. Brennan. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Brennan and Mr. Hoffa then loaned vou 
$37^500. Was it the Marbury Co. or you personally ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13433 

Mr. Grosberg. Marbury, to the Abstract & Title Guarantee- 



Senator Kexnedy. I understaJid. Then you secured a loan from the 
pension and welfare fund of what? Wliat fund, of the two unions or 
that one local ? 

Mr. Grosberg. No ; the health and welfare fund. 

Senator Kennedy. Of which, 299 ? 

Mr. Grosberg. No ; the health and welfare fund covers the entire 
State? 

Senator Kennedy. The what ? 

Mr. Grosberg. It would be the health and welfare fund covering 
tlie entire State. 

Senator Kennedy. For all the teamsters of the State of Michigan? 

Mr. Grosberg. That is correct. 

Senator Kennedy. How much did you receive from the health and 
pension fund? 

Mr. Grosberg. Not the health and pension, just the health and 
welfare. 

Senator Kennedy. All right. How much? 

Mr. Grosberg. $100,000. 

Senator Kennedy. You used the $100,000 to pay off first the two 
loans of $37,500, or not? 

Mr. Grosberg. No. 

Senator Kennedy. Wliat did you do with it ? 

Mr. Grosberg. That went to the Abstract Co, 

Senator Kennedy. So you had $175,000 ? 

Mr. Grosberg. No. The other loans were paid off. 

Senator Kennedy. What did you use to pay them off ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I borrowed money from another source. 

Senator Kennedy. Wait a minute. You got $175,000 from the 
union and the health and welfare, the two locals plus the State of 
Michigan of the Teamsters health and welfare; is that correct, 
$175,000? 

Mr. Grosbero. You are basically correct, but you are putting it, I 
think, improperly. 

Senator Kennedy. Tell me how. 

Mr. Grosberg. We did get the $75,000, but that was paid off. 

Senator Kennedy. That is right, from two locals. 

Mr. Grosberg. That is correct. 

Senator Kennedy. Then you got the $100,000 from the health and 
welfare fund of the Teamsters of Michigan ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Grosberg. After the other two loans were paid off. 

Senator Kennedy. "VVliat did you use to pay off the other two loans ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I borrowed money from another source. 

Senator Kennedy. What source was that ? 

Mr. Grosberg. My uncle. 

Senator Kennedy. Wliy didn't you get it from him in the first 
place instead of the union ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I didn't think of it at the time. 

Senator Kennedy. "Wliat ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I didn't think of it at the time. 

Senator Kennedy. You didn't think of it ? 

Mr. Grosberg. No. 

Senator Kennedy. Then you thought of it. What does he do? 



1^434 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Grosberg. It is a short-term loan. We only borrowed the 
money for around 60 days. 

Senator Kennedy. Wliat does he do ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Actually, I think he is retired. 

Senator Kennedy. What did he do ? 

That is a substantial sum of money. A^Hiat did he do ? 

Mr. Grosberg. He was an executive in the Wrigley Co., ACF 
Wrigley. 

Senator Kennedy. And you got the loan from him and you put up 
what in the way of security for that? 

Mr. Grosberg. Just a note. 

Senator Kennedy. On your own signature ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Mine and Mr. Fitzgerald. 

Senator Kennedy. Then you had the $100,000 from the health and 
welfare fund. You got $75,000 from your uncle which you used to 
pay back to Mr. Brennan's and Mr. Hoila's locals; is that correct? 

Mr. Grosberg. To the two locals ; yes. 

Senator Kennedy. 'VAHiat other money did vou get? 

Mr. Grosberg. $135,000. 

Senator Kennedy. In addition. Wliere did you get that? 

Mr. Grosberg. From the welfare fund. 

Senator Kennedy. The $100,000 is from the health and welfare; is 
that correct? 

Mr. Grosberg. That is right. 

Senator Kennedy. Is there a distinction ? 

Mr. Grosberg. It is the same health and welfare. 

Senator Kennedy. First you got $100,000 and then you got $135,000 ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Yes. 

Senator Kennedy. $235,000. That was a loan to the Marbury Co. ; 
is that correct ? 

Mr. Grosberg. No. 

Senator Kennedy. Where does that go ? 

Mr. Grosberg. The loan was given to my father. 

Senator Kennedy. This loan was given to your father ? 

Mr. Grosberg. That is right. 

Senator Kennedy. What did he put up for it ? What security did 
he put up for it ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Well, Mr. Fitzgerald and myself, and a Mr. Wolf- 
gang, we borrowed the money. We wanted to borrow the money. 
But actually we thought it would be better if we went through my 
father because his collateral, his signature, and his worth would be 
much greater than either Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Wolfgang, or mine. 

Senator Kennedy. Who is Mr. Wolfgang ? 

Mr. Grosberg. He is a lawyer in Detroit. 

Senator Kennedy. "\Y1io is he a lawyer for ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I don't know who he is a lawyer for. 

Senator Kennedy. He is not a lawyer for the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Grosberg. No. 

Senator Kennedy. Is he associated with Mr. Fitzgerald ? 

Mr. Grosberg. No. 

Senator Kennedy. Wliat does his wife do ? 

Mr. Grosberg. She is connected with — I don't know the full name 
of the union. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13435 

Mr. Kennedy. Hotel and Restaurant Workers. 

Mr. Grosberg. Is that it ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Grosberg. All right. 

Senator Kennedy. You got the money. Your father signed the note 
for the extra $135,000? 

Mr. Grosberg. But we signed over our homes to my father who 
signed them over to the welfare fund. 

Senator Kennedy. I could not hear that. You did what ? 

Mr. Grosberg. We signed our homes. 

Senator Kennedy. Your personal ? 

Mr. Grosberg. That is correct" 

Senator Kennedy. You and Mr. Fitzgerald did? 

Mr. Grosberg. I signed my home, Mr. Fitzgerald his home, and 
Mr. Wolfgang his home. 

Senator Kennedy. How much were they valued at ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Well, my home is valued 

Senator Kennedy. You signed them over to your father; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Grosberg. My father ; yes. 

Senator Kennedy. All right. 

Mr. Grosberg. Then he in turn signed them over to the welfare 
fund. 

Senator Kennedy. Wlio is that attorney for the welfare fund ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Who is the attorney ? 

Senator Kennedy. Does Mr. Fitzgerald have any connection with 
the welfare fund ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Yes. 

Senator Kennedy. What is his connection ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I imagine he would be called one of the attorneys for 
the welfare fund. 

Senator Kennedy. And what is you connection? You are the ac- 
countant for the welfare fund ? 

Mr. Grosberg. That is right. 

Senator Kennedy. Well, now, if that is not conspiring money with 
with an investment of practically nothing of your own. As I under- 
stand, it was $4,000 of your own and you borrowed the other from the 
bank on your signature without putting up any equity ? 

Mr. Grosberg. If I borrow money and I sign for it, I think I have 
the responsibility, and if something goes wrong, I have to meet it, and 
I think that could be considered. Senator, as an investment. 

Senator Kennedy. I will say to you that we have had voluminous 
hearings in the pension and welfare committee in the labor committee, 
and I consider this highly improper. For Mr. Fitzgerald to use his 
position as an attorney for this pension and welfare fund, and you the 
accountant, you being involved in the use of that money for your own 
and Mr. Fitzgerald's benefit in a construction company, that isn't where 
pension and welfare funds are supposed to be invested. 

They are supposed to be invested in a secure investment so that those 
who are dependent on those investments will be sure they will receive 
them when they need them. 

I do not consider that Mr. Fitzgerald exercised good judgment at 
all, in fact quite the reverse, or you, holding a position of responsi- 



13436 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

bility with the fund, and at the same time receiving money in loans 
from the fund, particularly with the small amount of equity that you 
and Mr. Fitzgerald put into this. 

Mr. Grosberg. These loans were secured, the interest payments were 
6 percent, there was enough collateral to cover the loans in case some- 
thing should go wrong. So I don't know why one would say these 
were insecure. 

Senator Kennedy. Well, now, why didn't you go to a bank and 
get it? 

Mr. Grosberg. "Wliy didn't we go to a bank ? 

Senator Kennedy. Yes. "Wliy did you go to the pension and welfare 
fund? 

Mr. Grosberg. At the same time that I went and borrowed the money 
from the welfare fund for the Marbury Construction Co., we did bor- 
row money from a bank, too. 

Senator Kennedy. How much ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I think it came to — it was either $30,000 or $45,000. 

Senator Kennedy. What did you put up for equity for that ? 

Mr. Grosberg. The same thing, construction loans. 

Senator Kennedy. In other words, Mr. Fitzgerald, your partner 
and you went to see you and Mr. Fitzgerald, representing the health 
and welfare fund, and secured the loan ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Grosberg. That is incorrect. 

Senator Kennedy. Wlio else did you see ? 

Mr, Grosberg. They have the trustees. 

Senator Kennedy. Did you talk to Mr. Hoffa about it ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I may have talked to Mr. Hoffa about it. 

Senator Kennedy. Did he agree to it ? 

Mr. Grosberg. If we have the proper collateral and proper security. 

Senator Kennedy. I am not asking you if . Did he agree to it ? 

Mr. Grosberg. If we had the proper collateral and proper security 
we can make application to the welfare fund. 

Senator Kennedy. He saw nothing improper in the attorney and 
accountant for this welfare and pension plan using funds of the wel- 
fare and pension plan, a quarter of a million dollars, in order to make 
money on their own ? He saw nothing improper in that ? 

Mr. Grosberg. If they were properly secured. 

Senator Kennedy. I am asking you. Don't put the "if" in. This is 
1958. Wliat was his judgment, that it was properly secured ? 

Mr, Grosberg. I imagine they are properly secured, I am sure 
they are. 

Senator Kennedy, I am asking you what his judgment was. 

Mr. Grosberg. I don't know what his judgment would be. Senator. 

Senator Kennedy. Did he agree to give you the money ? 

Mr. Grosberg. He actually could not agree to give me the money. 
He has nothing to do with the welfare fund. 

Senator Kennedy. He has something to do with 299. Did you talk 
to him ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Yes. 

Senator Kennedy. And Mr. Brennan agreed to do it ? 

Mr. Grosberg. On behalf of 237. 

Senator Kennedy. T^^ien you went to the State fund, did you talk 
to Mr. Hoffa at that time about it ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13437 

Mr. Grosberg. No. We made an application to the welfare fund. 

Senator Kennedy. You and Mr. Fitzgerald ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Yes. 

Senator I^jennedy. Do you charge Mr. Hoffa for filling out his 
income tax ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Do I charge hun ? 

Senator Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Grosberg. No. 

Senator Kennedy. I wouldn't think you would. 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you four checks, each of 
which is made payable to Sam Marroso. The fii'st one is dated March 
17, 1956, in the amount of $250 ; the second is dated March 17, 1956, in 
the amount of $50 ; the third is dated April 16, 1956, in the amount of 
$300, and the fourth is dated January 29, 1957, in the amount of 
$208.17. Apparently these checks are all drawn on your regular 
printed checks and signed by you. 

I ask you to examine these checks and state if you identify them. 

(The documents were handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Are those your checks ? 

Mr. Grosberg. They are. 

The Chairman. They may be made exhibits Nos. 6, A, B, C, and D. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits Nos. 6A, B, 
C, and D" for reference and will be found in the appendix on pp. 
13714-13717.) 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was that money for ? 

Mr. Grosberg. A group of us had made a wild excursion into a 
tomato venture in Florida, and Mr. Marroso had a piece of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who is Mr. Marroso ? 

Mr. Grosberg. He at one time was a business agent for local 247. 

Mr. Kennedy. Local what ? 

Mr. Grosberg. 247. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where is that located ? 

Mr. Grosberg. In Detroit. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlio else was in this venture ? A number of union 
officials ? 

Mr. Grosberg. There were a number of people. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was Mr. Brennan in this ? 

Mr. Grosberg. No ; he was not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Fitzgerald ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Yes ; he was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had Mr. Marroso been in the penitentiary ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Grosberg. I am not sure if he was in a penitentiary or not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he in jail ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I think he was in jail. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that for receiving money from employers? 

Mr. Grosberg, I don't know what the story was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he have anything to do with this Marbury Con- 
struction Co. that you mentioned ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Well, we used to go to him once in a while for a 
little bit of advice. Actually, I didn't know some of the people in 



13438 IIVIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

the trades, and he would help us contact some of the people in the 
construction trades. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he paid a salary while he was with the Marbury 
Construction Co. ? 

Mr. Grosberg. No; I don't think so. Maybe Mr. Fitzgerald can 
tell me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Maybe we should swear Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Chair- 
man, if he has the answer to this. 

Mr. Grosberg. No ; I don't think he was paid any money. 

Mr. Kennedy. lie was not paid any money ? 

Mr. Grosberg. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know that to be a fact that he received no 
money from the Marbury Construction Co. ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I don't think he received any money from Marbury. 
If he did I certainly don't know it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who retained him to perform these services or who 
decided you should consult witli liim ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I don't think it would be a matter of actually retain- 
ing him. If we ran into a problem, I would call him myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, he filed a statement with the parole board, and 
I would like to give a little background. He was convicted of extor- 
tion and sent to jail. He was involved with three other men, Mr. Lin- 
teau, Mr. Keating, and Mr. Nicolett, and while he was in jail his wife 
received his salary. After he got out of jail, he had to report to the 
parole officer, and he reported that he was working for the Marbury 
Construction Co. 

Can you explain that to us ? And he said he was receiving $700 a 
month. 

Mr. Grosberg. May I see that, please ? 

The Chairman. Let us get the record straight now. Has the state- 
ment of counsel been sworn to, or is that information we have regard- 
ing the man's background ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe it has been sworn to and it is already in the 
record. 

The Chairman. It is in the record, or do you have that informa- 
tion? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is right. 

The Chairman. The statement of counsel will be a statement for 
information upon which to predicate interrogation. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think Mr. Fitzgerald might be the best one to 
answer these questions about Mr. Marroso, because we have some other 
questions about their relationship that I would like to ask Mr. Fitz- 
gerald, and maybe he would come up, too. 

Mr. Grosberg. I think on this matter of Marbury perhaps I could 
answer it better. Could I see that ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I doubt if you would be able to identify the reports 
at the parole board. I understand Mr. Fitzgerald has some conversa- 
tions with the parole officer ; isn't that correct ? Do you know about 
those? 

Mr. Grosberg. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. He states in these reports to the parole officer that 
he worked for the Marbury Construction Co. between November of 
1955 and January of 1957 and he received on the average $700 a month. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13439 

a total of $9,000 from the Marbury Construction Co., and this was 
shortly after he got out of the penitentiary. 

Mr. Grosberg. I don't understand it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if he did any work for Mr. Fitzgerald 
during this period of time ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could we ask Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Mr. Fitzgerald, do you want to answer ? 

Mr. Lawson. May I say, Mr. Chairman 

The Chairman. Just a moment. Do you want to testify, or do you 
want to give any information you have before it ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't want anything left in any mystery. 

The Chairman. I thought you wouldn't. 

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. Fitzgerald. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE FITZGERALD 

The Chairman. Mr. Fitzgerald has been identified in the record 
heretofore and you may proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Fitzgerald, you are the attorney for local 337? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

The Chairman. The Chair didn't mean to be discourteous to coun- 
sel. You started to say something ? 

Mr. Lawson. I was going to say, Mr. Chairman, that while I had 
talked to Mr. Fitzgerald, and I knew he was willing to testify, I think 
it is sort of unusual to call counsel who is not under subpena in this 
fashion. It is part of the procedure that Mr. Williams was talking 
about this morning. 

The Chairman. All right. Mr. Fitzgerald, if he wants a subpena, 
of course, we can provide it. 

Mr. Kennedy. I told Mr. Fitzgerald that he was going to be a wit- 
ness during these hearings. He was notified and he has had books 
subpenaed ; isn't that correct ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. You didn't tell me I was going to be a witness, but 
I have no hesitancy about testifying. 

The Chairman. I am sure you don't. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Fitzgerald, you are the attorney for local 337? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you are the attorney for local 299 ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And for Joint Council 43 ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And also for the health and welfare fund ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes ; I am one of the attorneys. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Mr. Marroso ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us if you have had any business deal- 
ings with Mr. Marroso ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, Mr. Marroso was a business agent for local 
247. ^ 



13440 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Where is 247 located ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. In the city of Detroit, and it performs certain 
functions in the drivers field and in the building field. I think it is 
building-supply materials or construction drivers. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he get into any difficulty, and was indicted ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. He got into difficulty, and he was indicted some time 
back. 

The Chairman. Give us the record on that as near as you can. 
We may have it here. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I represented along with other counsel, Mr. 
Marroso and some of the other people charged with a conspiracy. 

The Chairman. In what year ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That I don't know. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. It is September, I believe, he was indicted on Sep- 
tember 9, 1953; and tried in 1954. The charges were (1) conspiracy 
to request and accept gifts, gratuities, and commissions, to act in a 
particular manner in relation to their employer's or principal's busi- 
ness, the union ; and (2) requesting and accepting gifts, gratuities, 
and commissions to act in a particular manner in relation to their em- 
ployer's or principal's business; and (3) conspiracy to extort money; 
and (4) extortion. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Marroso plead guilty to, I think, conspiracy 
to violate the so-called commercial bribery statute and the other counts 
were dismissed. He was sentenced from 6 months to 5 years. 

The Chairman. Can you tell us how long he served ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Pie served about 8 months. Did I participate 
in the case, did you ask me ? I participated in the preliminary exami- 
nation which we have in Michigan instead of a grand jury presen- 
tation. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you participate in the trial at all ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. There was no trial. He pleaded guilty. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you participate in all of the matters that led 
up to that ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And who paid your legal bills for that matter ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, I was paid a portion of the fee, and I worked 
for Mr. Haggerty part of the time. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Wlio is he ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. He was one of the attorneys who represented the 
group. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive money from Mr. Haggerty ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much did you receive ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlio was Mr. Haggerty paid by ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Haggerty was paid by the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you received your money indirectly from the 
union? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I received my money and there was no "indirectly." 
1 was paid our regular legal fee and it was all a matter of record, 
and Mr. Haggerty recorded it and I recorded it. 

The Chairman. The only issue here is the union actually paid for 
lesral counsel's services ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13441 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes, under authority of the locaL I believe it was 
submitted to the membership, and the local unions or the joint council 
were authorized by the members to pay the legal fees growing out of 
certain grand jury indictments, and this was one of them. 

Senator I\Tas. They were paid to Mr. James E. Haggerty ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know what his middle initial is, Senator. 

Senator I'srES. I don't know, but it has some significance here in 
Washington. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know what the initial of the James Hag- 
erty at the White House is. Is that James C. 1 

Senator Ives, That is James C. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then he went to jail, did he ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And his salary continued while he was in jail ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Now you are asking me to testify as to hearsay, 
and do you want me to start assuming like these people did yesterday ? 
I don't know. 

Mr, Kennedy. You don't know that ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No ; I don't know of my own knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you told that ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I heard it, and I wasn't told it, but I heard it. 

The Chairman. Of course, the records will show. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. We turned over all of the records to you, Mr. 
Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. The records show that he was paid while in jail. Go 
ahead. Did you have any more interest in him after that ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes. I discussed this matter with the parole 
board, or some of the members, and they said they would not parole 
him if he was going to go back to work for a union. 

Mr. Kennedy. You must have been shocked at what he had done 
and plead guilty, extorting money from employers ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald, I am a lawyer, now just a moment, 

Mr, Kennedy, You wouldn't want the union to have anything more 
to do with him, would you ? 

Mr, Fitzgerald, I am not going to answer that type of a question, 
because what is in my mind is one thing, and I don't think that this 
partakes of a brainwashing, Mr. Kennedy, as far as what I think about 
things, 

I will testify to the facts, and I have my own ideas about a lot of 
things, as you have, and I don't think that they would have any proba- 
tive value as far as this committee is concerned, 

Mr. Kennedy, I think it is very interesting, what the attitude of the 
union and union officials is toward people who have extorted money 
from employers and betrayed their membership. 

Mr. Fitzgerald, Do you think it is proper to ask an attorney who 
represented a man in a criminal case, what his condition of mind was 
with respect to the defendant? 

Mr, Kennedy, I am not asking you that. I am asking you as the 
attorney for the union and this is the attorney for the union. After 
Mr, Marroso got out of jail, did you have anything more to do with 
him? 



13442 IMPROPER ACTPV^ITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. The question would be directed as to wliether you 
had anything to do with him as an official or representative of the 
union or if the union as such did ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know. I had something to do with him. 
I know Mr. Marroso. We discussed, and I don't know, about getting 
some doors when dooi-s were hard to handle, or doors for these houses, 
and we w^ere tiying to find where we could buy doors, and I know he 
did a lot of running around on that for the Marbury Construction Co. 

Mr. Kenxedy. Did he receive any money for that ''. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know, and I couldn't tell you. I don't 
know whether he was paid or not, of my own knowledge. The books 
of the Marbury Construction Co. would be the best evidence. You 
have seen those, or they were available to you. 

]\Ir. Kennedy. That is the Marbury Construction Co. to which the 
union had loaned all of this money ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

I don't know wliether he was paid any money or not, and I know he 
did some work, as Mr. Grosberg said, and wliat work he did I don't 
know, because I never had anything to do with the operation of the 
Marbury Construction Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you talk to the parole officer about Mr. Marroso ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Only once, I believe, or maybe twice. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you go back to the parole officer and request 
permission for Mr. Marroso to go back to work for the union ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes; and I think sometime after that Mr. Marroso 
came to me and told me he was having a hard time of it and he had 
paid his penalty, and he thought he should be allowed to go back to 
work for the union, and I think I wrote a letter. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, was he receiving any money from the union 
during this period ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. According to the records 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is what you had better find out about, and we 
gave you those records. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am trying to find out what you know about it. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know, and you know, and I gave you the 
records. 

Mr. Kennedy. We are trying to get some help from tlie union. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Without subpena I gave you the records and you 
tell me what the records show. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am going to try to help you, if you don't know. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. You don't have to help me. I have been helping 
you for 2 years. 

The Chairman. Let us proceed. All the committee wants is help. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I am sorry. 

Mr. Kennedy. In order to assist and refresh Mr. Fitzgerald's 
recollection 

The Chairman. You may put the records in and if there is any 
explanation of them, if Mr. Fitzgerald has any knowledge about it, 
you may interrogate him about it. 

Put the records in at this time, if we have them. The real crux 
of the thing here, as I see it, is the policy or practice, and this is not 
an isolated case, of the union dues being taken out of the treasury to 



EMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13443 

pay for the legal expenses and costs incurred in defending men for 
crime, and paying them a salary, either directly or indirectly, while 
they are serving their sentence, and even further, immediately upon 
their release taking them back under the wing of the union and em- 
ploying them again in responsible positions, or otherwise aiding them 
financially. 

It is a practice that is to be condemned irrevocably and without quali- 
fication. That is the real crux of this particular inquiry. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I think the history behind this is that we look at 
this because unions are strong and unions are wealthy. But I go back 
to the days when I represented a union and I am not trying to be 
heroic about it and they didn't have money to pay me. 

The Chairman. I have represented people that didn't have money 
to pay me. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. At that time there was a lot of prejudices against 
unions and union agents, and there were a lot of agents of unions in the 
old days charged with crime unjustly. I think perhaps judges and 
prosecutors were following what they thought was good conscience, 
but they were motivated by prejudice against unions. 

Now naturally the feeling was at that time that a lot of these people 
got in these troubles because of their connections with unions. As 
time has gone on, the union has become strong, and the union has 
become powerful, and financially and otherwise, and now union busi- 
ness agents who go out on the sti-eet in organization work and things of 
that kind are subject to a lot of risk as far as criminal prosecutions 
are concerned. 

I think you are going to find generally that union people and union 
members, and union officials who have gone through the haid days 
of trying to organize unions and take a lot of raps on the hend, I tliink 
naturally a feeling that any union person who becoiites i-ivolved in 
something growing out of his union activities, it is the feeling on the 
part of all union people that he should be supported as far as his legal 
defense is concerned, and hiring of lawyers for them. 

(At this point the following members were present: Senatois ]Me- 
Clellan, Ives, Ervin, Curtis, and Kennedy.) 

Mr. Fitzgerald. There have been cases growing out of this same 
grand jury where men were charged with a crime, and the union voted 
to pay the expenses. That went on for weeks, and the expenses were 
enormous, and the men were actually acquitted. The mere fact that 
the man is charged with a crime, if I may say this, as we all know, 
does not necessarily mean that man is guilty. Now we have partici- 
pated, and had a lot of criminal prosecutions in Michigan and in 99 — 
I think in all of the cases we found men acquitted, either by juries 
or by courts. 

Now, if you passed a rule where a union agent charged with a 
crime could not be supported financially by the union, you would 
strip that man of any help he might expect to get, and he would have 
to be insane to go to work for a union and take tlie element of risk 
that there is involved in it. 

It so happens in this case, Senator— — 

The Chairman. Mr. Fitzgerald. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. May I say this: It so happens in this case, and I 
was going to end here, that there were 2 cases that grew out of this 1 



13444 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

grand jury. In the one case it went to trial and they were acquitted 
before a jury. 

In this case, after the trial had started, they entered a plea of guilty. 
I don't think it relieved the union of the obligation as long as it was 
properly authorized, which I understand this was. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. The Chair wants to make this observation. I said 
this is not an isolated case. And the practice we have found, and I 
am not talking about where there is some charge about doing some- 
thing on a picket line, necessarily, or something like that. But I am 
talking about where they have actually betrayed the membership by 
taking bribes, payoffs, or entering into collusion and conspiracy with 
management, or using the power of the union to extort. 

I just cannot see any moral justification, and I think it should be 
made illegal for the union dues to be used for those purposes. 

I just express my own view. Senator Ervin. 

Senator Ervin. I can understand the human appeal involved in 
defending a man in trouble. But for the life of me I cannot compre- 
hend how any union as powerful as the Teamsters would make a busi- 
ness agent of a man who was sentenced to prison twice, one time to 
the Federal penitentiary at Fort Leavenworth, for falsely impersonat- 
ing a Federal officer, and the second time to the State penitentiary of 
Ohio on conviction for armed robbery. Armed robbery is an offense 
which involves the offense of stealing, stealing by force or by intimi- 
dation. Yet the evidence before this committee is that tiiis man who 
was convicted of armed robbery, and who was sentenced to a State 
prison for not less than 10 nor more than 25 years, comes out of the 
prison nnd is given a position as a business manager of a local in the 
Teamsters almost immediately after his discharge from prison where 
he was detained for one of the most serious offenses known to our law. 

The evidence before this committee is that he continued to hold that 
office in the Teamsters Union until the day before he came before this 
committee last week and testified as a witness. 

Also it appears before this committee that his nephew, who was also 
involved and sent to prison for crimes of somewhat similar nature, 
was, upon his release from prison, given a position as a business agent 
of another local union of the teamsters. 

So far as the record discloses, he is still the occupant of that office. 
I can understand why a union or anybody else, out of the kindness of 
their heart, might want to defend a man in court, even though the act 
of the man did not arise out of the course of his employment, because 
certainly the union doesn't authorize men to go out and commit com- 
mercial bribery. But to take men of that character and give them posi- 
tions of authority over other Americans immediately after their re- 
lease from prison and before they have given any evidence of repent- 
ance, is something which I cannot comprehend. 

That is all. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. I think in this matter of using union money to de- 
fend officers and agents and members of the union for criminal acts, 
probably we should draw a distinction between those acts which arise 
directly out of the labor controversy going on. During the investiga- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13445 

tion of the Kohler strike by the UAW, and in reference to Mr. Reu- 
ther's testimony, I was very critical of the use of union funds in cases 
such as the attack by Vincent on Van Ouwerkerk, which occurred in a 
tavern far removed from the strike scene, tlie pickets, and so on ; the 
use of union funds to defend and resist extradition by Gunaca, which 
occurred likewise far removed from the strike. 

There was another agent, or two, where union funds were used to 
defend an individual and a woman involved in some sort of disorderly 
conduct charge, that had no connection to the economic struggle going 
on. 

I can appreciate what counsel has said about the historical back- 
ground of unions defending their agents in regard to this, but I do 
think we should draw a distinction between those things that arise di- 
rectly out of the lawful carrying out of the objectives of the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Bellino, would you tell us what the records show 
as to the receipt of money by Mr. Marroso ^ 

Mr. Belling. The records of Joint Council 43 reflect payments to 
Mrs. Sam Marroso during the period from November 1, 1954, to 
December 10, 1956. There was a total of $17,614 paid to her. 

The Chairman. How much ? 

Mr. Belling. $17,614. 

Mr. Kennedy. So it would appear that Mr. Marroso was paid not 
only while he was in jail, but he was paid after he got out of jail ? He 
continued on the union payroll, is that correct ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Does that cover the same period of time, or any 
part of the time that he was reporting to the parole officer that he 
was getting around $700 a month from tliis company ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Wliat are the dates? Let's get it in the record 
while we have it here. 

Do you have the parole report, Mr. Bellino ? 

Show what period of time there was duplication of payment from 
the company and also from the union. 

Mr. Adlerman, do you solemnly sw^ear the evidence you shall give 
before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Adlerman. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JEROME S. ADLERMAN 

The Chairman. Mr. Adlerman, you are a staff member, assistant 
counsel, to the committee? 

Mr. Adlerman. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Have you made an examination of the parole rec- 
ords of this Marroso ? 

Mr. Adlerman. Samuel J. Marroso. 

The Chairman. And also of the records of the union and of the 
company, this construction company, with respect to payments made 
to Marroso ? 

Mr. Adlerman. I have only examined the parole records. 

Mr. Bellino. We have done that on the construction company. 

21243— 58— pt. 36 12 



13446 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. You have examined the parole records? 
Mr. Adlerman. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. What does it show he was reporting to the parole 
oflSicer with respect to his income over what period of time? 

Mr. Adlerman. He was paroled on November 26, 1956, and the 
first month he worked for the J. E. Bejin Cartage Co. as a road 
checker at $400 a month. The second month — that is August 16, 
1955 — he worked for S. J. Groves at $700 a month. 

The Chairman. Well, you can shorten it. 

Just as to this construction company. 

Mr. Adler:\ian. Starting November 15, 1955, until December 18, 
1956, he worked for the Marbury Construction Co., and his usual 
salary amounted to $700 a month in accordance with the monthly 
parole records or reports that he filed with the parole board. 

The Chairman. In other words, he was reporting he was getting 
about $700 a month ? 

Mr. Adlerman. Yes, sir. There is a slight variation. In 1 month 
he shows $1,500 and in another month he shows $1,100, another month 
$1,500. But most of the months are $700. It might be that he had 
nuide additional fees. There is 1 month, in December 1955, when he 
listed his employment as Fitzgerald & Grosberg, $700 a month. 
That is in that same period of time. 

The Chairman. All I am trying to determine here, and that is all 
that is pertinent, is what period of those months where he was re- 
porting and receiving pay from other sources, was the union paying 
him? 

Mr. Belling. The wife was paid up to December 10, 1956 ; in the 
same period of time, he reported he was working for other companies. 

The Chairman. In other words, his salary continued to go to the 
family during this period of time ? 

Mr. Belling. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. So he was getting paid, according to his reports, 
working for the Marbury Construction Co., and Mr. Fitzgerald and 
Mr. Grosberg say he was not being paid by them — he was being paid 
by the union for the work that he was doing for the Marbury Con- 
struction Co. over that 2-year period ? 

Mr. Belling. To his wife. 

Mr. Kennedy. To his wife. 

The Chairman. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No ; that is not correct. 

You will have to depend, Mr. Chairman, upon the records of the 
Marbury Construction Co. to show if he was paid anything. I don't 
know. 

But I do know — I don't know about Fitzgerald and Grosberg. I 
know I never paid any money to Mr. Marroso, according to my records. 
You have my records. You have had Mr. Grosberg's records, so you 
can run that down, too. We gave them to you voluntarily. Wliat 
work he did for us, I think, was best described by Mr. Grosberg. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why was he on the union payroll ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know he was on tlie union payroll. You 
see, Mr. Kennedy, I can only answer your questions by making a com- 
ment. You take all the records that we turned over to you and then 
you check them, and then when you ge" through checking them you 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13447 

Teach a conclusion and you make a very unfair statement that he was 
being paid by the union for work that he was doing for Marbury 
Construction Co. We gave you all this data. 

I think if there was anything wrong about it, we have never even 
been questioned on this, but I am telling you now, that this, as far as 
the payment of the union is concerned, was not for any work he did for 
Marbury Construction Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. That doesn't answer the question. TVliy was he 
being paid, this man who plead guilty of extortion, which amounts to 
betraying his membership, why was he receiving money during this 
period of time while he was working for the Marbury Construction 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That I don't know, except I can see the reason why 
a union would pay him. If a man put a lot of years in in the union and 
in the union business and takes the abuse that they have had to take 
for the last 30 years, now they are beginning to see the light, if they 
have to ta]:e that abuse, if a man goes to jail, what do you want the 
union to do ^ Let the wife and child suffer ? 

Mr. Kennedy. This is not working for the union. This is working 
against the union. 

Mr. FiTzoERALD. Until a man gets rehabilitated, I think it is a perfect 
right. If I was a union member I would vote for it. 

Ml'. Kennedy. I think it is the most shocking thing to use union 
funds for tliis purpose, for a man who betrayed the union purpose. It 
could not be worse. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I would like to take you before the imion involved 
and you pi'esent your side and I will present mine, and I guarantee 
you that my side Avould prevail overwhelmingly. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was this ever put to the membership ? 

Mr. P^rrzGERAED, It was put, as I understand it, to the joint council 
of union representatives who represent the different locals. 

Mr. Kennedy. There is nothing in the minutes indicating that. 

Who was the head of the joint council ? 

]SIr. Fitzgerald. ]Mr. Hoffa. But does that make it wrong ? 

The Chairman. Let's proceed. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Fitzgerald, I assume that your duties to the 
imion were of a legal nature rather than a bookeeping nature ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I can't hear you. 

Senator Ervin. I assume that your relation to the union was that 
■of counsel and client? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

Senator Ervin. And you would not have anything to do with keep- 
ing the records or making payments on behalf of the union ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No ; that is right. 

Senator Ervin. You stated to us a moment ago, as I recall, that 
y'ou had no personal knowledge about that matter at all, with refer- 
ence to whether he was or was not paid by the union. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. When I say I had personal knowledge, maybe I 
should amend it. As counsel I did, because I know that it was sub- 
mitted. If I am not mistaken, it was submitted before those payments 
were made. I don't want to absolve myself of responsibility, because 
I was counsel for the union, and the union agents were taking our 
■counsel. If we had said to the union agent, "That is illegal," or that 



13448 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

is something, I know that the union agents, including Mr. HofFa, would 
not have done it. 

Senator Ervin. The extent of your knowledge with reference to 
that particular matter was your knoweldge that it had been authorized 
by the council ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I think we were consulted about it, and I think 
we advised them it was perfectly all right and not in violation of any 
statute. 

The Chairman. All right, proceed. 

Are there any further questions of Mr. Fitzgerald ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Fitzgerald, have you received any other loans 
from the union other than the ones described here ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I think those are the only loans I have received. 

Mr. Kennedy. Those are the only loans you have received? 

Mr. FiTZGERi\LD. Yes. I am positive. The records will reflect it, 
but you mean from locals or anything like that ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Locals or joint councils. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have not ? 

Mr. FlTZGEIL\LD. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. No other money ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Or any company with which you have had a busi- 
ness interest, have they received any money other than the ones de- 
scribed ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. None at all ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No . 

Mr. Kennedy. Either the locals or welfare funds ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, I have one other question for Mr. Grosberg. 

Mr. Grosberg, were you the accountant also for Holtzman and 
Bushkin ? 

TESTIMONY OF HEEBERT GROSBEEG— Resumed 

Mr. Grosberg. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have been the accountant for them ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long were you accountant for Holtzman and 
Bushkin ? 

Mr. Grosberg. When did they begin ? You have the records, and 
if you could tell me when they began, perhaps I could help you. 

Mr. Kennedy. You do not know how long you were the accountant 
for them ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I couldn't tell you that. It was for a number of 
years. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it during the 1950's or 1940's ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Let us say it was about 1950 or 1951, whenever they 
began. 

Mr. Kennedy. To the best of your knowledge, they began in 1950 
or 1951 ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Something like that ; yes. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13449 

Mr. Kennedy. From an examination of those books and records, 
was Mr. Holtzman or Mr. Bushkin making any purchases for Mr. 
Hoffa or Mr. Brennan ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I don't remember that. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't remember ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I could find out and I could check the records. 

Mr. Kennedy. From an examination of the books. You do not 
remember any purchases that they might have made for Mr. Hoffa 
or Mr. Brennan ? 

Mr. Grosberg. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you see anj^ evidence of any loans that he made 
to Mr. Hoffa? 

Mr. Grosberg. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never saw any evidence of any loans ? 

Mr. Grosberg. No. 

Do you mean in the books ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Grosberg. In the company books ; no. 

Mr. KJENNEDT. You did not? 

Mr. Grosberg. No. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Mr. Ivennedy. I have one other question. 

Did you make up a net- worth statement for Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. Grosberg. A net-worth statement was made up a number of 
years ago. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many years ago ? 

Mr. Grosberg. To tell you the truth, I don't remember how many 
years ago. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened to it, and where is it now ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I don't have it any more. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where is it ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Actually, when we were being checked by the In- 
ternal Revenue, Mr. Fitzgerald and I were handling it and on the 
advice of Mr. Fitzgerald, since we were not going to present it, it 
made no difference. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you do with it ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I destroyed it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You destroyed the net- worth statement ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. On the instructions of Mr. Fitzgerald ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I wouldn't say the instructions of Mr. Fitzgerald. 

Mr. Kennedy. Or the suggestion of Mr. Fitzgerald ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I said perhaps on advice of counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was Mr. Fitzgerald ? 

Mr. Grosberg. Mr. Fitzgerald and I. 

Mr. Kennedy. During the period of time Mr. Hoffa was under 
investigation by the Internal Revenue Service ? 

Mr. Grosberg. No, it was before he was under investigation. 

Mr. Kennedy. I thought you said he was beginning to be under 
investigation. 

Mr. Grosberg. I beg your pardon. 

Mr. Kennedy. You just stated that he was under investigation. 



13450 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Grosberg. I said before he was under investigation, and we 
don't have to submit a net-worth statement to the Internal Revenue 
Department. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you tell Mr. Bellino that you turned the net- 
worth statement over to Mr. Fitzgerald ? 

Mr. Grosberg. I told Mr. Bellmo that I may have, and I wasn't too- 
sure, and since I had spoken to Mr. Bellino I did talk to Mr. Fitzgerald- 
Mr. Kennedy. Why would it be necessary to destroy this document ? 

Mr. Grosberg. What is the sense of keeping it ? 

Mr. Kennedy. It is the only record that you have whatsoever and 
the only record that you state you have and you destroy that ? 

Mr. Grosberg. What is the sense of keeping it ? 

Mr. Kennedy. It is a net- worth statement and a record, and why 
destroy it, Mr. Grosberg ? 

Mr. Grosberg. It is no record actually. 

Mr. Kennedy. Excuse me. 

Mr. Grosberg. It is not a record. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Mr. Lawson. Mr. Chairman, may I just say this one sentence, im- 
plicit in what I understand Senator Curtis to have said and Mr. Fitz- 
gerald, I think I would like to say this, because it is part of the function 
of this committee : 

We have heard a lot of talk here today and some of it properly about 
what Mr. Justice Brandeis used to call the tyranny of labor. Here 
we have a piece of legislation, and I refer to the Ives-Kennedy bill,, 
for which there seems to me to be a compelling necessity. I raise a 
question about the tyranny of capital. 

The Chairman. That is out of order for the moment. My goodness^ 
make a speech somewhere else. 

The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock in the morning. 

( Wliereupon, at 4 : 35 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 
10 a. m., Thursday. August 7, 1958.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 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 recess, in the 
caucus room. Senate Office Building, Senator John L. McClellan 
(chairman of the select committee) presiding. 

Present: Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Sen- 
ator Irving M. Ives, Republican, New York; Senator John F. Ken- 
nedy, Democrat, Massachusetts ; Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Democrat, 
North Carolina; Senator Frank Church, Democrat, Idaho; Senator 
Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota ; Senator Carl T. Curtis, 
Republican, Nebraska. 

Also present: Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel; Paul Tierney, 
assistant counsel; John J. McGovern, assistant counsel; Carmine S. 
Bellino, accountant; Pierre E. Salinger, investigator; Leo C. Nulty, 
investigator; James P. Kelly, investigator; James Mundie, investi- 
gator, Treasury Department; John Flanagan, investigator, GAO; 
Alfred Vitarelli, investigator, GAO. 

The Chairman. The committee will please come to order. 

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

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yesterday afternoon we were discussing the Marbury 
Construction Co. and the loans of over $200,000 that were made to that 
company that was owned by George Fitzgerald, the attorney for the 
Teamsters in Detroit, and for Mr. Grosberg, who was the accountant 
for the Teamsters in Detroit. We then developed the fact that Mr. 
Marroso had informed his parole officer that he was on the payroll of 
the Marbury Construction Co., while, in fact, he was receiving his 
money through Joint Council 43 in Detroit. 

We had Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Grosberg as witnesses, and we 
weren't able to cast too much light on it, and we are now going to 
call Mr. Marroso in connection with that. 

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. Marroso. I do. 

13451 



13452 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

TESTIMONY OF SAMUEL J. MARROSO; ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
COUNSEL, HARRY C. ALLDER 

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

Mr. Marroso. My name is Samuel J. Marroso, and I live at Utica, 
Mich. 

The Chairman. What is your business or occupation, please, sir? 

Mr. Marroso. I assert my privilet^e under the fifth amendment and 
decline to be a witness a^jainst myself. 

The Chairman. Do you honestly believe that you would be testify- 
in o^ against yourself if you told what your occupation is ? 

Mr. Marroso. I assert my privilege under the fifth amendment and 
decline to be a witness against myself, as I lionestly believe my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You lia ve counsel present ? 

Mr. Marroso. I do. 

The Chairman. Will you identify yourself ? 

Mr. Allder. My name is Harry Cliil'ord Allder, member of the 
District of Columbia Bar. 

The Chairman. The Chair asked you if you have counsel and he 
can advise you about it. The Chair asked you if you honestly believe 
that if you answered truthfully the question, what is your business or 
occupation, that a truthful answer thereto might tend to incriminate 
you. 

Mr. Marroso. I assert my privilege under the fifth amendment and 
decline to be a witness against myself as I honestly believe my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. The Chair, Avith the approval of the committee, 
orders and directs you to answer the question, do you honestly believe 
that if you gave a truthful answer to the question, what is your busi- 
ness or occupation, that a truthful answer might tend to incriminate 
you. 

Mr. IMarroso. I assert my privilege under the fifth amendment and 
decline to be a witness against myself as I honestly believe my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Mr. Counsel, make note of this witness' testimony 
and proceed with it as you have under instructions with others. 

You may proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Marroso, were you a business agent for local 247 
of the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Marroso. I assert my pi-ivilege under the fifth amendment and 
decline to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you had worked for local 614 in Pontiac, Mich., 
isn't that correct, in 1950 ? 

Mr. Marroso. I assert my privilege under the fifth amendment and 
decline to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mike Nicoletti, was president of local 247, and 
you and he were involved in the extortion of monev from employers, 
isn't that right? 

Mr. Marroso. I assert my privilege under the fifth amendment and 
decline to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. You received a total of $7,825 from truckers and 
construction companies ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13453 

Mr. Marroso. I assert my privilege under the fifth amendment and 
decline to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Did you keep all of that money or did you split it 
with others ? 

Mr. Marroso. I assert my privilege under the fifth amendment and 
decline to be a witness against myself. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully submit that in view 
of the constitutional provisions no man can be put twice in jeopardy 
for the same offense, and no man can invoke the privilege of the fifth 
amendment when he is asked with respect to his prior convictions of 
criminal ofi'enses when he has been convicted. 

The Chairman. Ask the questions, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you convicted for the extortion of money from 
certain employers during 1954 ? 

Mr. IMarrgso. I assert my privilege under the fifth amendment and 
decline to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. With the approval of the committee, the Chair 
orders and directs the witness to answer the question. 

Mr. Marroso. I assert my privilege under the fifth amendment and 
decline to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. You were convicted ; were you not ? 

Mr. Marroso. I assert my privilege under the fifth amendment and 
decline to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. You pleaded guilty ; didn't you ? 

Mr. Marroso. I assert my privilege mider the fifth amendment and 
decline to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. You did commit the offense ; didn't you ? 

Mr. Marroso. I assert my privilege under the fifth amendment and 
decline to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, according to the information from an ex- 
amination of the files, Mr. Chairman, between Marroso and Nicoletti, 
they made additional demands for $11,500; is that correct? 

Mr. Marroso. I assert my privilege under the fifth amendment and 
decline to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. And, Mr. Chairman 

The Chairman. Were you representing the Teamsters Union at 
the time of this offense ? 

Mr. Marroso. I assert my privilege under the fifth amendment and 
decline to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Is that a part of the policy of the Teamsters Union 
in your area, to commit these offenses and then cover up with the 
fifth amendment ? 

Mr. IVIarroso. I assert my privilege under the fifth amendment and 
decline to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Acocrding to the parole officer whom we have inter- 
viewed, Mr. Marroso indicated that he was forced to kick back some 
of this money to certain other individuals, and I would like to find 
out from Mr. Marroso if that is correct. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Allder. Would you state the question? I think that you made 
a statement and not a question. 



13454 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The CHAiRMAiSr. He made a statement and asked the witness if it 
was correct. You may restate the question so that the witness may 
understand. 

Mr. Kennedy. According to our interviews with the parole officer, 
Mr. Marroso told him that he had to kick back certain of these moneys 
to certain other individuals, and I want to ask you, Mr. Marroso, if 
that is correct ? Did you tell the parole officer that ? 

Mr. IVIarroso. I assert my privilege under the fifth amendment and 
decline to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you in fact kick back any of this money to other 
union officials ? 

Mr. Marroso. I assert my privilege under the fifth amendment and 
decline to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is it for that reason, Mr, Marroso, that the union 
paid for your legal fees and continued your salary while you were in 
]ail, and continued your salary for a period of approximately 2 years 
after j^ou were in jail ? 

Mr. Marroso. I assert my privilege under the fifth amendment and 
decline to be a witness against myself. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Is it because you had information on other higher 
union officials ? Is that why this was done ? 

Mr. Marroso. I assert m}' privilege under the fifth amendment and 
decline to be a witness against myself 'L 

jNIr. Kennedy. Can you tell us how you were able to get your job 
as business agent in the fii*st place, Mr. Marroso. 

Mr. Marroso. I assert my privilege under the fifth amendment and 
decline to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had a criminal record, did you not? You had 
been arrested a number of times as a youth, and you were convicted 
of grand larceny in 1934 and received 2 years' probation? 

Mr. Marroso. I assert my privilege under the fifth amendment and 
decline to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it a prerequisite to have a criminal record to 
work or to be an officer in tlie locals around Detroit ? 

Mr. Marroso. I assert my privilege under the fifth amendment and 
decline to be a witness against myself. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. I arrived a bit late. Are you currently employed ? 

Mr. Marroso. I assert my privilege under the fifth amendment and 
decline to be a witness against myself. 

Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. All right, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us, Mr. Marroso, why Mr. George Fitz- 
gerald would write to your parole officer on December 1, 1955, and make 
a request that you be allowed or permitted to go to work for the Team- 
sters after you had betrayed the membership ? 

Mr. Marroso. I assert my privilege under the fifth amendment and, 
decline to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, could Mr. Adlerman identify this 
letter? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13455 

Could we have it put in as an exhibit ? 

The first document, Mr. Chairman, is a conditional parole that he 
was not to go to work for the Teamsters. 

The Chairman. Has this document been put into the record ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No. I would like to put both of those in. 

The Chairman. Mr. Adlerman, have you been previously sworn? 

Mr. Adlerman. I have. 

The Chairman. I hand you here a document and ask you to examine 
it and state what it is. 

Mr. Adlerman. This is a State of Michigan Parole Board report 
dated April 26, 1955. Under the term of special instructions to the 
parole officer, the terms and conditions of parole, it is a statement : 

To parole oflScer: Attorney for A. F. of L., George Fitzgerald, assures us that 
this man will not work for the A. F. of L. 

At that time the Teamsters Union was in the A. F. of L. 
The Chairman. The document may be printed in full in the record 
at this point for reference. 

State of Michigan 

parole board hearing 

Inmate : Samuel J. Marroso, No. 87767D. 

Place : Lansing — Executive session. 

Date: 4-26-55. 

Present : A. Ross Pasco, Fred C. Sanborn, John A. Trudell, Roy H. Nelson. 

Reason for hearing : Passed over. 

Order: Parole balance of maximum, May 26, 1955 (afd) to Detroit, subject 
to home and employment. 

Special conditions : None. 

Special instructions to parole officer: Attorney for A. F. of L., George Fitz- 
gerald, assures us that this man will not work for the A. F. of L. 

EXAMINATION OF INMATE 

Action taken in executive session. Plans to return to his wife, Lillian, at 
46801 Van Dyke, Utica. Attorney George Fitzgerald, 2550 Guardian Michigan 
Building, Detroit, Woodward 5-4900, will get him a job — he is not going to work 
for the union. 

Attest: LW. 

Lois Wellman, Acting Reporter. 

The Chairman. Where did you obtain this document? 

Mr. Adlerman. This document was obtained from the official files 
of the parole board for the Michigan State Board of Parole. 

The Chairman. All right. 

I present to you now a — what is the date of that first document ? 

Mrs. Watt. April 26, 1955. 

The Chairman. I present to you now a letter and ask you to iden- 
tify it and state where you obtained it. 

Mr. Adlerman. This is a letter under the stationery of George 
Fitzgerald, bearing the signature of George Fitzgerald, to Charles 
McCarty, Michigan State Board of Parole, Mount Clemens, Mich., 
dated December 1, 1955. This letter was taken from the files, official 
files, the State board of parole. 

The Chairman. The letter may be printed in full in the record at 
this point. Pertinent excerpts from it may be referred to, Mr. Coun- 
sel, if you desire. 



13456 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Law Offices, George S. B^tzgerald, 

Detroit, Mich., December 1, 1955. 
Mr. Charles McCarty, 

Michigan State Parole Board, 

Count]) Building, Mount Clemens, Mich. 
Dear Mr. McCarthy : In pursuit of our telephone conversation of yesterday, I 
respectfully request permission on the part of my client, Teamsters Union Joint 
Council No. 43, to employ Sam Marosso who is now on parole under your super- 
vision. Mr. Marroso will be given duties within certain prescribed limits in ac- 
cordance with the items we discu.ssed on the telephone. These duties will be such 
as to negative any possibility of his getting into trouble, particularly by accident 
or coincidence. We are making this request of you and of your superiors in the 
best interest not only of our union, lint also Mr. Marroso nnd his l":nni!.v. 

Mr. Marroso performed very valuable work for the union and its employees 
in the past and is fully equipped by experience and ability to do fine work. 

Because of his long record of union activities, it is almost impossible for Mr. 
Marroso to find employment elsewhere that would suit his talents. Therefore, we 
believe that his future lies in the trade-union movement and that he will fully 
justify the faith that we have in him and that I think you have in him if given 
an opportunity to work along lines of administration and liaison work in the 
union. 

It is respectfully asked that you advise us at your convenience as to your deci- 
sion in this matter. We hope that it will be favorable. We will be happy to ac- 
cept any suggestions from you or your office in regard to Mr. Marroso's matter 
since we have no desire except to cooperate. 
Very truly yours, 

George S. Fitzger^vld. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us, Mr. Marroso, why the Teamsters,, 
through their attorney, were so anxious to take care of you after you 
had betrayed the membership of the local ? 

Mr. Marroso. I assert my privilege under the fifth amendment and 
decline to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. How long had you been out on parole when the 
letter was written ? 

Mr. Marroso. I assert my privilege under the fifth amendment and 
decline to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. May I ask the staff. Do we have any record of the 
date he was released on parole? I assume it is the date of that last 
document. 

Mr. Kennedy. I will check it. 

He was paroled, Mr. Chairman, 5-20-55, May 20, 1955. 

Mr. Adlerman. He was discharged from parole on June 27, 1958^ 
4 months in advance of the time of his parole, of the end of his parole. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. A good deal of the arrangement that you had with 
the employers was collusion, was it not, Mr. Marroso, rather than 
just shaking them down ? 

Mr. Marroso. I assert my privilege under the fifth amendment and 
decline to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. One of the people you received money from was 
Louie Garavaglia, but I notice you went to work for him in 1958, and 
he put you on his payroll in 1958, Can you explain that to the 
committee ? 

Mr. Marroso. I assert my privilege mider the fifth amendment and 
decline to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he was paying you during the first 5 months 
of 1958, $600 a month ; isn't that correct? 

Mr. Marroso. I assert my privilege under the fifth amendment and 
decline to be a witness against myself. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13457 

Mr. Kennedy. Also we find that in 1957 you worked for the Corn- 
stock Corp. ? Could you tell us what the Comstock Corp. was ? 

Mr. Markoso. I assert my privilege imder the fifth amendment and 
decline to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were supposedly getting some $750 to $950 a 
month from the Comstock Corp. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Marroso. I assert my privilege imder the fifth amendment and 
decline to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it correct that the Comstock Corp. was a cor- 
poration that was formed to build, erect, a gambling casino in Las 
Vegas, Nev. ? 

Mr. Marroso. I assert my privilege under the fifth amendment and 
decline to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. And isn't it correct that your position in that Corn- 
stock Corp. was to get the financing from the welfare funds of the 
Teamsters Union ? 

Mr. Marroso. I assert my privilege under the fifth amendment and 
decline to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us why the Teamsters would be in- 
terested in investing welfare funds in the gambling casino in Las 
A'ecns, Nev. ^ 

Mr. Marroso. I assert my privilege mider the fifth amendment and 
decline to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kf.xnedy. Will you tell us anything about the Comstock Corp. ? 

Mr. Marroso. I assert my privilege under the fifth amendment and 
(lecline to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it correct that this scheme fell through shortly 
after 1957 when this committee came into existence? 

Mr. Marroso. I assert my privilege under the fifth amendment and 
decline to })e a witness against myself. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell us of your conversations with Mr. 
Hoffa about this investment? 

Mr. Marroso. I assert my privilege under the fifth amendment and 
decline to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

Senator Ervin. What office did you hold in the union at the time 
you were charged with this crime ? 

Mr. Marroso. I assert my privilege under the fifth amendment and 
decline to be a witness against myself. 

Senator Ervin. You do not claim that you were authorized by the 
union to go out and commit this crime ; do you ? 

Mr. Marroso. I assert my privilege under the fifth amendment and 
decline to be a witness against myself. 

Senator Ervin. Did you commit this crime for the union's benefit 
or for your own financial benefit? 

Mr. Marroso. I assert my privilege under the fifth amendment and 
decline to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. I don't know whether you committed it for the 
union or not, or with their approval or under their instructions, but 
if they paid your salary and paid your defense fees, from my viewpoint 
they condoned your act. 

Do you want to explain it ? 

Mr. Marroso. I assert my privilege under the fifth amendment and 
decline to be a witness against myself. 



13458 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. They certainly were in on this situation as far as 
the Marbury Construction Co. You were telling the parole officer 
that you were working for the Marbury Construction Co., that you 
were receiving your salary from them, when, in fact, you were getting 
your money from the union, and the union was financing the Marbury 
Construction Co. 

Isn't that correct ? 

Mr. Marroso. I assert my privilege under the fifth amendment and 
decline to be a witness agamst myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were these statements that you filed with the parole 
officer correct ? 

Mr. ISIarroso. I assert my privilege under the fifth amendment and 
decline to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. The witness will remain under his present subpena, 
subject to being recalled by the committee at such time as the com- 
mittee may desire to further interrogate him. 

If you will acknowledge that recognizance, we can then have an 
understanding about it. Reasonable notice will be given to you. Do 
you acknowledge that recognizance ? 

(The witness confeiTed with his counsel.) 

Mr. Marroso. Yes ; I do. 

The Chairman. You agree to it ? 

Mr. Marroso. Yes. 

Senator Ervin. At long last we got a question answered by the 
witness. 

The Chairman. All right. You may stand aside. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, the next witness will be Mr. Embrel 
Davidson. 

The Chairman. Come forward, Mr. Davidson. 

Be sworn, please. 

Hold up your right hand. 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. Davidson. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF EMBREL DAVIDSON 

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

Mr. Davidson. My name is Embrel Davidson. I reside in Youngs- 
town, Ohio, 526 Belmont. I am with the maintenance department 
of the Jewish Community Center; also a musician; ex-prizefighter. 

The Chairman. Ex-prizefighter? 

Mr. Davidson. Yes. 

The Chairman. Do you waive counsel, Mr. Davidson ? 

Mr. Davidson. I beg your pardon. 

The Chairman. You waive counsel ? You do not have an attorney 
to represent you. 

Mr. Davidson. No ; I don't. 

The Chairman. Do you feel the need of counsel ? 

]Mr. Davidson. No. 

The Chairman. All right. Thank you. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13459 

' Mr. Kp^nnedy. Mr. Davidson, can you tell the committee a little of 
your background, where you come from ? 

Mr. Davidson. Well, originally I was born in East St. Louis, 111., 
May 16, 1929. I left there when I was about a year old, with my 
mother, and as a kid I was brought up in Chicago, and I later 
went to Columbus, Ohio, after my mother's mother died. She moved 
to Columbus and I was there with her until I joined the service. 
After 3 years in the service, I was discharged with a dependency dis- 
charge, and I started boxing, amateur, and after amateur career, I 
turned profassional. Upon turning professional, I went to Detroit, 
Mich. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did you become an amateur hgliter ? 

Mr. Davidson. Wliile waiting for a dependency discharge in the 
service in 1948. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did you become a professional fighter ? 

Mr. Davidson. In March 1949. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was in Detroit ? 

Mr. Davidson. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were a heavyweight, were you ^ 

Mr. Davidson. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was your manager back in 1948, 1949, and 1950 ? 

Mr. Davidson. The first manager I had was a fellow out of Colum- 
bus, Ohio, named Frank Jiinco; he taken me to Detroit and put me 
under the wing of Mr. John White, coowner of the Gotham Hotel. 
Another fellow in Detroit became interested in me named Mr. Frank 
Loftus. He, through some negotiations, bought the contract from 
Mr. Junco. 

Mr. Kennedy. So Mr. Frank Loftus was your manager in Detroit 
in 1950; is that right? 

Mr. Davidson. He was my manager in the latter part of 1949. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he have a partner — Mr. Loftus — in his manage 
ing of you ? 

Mr. Davidson. Well, not at the time. He was doing some business 
with Mr. John Roxburgh, who used to be manager of Joe Louis. He 
said, "Well, maybe you can get the guy some fights for me." So he 
agreed to do what he could do to get us some fights. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who agreed to it? 

Mr. Davidson. Mr. Roxburgh, at the time. That was in 1949. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did then Mr. Louis himself come in and become a 
partner? 

Mr. Davidson. Joe Louis was only a partner to the extent where he 
would use his connections with the IBC to get us some fights, and 
Mr. Loftus would furnish the other expense money, and so forth. 

Mr. Kennedy. I see. 

You went along with Mr. Loftus for a while; could you telL us 
about your relationship with him ? 

Mr. Davidson. Well, he and I got along pretty fair, up to the point 
where he was — he was a temperamental fellow, and seemed to get ex- 
cited. I guess he was interested in the money that he could make out 
of the fight racket. 

So there were occasions where he would get mad at me and say, 
'""Well, you don't want to fight, so get you another manager." 



13460 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

So I would have to do the best I could until he would cool down. He 
went along with me until 1952. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was his main source of income, as you under- 
stood it, in Detroit ? 

Mr. Davidson. Well, he had some investments, I understood. It is 
on record in Detroit that he has been mixed in with some illegitimate 
business. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was one of the numbers rackets, in the numbers 
rackets out there, was he not ? I think that has been established. 

Mr. Davidson. I understand it is. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he kept you until 1952 ? 

Mr. Davidson. Yes. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Was he getting any assistance during that period of 
time in getting fights ? 

Mr. Davidson. Well, there was a fellow named Willie DeMingus. 
He was a promoter. That is all he was. He would promote fights. 
Mr. Loftus told me that he was financing the fights, we fought some 
fights in Grand Rapids. Some of the fights was fought in Windsor, 
Ontario. I understand that he was putting up most of the money 
for the matchmaking and the booking of the fights. That assistance 
I know of him having, because Mr. DeMingus was the 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there a Mr. Sam Finazzo? Was he also get- 
ting some fights for you ? 

Mr. Davidson. Well, Sam, I know, because he was around the gym, 
and I would see him. 

Mr. Kennedy. F-i-n-a-z-z-o? 

Mr. Davidson. Well, I couldn't swear to how he spelled his last 
name. But he would be around the gym. Everybody around the 
gym had the idea that well, he owned the gymnasium. 

I know he had quite a bit of influence in getting fights for different 
fighters. Wliat he received from it, I don't know. I never inquired. 

Mr. Kennedy. You stayed with Mr. Loftus until about 1952. 
Could you tell us what happened ? 

Mr. Davidson. Well, in 1952, I became disgusted with Mr. Loftus 
because of the fact that he was not getting me any fights. There ceased 
to be fights for me. I mean, too, I didn't appreciate his way of talking 
to me at some times. So I wanted to get away from him. 

Mr. Kennedy. T^Hiiat kind of fights was he getting you ? 

Mr. Davidson. Well, there would be some 10-round fights where I 
would receive as low as $150 or $200. I don't call that making money 
in the fight game, because I was in there to make a decent living and 
to get out. So he would give me those types of fights. Then, too, as 
I say, I did not appreciate his way of wording things toward me. His 
obscene^literature, I know that every man will use obscene literature. 

Mr. Kennedy. You mean obscene statements ? 

Mr. Davidson. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you wanted to get away from liim ? 

Mr. Davidson. Definitely. 

(At this point, members of tlie committee present were: Senators 
McClellan, Ives, Ervin, and Curtis.) 

Mr. Kennedy. And he did get you a fight with Clarence Henry, 
or was that Sam Finazzo ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13461 

Mr. Davidson, From what I understand, Mr. Lof tus had had some 
kind of row with people out in Detroit, and he was stating that 
Detroit Olympia was trying to boycott his fighters, and so there is 
a match made for me with Marty Marshall in order to prove that 
they weren't trying to boycott his fighters, and so I fought Marshall 
and beat him. Then I went to Columbus, Ohio, on a vacation and I 
was there about a week, and I had a call to return back to Detroit to 
fight Clarence Henry. 

Of course, I lost to Henry, and then later on seemingly there was 
somebody that had something against Mr. Loftus, and so they called 
me back to fight Archie Moore. There we won't have to go into the 
outcome of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, so in 1952 you were dissatisfied with Mr. Loftus 
from these various ways he was handling you and the kind of fights 
that he was obtaining, and the statements that he was making to you 
and to your family at that time ? 

Mr. Davidson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. So did you have discussions about getting some other 
manager ? 

Mr. Davidson. Well, not with him. You see I had a lot of con- 
fidence in Sam. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is Sam Finazzo? 

Mr. Davidson. Yes, and I didn't know his background and I wasn't 
certain of his background and that wasn't any interest to me at all. 
I knew I would see him around the gym and so naturally I took for 
gi-anted he is in the fight game, and so I confided in him to the extent 
that I wished I could find me a decent manager where I could make 
some money. 

So after talking to him, he said he would see what he could do for 
me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat did he report back then ? 

Mr. Davidson. Well, he told me one day at the gym, he said, "I could 
maybe let you talk to a fellow that might be able to do you some good 
and would be a fairly good manager for you," and so I agreed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he refer to him as a good friend of his ? 

Mr. Davidson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was that? 

Mr. Davidson. He was speaking of Mr. Bert Brennan. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us if you met Mr. Brennan, then ? 

Mr. Davidson. Yes, I did. I had the opportunity to meet Mr. 
Brennan and I talked to him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where did you go to meet him ? 

Mr. Davidson. I went to the Teamsters Union on Trumbull Avenue 
to meet him, and he was a very nice fellow, and he treated me nicely, 
and he told me that he would be interested in managing me and would 
do the best he could for me. So I agreed and we went on from there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there anybody else in it as well as Mr. Brennan? 

Mr. Davidson. Well, the only thing that I know of 

Mr. Kennedy. Was anyone else present at the time that you met 
Mr. Brennan? 

Mr. Davidson. At the time I met Mr. Brennan there was nobody 
else in the office but him at that time when I met him. 

21243—58 — ^pt. 36 13 



13462 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Subsequently was there? 

Mr. Davidson. Well, now 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you meet anyone else that was going to be 
interested in you? 

Mr. Davidson. Well, I can imagine who you are referring to and 
really I am not trying to be funny. 

Mr. Kennedy. I know that, Mr. Davidson. 

Mr. Davidson. And I assume tliat you are referring to Mr. Hoffa. 
I have had occasions to meet him and talk to liim, and he has treated 
me l(K) percent, as I have told you, and I only know that he and Mr. 
Brennan were associates, and what happened between them was none 
of my business and I didn't inquire about it. I know that I would 
meet him and, as I say, I would see Mr. Hoffa maybe once a month, 
or once every 6 weeks, and it was, "Hello, April, how are you coming 
along in training?'-, and so forth, and that was all. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Xow, did Mr. Brennan introduce you to Mr. Hoffa? 

Mr. DA^^DSON. Yes, he did. 

Mr. Kjennedy. Did you have any conversations with him at tliat 
time ? 

Mr. Davidson. No more than he said, "Well, April, I would like 
you to meet," and it was not formal, "I would like you to meet Jimmy, 
Mr. James Hoffa," and I went through the regular procedures of the 
introduction. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was no further conversation ? 

Mr. Da\t[dson. No; no more than, "This is Jimmy Hoffa," and tliat 
he was his friend and his associate in business, I assumed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he say anything about the fact that he would 
be beliind us also? 

JNIr. DA\^DS0N. Well- 
Mr. Kennedy. Was that subsequently ? 

Mr. DA\^DSON. Maybe something was mentioned like that, not from 
the professional stand])oint or from the financial standpoint, I don't 
think, because, as I say, there were occasions when Mr. Hoffa would 
say, "When are you fighting?", and I would tell him, and he would 
say, "Well, do the best you can, because we are behind you, and we 
would lilce to see you win." And so I guess everybody, a lot of peo- 
ple were behind me in Detroit, and I guess there are a lot that weren't. 
But I would take it from that standpoint of saying, "Well, we are 
pulling for you." 

]Mr. Kennedy. Now, did you go with ]Mr. Brennan to see anyone 
at the ^Michigan Boxing Commission ? 

]Mr. Davidson. Well, naturally, I had to, because there was a con- 
tract that had to be drawn up between Mr. Brennan and I, and we 
went down and talked to Commissioner Ford Stevens. Naturally, 
before he could proceed as my manager, there would have to be a 
contract filed with the Michigan State Athletic Board of Control. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us your conversation down there, 
wlien you went to see the commissioner ? 

Mv. Davidson. Well, there was some doubt in Mr. Brennan 's mind 
at the time because Mv. Loftus liad had a contract on me wliich was a 
5-year contract, that had me under peonage, and the commission 
stated then that they did not recognize 5-year contracts, and also they 
did not recognize contracts that weren't filed with his office, and so 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13463 

that a 5-year contract was not filed with his office, and it was a 5-year 
contract. 

Mr. Kexnedy, Did Mr. Brennan say to you anything after visiting 
the commissioner's office of the Michigan State Boxing Commission ? 

JNIr, DAviDSoisr. Well, after the contract was drawn up, and they 
were in the office, and I wasn't in on everything, the conversations 
there, but coming out he said, "You don't have to worry, everything 
will be O. K. now, and you can go ahead and fight." 

Mr. Kennedy. What else did he say to you ^ 

Mr. Davidson. Well, no more tlian, "I put a little money his way, 
and everythhig is O. K." 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Brennan said that? 

Mr. Davidson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. After visiting the State boxing commissioner's office ? 

Mr. Davidson. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he arrange for you to fight in New York? 

Mr. Davidson. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Brennan did ? 

Mr. Davidson. Yes, sir; and there was a fighter in Detroit named 
Bob Johnson and he was to fight Charley Riggs at Yankee Stadium, 
but he was on parole and so his parole board wouldn't let him go, and 
so he asked me if I wanted to go. So naturally every fighter wants 
to get a chance to go to New York. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you went to New York ? 

Mr. Davidson. Yes. 

Mr, Kennedy. Who went to New York with you ? 

Mr. Davidson. Who went with me ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Who made the arrangements when you were in New 
Yorlv or who did you meet with in New York ? 

Mr. Davidson. Well, I went to New York with my trainer, Harry 
Raskins, and the ticket was given to me b}^ Sam Finazzo, and he told 
me what hotel I was to stay at. Wait a minute, I am sorry, I will 
retract that. I remember now; we drove to New York with Harry 
Raskins, and he was my trainer, and we drove to New York and 
checked in at I think it w^as the Capitol Hotel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just you and your trainer ? 

Mr. Davidson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't go by plane to New York ? 

Mr. Davidson. No, I remember now, w^e did not. I have flown to 
New York a couple of times, but I was confused with the first time I 
went to New York, in 1952. We drove to New York, Harry Raskins, 
in his automobile. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Who was in New York and whom did you meet in 
New York when you got there ? 

Mv. Davidson. Well, the first person I met in New York and was 
introduced to was Whitey Memskin. He is a trainer, and I had to go 
by the commission's office, and I was in New York about a week before 
the fight and I had to go by the commissioner's office for a different 
examination. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell us when you went thei'e what the 
conversation was at the commissioner's office ? 

Mr. Davidson. Well, I didn't meet the commissioner when I first 
got to New York, and the only time I talked with Mr. Christenberry 



13464 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

was the day of the fight, and that was at the weighing and he asked mo 
or he had a letter there from Mr. Lof tus back in Youngstown, I mean 
from Detroit. He said that the letter read that Mr. Loftiis had a 
5-year contract on me, and he demanded that I didn't fight for anybody 
else but him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat was the conversation, what did Mr. Brennan 
say? 

Mr. Davidson. He asked Mr. Brennan if he knew about the con- 
tract, and Mr. Brennan said, "Yes, that Mr. Loftus was a numbers 
racketeer," and so he in turn tore the letter up and threw it in the 
wastebasket, and he said, "You go ahead and fight," and I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Brennan said that they shouldn't have anything 
to do with Loftus because he was in the numbers ? 

Mr. Davidson. He didn't say that you shouldn't have anything to 
do with him; he just said he was a numbers racketeer, and he had 
somewhat dominated me and so he tore the contract up. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the date of that fight in New York ? 

Mr. Davidson. If I recall correctly, it was in July, around the 27th 
or 28th of July, in Yankee Stadium. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was in 1952 ? 

Mr. Davidson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was the night that Rocky Marciano was fighting 
on the main event ? 

Mr. Davidson. He was fighting Harry "Kid"' Matthews, of Seattle. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was your purse out of that ? 

Mr. Davidson. $625. 

Mr. Kennedy. And how much did Mr. Brennan give you from that? 

Mr.DA^^DSON. $500. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have an agreement or a contract with Mr. 
Brennan as to how much money you were to receive ? 

Mr. Davidson. Well, all of the commission contracts are drawn up, 
331/3 and 66% split. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are supposed to get 66% ? 

Mr. Davidson. That is right, but under agreements between fighters 
and managers, so the fighters doesn't have to worry about different 
expenses, traveling expenses, and training expenses, and sparring 
partners, we usually agree on a 50-50 split, and the manager takes care 
of the expenses. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that your arrangement with Brennan ? 

Mr. DA^^DS0N. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was to be 50-50 ? 

Mr. Da\^dson. Yes; and it has to be that way in the boxing com- 
missioner's office, and it has to be on file that way, and they don't care 
what agreement you make between the manager and the fighter after- 
ward. 

Mr. Kennedy. All of the fighters ha^e the agreements that they get 
66%, but actually you only get about 50 percent 5 

Mr. Da\^dson. I don't know about different States, and I know in 
some cases it is better for the fighter to split it 50-50 with the manager, 
and he takes care of the expenses, because of the fact that you don't 
have to worry about paying sparring partners, because in some cases 
sparring partners run more than actually what you can afford to pay. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13465 

Mr, Kennedy. Now, tell me, did Mr. Brennan or Mr, Loftus have 
any conversation with you about your finances and your expenses from 
day to day or your salary, or living expenses ? 

Mr. Davidson. Well, no ; they didn't say anything. I mentioned it 
first because I was in the fnce of how I was going to live from day 
to day when there weren't any fights. And so I asked Mr, Brennan 
for a job and he told me first he would see what he could do. Natu- 
rally as the weeks went by, I w^as more interested, and so I men- 
tioned it to him again, about a job. And so he asked he how much 
would it take for me to live a week, and I said, I exaggerated there, and 
I said, "$100 a week," and so he said he would give me $75. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you put on a payroll for $75 a week ? 

Mr. Davidson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What payroll ? 

Mr. Davidson, Well, I would pick my checks up at the union, and 
the tax was deducted from me, and the city tax and State tax, and 
social security, and I would get my checks from the welfare fund in 
the basement, 

Mr, Kennedy, From the welfare fund of the union ? 

Mr, Davidson, Yes ; that is what was on the check, 

Mr, Kennedy, Is that the Michigan Conference of the Teamsters' 
welfare fund ? 

Mr. Davidson, Well, now I couldn't swear to that, because I didn't 
pay that much attention to the checks, and maybe I should have. 

Mr, Kennedy, Did you talk to Mr, Hoffa about what you were to 
be doing ^ 

Mr. Davidson. No ; I talked to Mr. Brennan. 

Mr. Kennedy, Did you talk to Mr, Hoffa at all about it? 

Mr. Davidson. I talked to Mr. Brennan about it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did j^ou ask Mr. Holf a about what your duties were 
to be as an employee of the welfare fund ? 

Mr, Davidson, No ; I asked Mr, Brennan, 

Mr, Kennedy, What conversations did you have with Mr. Brennan ? 

Mr. Davidson. I asked him what job could I do, and so he said, 
"Well, you will be a claims investigator." 

Mr, Kennedy. Did you talk to Mr. Hoffa about being a claims 
investigator ? 

Mr. Davidson. Well, at the time I was talking to Mr. Brennan, Mr. 
Hoffa was in the office. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you do as a claims investigator ? 

Mr. Davidson. Well, it was explained to me that a claims investi- 
gator would go, if one of the union members would call in sick, or 
report off, it was supposed to be my job to go and see if he was really 
sick and make a report on it. 

Mr, Kennedy, Did you ever do that ? 

Mr, Davidson, No, 

Mr, Kennedy, Did you ever do any work ? 

Mr, Davidson, Well, I did do some work for Mr, Brennan, such 
as when I was training for different fights, he would suggest that 
I stay on his farm because of the fact that it was an excellent place 
for a fighter to do his training, roadwork, and receiving the right 
type of fresh air, and get good meals. And so I had occasion to 



13466 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

sometimes mow the lawn, and do little odd jobs around the house, 
and I guess everybody knows that he has an interest in some trotters, 
because it was in the paper, and so I am not saying anything that 
you don't know. And so I would take feed on the pickup truck or 
go with him to tlie track, and being tliere I was interested in seeing 
how horses were taken care of, and so I would take feed back, oats, 
and hay, and stulf of that sort. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you worked around the track for Mr. Brennan, 
but you never did any work as a claims investigator itself, did you? 

Mr. Davidson. No; and don't be confused with working around the 
track as a day to day thing. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was j ust occasionally ? 

Mr. Davidson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. AVhen you were out at his home ? 

Mr. Davidson. He was nice to me and so when he needed help, if 
he needed any help naturally I would do him that favor. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever talk to Mr. Hoff'a or Mr. Brennan about 
the work you were supposed to be doing as claims investigator? 

Mr. Davidson. I only mentioned it once to Mv. Brennan as to when 
I was supposed to start to Avork, and he said, "don't worry about it," 
and that is all. 

(At this ]:)oint. Senator Church entered the hearing room.) 

Senator Curtis. This work that you did around Mr. Brennan's 
farm, cutting grass and occasionally hauling feed for the race horses, 
was that work performed by reason of the pay you got from the wel- 
fare fund or was that work that you were performing for your board 
and room at the farm ? 

Mr. Davidson. Well, I don't know. It never was stated and never 
was mentioned. 

Senator Curtis. Did you receive your board and room at the farm? 

Mr. Davidson. I received rooms, and sometimes I would eat, and 
sometimes I would go home. You see, at that time I was married, and 
I would go home sometimes. My wife worked as a waitress in a 
restaurant, and sometimes I would go home and fix my own meals and 
sometimes she was off and I would go home and she would fix them. 

Senator Curtis. But there was no payment from you to Mr. Brennan 
for your room or what meals you did get ? 

Mr. Davidson, You mean from me, paying him for staying there ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. DA^^DS0N. No ; I didn't have to pay him. 

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

Mr. Kennedy, Did these payments to you have to be approved by 
anybody ? Did you learn about that ? 

Mr. Davidson. Well, I don't know if they had to be approved by 
anybody. I was told that I would pick up my check every Friday, 
and that I did, and the check was made out in my name and I picked 
it up, and I cashed it and just like if I get a check from where I work 
now, the deductions were made, and I filed income tax on it. 

Mr, Kennedy, What was the relationship between Mr, Iloffa and 
Mr, Brennan as you saw it, Mr. Davidson, regarding this matter? 

Mr, Davidson. Well, let me see now, I don't understand what you 
mean. Will you explain ? 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the relationship regarding your work that 
you were doing, as between Mr. Hoff'a and Mr. Brennan ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13467 

Mr. DAviDSOisr. Well, I will explain that the way I understand it. 
That is Mr. Brennan was my manager and Mr. Hoffa and Mr. 
Brennan, as I say, I guess were business associates. I don't know, 
and then I didn't know, and I didn't know up until last year what 
Mr. Hoffa's job was. Maybe I am speaking of, or maybe I am con- 
fused because the question has got me a little bit confused. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are doing fine. 

Mr. Davidson. But Mr. Hotl'a, as I say, I think his only interest 
in me was only from boxing and that professional standpoint. I 
never received any money from him, and I never entei-ed into any 
business conversations with him, and I don't know what he was 
doing, and I still don't know what he is doing, and it is no concern 
of mine as to what he is doing, and I would see him as I say occa- 
sionally, and it was always a "Hello," and "How are you doing, and 
how are you coming along in training?'' He treated me like a man, 
and I in turn treated him like a man. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Did he ever ask you how you were coming along as 
claims investigator for the welfare fund ? 

Mr. Davidson. No ; he ncA^er asked me such questions. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever have any discussions with him about 
it? 

Mr. Davidson. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever have any discussions with him about 
the fact you were not doing any work as claims investigator? 

Mr. Davidson. No; I told you I had that discussion with Mr. 
Brennan. 

Mr. Kennedy. But he was in the office when Mr. Brennan spoke 
to you originally about putting you on the payroll, was he not? 

Mr. Davidson. Yes, the one time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us how the relationship broke off ? 

Mr. Davidson. Well, I was training for a fight. I fought this par- 
ticular fight with Toxey Hall. It was on short notice. I won the 
fight, which isn't important, and I was to fight him again. During 
training, I got my nose hurt and as a result there was a deviating 
acceptance reported by my personal physician. Dr. Robert C. Bennett, 
and he, in turn, suggested I go see the commission physician, and I 
did. 

The commission physician wrote a letter stating that I could not 
go through with the fight because of the fact that my nose was in- 
jured. So I, in turn, went back and told JMr. Piazza, who was the 
promoter of the Motor City fights, and he said "Well, we will just 
have to suspend vou, if you are not going to go through with the 
fight." ^ . ^ . 

I in turn went and talked with Mr. Brennan, and I told him that 
I got the letter from the commissioner, and I showed it to him, and 
that is it. I could not go through with the fight. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did Mr. Brennan say ? 

Mr. Davidson. Well, he didn't like the idea, too much, I know, be- 
cause he said "Well, it seems like you just don't want to fight." 

He said, "You could beat this guy and he would never hit you in 
the nose." 



13468 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

I think that was highly impossible, because even though I did beat 
him the first time, everybody is going to get hit. So he said "Well, 
I am kind of tired of handling prize fighters anyway. You can get 
yourself another manager." 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you talk to him about his horses, make some 
statement about that ? 

Mr. Davidson. I was trying to compare the two. I think that I am 
a little bit better than a horse. Of course, maybe he was receiving 
more from the horses than he was me. I think he would be because 
I was not making that much fighting, but I only mentioned that "Well, 
supposing one of your horses would pull a muscle before a race, what 
would you do?" 

He said, "I would pull him out." I said "Well, what about me?" 

He said, "Well, that is different." 

I could see there that maybe he was telling the truth, that he wasn't 
interested any more in fighters. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you broke with him in 1954 ? 

Mr. Davidson. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you fought for a while after that, did you ? 

Mr. Davidson. Well, I tried to make some connections. He gave me 
my contract, as he said he would. He didn't hold back on it. I went 
on to be connected with a fellow who is a jeweler, Mr. Jerry Mosley, 
in Detroit. He tried to do the best he could to get me some fights. 
He wasn't very successful. 

Mr. Kennedy. During this period, did you know a man by the 
name of Jimmie Q. or Jimmie Quasarano ? 

Mr. Davidson. Well, there is a picture that I had seen of this fellow. 
He is a fellow that I know would be around the gym. I never knew 
his 1 ast name. We only referred to him as Jimmie. 

The Chairman. Do you think you would recognize the picture of 
him? 

Mr. Davidson. If it is him, I would. 

The Chairman. I don't know whether this is him or not. Take a 
look at it and tell us what you think of it. 

(Photograph handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Davidson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The picture may be made exhibit No. 7. 

(The document referred to was* marked "Exhibit No. 7" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that Jimmie Q, the Jimmie as you knew him? 

Mr. Davidson. Jimmie, as I knew him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he around Mr. Brennan ? 

Mr. Davidson. I never saw him around Mr. Brennan, only maybe 
when Mr. Brennan would come by the gym, and that would be very 
seldom that he would come by the gym. 

Maybe he would go into the office discussing possible fights for 
me. Of course, as I say, this fellow, the picture that you showed me, 
he was associated with Mr. Piazza and also Mr. Finazzo, so what went 
on in the office I don't know anything about. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Finazzo indicate to you that he had some 
close ties with Mr. Carbo, Frank Carbo ? 

Mr. Davidson. Well, everybody that was in Detroit in the fight 
racket knew that he was a friend of his. How close, I don't know. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13469 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he make statements that he was close to Frankie 
•Carbo? 

Mr. Davidson. Well, he just said that he was his friend, and he was 
his buddy. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did he refer to Frankie Carbo ? 

Mr. Davidson. Well, as "my man, Frank.'' 

Mr. Kennedy. What do you do now, in addition to your community 
•center work? 

Mr. Davidson. I am a musician, or attempting to be. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat kind of instrument do you play ? 

Mr. DAvrosoN. WbII, some people refer to is as the xylophone, but 
it is really the vibraharp. That is the instrument that I play. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have a group of your own ? 

Mr. Davidson. Well, yes. I am sorry to say that we are not getting 
much work because of the fact that we are not very known. But we 
are known around Youngstown. I have a 5-piece combo which con- 
sists of 3 rhythms, base, piano, drums, a tenor-sax player who doubles 
■on flute, and myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you studying music while you were boxing ? 

Mr. Davidson. Yes, I was always interested in music. I was inter- 
ested in studying music before I knew any of these fellows existed. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many fights did you have as a hea\^ weight 
professional ? 

Mr. Davidson. Forty-two professional. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many did you win ? 

Mr. Davidson. I lost 6, won 21 by knockouts, and the rest were deci- 
sions. 

Mr. Kennedy. Twenty-one were knockouts ? 

Mr. Davidson. Yes, 

Mr. Kennedy. How long were you drawing this money on the wel- 
fare fund ? 

Mr. Davidson. Well, from the time that it started in 1952 imtil the 
time that Mr. Brennan and I split as fighter and manager. 

Mr. Kennedy. When was that ? 

Mr. Davidson. In 1954. I can't remember the exact date or what 
month. It was in 1954, but it started in 1952. 

Mr, Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, could I call Mr. Bellino and put the 
figures into the record ? 

The Chairman. It was something near 2 years ? 

Mr. Davidson. Yes, just about. 

The Chairman. I think we have the record here. 

Mr. Bellino, have you examined the records regarding the payment 
of welfare funds from this union to this witness Davidson ? 

Mr. Bellino. We have examined the records which were produced, 
Senator, beginning in 1953, We do not have the records prior to 
1953. 

The Chairman. Well, beginning in 1953, from the time you have the 
records. What date do you begin with ? 

Mr. Bellino. It shows here, starting August 8, 1953, to April 9, 
1954, Embrel Davidson was receiving $75 a week, and during that 
period received a total of $2,475. 

The Chairman. That is for a period of how many months ? 



13470 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Belling. That is from August 1953 to April 1954. It is about 
8 months, approximately. 

The Chairman. Apparently, then, his employment was terminated 
on April 9, 1954 ^ 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Is that about correct, according to your recollec- 
tion ? 

Mr. Davidson. Just about. 

The Chairman. That is about correct. 

Mr. Davidson. Whenever we split as fighter and manager, that is 
when it was over. 

The Chairman. Would that be, according to your judgment, about 
the right time ? 

Mr. DxVviDSON. As much as I can recall, yes. 

The Chairman. Why do we not have the other records prior to that 
date? 

Mr. Belling. As I understand, they are not available. 

The Chairman. You have never been able to procure them ? 

Mr. Belling. A good number of the records of the welfare fund 
prior to 1953 have not been produced. 

The Chairman. Do you remember what time in 1952 you started? 

Mr. Davidson. I had my first fight for Mr. Brennan under the super- 
vision of Mr. Brennan in July. I was in training before that. So it 
started maybe about a month before the fight in July that I had. 

The Chairman. While you were in training, were you receiving 
this $75 a week? 

Mr. Davidson. Yes. 

The Chairman. So it started prior to July 1952 ? 

Mr. DA^'IDSGN. Yes. 

The Chairman. And continued, then, until April 9, 1954 ? 

Mr. DA^^DSGN. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. I would like to ask Mr. Bellino a question. 

From your examination, did you ascertain w-ho has authority to 
pay out money from the welfare fund ? 

Mr. Belling. The trustees are the ones that have the authority. I 
might say in Detroit, there is no question but Mr. Hoffa can tell the 
trustees what to do. 

Senator Curtis. Who are the trustees ? 

]Mr. Belling. Mr. Fitzsimmons, Mr. Holmes, and Mr. Minick. I 
believe there may be another one. Two employers, I think, and two 
union. 

Senator Curtis. Who signs the checks ? 

Mr. Belling. Holmes, I believe, is one. I don't recall the other 
one. I think it is Mr. Minick. 

Senator Curtis. Did you find that the trustees examined the re- 
ceipts and disbursements periodically ? 

Mr. Belling. Well, they have auditors. Just what they do, I do 
not know. 

Senator Curtis. Then do the trusteees have to sign the checks? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

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



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13471 

Senator Curtis. All trustees ? 

Mr. Belling. No. The names I recall offhand are Mr. Minick and 
Mr. Holmes. Mr. Fitzsimmons may have occasion to sign also. 

Senator Curtis. By whom were Mr. Minick and Mr. Holmes and 
Mr. Fitzsimmons nominated ? 

By management ? 

Mr. Bellino. Holmes and Fitzsimmons would be labor and Minick 
w^ould be management. There is another one, but I don't recall his 
name. 

Senator Curtis. Did Minick sign any of these checks to Davidson ? 

Mr. Belling. I believe he did, but I can't say for certain. I 
looked at these checks a long time ago. 

Senator Curtis. Do j^ou have a contract arrangement— — - 

Mr. Belling. I might say on the payroll checks, we never did get 
the payroll checks. This was from the payroll book. We did not 
actually see the payroll checks in this case. 

Senator Curtis. Do you have in your possession the contract be- 
tween management and the union for the setting up of this welfare 
fund and its operation ? 

Mr. Belling. We have copies of the welfare fund plan, with the 
Union Casualty Co. which carries the insurance, sir. 

Senator Curtis. That carries the insurance ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. But the payments made into the fund, are they 
paid direct to the insurance company? 

Mr. Belling. No, the payments are made to a bank and a copy of 
their deposits go to insurance welfare fund office. 

Senator Curtis. Do all of the receipts go then into the insurance ? 

Mr. Belling. The premium payments go to the insurance company. 
Tlie balance is used for administration and added to surplus funds 
of their own. 

Senator Clutis. Who makes the payments into the fund ? 

Mr. Belling. The employers. 

Senator Curtis. Do the employees pay anything ? 

Mr. Belling. Not in tlie welfare fund ; no, sir. 

Senator Curtis. What benefits are provided by the Avelfare fund? 

Mr. Belling. There are various benefits. I couldn't tell you off- 
hand. There are various benefits for the employees as well as de- 
pendents and they vary from time to time. 

Senator Curtis. Health and accident ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Any unemployment benefits ? 

Mr. Belling. I don't think so. 

Senator Curtis. All the money comes from management? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Are audits of that fund ever submitted to the 
payers into the fund ? 

Mr. Belling. They are submitted to the trustees. "\^niether they are 
distributed to all the employers, I do not know. 

Senator Curtis. Who are those two management trustees ? 

Mr. Belling. Mr. Minick is one, and possibly Mr. Hoffa could tell 
us the other one. I don't recall him. 

Senator Curtis. "Wlio is Mr. Minick? 



13472 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Belling. He is connected with the Red Star Transit Co. 
of Detroit. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

The Chairman. As I understand the way this welfare fund is han- 
dled, the employer pays the fund into the union ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And they have a welfare fund. The union, in turn, 
buys the protection from the insurance company, who agrees to meet 
the obligation under the welfare plan. 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Therefore, out of this fund a premium is paid to 
some insurance company who takes the coverage ? 

Mr. Belling. That is right. 

The Chairman. On that basis, what I am trying to ascertain is: 
When w^ould the union ever need to employ a claim investigator in 
that fund, because the responsibility shifts, I think to the insurance 
company that gives the insurance to service the policy. 

Mr. Belling. We have tried to obtain some of the reports submit- 
ted by alleged claim investigators, but we have not seen any. There 
is another one on the payroll also, which may come out later on. In 
that case he was employed directly by Mr. Hoffa, reported only to 
Mr. Hoffa. No reports of any kind went to the welfare fund. 

The Chairman. If I understand the arrangement, and maybe I 
don't, but the insurance company when they pay it a premium, it 
issues a policy by which it undertakes to meet the obligations that the 
welfare plan provides. 

Mr. Belling. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Therefore, it services the plan, using its own claim 
investigators to ascertain whether a false claim is being made ; is that 
not correct ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Davidson, you were hired as a claim investi- 
gator ? 

Mr. Davidson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Were you ever directed to investigate any claim 
whatsoever during the time you drew this money ? 

Mr. Davidsgn. No. 

The Chairman. Did you ever go see the sick ? 

Mr. Davidson. No. 

The Chairman. Did you ever make a report ? 

Mr. Davidsgn. No. 

The Chairman. You did nothing at all for the union, as such? 

Mr. Davidsgn. No. 

The Chairman, You performed no service for the welfare fund 
or the welfare plan ? 

Mr. Davidson. No. 

The Chairman. Such services as you performed were personal to 
Mr. Brennan, around his house and feeding his race horses ? Carry- 
ing the feed out to the racetracks ? 

Mr. Davidson. Yes. 

The Chairman. In other words, that is all of the work you did, 
except your training for your fights ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 



13473 



Mr. Davidson. That is right. 

The Chairman. Did you realize at the time that this money was 
being paid out of funds that had been paid in for the benefit of the 
working people ? 

Mr. Davidson. No, sir; I did not. I did not know where it was 
coming from and I did not inquire. 

The Chairman. You made no inquiry ? 

Mr. Davidson. No, sir. 

The Chairman. But you are positive you did nothing for the union, 
no service connected with the welfare program ? 

Mr. Davidson. No ; I did not. 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. I would like to ask about this, Mr. Bellino. Are 
benefit payments made by the fund in addition to or separate and apart 
from those benefit claims paid by the insurance company. 

Mr. Belling. The only payments that I know about are the insur- 
ance companies. There are on benefits paid out of the fmid directly. 

Senator Curtis. How large is the fund that is in the hands of the 
trustees in addition to their payments to the insurance company ? 

Mr, Bellino. I don't have the figures before me, but my recollection 
goes into the millions. 

Senator Curtis. Then into the millions ? Where do they keep the 
money ? 

Mr. Bellino. Mostly in banks in Detroit. A good deal of it is 
invested, such as the investments that we heard from Mr. Grosberg 
yesterday. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know what the annual or monthly income 
to the welfare fund is, including the amount that is paid to the insur- 
ance company ? 

Mr. Bellino. I could not tell you, offhand. Senator. My records 
are downstairs, and I was not prepared for that. 

The Chairman. The Chair would suggest during the recess, if you 
will pardon me. Senator — during the recess hour, if you can get us 
the approximate figures, get them and submit them and let them go 
into the record at this point. I think that is pertinent information, 
and it may be inserted when he presents it in the record at this point. 

(The information referred to follows :) 

Michigan Conference of Teamsters Welfare Fund 
Summary of em^ployer contributions and payments for group insurance 



Period 



Employer 
contributions 



Payments for 

group 

insurance 



Aug. 31, 1949-Mar. 31, 1950 
Apr. 1, 1950-Mar. 31, 1951.. 
Apr. 1, 1951-Mar. 31, 1952.. 
Apr. 1, 1952-Mar. 31, 1953 . 
Apr. 1, 1953-Mar. 31, 1954.. 
Apr. 1, 1954-Mar. 31, 1955.. 
Apr. 1, 1955-Mar. 31, 1956.. 
Apr. 1, 195&-Mar. 31, 1957.. 

Total.- 



$247, 985. 56 
926, 879. 27 

1, 699, 161. 86 

2, 807, 943. 08 

3, 547, 105. 95 

3, 788, 465. 12 

4, 489, 609. 36 
4, 975, 615. 57 



22, 482, 765. 77 



$110, 970. 68 
784, 828. 85 

1, 496, 706. 70 

2, 407, 867. 75 
2, 924, 394. 73 
3, 184, 534. 41 

3, 707, 923. 58 

4, 489, 871. 33 



19, 107, 098. 03 



13474 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. Who is the insurance carrier? 

Mr. Belling. It is now known as the Northeastern Life Insurance 
Co., I believe. It was Union Casualty, originally, and then it changed 
to ]\Iount Vernon, but it is all the same company. 

Senator Curtis. Where is it located ? 

Mr. Belling. Mount Vernon, N. Y. 

Senator Curtis. Plas that been a company long in existence? 

Mr. Belling. It has been since they obtained the insurance. It 
was not in existence — that is, there was not much to the company be- 
fore they obtained the insurance for the Michigan Conference of 
Teamsters and the Central States, which is another Teamsters. But 
I believe we are going to go into that. Senator, later on, to cover that 
whole phase. 

Senator Curtis. Does Central States have the same company? 

]\Ir. Belling. The same com})any ; yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? 

The ChxVIRman. Senator Ervin. 

Senator Ervin. How many fights did you engage in while Mr. 
Brennan was acting as your manager ? 

Mr. Davidson. I couldn't give you an exact amount, but approxi- 
mately 7 or 8. 

Senator Ervin. How did von and he divide the net profits from 
the fight? 

Mr. Davidson. Well, as I said, we would split 50-50, and he would 
take care of the expenses. 

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

Senator Ervin. Do you know about how much you got in the fights, 
or how much Mr. B'^»n"!T"'s share was of the fights that you fought, 
while he was your manager ? 

Mr. Davidson. The total amount of his ? 

Senator Ervin. Yes. 

Mr. Davidson. No ; I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Approximately how much each fight ? 

Mr. Davidson. There were some fights that I would get say, $250. 
That was around the Motor City Arena. When I fought for the 
State title, I think I got $735. I got 50 percent of that. We had 
agreed that we split that way because of the expenses that were 
paid. 

Senator Ervin. I want to say to you that it is certainly refreshing 
to find a witness whose memory functions and who does not have to 
hide behind the fifth amendment. If the fifth amendment did not 
have a lot of constitutional and legal virility, it would have been 
worn plumb out in the hearings this week. I just want to thank you, 
on behalf of the committee and on behalf of the country, for your 
coming here and making a frank disclosure of the matters within your 
knowledge to this committee. You are to be thanked and commended 
for doing that. 

Mr. Davidson. Well, I would like to say, sir, that the law is some- 
thing that I don't know too much about. You ask me about boxing, 
as far as defending yourself, and I think I am capable of taking care of 
myself. I don't know anything about subpenas, the law, as a lawyer. 
I don't know too much about acquiring counsel. But, as I have said. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13475 

what I say is the truth. I am not trying to involve anybody or liarm 
anybody. ' I don't want anybody to harm me. As far as I can, I am 
going to stand up for myself and protect myself to anyone. 

Senator Ervin. In acting as you have acted, coming and coop- 
erating with the committee, and giving evidence which has all the 
ring of sincerity and truth, you are not only defending yourself, but 
you are assisting in defending the best interests of your country. You 
deserve the thanks of this committee, for so doing. 

The Chairman, Are there any other questions? 

Senator Curtis. Yes; I have a question. 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. Did you perform any fighting, other than in the 
ring and training therefor, for the Teamsters' Union ? 

Mr. Davidson. Any fighting. 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Davidson. Any fight? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Davidson. I have given the honest truth about things. I don't 
consider myself the smartest man in the world and I don't consider 
myself the dumbest man in the world. I think I know just about what 
you are referring to. I had nothing whatsoever to do with many 
strikes or anything that the unions had. I don't even know about 
them. In fact, I don't know anything about any of the unions' busi- 
ness. I had no other fights no more than inside the 4 posts and the 3 
ropes. 

Senator Curtis. Your talents, then, were not used in any strike or 
labor difficulties of any kind ? 

Mr. Davidson. None whatsoever. It was never even mentioned. 

Senator Curtis. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to refer you to the testimony on page 5017, in 
which Mr. Hoffa, when he testified, was asked — and this was last year, 
part 13 — Mr. HofFa was asked : 

Have you been in any other projects with Brennan ? 
Mr. Hoffa. WeU, let's see. Yes, we Iiad a prizefigliter in 1952. 
Question: What was his name? 
Mr. Hofta. Embrel Davidson. 
Question : How long did that last? 

Mr. HoFFA. It says we discontinued in 1955, from 1952 to 1953. 
Question: Davidson? 
Mr. HoFFA. Yes. 

Question: Where did he fight, primarily out of where? 
Mr. HoFFA. Primarily out of Detroit, and wliere else he would go. 
Question : Were some of the Teamster funds used in connection with him at 
all? 

Mr. Hoffa. Not with him. 

The Chairman. You say that isn't true, that they did pay you $75 
a week out of the welfare fund ? 

Mr. Davidson. Just like I said before. I received a check every 
week from the welfare fund. It is filed with the Internal Revenue. 
The fellow that came to see me and talked to me, knew more about me 
than I knew myself. 

In other words, I am saying that to say I am not telling you any- 
thing that you are not already familiar with, that you already don't 
know. 



13476 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. As Senator Ervin lias said, you are not telling us 
anything that we did not know, particularly with respect to records, 
what records show. You have not told us anything in that regard 
that we did not know. 

But it is not only refreshing, it is almost inspiring to have a wit- 
ness come before us, as you have, and say, "I am not smart, nor am I 
dumb. I don't know any law. I just know how to fight." 

But you also know how to tell the truth and you have the courage 
and the good, genuine American system and love of your country to 
come here and tell the truth. 

You are not only a credit to your race, but you are a credit to every 
good citizen in this country who wants law and order and decency. 
You make some of these witnesses who have come up here, who smirk 
behind the fifth amendment, you have made them look like the lack 
of quality that they really are. 

You are to be commended and I commend you highly. I think you 
will find that the American people approve of what you are doing, 
what you have done, and they are earnestly solicitous that others will 
have the same courage and the same honesty and the same integrity 
and the same loyalty to country, and follow your example. 

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

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Senator Kennedy. Did you fight most of the time at the Motor 
City Arena ? 

Mr, Davidson. Well, not most of the time. I fought a large per- 
centage of my fights at Motor City. I fought a total of four fights 
in New York. 

Senator Kennedy. After Mr. Brennan had you, did you fight most 
of the time in the Motor City Arena ? 

Mr. Davidson. At the Motor City Arena, the Fairgrounds. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there any reason? Did you protest about 
fighting in the Motor City Arena ? 

Mr. Davidson. Well, to an extent I was interested, as I say, in 
making some money, making a living. I suppose every prizefighter 
has his dreams on making some money. Mine was to make enough 
money to invest it and eventually get out of the fight game. 

Mr. Kennedy. You weren't making very much fighting there, 
were you ? 

Mr. Da\tdson. No, nobody makes much. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you speak to Brennan about fighting some place 
else other than Motor City Arena ? 

Mr. Da\t:dson. Naturally, I brought it up. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Wliat did he say to you ? 

Mr. Davidson. He said the fellows at Motor City Arena were doing 
a favor to get us back started on the fight game and we owed them a 
favor. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is Finazzo. 

Mr. Davidson. Well, him and everybody else who was concerned. 

Mr, Kennedy. Did he say anything about the amount of money that 
you would make at the Motor City Arena as compared to what you 
would make some place else ? 

Mr, DA^^DS0N, Well, I think it was more so a figure of speech, onl}- 
to the exent that you suppose by chance we could get a fight maybe 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13477 

someplace else for four or five thousand dollars, and if we were asked 
to fight at Motor City for $400 or something like that, that we should 
fight there first because of the fact that they have given us the chance 
could have been the case. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Hoffa or Mr. Brennan speak to you or tell 
you anything about Sam Finazzo, their relationship with Sam^ 
Finazzo? 

Mr. Davidson. No; only Mr. Brennan said once that lie knew Fi- 
nazzo, and he did not think very highly of him. But I suppose he 
went along with him because of the fact that Mr. Brennan, I assume, 
did not have much time to put in in getting me fignts because of his 
job. He had to take care of his fights. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he say anything that he had been on their pay- 
roll at one time and they had gotten rid of him ? 

Mr. Davidson. Well, maybe it was something to that extent. I don't 
know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember the conversation ? 

Mr. Davidson, It was something to the extent that he knew him, 
that maybe he had done some work for him or something. I don't 
know, maybe it was just a 1-day thing. And that he did not think 
too much of him. That is all. 

The Chairman. Is there anything else ? 

Again, you have the thanks of the committee. We appreciate your 
cooperation and the assistance you have given us. 

I think your testimony has clearly indicated that Mr. Hoffa and 
Mr. Brennan owe the welfare fund something in the neighborhood of 
$8,000. I hope the membership will insist that they reimburse the 
fund, with interest, for the money they paid you for doing nothing 
for the union or for the welfare fund. I think that is the very least 
they can do. I think it is a debt that ought to be settled promptly. 

Thank you. 

Thank you very much. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, the next witness we have to request 
that no pictures be taken of him. He is from the Bureau of Narcotics,, 
and the Commissioner of Narcotics has requested that no pictures be 
taken of him. 

The Chairman. That request will be granted. That includes 
movies, television, snapshots, everything else used to make pictures. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. O'Carroll. 

The Chairman. Will you 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 nothing 
but the timth, so help you God ? 

Mr. O'Carroll. I do, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF PATRICK P. O'CAREOLL 

The Chairman. I may say with respect to this order regarding 
pictures that it applies anywhere in this building, while this witness 
is here, and in the approach to it. I think the Senate has that juris- 
diction, certainly, to protect those who appear as witnesses before one. 
of its committees. 

21243— 58— pt. 36 14 



13478 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

That order will stand. Any violation of the appropriate action. 

State your name, your place of residence, and your business or oc- 
cupation. 

Mr. O'Carroll. My name is Patrick P. O'CarroU. I live at 5614 
Hamilton Manor Drive, Hyattsville, Md. I am employed by the 
United States Treasury Department, in the Bureau of Narcotics, as a 
narcotics agent. 

The Chairman. How long have you been in the service ? 

Mr. O'Carroll. Since 1048, sir. 

The Chairman. 1948? 

Mr. O'Carroll. 1948 ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You waive counsel, of course? 

Mr. O'Carroll. Yes, sir. 

The <^HAiR:NrAN. All right, Mr. Kennedy, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. O'Carroll, you have made an examination of 
some of the records of the Bureau of Narcotics prepared by some of 
your agents? 

Mr. O'CxVRROLL. Yes, sir ; I have. 

Mr. Kennedy. And specifically the Bureau of Narcotics had been 
interested in the activities of Mr. Eaffaele Quasarano and Mr. Jimmie 
Finazzo ; is that correct ? 

Mr. O'Carroll. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have some reports dealing with their activi- 
ties in 1952 ? 

Mr. O'Carroll. Yes, sir ; I have. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have those reports with you ? 

Mr. O'Carroll. Yes, sir ; I have. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you give the committee what those reports 
contain ? 

Mr. O'Carroll. I have one report from the Bureau of Narcotics. 
It is a memorandum report from district No. 2 — district No. 2 is the 
territory comprised of New York and part of New Jersey — in the 
Bureau of Narcotics. The general file title is Antonino Battaglia. 
This report was made in New York City on February 11, 1953. 

The report was made by Narcotic Agent K. P. Gross, and the sub- 
ject of the memorandum is an "Investigation of Antonino Battaglia 
and Eaffaele Quasarano, suspected major violators." 

It reads as follows : 

Reference is made to a letter dated January 28, 195.3, from District Super- 
visor Irwin Greenfield, Detroit, Mich., relative to Raffaele Quasarano, sub- 
scriber of TE 1-3877, a Detroit, Mich., telephone number, found in the premises 
leased by Antonino Battaglia, at 451.5 46th Street, Long Island City, Long 
Island, N. Y. Further investigation discloses that Raffaele Quasarano, 830 St. 
Clair Street. Grosse Point, Mich., and Jimmie Finazzo, 781 Lakewood Avenue, 
Detroit, Mich., registered at the Hotel Lexington, New York City, on June 28, 
1952, and checked out on June 29, 1952. 

Toll calls were made as follows : Quasarano. 

These are telephone calls, telephone tolls of Mr. Quasarano from 
the Hotel Lexington. 

He called Tuxedo 1-9258, Detroit, Mich. 

There is no listing on this particular number. 

Tlie next number he called was TR 7-6175. This number is listed 
to the A B & S Sportswear, 176 East 106th Street, New York City, 
which is allegedly operated by Antonino Battaglia. Plaza 5-5900, 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13479 

listed to the Hotel Barclay, 111 East 48tli Street. JU-C)-()400, to be 
reported. IL 7-0580, listed to John Ormento, our international list 
number 253, which is a Bureau list of major suspects, who lives at 
5819 79th Street, Elmhurst, Long Island. It should be noted that 
Ormento was arrested and sentenced in 1951 as reported in special 
enforcement 226. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me interrupt there. John Ormento attended 
the meeting in Apalachin, did he not ? 

Mr. O'Carroll. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he is also a fugitive from justice at the present 
time? 

Mr. O'Carroll. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. On a narcotics charge ? 

Mr. O'Carroll. Eight, sir. 

CI 6-1680, listed to Anthony Vitale, M. D., 7512 12th Avenue, 
Brooklyn, N. Y., identified as Quasarano's brother-in-law. 

We now have toll calls made by Jimmie Finazzo. Peconia, N. Y., 
4-6234, to be reported. CI 6-5000, listed to the Hotel Edison, 47th and 
Broadway, New York City. 

The next paragraph reads — 

It was also learned that Finazzo purchased three railroad tickets to Detroit, 
Mich., for the sum of $11()..31, indieatina: that Quasarauo, Finazzo, and 3 other 
unidentified persons returned to Detroit, Mich. 

The next paragraph reads : 

Raffaele Quasarano a??ain registered at the Hotel Lexington on .July 27, 1952, 
and checked out July 29, 19.52. A person identified as B. Brennan, residing at 
2741 TurnbuU Avenue, Detroit, Mich., accompanied Quasarano and occupied the 
same room. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I would like to interrupt there ; 2741 
Turnbull Avenue in Detroit is the headquarters of the Teamsters. 

Mr. O'Carroll. Toll calls were made as follows : 

Quasarano: AP 7-0433, listed to John Bonaventure, 115 Cleveland 
Street, Brooklyn, N. Y. This office has no record of this person. 

However, a discreet investigation will be made to ascertain the ex- 
tent of his association with Quasarano. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I might interrupt again. This 
Bonaventure was also at Apalachin. 

The Chairman. Is that correct, so far as your knowledge? 

Mr. O'Carroll. I understand that is the same person. 

The Chairman. Do we have that proof? It is already in the 
record ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, sir. 

Mr. O'Carroll. CI 6-5252, listed to the Hotel Forrest, 224 West 
49th Street, New York City ; PL 5-5900, listed to the Hotel Barclay, 
111 East 48th Street, New York City, also called by Quasarano on 
June 28, 1952, from the Hotel Lexington. 

LE 4-4522, listed to Jennie Bra ceo (Battaglia), 225 East 107th 
Street, New York City. Battaglia's wife resided at this address be- 
fore her marriage, and they still maintain the apartment. Battaglia 
has been seen at this location on numerous occasions, and it is believed 
that he conducts his numerous activities at this location. 

CI 6-1680, listed to Anthony Vitale, M. D., 7512 12th Avenue, 
Brooklyn, N. Y. 



13480 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

This man has been identified as Quasarano's brother-in-law. 
CI 6-4398, listed to Michaelangelo Vitale, 1357 85th Street, Brooklyn, 
N. Y. This man has also been identified as a brother-in-law of Kaf- 
faele Quasarano and is not mentioned in the files of this office. 

Coming to the next paragraph, it is calls made by B. Brennan on 
the same date at the Hotel Lexington. 

The CiiAiRMAX. Where is that call made from ? 

Mr. O'Carroll. All calls were made from the Hotel Lexington, 
Senator. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. The point is that they registered at the hotel and 
Qnasarano and Brennan were staying together in the same room ; is 
that correct? 

Mr. O'Carroll. That is correct. 

Mr. Kexnedy. There were certain calls made by Quasarano, and 
now you are going to give tlie calls made by Brennan, 

Mr. Chairman, this was the night before the fight of Mr. Embrel 
Davidson in New York, that he testified about earlier. 

Go ahead. 

Mr. O'Carroll. Calls made by B. Brennan : 

Temple 1-3883, Detroit, Mich. 

Olinville 2-1496, Olinville, N. Y. To be reported. 

CI 6-5252, listed to the Hotel Forrest, 224 West 49th Street, New 
York Citv. Also called by Quasarano on this date. 

PE 6-t895. Listed to'B. Wollman & Sons Co., 352 7th Avenue, 
New York City. This is a retail clothing concern, and is not men- 
tioned in the files of this office. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it correct, and let me interrupt, B. Wollman & 
Sons is the place that is owned by a man called "Hyney the Mink*'? 

Mr. O'Carroll. I don't know, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. We will have some testimony on that man, who is 
now under indictment in connection with fixing fights in New York. 

Mr. O'Carroll. CI 5-8100, listed to Al Weill, International Boxing 
Club, New York City. Also called by Quasarano from his Detroit 
home on December 13, 1952, and December 26, 1952. 

Following are four numbers that were not reported 

Mr. Kennedy. I don't think it is necessary to give those. 

Mr. O'Carroll. The next paragraph is Kaffaele Quasarano again 
checked in at the Hotel Lexington on October 18, 1952, and checked 
out the following day. Toll cals were made as follows : 

CI 6-4239, to be reported. 

AP 7-0433, listed to John Bona ventre, 115 Cleveland Street, Brook- 
lyn, N. Y. This office has no record of this person, but an investigation 
will be made to determine his association with Quasarano. 

CI 6-1680, listed to Quasarano's brother-in-law, Anthony Vitale, 
M. D., 7512 12th Avenue, Brooklyn, N. Y. No record of this person 
in this office. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Finazzo and Mr. Quasarano have been identified 
in connection with the narcotics traffic, have they not, by your agency ? 

Mr. O'Carroll. I understand Mr. Quasarano, and I am not certain 
of Mr. Finazzo. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I think that will be all for this wit- 
ness, and I would like to give a summary of Mr. Finazzo's background 
that we have in addition to that. 

The Chairman. Do you have a witness ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13481 

Mr. Kennedy. One of our staflf investigators. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. O'Carroll. 

If you find the order violated in anyway, you will report it, please. 

TESTIMONY OF PIERRE E. Gt. SALINGER— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Salinger has been sworn. 

Could you tell us, Mr. Salinger, if you have the background infor- 
mation on Mr. Finazzo and Mr. Quasarano ? 

Mr. Salinger. I have. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you give that to us in brief. 

Mr. Salinger. This information is provided to us by several Federal 
agencies, and first with reference to Raffaele Quasarano : Raffaele 
Quasarano was born in Pennsylvania in 1910. As a small infant he 
was taken to Sicily by his mother who had become widowed. He 
returned to the Detroit area on an unknown date, but they can estab- 
lish him in Detroit on March 1, 1931, because that was his first arrest 
there. Mr. Quasarano has been arrested on five occasions. 

Now, according to reports of Narcotics Bureau, Mr. Quasarano has 
l)een active in the narcotics traffic and in March of 1952 he was indicted 
by the Italian Government in absentia as a conspirator in the case 
which involved the shipping of 6 kilograms of heroin to the United 
States. Among the others who were indicted with him at that time 
are three other Detroit figures, Poppa John Prizzola, Paul Comina, 
and Pietro Gardino, and the narcotics were being shipped to them for 
Mr. Giuseppi Chamino of Sicily. 

Following Mr. Quasarano's release from the service — he served in 
the Army for 3 years — he married the daughter of Vito Vitali, who 
is reputedly an internatioi^al gangster, smuggler, and leader of the 
Mafia in Sicily. 

Mr. Kennedy. The father is, you mean ? 

Mr. Salinger. Yes. He became a partner in the operation of the 
Motor City Arena Gymnasium, 4647 Woodward Avenue, Detroit, with 
Sam Finazzo, and Julius Piazzo, and he and his partner promoted 
boxing matches and managed fighters. 

He is known by the Narcotics Bureau to have made a number of 
trips to Italy and Sicily in recent years. He has been connected with 
at least two figures at the Appalachian meeting, and he received tele- 
phone calls from Joseph Barbaro, at whose home the Appalachian 
meeting was held, and he also received telephone calls from John 
Ormento, who is considered a major trafficker of narcotics and cur- 
rently a fugitive from an indictment in the southern district of New 
York, in which Vito Genovese, of Atlantic Highlands, N. J., is a 
codefendant. 

Kaff aele Quasarano is also known as Jimmie Quasarano, and Jimmie 
Queer. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the man that Mr. Brennan was with and in 
whose room Mr. Brennan stayed the night of the fight ; is that right ? 

Mr. Salinger. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Of Mr. Davidson's fight in New York ? 

Mr. Salinger. We have the record here from Nat Fleischer's Ring 
Record Book and Boxing Encyclopedia in 1936, which shows that 
Embrel Davidson fought Charley Riggs, of New York, in New York, 



13482 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

on July 28, which is one of the days he was at the Hotel Lexington 
with Raffaele Quasarano, 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Brennan made several telephone calls while he 
was at the hotel ? 

Mr. Salinger. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was a call to B. Wollman & Son? 

Mr. Salinger. The call was made to B. Wollman & Sons, and this 
is the firm operated by Hymey the Mink Wolman, who is currently 
under indictment in New York for the fixino; of prize fights. 

He also made a call to Al Weill, who at that time was manager of 
Rocky Marciano, and who just last month was barred as a manager 
in the State of California as a result of his association with Frank 
Carbo, who is a notorious underworld figure connected with the fight 
business. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have already had testimony that Mr. Davidson 
and Mr. Finazzo referred to Frankie Carbo as "My boy, Frankie." 

Mr. Salinger. He did. 

AVith reference to Sam Finazzo, he was born in St. Louis, Mo., in 
1908, and he has records with both the FBI and the Detroit Police 
Department, and it is a rather lengthy record, and shows 29 arrests 
and 4 convictions. One of the most significant cases Mr. Finazzo was 
involved in was the murder of James G. Hays, a Cleveland and Toledo 
gambling operator, murdered in Detroit, Mich., on October 4, 1934. 
He was indicted for this murder along with Tony Bate, and the prose- 
cution witnesses against him were Scarface Joe Bomorette and Joe 
Massie, important racket figures in the Detroit area. They refused to 
testify at the trial and were given contempt sentences and sent to jail 
for their refusal and as a result of their refusal, the judge ordered a 
directed verdict of acquittal against Mr. Finazzo and Mr. Bate. We 
have had testimony about Mr. ISIassie and his influence in the Detroit 
area and his operations out of Miami, Fla. 

"Scarface"' Bomorette is still a fugitive from this committee on a 
subpena we have had out for him for a month. 

]Mr. Finazzo was an operator of the Motor City Arena along with 
Quasarano, and Julius Piazzo. 

Mr. Kennedy. We had some testimony last year with reference to 
a man by the name of "Little Sammy." 

Mr. Salinger. We did, and there was a teleplione conversation be- 
tween Anthony Tony "Ducks'' Corallo and Al Reiger, in which they 
discussed a union problem, and it was suggested by Mr. Corallo to Mr. 
Reiger in this telephone conversation, a part of the record of this 
committee, that he contact Mr. Hoffa in Detroit. When Mr. Reiger 
protested he didn't know Mr. HofFa, Mr. Corallo told him to call Mr. 
iHoffa and tell him he was a friend of "Little Sammy," from Detroit. 

INIr. Kennedy. Mr. Finazzo is known as "Little Sammy" ? 

Mr. Salinger. Yes ; he is known as "Little Sammy." 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further? 

Senator Curtis. How many of these individuals referred to by Mr. 
Pat O'Carroll of the Bui-eau of Narcotics, are connected with any 
labor union ? 

Mr. Salinger. How many of the individuals mentioned by Mr. 
O'Cfirroll are connected with labor unions? The only individual is 
Mr. Brennan. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13483 

Senator Curtis. The only one is Mr. Brennan ? 

Mr. Salinger. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. So that we have this wliole situation: From the 
testimony of Mr. Embrel Davidson, we determined that Mr. Finazzo 
and Mr. Brennan were close together ; isn't that correct ? 

Mr. Salinger. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Finazzo and Mr. Quasarano w^ent to New 
York together and registered at the hotel together ? 

Mr. Salinger. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Subsequently, just before Davidson fought, Mr. 
Quasarano, the narcotics figure, and Mr. Brennan, both registered at 
the liotel togetlier, and Mr. Brennan, wliile lie was in New York in 
connection with this matter, made telephone calls to some of the im- 
portant gangsters and hoodlums throughout the United States. 

Mr. Salinger. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. To, namely, "Hymie the Mink''; is that correct? 

Mr. Salinger. Yes. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Mr. Kennedy. And tlie union funds were used to finance the activi- 
ties of Mr. Embrel Davidson during this period of time? 

Mr. Salinger. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Quasarano and Mr. Finazzo. 

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

Mr. Finazzo. I do. 

Mr. Quasarano. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF SAM FINAZZO AND RAFFAELE QUASARANO, ACCOM- 
PANIED BY THEIR COUNSEL, CHRISTOPHER J. MULLE 

The Chairman. Beginning on my left, identify yourself by stating 
your name, your residence, and your place of business, please. 

Mr. Mulle. Mr. Chairman, if I may interrupt at this point. 

The Chairman. I always try to get the witnesses identified, and 
then permit counsel to make statement. 

Mr. Mulle. I appreciate that very much. 

Mr. Chairman, it so happens that Mr. Quasarano is not extremely 
familiar with the English language, and under the tension of the cir- 
cumstances, I am sure that you can agree he would not be able to 
Understand your questions and answer them in the English language 
as readily as he should. Therefore, I am going to ask your kind per- 
mission to be permitted to act as counsel for Mr. Quasarano and also 
to act as, in a sort of way, interpreter, so I can give him the questions 
as presented to him by your honorable committee. 

The Chairman. All right. Are you an attorney ? 

Mr. Mulle. Yes; my name is Christopher Mulle, my address is 
20183 Mack Avenue, Grosse Point Woods, Mich., and I am an attor- 
ney in Detroit, Mich, 

The Chairman. You are licensed under Michigan statute ? 

Mr. Mulle. Yes. 

The Chairman. The Chair is not going to swear you as an inter- 
preter, and we are going to rely upon your standing at the bar and 



13484 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

jour obligation as a lawyer to interpret in such interpretations as you 
make, to interpret them both correctly to the witness and also to the 
•committee. 

Do you feel that you can interpret and you understand his lan- 
guage well enough that you can convey to him the questions and in 
turn interpret his answers to the committee in English ? 

Mr. MuLLE. I feel that I can, Your Honor, and I expressly wish 
to thank you for this courtesy and cooperation. 

The Chairman. I respect your position in the bar, and I will not 
swear you as an interpreter. 

All right, now my question to the witness on my left sitting next 
to you, Mr. Counsel, is please state your name, and your residence, 
and your business or occupation. 

Mr. QuASARANO. My name is Raffaele Quasarano, 190327 Esther 
Williams Court, Grosse Point. 

The Chairman. Your occupation, please, or your business ? 

Mr. Quasarano. My business is mostly barber supplies. 

Mr. MuLLE. He is a partner in the so-called Motor City Barber 
Supply & Beauty Supply Co. 

The Chairman. Now, the one on my right; will you state your 
name, and your place of residence, and your business or occupation. 

Mr. Finazzo. Sam Finazzo, 2502 Newport, and I am in the salvage 
business. 

The Chairman. Thank you. And the attorney here, Mr. Mulle. 

Mr. Mulle. I shall at this point present myself as an attorney for 
Mr. Finazzo. 

The Chairman. All right. You may proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Finazzo, could you tell us when you were born ? 

Mr. Finazzo. 1906. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliere? 

Mr. Finazzo. Italy. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were born in Italy ? 

Mr. Finazzo. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And are you an American citizen now ? 

Mr. Finazzo. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did you get your American citizenship ? 

Mr. Finazzo. Through my father. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlien did you come to the United States ? 

Mr. Finazzo. When I was 4 years old. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now Mr. Finazzo, have you an interest in any boxers 
or professional fightei*s ? 

Mr. Finazzo. I respectfully decline to answer this question and exer- 
cise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States Con- 
stitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Specifically, could you tell me what your relation- 
ship was with Mr. Embrel Davidson ? 

Mr. Finazzo. I respectfully decline to answer this question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. And could you tell us what arrangements you made 
on behalf of Mr. Bert Brennan for Mr. Embrel Davidson ? 

Mr. Finazzo. I respectfully decline to answer this question and 
exercise my privilege imder the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13485 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Mr. Bert Brennan ? 

Mr. FiNAZzo. I respectfully decline to answer this question and exer- 
cise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States Con- 
stitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. Do you know Mr. James Hoff a ? 

Mr. FiNAZzo. I respectfully decline to answer this question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kjjnnedy. Could you tell us how many times you have been 
arrested, Mr. Finazzo ? 

Mr. Finazzo. I respectfully decline to answer this question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us how many times you have been 
convicted ? 

Mr. Finazzo. I respectfully decline to answer this question and 
exercise my privilege not to answer this question. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us why Mr. Bert Brennan and Mr. 
Hoff a would be dealing with you ? 

Mr. Finazzo. I respectfully decline to answer this question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. The testimony that we have had regarding your 
visit to New York ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Finazzo. I respectfully decline to answ^er this question and 
exercise my privelege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask some questions of 
Mr. Quasarano. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Quasarano, could you tell the committee where 
you were born ? 

Mr. Qxtasarano. In Pennsylvania State. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlien did you move to Detroit ? 

Mr. Quasarano. In 1929. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Do you have anything to do with professional fight- 
ing now, Mr. Quasarano ? 

Mr. Mulle. Mr. Chairman, if I may interrupt, at this particular 
point, Mr. Quasarano is going to assert the fifth amendment, and as 
such he is not going to try to be a witness against himself, and as a 
result, he is going to ask to decline to answer these questions. 

The Chairman. We will let him answer it in his language and you 
tell us that that is what he said. 

Mr. Mulle. Very good. 

The Chairman. All right. 

If he doesn't understand the question, you make sure he understands 
it and let tlie witness answer. Here is the thing about it : We can't 
accept the invoking of the fifth amendment by proxy. We are sure he 
intends to do it, but intending to do it doesn't put it on the record. 
Doing it makes it a matter of record. 

Mr. Mulle. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. I merely wanted to 
tell the committee that he was going to do so, and under the circum- 
stances, Mr. Kennedy, would you grant me the courtesy of repeating 
the question. 



13486 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have anything to do with professional 
fighters or professional boxing? 

Mr. QuASARANO (tlirough Mr. MuUe). I respectfully decline to 
answer this question and exercise my privilege under the fifth amend- 
ment of the United States Constitution not to be a witness against 
myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. He can say what he says to you out loud, anyway. 

Mr. MuLLE. Oh, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did he say to you ; will you repeat that ? You 
just interpret it for us, if that is necessary. 

Mr. QuASARANO. I refuse to be a witness. 

The Chairman, The Chair won't hold him to exact language, and if 
he says, ''I refuse to be a witness against myself," that is sufficient in 
his case. The Chair will accept that, if he just says, "I refuse to be a 
witness against myself,'' or "I decline.'' 

I am not trying to belabor this, but after all, we will make a record, 
and you can make a shabby one or you can make one that has some 
meaning. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Quasarano, you have been identified before 
this committee in the hearings we held approximately a month ago 
as a recipient of telephone calls from John Ormento, who is a notorious 
trafficker in narcotics. Could you tell us about that ? 

Mr, Quasarano. I refuse to be a witness against myself. 

Mr, Kennedy. Now, this was just about the time of the meeting 
at Apalacliin. Could you tell us what you know about the meeting 
at Apalachin? 

Mr. Quasarano. I refuse to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Quasarano, we also identified you as a 
recipient of a telephone call from Mr. Joseph Barbara, who was the 
host at the meeting at Apalachin. 

Mr. Quasarano. I refuse to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us what you discussed with him ? 

Mr. Quasarano. I refuse to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were identified here by a Bureau of Narcotics 
representative, about a month ago, as one of the leading traffickers in 
narcotics yourself in the Detroit area. Could you tell us about 
whether you do deal in narcotics? 

Mr. Quasarano. I refuse to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. And whether you import and distribute narcotics 
throughout the United States? 

Mr. Quasarano. I refuse to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell the committee, and t will repeat my 
question, whether you have been in or are now in professional boxing? 

Mr. Quasarano. I refuse to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us or the committee why, with this 
background, Mr. Bert Brennan of the Teamsters' Union would be 
staving with you in New York City ? 

Mr. Quasarano. I refuse to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you also have an interest in Mr. Embrel David- 
son, together with Mr. Brennan and Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. Quasarano. I refuse to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Mr. James Hoffa ? 

Mr. Quasarano. I refuse to be a witness against myself. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13487 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us what you did for Mr. Embrel 
Davidson on behalf of Mr. Hoffa and Mr. Brennan ? 

Mr. QuASAR/VNO. I refuse to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us why Mr. Brennan would be calling 
on the telephone Himey "the Mink" Wollman ? 

Mr. QuASARANO. I refuse to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you present when the telephone call took place ? 

Mr. QuASARANO. I refuse to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us what connection you have had with 
any other Teamster Union officials, in Detroit'? 

Mr. QiTASARANO. I refuse to be a witness against myself. 

INIr. Kennedy. Now, could you tell us what you have had to do 
with the LaSalle Distributors, at 9018 12th Street, in Detroit, Mich? 

Mr. QuASARiVNO. I refuse to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you explain why it was that the Teamsters 
began organizational drive of the LaSalle Distributors, and that they 
then got in touch with you and that the organizational drive was then 
called olf ? 

Mr. QuASARANO. I refuse to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us why the LaSalle Distributors have 
sold over 1,000 watches that have been distributed to union officials? 

Mr. QuASARANO. I refuse to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Does that have anything to do with the organiza- 
tional drive of the Teamsters being called off? 

Mr. QuASARANO. I refuse to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have nothing to say about that, Mr. Quasarano ? 

Mr. QuASARANO. I refuse to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you a labor management consultant? 

Mr. QuASAR.\NO. I refuse to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that why employers would come to you to consult 
about their labor problems ? 

(Witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. QuASARANO. I refuse to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you tell us anything about your relationship 
with Mr. Hoffa, Mr. Brennan, or other Teamster officials ? 

Mr. QuASARANO. I refuse to be a w^itness against myself. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

These two witnesses will remain under their present subpena sub- 
ject to being recalled by the committee for further interrogation. 

Will you acknowledge that recognizance ? 

Mr. MuELE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I plead ignorance at this point, 
and I would like to ask a question. Does that mean that they have to 
stay within the jurisdiction of Washington? 

The Chairman. No, just stay within the jurisdiction of the United 
States, and should we need them again, I don't want to have to go 
through the process of subpenaing them. Upon their accepting this 
recognizance it will not be necessary to do so, and they would be ex- 
pected to return upon reasonable notice to them of the time and place 
where the committee desires to hear them. 

Would you give your address? I don't know whether you did or 
not. 

Mr. MuLLE. My address is 20183 Mack Avenue, Grosse Point Woods, 
Mich. That is my office address. 



13488 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. All right, if there is nothing further, I think that 
you are excused. You may stand aside. 
Mr. Brennan, will you come around, please? 

TESTIMONY OF OWEN B. BRENNAN, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
COUNSEL, GEORGE FITZGERALD— Resumed 

The Chairman. Mr. Brennan, you have been previously sworn, and 
will you just have a seat ? You will remain under the same oath, and 
proceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell the committee, Mr. Brennan, about 
your relationship with Embrel Davidson? 

The Chairman. Let the record show Mr. Fitzgerald appears also 
as counsel. 

Mr. Brennan. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. IvENNEDT. Would you tell the committee why you as a teamster 
official and recently made vice president of the International Brother- 
hood of Teamsters would be dealing with Mr. Quasarano and Mr. 
Finazzo ? 

Mr. Brennan. I respectfully decline to answer the question, and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to tea witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know when you were working with Mr. 
Finazzo he had been arrested some 26 times ? 

Mr. Brennan. I respectfully decline to answer the question, and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. When you stayed with Mr. Quasarano in New York 
did you know he was one of the major traffickers in narcotics in the 
United States ? 

Mr. Brennan. I respectfully decline to answer the question, and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell the committee why you put Embrel 
Davidson on the payroll of the welfare fund where he did no work on 
behalf of the welfare fund ? 

Mr. Brennan. I respectfully decline to answer the question, and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. According to the testimony we have had, the only 
work he did was training for his fights and some work that he did 
at your home ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Brennan. I respectfully decline to answer the question, and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. You used him to feed your horses: is that correct? 

Mr. Brennan. I respectfully decline to answer the question, and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you consider that the money of the welfare fund 
and the union are to be used by you and Mr. Hoffa for whatever pur- 
pose you see fit to help you and your friends ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13489 

Mr. Brennan. I respectfully decline to answer the questions, and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. And these funds should be used to help you and 
help Mr. George Fitzgerald and help Mr. Herbert Grosberg, is that 
the purpose of the fund ? 

Mr. Brennan. I respectfully decline to answer the questions, and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you feel that it is an advantage to have someone 
around you working for the Teamsters or be working with someone 
who lias a criminal record, Mr. Brennan ? 

Mr. Brennan. I respectfully decline to answer the questions, and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. I have something I want to show Mr. Brennan. 

Senator Mundt. When you made this trip to New York City with 
Mr. Quasarano to attend the prize fights, did you charge your expenses 
to the Teamsters Union, or did you pay for those expenses yourself? 

Mr. Brennan. I respectfully decline to answer the question, and ex- 
ercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Senator Mundt. Not being a lawyer, could you explain to me how 
answering that question by saying, "I paid those expenses myself, 
could incriminate you ? 

Mr. Brennan. AVell sir, without getting into the area of losing my 
privileges, I understand and have been advised by my attorneys that 
answermg any question w^ould lose me my privileges. Under those 
circumstances naturally I have to decline to answer any of the questions 
regardless of how they are put with an unlimited imagination. So I 
have to respectfully decline to answer the question, and exercise my 
privileges under the fifth amendment, sir, of the United States Con- 
stitution. 

Senator Mundt. Could you have your attorney tell you, so that 
you could tell me, the precedent for this decision that you say he men- 
tioned to you; that, by answering one question, you would lose all 
immunity ? 

(Witness consulted with counsel.) 

Mr. Fitzgerald. May I address the Chair ? 

The Chairman. Yes ; you may. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I will answer Senator Mundt. I don't believe 
Senator Mundt is a lawyer, are you ? 

Senator Mundt. I said I was not. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I wasn't sure. Well, there is a confusion in the 
law or case law on the question of this fifth amendment, and there is 
a very serious question among lawyers who have very closely analyzed 
the Supreme Court decisions on the subject regarding a witness when 
he exercises his privilege, when he can draw a line of demarcation be- 
tween what he should and what he can't answ^er without waiving his 
privilege. Now, that has been the subject of some very learned 
treatises by Dean Griswold, of Harvard, and other writers. The 
feeling among lawyers, if I may just finish 

Senator Mundt. I am aware there have been a lot of treatises, and 
there are a lot of learned people who have pontificated on the subject, 



13490 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

and my question tliroiioh Mr. Brennan to you, and I would just as 
soon ask it to 3'OU directly, is whether or not there is a Supreme Court 
decision which holds that to answer one question waives immunity 
for all? 

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

Mr. Fitzgerald. There are Supreme Court decisions which hold 
that, if a person answers the hrst in a chain of questions, it may 
constitute a waiver of his privileg'e that he has already asserted. We 
are proceeding on that theory. That is the only way I can advise 
Mr. Brennan at the present time, in view of the situation on the case 
law. 

Senator Mundt. Inasmuch as the whole area of Supreme Court 
jurisdiction is a matter presently before the Senate of the United 
States, and inasmuch as legislation has come from the Judiciary 
Committee of the Senate trying to clarify the position of Congress 
from the standpoint of its ability to elicit information from witnesses 
and to cite witnesses for contempt, if you have, as you say you have, 
a decision or a series of decisions, upon which you now base your 
advice to the witness that he cannot answer one question witliout 
waiving immunity to all, would you be good enougli to prepare a 
short statement or a brief to put into the record at this point, listing 
those cases and designating them I 

Mr, Fitzgerald. Well, I will do it, but I am not going to do it 
right now. I can't. 

Senator Mundt. I mean for the record. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I will be very happy. I furnished a lot of other 
things to the counsel, and I will be very happy to do that, also. 

Senator jMundt. This is an important point. If your fear is based, 
in fact, it would certainly imply tliat something the Supreme Court 
had done had stultified entirely the capacity of the people of America, 
acting through Congress, to get the information required in a situa- 
tion like this to legislate properly. For that reason, I would like 
to have you list those, so that we can analyze them. You may be 
correct. I don't know. But at least I want something more than 
just a treatise by a learned lawyer on which to base this disclaimer 
now being utilized by your witness. 

]Mr. Fitzgerald. As soon as I have the opportunity, Senator, I 
will be glad to furnish that to you and anyone else who is interested. 

The Chairman. This should properly be made an exhibit. You 
could write indefinitely on this. You could write almost a book on 
it, I suppose. 

Senator Mundt. I am not asking, Mr. Chairman, for Mr. Fitz- 
gerald's opinion. I am asking if he would be good enough, because 
he has obviously made a study of this in preparing for these hearings, 
to list the precedents and the cases, so that we can have them definitely 
before us. 

The Chairman. Mr. Fitzgerald, if you will simply submit citations, 
there would be no objection to them going into the record at this 
point. But I did not want to open u\) the record to a long disserta- 
tion. 

Senator Mundt. No; I was not asking this, that he do it, and 
I would not be interested in having; Dean Griswold's treatise or 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13491 

Fitzgerald's treatise. I want the citations. Any comment you wish 
to make, of course, you are privileged to make. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you. 

(The document referred to was requested several times and never 
received. 

The Chairman. Mr. Brennan, you and Mr. Hoffa, according to his 
testimony, had an interest in this fighter, Davidson. Mr. Ploffa so 
testified previously. Mr. Davidson has come on the stand and testi- 
fied that, during the time he was under your management as a fighter, 
he received $75 a week from the welfare fund of the union; that he 
did no work for the union. The only thing he did was train and, 
occasionally, do some personal work for you. 

In round numbers, according to the records, according to his testi- 
mony, there was expended out of the welfare fund of the union 
approximately $8,000, a little more or a little less, during nearly a 
2-year period of time, as payments to him, weekly payments, $75 a 
week, for performing no services for the union or for the welfare 
fund. Do you feel that you should reimburse the welfare fund of 
your members for the money that was so expended with your approval 
and with your knowledge ? 

Mr. Brennan. I respectfully decline to answer the question, and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Do you intend now to pay this money back to the 
welfare fund? 

Mr. Brennan. I respectfully decline to answer the question, and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Do you regard and w^ll you concede that such 
action, if you do not make restitution, constitutes embezzlement, and 
embezzlement, as you know, is a form of theft ? 

Mr. Brennan. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

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

The Chairman. I am very hopeful that the monitors appointed by 
the court, a part of whose duty, I understood, was to supervise the 
cleanup of the Teamsters Union, the corruption in it, ancl other im- 
proper practices, that they will make some expression about this, and 
if they have it within their power, that they will try to see that this 
welfare fund is reimbursed by you and Mr. Hoffa for the money you 
took out of it, for any legal purposes so far as the union is concerned 
in the welfare fund, and for your own personal gain and profit so far 
as you and Mr, Hoffa are concerned. I am hopeful they will do that. 

In the meantime, I hand you a photograph and ask you to examine 
it. State if you can identify any person in it. 

(The photograph handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with counsel.) 

Mr. Brennan. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Look at No. 50083. See if you recognize him. 



13492 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Brennan. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. As you look at it, can you not imagine yourself 
looking in a mirror ? 

Mr. Brennan. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Name some of the buddies there with you. 

Mr. Brennan. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Senator Mundt. Yes. I would like to know who the buddies are. 
Perhaps somebody from the staff can tell us who is in the picture. 

The Chairman. The picture will be made exhibit No. 8. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 8" for 
reference and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. Now you may interrogate him about it. 

Senator Mundt. There is no use to interrogate him, but somebody 
else might be able to identify them. I think we should have them in 
the record by name. 

The Chairman. Mr. Bellino. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Bellino, may I ask you to identify the other 
individuals in the picture insofar as you are able to do so ? 

The Chairman. I may say, Senator, they are all identified on the 
picture. 

Mr. Bellino. This is a photograph obtained from the Detroit police. 
It is called Truck Bombers. 

Tlie names are from the left : Raffaele Bennett, Samuel Hurst, Rus- 
sell Gregory, Bernard Brennan, Eugene Schnitzler, George King, 
Harry Apers, and John Floria. 

Senator Mundt. You do know Bernard Brennan ; do you not ? 

Mr. Brennan. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Senator Mundt. Have you any information about these people 
whose names you read other than the fact that they were bombing 
trucks ? 

Mr. Bellino. We have information in our files. We could get it, 
Senator. 

Senator Mundt. I think it would be well, if you can, now that 
you have put the names into the record, to insert the information 
describing them a little bit more adequately. 

My. Kennedy. We think we have some information about several 
of them. Mr. Bennett — wasn't he a Teamster official? 

Mr. Bellino. Mr. Bennett was a Teamster official. I believe he was 
top man before Mr. Hoffa, if he is the correct one that I recall. 

Samuel Hurst is a Teamster official. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Bellino, is that the same Mr. Bennett whose 
name was brought into the hearings previously involving some kind 
of a fight in Detroit ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That was Harry Bennett. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13493 

Mr. Belling. Harry Bennett from the Ford Co, 

Senator Mundt. A different Bennett. 

Mr. Kennedy. Don't the records sliow that Mr. Brennan liad been 
arrested about 3 times or approximately 3 times, during this period 
of time 1935-36, in connection with bombing trvicks and places of 
business ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there an organized group that was going 
around bombing people, homes, buildings, truck establislunents, and 
companies, Mr. Brennan ? 

Mr. Brennan. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United 
States Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you a member of that group, Mr. Brennan? 

Mr. Brennan. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
exercise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

The Chair will make this observation before we recess: With the 
approval of the committee, I shall direct that the transcript of these 
hearings this morning, particularly, and the record, if it has not 
already gone to the Justice Department, of Mr. Hoffa's testimony 
when he appeared before the committee before, be referred to the 
Justice Department for ascertaining who has committed perjury. 

Definitely there is such a conflict of testimony here that there could 
hardly be any mismiderstanding. ]\Ir. Hoffa testified that no union 
funds went to pay this prizefighter. 

Now he comes on this morning and says that he was paid $75 a 
week out of welfare funds; that he did no work. Of course, if he 
did no work, Mr. Hoffa and Mr. Brennan definitely knew about it. 
The records, in part, as far as we have been able to get the records, 
further corroborate and substantiate the testimony of Mr. Davidson. 
Again, it gives us concern, very deep concern, about our work here as 
we try to get the truth. We run into, as I stated, and as everyone 
has observed, the fifth-amendment device being used and being im- 
properly used, in my judgment, to prevent or to escape giving testi- 
mony against others, not self-incriminating testimony. 

Then we run into these conflicts of testimony where somebody is 
imposing on this committee and on their Government by committing 
perjury. 

This committee has no authority to prosecute; it can only expose. 
But there are other agencies of Government who have a duty to per- 
form after this committee has performed its function. 

I think this record should go there immediately. Again I express 
the hope that the monitors will exercise such power as they have in 
the court, to see that these funds are replaced, this money is replaced 
in the fund, from which it came, for the benefit of the workers of the 
Teamsters Union, for whose welfare it was paid into that fund by 
employers. 

Senator Ives. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman, I think there is a possible conflict in 
Mr. Hoffa's own testimony. As I recall, and I have not checked the 
record in this respect, though it ought to be checked, the day before 

21243—58 — pt. 36 15 



13494 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

yesterday Mr, Hoffa testified that he did not have authority to inter- 
cede in local contracting negotiations; whereas yesterday he says he 
stopped a number of strikes. 

There is possibly no conflict there at all, and possibly there is. I 
think that matter ought to be checked. 

The Chairman. Of course, wherever there is conflict the testimony 
is whether there is Avillful falsehood. Sometimes language may be 
susceptible of different interpretations. But again we have such a 
conflict here that you cannot dissolve it, as I see it, where both were 
telling the truth. Either Davidson has perjured himself or Mr. Hoffa. 
did not tell the truth when he testified before. I said a moment ago 
all this committee can do is expose. I just used that in relation to a 
prosecution. 

Of course, this committee's primary function is to expose these 
evils, develop the information, so that Congress can legislate to remedy, 
to prohibit, and to regulate or direct. 

As I repeatedly stated, there is no doubt in anyone's mind that the 
disclosures that have been made in the course of these hearings cry 
out for legislation in many areas so as to give protection to the work- 
ing people of this country and so as to protect our society and our 
economy from the character assaults being made upon it in some 
instances. 

Senator Kennedy. 

Senator Kennedy. I hope that the monitors will examine their 
authority to see whether they could take action with regard to Mr. 
Brennan, not only because of his refusal to give the committee infor- 
mation to which I believe it is entitled, but also because of his associa- 
tion with gangsters and criminals; particularly in view of his position 
of authority within the Teamster organization at the present time 
as one of the chief officers in charge of the whole Teamster Union in 
the United States. He is the seventh international vice president. 

In view of his disregard for the responsibility of the union funds, 
his tieup with criminals and gangsters, his gambling, which he re- 
fused to give us very much information about, but which must have 
been considerable if Mr. Hoffa is telling us the truth, I would think 
that his position should certainly be studied by the monitors as to 
whether he should not be removed. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

If not, the committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. 

(Whereupon, at 12 : 35 p. m. a recess was taken until 2 p. m. of the 
same day, with the following members present : Senators McClellan, 
Ives, Kennedy, Mundt.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 
(Members of the select committee present at this point: Senators 
McClellan, Ives, and Curtis.) 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy, call the next witness. 
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa. Mr. James Hoffa. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13495 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES E. HOFEA, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
EDWAED BENNETT WILLIAMS, GEOEGE EITZGEEALD, AND 
DAVID PEEVIANT— Eesumed 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr, Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Holi'a, are you planning to take steps to reim- 
burse the union for the money that was used from the pension and wel- 
fare fund for Mr. Embrel Davidson ? 

Mr. Williams. Before we begin the interrogation of the witness, 
Mr. Chairman, may I say for the record that this morning I was called 
at 9 : 35 a. m. by one of your stall' members, Mr. Paul Tierney, and he 
told me that Mr. Kennedy had asked him to call me to advise me that 
]\Ir. Hoffa's presence would not be required during the morning ses- 
sion, but that it would be required during the afternoon. I told Mr. 
Tierney tliat this did not meet the thrust of the objection which I 
had lodged with the Chair yesterday morning, in which I complained 
about putting the witness on and then having him stand aside for 
rebuttal testimony, and then recalling him. 

I want to renew my objection, ]\Ir. Chairman, and point out for the 
purpose of the record that at the direction of the connnittee, we were 
here present throughout yesterday afternoon, altliough the witness was 
not called to the stand to testify yesterday afternoon. We did come 
here voluntarily this morning, because I felt that if testimony was 
going in which the witness Vv'ould be required to respond to, immedi- 
ately, this afternoon, that he should have the benefit of hearing it, 
since the record would not be prepared in time for him to read it. 

So I must renew my objection, Mr. Chairman, the same objection 
that I made yesterday, wherein I said to the Chair that the calling and 
recalling of this witness for an hour or an hour and a half a day with 
rebuttal witnesses placed in juxtaposition to him, constitutes a legisla- 
tive trial, in which he is not given a right to cross-examine the adverse 
witnesses against him. I would like that objection renewed. 

I again ask the Chair to allow the witness to testify through to a 
conclusion, or to excuse him until the end of all the other testimony, 
and allow him to return and testify through to a conclusion without 
these interruptions. 

The Chairman. The objections, I believe, are the same as you inter- 
posed yesterday, upon which the Chair made a ruling after an execu- 
tive session of the committee. 

I may repeat that we do not order or direct Mr. Hoffa to remain 
present at all times during the taking of testimony. 

But as I stated yesterday, the committee felt that as it somewhat 
concludes each phase of the case, Mr. Hoffa should be given the op- 
portunity to comment upon it, and be interrogated about it. Insofar 
as we can, as I said yesterday, we are going to permit Mr. Hoffa to be 
absent, if he desires to do so, to continue with his own enterprises, 
whatever his pleasure is. But, as the Chair said yesterday, from time 
to time he will be called in the course of these hearings, and he should 
stay available for response to the committee's calling. We have just 



13496 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

concluded one part of these hearings, and I think pretty serious testi- 
mony has been given, as I indicated this morning. There have been 
a number of witnesses on the stand since Mr. Hoffa appeared, and 
there are some questions that we have to ask him about these matters. 

He should be given, I think — and I don't know what is so disturbing 
about this — given the opportunity to answer or refute charges that 
are made. 

The principal complaint that the Chair agreed with you on yester- 
day, is that part of your objection to the committee which I thought 
you were right about, instead of putting him on and then immediately 
putting on the witnesses where he hadn't had the opportunity to hear 
them before we interrogate him, and question him about it, I think 
there was some validity in that objection. 

But to say that you object to us putting liim on after he has heard 
the testimony with respect to some activities of his, until we get through 
here 2 or 3 weeks later and then putting him on, I don't see any validity 
in that. 

To tell you the truth, it seems to me that in this way he is given the 
opportunity, almost simultaneously witli the development of this in- 
formation, given the opportunity to get his version in the record along 
with that that may have been testified to by other witnesses. I just 
don't see the validity of it. I know in the past when we didn't give the 
opportunity to witnesses who came up here, we were criticized for not 
doing it. 

]Mr. Williams. One of the bases, if I may state, Mr. Chairman, of 
my objection yesterday, was that it requires the witness to remain here 
present for several weeks in order to give several hours of testimony. 
I think this is a harrassment, and I said this to you yesterday, because 
I must advise this witness, as I did this morning, after I received Mr. 
Tierney's call, I must advise him in his own interest to be here present 
when testimony of the character that went in this morning is being of- 
fered. I think he must be here present in the interest of self-preserva- 
tion when that kind of testimony goes in, so that he may hear it and 
then respond to it, unless he were given the opportunity, sir, to read the 
record before being interrogated on this subject. 

The only way that I knew of, and I suggested this to the Chair yes- 
terday, wherein this end could be accomplished, would be to allow him 
to come in and testify after all of the so-called adverse witnesses have 
concluded their testimony, and when he has had an opportunity to 
read the evidence that has been offered here against him.. 

So I say, Mr. Chairman, that it does not meet the real thrust of my 
objection, which is that he is being required to remain here, really 
out of self-preservation, throughout the life of an investigation in or- 
der that he may give only several hours or several days testimony. 

I say, Mr. Chairman, most respectfully to you, sir, that I believe 
that this constitutes a legislative trial in which he is the defendant, 
and that the sole concession that was made by the ruling of the Chair 
is that the defendant, who is on trial, maj^ be absent, when, of course, 
his absence would be the most detrimental and harmful thing to him 
if he is to defend himself and his reputation before this committee. 

I again implore you, Mr. Chairman, to reconsider the objection that 
I lodged yesterday, and I urge you most respectfully to allow this 
witness, either to testify through to a conclusion, or to return here at 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13497 

the end of this inquiry and testify with continuity instead of being 
put on the stand for an hour a day and then pulled off the stand while 
witnesses testify in juxtaposition to his testimony on each given sub- 
ject. 

The Chairman , Mr. Williams, of course, I can appreciate that your 
client may need to be present most any time during the course of these 
hearings. I am not going to require him to be present, except at such 
times as we may desire to interrogate him. But I know you realize 
we are dealing with some pretty serious matters, serious from the 
standpoint of this Congress and the American people. I want this 
record to be as clear and concise as it can be made, and made fairly 
to all parties, under oath. I am trying to keep this record as much 
under oath as it is possible to do. 

Occasionally some remark or statement get in. I have repeatedly 
said such statements are not evidence. They may be stated as the 
basis upon which to predicate a question, if we have information to 
that effect, but not as evidence. 

We are going to proceed this afternoon. Insofar as the Chair and 
committee can grant your request with respect to not placing Mr. 
Hott'a on tlie witness stand any more often than we feel is necessary 
to the proper functioning of the committee, we will grant the request. 
But as I advised yesterday, we would try to wind up a phase of the 
testimou}^, and when we felt that was completed, then Mr. Hoffa would 
be called, given the opportunity to explain or refute. 

I did agree, and I think you were right about it, that instead of 
putting Mr. Hoft'a on and asking him a few questions about something 
where testimony had not been developed, and then developing the 
testimony, I thought possibly you wei-e right about it. But that is 
going to be the ruling of the Chair, and we are going to proceed 
accordingly. 

But I can see no valid objection whatsoever, as we conclude one 
hearing or one phase of this particular series of hearings, for Mr. 
Hoff'a to be given an opportunity to testify, and the committee will 
want him to do so. 

I shall undertake, however, not to do that any more often than the 
committee feels that it should be done that way. 

Your judgment and your advice will prevail, I am sure, with Mr. 
Hoffa as to whether he remains here at all times. The committee will 
not impose that requirement on him, of course. 

But I think when testimony like that is being presented, being de- 
veloped here, I think he should want to be present. 

We will proceed. 

Mr. Wii^iAMS. Mr. Chairman, for the record, and I will state this 
in 10 seconds, may it be understood that the witness' continued pres- 
ence here as of now is not a waiver of the objection that I have made 
yesterday and today. 

The Chairman. No, sir. I would not so construe it. His presence 
here is by direction of the committee, and there is no waiver of any 
right that counsel seeks to protect for him. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, are you going to reimburse the welfare 
fund for the services of Mr. Embrel Davidson ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Mr. Chairman, may I consult with my lawyer ? 



13498 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Yes, sir. 

(The witness conferred with his counseL) 

Mr. HoFFA. In listening to testimony this morning, I can state to 
the Chair and to the record, that any money that was paid to Davidson, 
which I had no knowledge of, if it had any part of the fighting, fight 
promotion, which I was a partner of Brennan of, I firmly believe the 
money should be immediately returned to the health and welfare fund. 

Mr. Kennedy. Therefore, you will take steps to return your por- 
tion of that money ? 

Mr. HoFFA. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Davidson said you were present at the time the 
arrangements were made to place him on the payroll. Were you 
present at that meeting with Mr. Davidson ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I have met Davidson in the office. I don't rex^all any 
such discussion. It may have been in the office. It is a large office. 
I may have been busy on the phone, or something else. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't remember ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I do not recall any conversation as such. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know at all that Mr. Davidson was on the 
payroll, Mr. Hoff a? 

Mr. HoFFA. I do not know exactly who is on the payroll of the wel- 
fare fund from time to time, and I did not know that Mr. Davidson 
was on the fund. To the best of my knowledge, it may have been 
brought to my attention — I don't know — but I don't recall him ever 
being on the fund. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't remember that at all ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I don't. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you don't remember being present at the time 
that he was placed on the payroll of the pension fund; is that right? 

Mr. HoFFA. I say that I may have been in the office, but I may have 
been occupied doing something else. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't have any recollection about this at all? 

Mr. HoFFA. I don't recall it. 

Mr, Kennedy. You don't recall it ? 

Mr. HoFFA. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you taken steps to place anybody else on the 
payroll of the fund, pension fund ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Are you talking about employees ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. HoFFA. I may have from time to time recommended somebody 
for a position. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Who else have you placed on that? 

Mr. HoFFA. I can't tell you at this moment. It isn't of that much 
importance to remember the names. 

Mr. Kennedy. It might not be important to you, but it is important 
to us. Could you tell us who else you placed on the payroll ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Offhand, I can't recall, and I can't even recall who is on 
the payroll. 

Mr. Kennedy. You can't remember anybody ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I know some on the payroll. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just give us the names of some of the people that 
you recommended be j^laced on the payroll. 

Mr. HoFFA. Well, that I can't do. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13499 

Mr. Kennedy, Why not? 

Mr. HoFFA. Because I don't recall who I may have recommended, 
and it may have been brought to my attention by somebody else, and 
they may have asked my opinion, and I may have made a comment 
about it, but I just don't remember. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. DeLamalier, did you take steps to put him on 
the payroll ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Yes, I think that I recommended DeLamalier. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now that I refreshed your recollection, you remem- 
ber that ? 

Mr. HoFTA. I recommended DeLamalier, 

Mr. Kennedy. What is his role on the payroll, and what does he 
do? 

Mr, HoFFA, He is an investigator. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who does he investigate, Mr. HofFa? 

Mr. HoFFA. Wliatever the fund has him do. 

Mr, Kennedy. Do you give him instructions to investigate anvone, 
Mr.Hoifa? 

Mr. HoFFA. Just a moment, please. 

(Witness consulted with counsel.) 

Mr. HoFFA. I would think that being a participant in a fund, and 
if I requested them to do something, he would carry out the orders. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you have him investigate certain things that you 
are interested in ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I would, if I thought it was necessary. 

Mr, Kennedy, Do you have him investigate only in the interests 
of the fund? 

Mr. HoFFA. Not necessarily. 

Mr. Kennedy. Some of the matters that you are personally in- 
terested in ? 

Mr. HoFFA. He could investigate anything I asked him to. 

Mr. Kennedy. So he does that, and if there are any personal 
charges against you, for instance, any criminal charges against you, 
Mr. DeLamalier is often called upon to investigate that, is that right? 

Mr. HoFFA. DeLamalier would investigate what he was told to 
investigate. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he can be told by you, is that right ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I could suggest it, yes. 

Mr, Kennedy. And he is paid by welfare fund? 

Mr. HoFFA. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. "\Yliat about Mr. Patrick ? 

Mr, HoFFA, Wl-io is that ? 

Mr, Kennedy, Mr, Patrick. 

Mr. H^FFA. Mr. Patrick is an old man and he is on the payroll of 
the welfare fund and he is very ill. and he does have little work but 
occasionally I understand he does do some investigation, and I don't 
know how much. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you give him instructions to do any investi- 
gations ? 

^ Mr. HoFFA, I may have asked Pat to do something from time to 
time, 

Mr, Kennedy, Is this always to deal with the welfare fund ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Not necessarily, no. 



13500 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr, Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, do you consider these welfare funds as 
funds that you can use for your own personal purposes, to put people 
on the payroll ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I believe that the trustees of the fund have the final word 
in the operation of the fund, but I reserve the right, being a participant 
in the fund to make recommendations from time to time, and also since 
individuals who are working there I know, I wouldn't hesitate to ask 
them to do things outside of the fund. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you consider that this is a payroll that is available 
in case you want to place someone on there to do some work for you 
personally, is that right ? 

Mr. PIoFFA. I do not consider any such thing. 

Mr. Kennedy. You placed Mr. DeLamalier on there, on your recom- 
mendation, and he does personal investigations for you. 

Mr. HoFFA. Mr. DeLamalier primarily works for the welfare fund, 
but I reserve the right and I have asked him from time to time to make 
investigations for me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well ; there is one individual that has been placed on 
the payroll, and he does personal investigations for you. What was 
Mr, DeLamalier's position prior to the time that he was placed on the 
payroll ? 

Mr. PIoFFA. DeLamalier was, I believe, and I don't want to get held 
to this, I believe DeLamalier was on the payroll of the insurance fund 
for local 876. I am quite sure that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is that, the Retail Clerks ? 

Mr, HoFFA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that the Retail Clerks in your own headquar- 
ters? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you take steps or did you recommend him for 
that position ? 

Mr. HoFFA, Yes, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. For his position with the Retail Clerks ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Yes, sir ; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where did he work prior to that time ? 

Mr, HoFFA. Detroit Police Department. 

Mr. Kennedy. And 

Mr. HoFFA. Just a moment, he didn't work for the Detroit Police 
Department immediately prior to going on there, and he had retired, 
and he had been in other business, and I think running a bar and I 
don't know what else he did, and I think selling some real estate. But 
primarily and principally his occupation had been during his life 
a police officer. 

Mr. Kennedy. Charges had been made against him just prior to his 
resignation from the police department? 

Mr. Hoffa. There had been some statements, and I don't believe 
that the trial board found him guilty. 

Mr. Kennedy. But he was requested to resign, was he ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I wouldn't know that, and I don't believe it is true, but 
I wouldn't want to state yes or no. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who defended him before the trial board, the police 
department ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Just a moment, and I can find out for you. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13501 

(Witness consulted with counsel.) 

Mr. HoFFA. George Fitzgerald. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that during the period of time that he was 
supposed to be investigating or in charge of the investigation of the 
shooting of Walter Reuther ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I believe that was one of his assignments. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the charge was that he had close relationship 
with Mr. Santo Perrone, one of those who was alleged to be responsible 
for the shooting of Walter Reuther. 

Mr. HoFFA. I am not familiar with the charges enough to be able 
to discuss those with you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Does that sound reasonably correct, though, Mr. 
Hoffa? 

Mr. HoFFA. I would rather not discuss something I am not positive 
about, after what happened here this morning. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Hoffa, are you going to take any steps 
against Mr. Owen Bert Brennan for his role in this situation ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Mr. Brennan will be requested to refund any moneys 
concerning Davidson. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all ? 

Mr. Hoffa. And the other charges will be discussed. 

Mr. Kennedy, Well, you were here while the testimony developed, 
and are you going to take some steps against Mr. Brennan yourself, 
as international president of the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I will discuss that. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all you are going to say ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is all I am going to say. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you going to make any recommendation that 
charges be made against Mr. Brennan ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I will discuss the question and make my own decision, 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know Mr. Finazza yourself? 

Mr. Hoffa. I know Sam Finazza. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you known Sam Finazza ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Probably 10 or more years. 

Mr. Kennedy. How about Quasarano? 

Mr. Hoffa. I know Jimmy for about the same time. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you say that you will discuss or consider charges 
against Mr. Brennan ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I said that I will discuss it, and I will then make a deci- 
sion after I have had time to analyze it and decide what to do. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who will you discuss it with ? 

Mr. Hoffa. The necessary ofRcials'of our union. 

Mr. Kenendy. Who would they be ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Various individual members of our executive board. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is Mr. Owen Bert Brennan on your executive board ? 

Mr. Hoffa. He is, indeed. 

Mr. Kennedy. When you were here last time, Mr. Hoffa, you make 
a statement in answer to a question of the chairman, and also in 
answer to the question of Senator Ives, that you were going to make 
an investigation of various individuals with criminal backgrounds 
and criminal records, and I would like to ask you about that. Have 
you made any investigation, for instance, of Owen Bert Brennan prior 
to this time ? 



13502 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. HoFFA, I have known Owen Bert Brennan since I was a young 
fellow, and I don't need to make any investigation of Bert Brennan, 
because I know liim probably better than his own wife knows him. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Then you knew about his participation in the bomb- 
ings during the 1930's ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I know he was found innocent by a jury. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know of his arrests in comiection with tlie 
bombings during the 1930's ? 

Mr. HoFFA. 1 know he was accused but never indicted nor con- 
victed, to the best of my knowledge, in any of those incidents. 

Mr. Ivj:nnedy. And isn't it correct that lie was alleged at that time 
to have received his instructions for those bombings from you ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now 

Mr. HoFFA. Just a moment; I would like to have you state where 
such information originated from, if you wnll, so we can be able to 
answer the questions. 

Mr. Kennedy. I just asked you a question. We have a report here 
that you and he were the ones responsible for the bombings, and also 
involved in the bombings was Mr. Herman Kierdorf . How long have 
you known him? 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, I think in the interest of fairness, 
if a charge like that is going to be mouthed in public, in this hearing 
room, that the counsel include what the origin of this report is, and on 
what information it is based. I don't think that a reckless charge 
should be made unless Mr. Kennedy can support it by stating whom 
he got the information from, and on what facts it was based. 

Unless that is done, I think it should be stricken. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say it is a reckless charge, and you don't know 
that, Mr. Williams. 

Mr. Williams. If it isn't, you can clear it up right away. 

The Chairman. Just a moment. If counsel has information and 
the committee does not want to reveal it at the moment, he may not 
give it. But instead of saying that he has information, just ask the 
question, did you do so and so, and did you know so and so, without 
stating you have the information. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you known Mr. Herman Kierdorf ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I told you for a considerable number of years. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long? 

Mr. HoFFA. Better than 10 ; I will put it that way. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know him during the 1930's ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I think so. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he arrested with Owen Bert Brennan in con- 
nection with these bombings ? 

Mr. HoFFA. There was a series of arrests at one time, and where a 
large group, or a large number of teamsters w^ere arrested and quite 
a few headlines, but I don't remember anything coming out of the 
headlines or out of the arrests, and I think they were all released. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, would you answer the question, whether Mr. 
Herman Kierdorf was involved in that ? 

Mr. HoFFA. He could have been, and it is a long time ago, and I 
don't remember who was picked up. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13503 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't remember that ? 

Mr. HoFFA. No; you probably have the information from the 
Detroit Police Department. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he known then as Mr. Herman Eichards? 

Mr. HoFFA. Was who known ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Was Mr. Herman Kierdorf known at that tune as 
Mr. Herman Richards ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I don't recall him being called Herman Richards. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you made 

Mr. HoFFA. I have never called him that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, have you made an investigation since 
your last appearance when you stated on page 5240 and 5241 : 

I said I would not turn my back on people, but I would make investigations 
just for the sake of making a statement so I will make an investigation as I 
stated and what I told Senator Ives will happen to determine whether I do or not. 
I think when I say something that I keep my word. 

Did you make an investigation of Mr. Herman Kierdorf? 

Mr. Hoffa. I knew something of Kierdorf 's background, and Kier- 
dorf has now resigned from the Teamsters Union, and he no longer 
is affiliated with or on the payroll of the Teamsters Union, after the 
first of this month. 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't answer the question, Mr. Hoffa. Did 
you make an investigation of Mr. Herman Kierdorf? 

Mr. Hoffa. I knew something of his background. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you make an investigation of him ? 

Mr. Hoffa. In my own mind, I analyzed the situation concerning 
Kierdorf, and Mr. Kierdorf had a few more months — excuse me. 

The Chairman. The question is. Did you make an investigation of 
him ? and the point would be. Have you made an investigation of him 
since you gave that testimony ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you request that he resign from the union? 

Mr. Hoffa. Herman Kierdorf submitted his resignation at a sug- 
gestion from myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, how did it happen that Mr. Herman 
Kierdorf came into the Teamsters Union in the first place ? He had 
been convicted in 1932 or 1933, and he spent some time in Leavenworth 
prison, and then in 1940, after the arrest for bombing in connection 
with Owen Bert Brennan, he was convicted for armed robbery. How 
did it happen that he then ended up on the payroll of the Teamsters 
Union ? 

Mr. Hoffa. If I remember correctly, this is from memory quite a 
while back, Herman Kierdorf worked for the CIO. The CIO had 
the petroleum or cylinder gas drivers organized. A group of them 
came over with us and to the best of my recollection, Kierdorf came 
over with that group, if I remember correctly. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, he was in the penitentiary for armed robbery, 
and he stated that he came to work for you within a short time after 
coming out of the penitentiary ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is a different time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Excuse me. 



13504 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. HoFFA. I think that you will find the record that he worked for 
us and left us and then came back. 

Mr. Kennedy. He came to work for you after he spent some time in 
Leavenworth for impersonating an officer, is that right I 

Mr. HoFFA. When was that? 

Mr. Kennedy. In 1932. 

Mr. HoFFA. I would think that you are right. 

Mr. Kennedy. So he came to work for you after that, then went 
back to the penitentiary in 1941, was convicted of armed robbery, 
and he got out of the penitentiary and then came to work for you again ? 

Mr. HoFFA. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you explain to the committee why you were 
so anxious to have somebody like Mr. Herman Kierdorf working as 
a business agent and officer of the Teamsters Union ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Mr. Kierdorf was a good organizer, and he did organiz- 
ing, and I used Kierdorf for organizing pur])oses. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, there are a lot of people in Detroit tliat could 
perform that service, are there not, Mr. Hoffa^ Those that do not 
have this extensive criminal record, that you could have obtained for 
that position ? 

Mr. HoFFA. A lot of people who are available for any position, and 
Mr. Kierdorf was an experienced organizer, and he was placed on the 
payroll for that purpose 

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

Mr. Kennedy. He had been arrested at least a dozen times. He had 
been in the penitentiary twice. Don't you think you could have found 
some better person to control the individuals that worked in your 
union ? 

]\Ir. HoFFA. We don't have anybody controlling anybody. Mr. Kier- 
dorf's position was not controlling anybody. It was organizing. 

Mr. Kennedy. As an officer, he was in charge of strikes on occasion. 
He had some control over the members of the union. Isn't there any- 
body that you could get in Detroit better than Mr. Herman Kierdorf 
for that position ? 

Mr. HoFFA. The fact is that I hired Kierdorf. 

Mr. Kennedy. You can't give us any better explanation as to why 
you hired him? 

Mr. HoFFA. I don't know of any better explanation. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you arrange with the penitentiary for him to 
come to work for you ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I don't believe that I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you deny that you did ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I don't know whether I did or not. I don't know 
whether he wrote me a letter and asked whether there was a position 
open or not. I cannot recall that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell the penitentiary that you could put him 
to work ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I don't think I was ever in touch with him. I don't re- 
call that I was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you deny that you were ? 

Mr. Williams. If we are going to allow that type of question, Mr. 
Chairman, you can't get in touch with the penitentiary, you have to 
get in touch with responsible officers of the State in charge of prisoners. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13505 

I think we are going to button down a question like that by asking the 
witness if he is going to deny something, in the interest of fairness 
counsel should direct his attention to what person he is alleged to 
have communicated with, with respect to Kierdorf . 

The Chairman. The Chair feels that the question can be better 
framed when you ask about the penitentiary. Of course, it is a little 
technical to say the officers of the penitentiary. But he may ask in 
that way : Did you get in touch with the officers of the penitentiary 
and request Mr. Kierdoi'f's release or make arrangements with them 
for his release on the promise or with the understanding that you 
would give him a job ? 

It all comes down to the same thing. I will ask the question. Did 
you get in touch with any officials of the penitentiary, or others, 
responsible officers, and make arrangements with them to have Mr. 
Kierdorf released from the penitentiary so that he might come to 
work for you ? 

Mr. Williams. What year was that, sir ? 

The Chaieman. Give us the year, Mr. Kennedy, 

Mr. Kennedy. The year that Mr. Kierdorf came to work for Mr. 
Hoffa. 

Mr. Williams. What year was that, sir ? 

Mr. Kennedy. 1949. 

I think Mr. Hoffa knows the answer. 

The Chairman. 1949 or 1952, whatever the year was. 

Mr. HoFFA. That is 12 years ago, 10 years ago if it was 1948. If I 
would have been requested by anybody to intercede for him, I would 
have, but I do not recall doing it. 

The Chairman. Now, then, Mr. Kennedy, ask him the question, if 
you have the officer there, ask him if he contacted that particular 
person. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you contact anybody from the division of par- 
dons and paroles in connection with Mr. Kierdorf coming to work for 
the Teamsters Union ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't believe that I did. I may have. I don't know. 

The Chairman. Ask him specifically, if you have the name of the 
one that he did contact. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any conversations with Mr. Philip 
Collins, the parole officer, at the division of pardons, paroles, and 
probation, 109 State Office Building, Lansing, Mich. ? 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, this is what I object to, you see. 
After all, the purpose of this hearing isn't to set up a perjury trap 
for this or any other witness. I think manifestly in the interest of 
fairness, when you are asking anyone something that took place 10 
years ago, you call his attention to the names and the places and 
the officers with whom he is alleged to have talked, so that in the 
basic interest of elementary fairness 

The Chairman. The Chair has just so ruled, and the question has 
been asked accordingly, giving you the name. 

Mr. Williams. It was not asked that way after you ruled, Mr. 
Chairman. 

The Chairman. It was asked that way, the last question. Read it. 
Read the last question. It is asked in that manner. I instructed 
counsel to give the name of the pei^on, and he understood and did so. 

(The pending question, as requested, was read by the reporter.) 



13506 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. The witness may answer. 

Senator Curtis. May I inquire? Is this before the release of Mr. 
Kierdorf or after the release ? 

Mr. HoFFA. This is after. If he is referring to Collins, may I say 
for your information, sir, I believe it would have to be after, because 
I believe that Collins was his probation officer. 

I think it was after he was released. I don't think it occurred dur- 
ing the time he was in jail. 

The Chairman. We can determine that. The question is, Did you 
get in touch with this party named on the parole board, or the parole 
officer, regarding the release of Mr. Kierdorf ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I don't recall getting in touch with him 10 years ago, 
but I may have. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Is that before or after. 

Get that into the record. 

Mr. Kennedy. As far as Mr. Hoffa is concerned, our experience has 
been that he will answer only questions that he knows we have definite 
information on. On all other questions he says 'T don't remember" or 
"I can't recall." That makes it very difficult. This is an important 
matter dealing with Mr. Herman Kierdorf. 

The Chairman. The Chair will rule that you may ask the question 
"Did you do so and so" in general terms. If the witness says tlien he 
does not remember or does not recall, then pursue it and ask him the 
specific question. 

Mr. Kennedy. I asked him the general question at the beginning. 
Obviously we get into more specific questions. 

I am asking general questions as we continue. 

The Chairman. You may ask the general question, even if you have 
no further information. You have a right to ask a general question, 
if you have reason to believe the witness has some knowledge about it. 
Wliere you do have specific information, you may proceed then to ask 
h'm about the specific factors involved. 

All right, let's proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you contacted or did you contact the division 
of pardons, paroles and probation in connection with Mr. Herman 
Kierdorf while he was still in the penitentiary ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I don't believe that I did. If you say it was Mr. Col- 
lins, it must have been after, to the best that I can recall. 

Mr. Kennedy. The document, Mr. Chairman, is the field report 
dated August 12, 1948, and it is in connection with Mr, Herman Kier- 
dorf. It is a report by Philip H. Collins, parole officer, and the 
reason for the report is the preparole investigation. 

The Chairman. What member of the staff procured this document? 

Mr. Salinger. I did, Mr. Chairman. _ 

The Chairman. You have been previously sworn ? 

Mr. Salinger. Yes. 

The Chairman. What is this document which I hand to you ? 

Mr. Salinger. This document is a copy of the field report of the 
Michigan, State of Michigan, Division of Pardons, Paroles, and Pro- 
bation. It was obtained from the files of the State of Ohio, Bureau 
of Probation and Parole, Columbus, Ohio, and is a report which the 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13507 

State of Michigan Division of Pardons, Paroles, and Probation sent 
to the State of Ohio, prior to the parole of Mr. Kierdorf, indicating 
what plans they had made for Mr. Kierdorf when he returned to the 
State of Michigan. 

The Chairman. That document may be made exhibit No. 9. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 9" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee. ) 

Mr. Williams. May we see the document, Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Yes, you may. You may interrogate the witness 
about its contents and his knowledge of it. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

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

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

The Chairman. Proceed. Mr. Counsel, interrogate him about this 
document. 

Mr. Kennedy. Does that refresh your recollection now, Mr. Hoff a ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Mr. Chairman, after having an opportunity to read 
the documents, it very conclusively shows that I did intervene for 
Herman Kierdorf. That was 1949. 

Mr. Kennedy. 1948, 1 believe. 

Mr, HoFFA. Well, I just got that from Attorney Williams. Well, 
1948 or 1949. 

Mr. Kennedy. The records show, Mr. Chairman, that he, Mr. Kier- 
dorf, was paroled on October 5, 1948, into tlie custody of police offi- 
cials in Michigan where he w^as to be tried for armed robbery in that 
State. But during the time that he had been in the Ohio Peniten- 
tiary, the witnesses against Herman Kierdorf had died, so it was 
impossible to try him. 

The intervention or the interest of Mr. Hoffa in Mr. Kierdorf came, 
according to these records, at least as early as 8-12-48, August 12, 
1948, which is some 2 months prior to the time he was paroled. 

The Chairman. Do you recall now, Mr. Hoffa, that you inter- 
vened prior to the time that he was released from the penitentiary, 
and sought his release ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Hoffa. Apparently the letter that was given to us is a letter 
wrote to the parole board after he was released, trying to get his 
parole revoked, according to Attorney Williams. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. We will go into that later. But 
the documents I showed you first, the top document, is dated August 
12, 1948, and involves Herman Kierdorf, and it says : 

Job : Mr. Hoffa, Teamsters Union, Detroit, Mich. Conditional offer of employ- 
ment has been received from Mr. Hoffa, union head of the Teamsters Union in 
this area. The worli would be semiexecutive, paying $75 a week as a beginning 
wage. 

Then subsequently, on July 5, 1949, you wrote a letter, or it would 
appear that you wrote a letter, to Mr. Klofenstein, Chief, Department 
of Public Welfare, Columbus, Ohio, and the letter reads : 

Dear Mb. Klofenstein : I am writing to you in an effort to enlist your consid- 
eration for the cancellation of the parole of Mr. Herman Kierdorf. At a recent 
election of our council hoard, Mr. Kierdorf was unanimously elected to the 
board at a salary of $12,000 a year. In our opinion, this man is and can be a 



13508 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

valuable addition to our executive board. But owing to the fact that his parole 
will not expire until some time in lS)r>2, his confirmation has been temporarily 
withheld. It is my understanding that his record while he was in your care was 
very excellent, and the local parole board here would like very much to see his 
name cleared. 

If you will consider the cancellation of Mr. Kierdorf's parole, I will personally 
vouch for him and will greatly appreciate anything you can do for him. 
Yours very sincerely, 

James R. Hoffa, President. 

So there are two matters here. 

The Chairman. I^t's deal witli the first one. It appears that in the 
first one, the report of the parole officer was to the effect that you had 
tendered him a job, assured his employment at a salary of $75 a week 
if they would parole him, is that correct ? 

Mr. HoFFA, From the record it appears so, sir. 

The Chairman. From the record 

JNIr. HoiTA. From the record Mr. Kennedy just read, it appears so. 

The Chairman. Then thereafter, within a year's time or less 

Mr. Kennedy. July 1949. 

The Chairman. He was paroled when, October ? 

Mr. Kennedy. October 1948. 

The Chairman. In October 1948 he was paroled. In July 1949 you 
were seeking- to have his parole canceled. I suppose you meant by 
canceled to have him released from any further obligation under the 
parole board, so that he might be made — what was the position ? 

Mr. Kennedy. A member of the executive board. 

The Chairman. A member of your executive board of your union 
at a salary of 

:Mr. Kennedy. $12,000 a year. 

The Chairman. $12,000 a year. Do you recall that incident? Do 
you recall the letter ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't recall it, but my signature is on the letter. I 
must have sent the letter. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then Mr. Kierdorf came to work for your union, 
and according to the testimony we developed last week was interesting 
himself in obtaining accounts for a company that was owned by Mr. 
Vincent Meli and Mr. Joe I^lir in Detroit, Mich. Can you tell us? 
This was drawn to your attention, according to the testimony, in 
October or November of 1957. Did you take any steps against Mr. 
Kierdorf at that time ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't recall in total what I did, but I think that there 
was a telegram sent to me concerning the complaint of somebody losing 
a stop. I discussed the matter with Kierdorf, and he said he did not 
intercede in getting the stop. 

Having no other way of finding out the information, there was 
nothing to do about it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you call the j)eople who sent the telegram ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why didn't you get in touch with them and see what 
evidence they had ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I very rarely get in touch with people making com- 
plaints. 

Mr. Kennedy. You took this man 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13509 

The Chairman, Mr. Hoffa, is it not your policy Avlien serious com- 
plaints are made, to try to find out the validity of them ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I tried to find out from the only man that could have 
told me, Senator. 

The Chairman. Well, I don't know. If someone writes in com- 
plaining about something and you talk to the man complained about 
and say he is the only man he knows, maybe the fellow who complained 
knows, too. 

Mr. HoFFA. From reading the testimony that he gave here, ap- 
parently he was not positive. Senator. 

The Chairman. Well, if that is the character of investigations you 
make on complaints, it is no wonder — — 

Mr. PIoFFA. On that type of complaint, sir. 

The Chairman. Senator Ervin. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman, it is possible Mr. Hoffa has a prece- 
dent for that in the conduct of the Pennsylvania Dutchman who was 
appointed a justice of the peace. The first case came up before him. 
Instead of calling the witnesses for the prosecution to the stand 
he looked over at the defendant and asked the defendant, "Are 
you guilty or not guilty?'' The defendant said, "I am not guilty." 
He said, "Well, if you are not guilty, go on home. If you are not 
guilty, you have no business being here in court." 

The Chairman. Senator Ives. 

Senator Ives. I would like to ask Mr. Hoffa a question very pertinent 
to this matter now before us. As Mr. Hoft'a undoubtedly knows, or 
very likely knows, under the terms of the Kennedy-Ives bill, rehiring 
or hiring in such a way as he did Mr. Kierdorf back in 1949 would 
be illegal, if it had been a law at that time. A question I would like 
to ask Mr. Hoffa is this : Is that one of the reasons you are opposed tO' 
this bill? 

Mr. Hoffa. I am opposed to any bill that deprives a man from 
making a living in any occupation. 

Senator Ives. I am not going to get into the bill itself. I don't 
want to get into that. I want to ask you that question, and the answer 
you gave is not an answer. 

Mr. Hoffa. It isn't an answer ? 

Senator I^^<:s. It is not. 

Mr. Hoffa. Then I did not understand your question, then, Senator. 

Senator Ives. I told you that under the terms of that bill, had it 
been in effect in 1949, you could not have taken him back or hired 
him or put him in there, in that executive capacity, in that executive 
committee or executive board you were putting him on — wasn't that 
what it was, at $12,000? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't think he ever reached that salary. 

Senator Ives. That is what you were proposing, wasn't it ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I think that was the discussion. 

Senator Ives. Yes, I gathered that. All right. You could not have 
done that, had that bill been a law at that time. Is that one of the 
reasons you are opposed to it? It isn't just a question of earning a 
living. That has nothing to do w^ith it. It is a question of being 
given a job in a union of an important nature in an executive capacity. 
Is that one of the reasons ? 

21243— 58— pt. 36 16 



13510 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. HoFTA. One of the reasons — that is one of the reasons that I 
objected, because it sets up a distinction between working for a union 
and an employer. 

Senator Ives. Well, I don't follow that at all. It does not follow 
at all. It is a nonsequitur, entirely ; you have answered my question, 
however. 

That is one of the reasons, isn't it ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I do not believe there are two classes of Americans, 
and that is my reason. I think all Americans are equal. 

Senator Ives. There are no two classes of Americans at all. 

Mr. HoFFA. You are trying to make them. Senator, in my humble 
opinion. 

Senator Ives. That is the reason you are opposed to the bill, one 
of the reasons ? 

Mr. HoFFA. One of the reasons is correct. 

Senator I^^Es. Because we have that provision in it ? 

Mr. HoFFA. One of the reasons is correct. 

Senator 1yy.s. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy. My. Hoffa, we talked about Herman Kierdorf . Wliat 
about Mr. Frank Kierdorf, who was also 

Senator Curtis. May I ask one question before we leave the first 
Kierdorf ? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. During what period did Mr. Kierdorf, the one 
we have been discussing, work for the CIO ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Senator, it was in the 19o0's. I can't tell you the exact 
year. 

Senator Curtis. It was before he was employed by the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. He was in the CIO — carried a CIO book 
The first time I met Kierdorf was when we took over the union. 

Senator Curtis. And that was prior to his first employment ? 

Mr. HoFFA. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, I was asking you about Mr. Frank Kier- 
dorf, who was, until his death today, a business agent for local 332 
up in Flint, Mich. He also, according to the testimony, was in the 
penitentiary for armed robbery and came out of the penitentiaiy to 
this job as a business agent of local 332. We have had some testi- 
mony about him; I would like to ask you, in accordance with your 
statement before the committee last year, if you made an investigation 
or had made an investigation of him ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Just a moment. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. HoFFA. I checked into Frank Kierdorf 's record. I found out 
that the offense he had committed was not connected with the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, did you arrange for him to come to work 
for local 332 after he came out of the penitentiary for armed robbery ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I don't believe, if my memory serves me right, that 
he went to work for 332 right after he came out. 

Did he ? You must have the records. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. HoFFA. Wasn't it a couple of years later ? 

Mr. Kennedy. According to the testimony of his uncle, Herman 
Kierdorf, he came to work for local 332 shortly after he got out of 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13511 

the penitentiary, and Mr. Herman Kierdorf further testified that he 
talked to you about it and you put Mr. Frank Kierdorf to work. 

Mr. HoFFA. He may have been on right after, but I thought it was 
about 2 years. I say that Frank Kierdorf — we needed an opening, 
needed an experienced man, and Kierdorf was recommended for the 
position. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliy, Mr. Hoffa ? Wasn't there in the city of Flint, 
Mich., another man that could serve the position of business agent 
for the local other than someone who just came out of the peni- 
tentiary? 

Mr. 'Hoffa. We needed an experienced organizer in the position; 
there is plenty of men in Flint, capable of handling this job. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is it a good training to be serving time in the pen- 
itentiary for armed robbery, to serve as a business agent for a local ? 

Mr. HoFFA. No, sir ; it isn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. You said you needed a good business agent. 

Mr. HoFFA. I am very certain that Frank Kierdorf, working with 
Herman, had experience prior to going into the penitentiary. I am 
quite sure of that. 

Mr. Kennedy. The only experience we can find, Mr. Hoffa, is the 
experience in armed robbery. 

Mr. HoFFA. Well- 
Mr. Kennedy. Why did you employ him, then ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I told you, sir. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you, Mr. Hoffa : 

Did you have any record or information that he had served as a 
business agent or organizer before he went to the penitentiary ? 

Mr. HoFFA. No. I believe Herman told me that he had worked 
with him. 

The Chairman. You were looking for experienced and competent 
organizers, agents. I would just like to have the evidence, if there is 
anything to substantiate it, to show that he had that experience and 
was successful, was trained, was a desirable man by reason of that ex- 
perience and training and his accomplishments for the position. Do 
you have any such evidence ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I have no such evidence, sir, except what I was told by 
Kierdorf. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, we had some testimony on Mr. Kierdorf 's 
activities back a year ago, in October and November of 1954, when it 
was testified that he was working with Mr. George Kamenow, of the 
Shefferman organization, and was shaking down small employers up 
in Flint, Mich. Did you investigate or look into that ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Are you talking about Frank ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Hoffa. I discussed the matter with Frank, and he flatly denied 
it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you make any other investigation of it ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Wliat other investigation would I possibly make ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, now, you told Senator Ives that what you did 
as far as investigations were concerned of these individuals would show 
whether you kept your word or not. 

Mr. Hoffa. I have kept my word by the fact that I did what I 
thought was necessary investigation. 



13512 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr, Kennedy. You talked to Frank Kierdorf ? 

Mr. HoFFA. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me just read to yon from page 6428, as to the ac- 
tivities of Mr. Frank Kierdorf. I will ask Mr. Salinger to read it. 

This is the testimony of Mr. Skaff, a small-business man in Flint, 
Mich. 

Mr. Salinger (reading) : 

The overridins theme in the entire incident is that we were prepared to have 
a vote of the employees involved from the very first day that we were ap- 
proached by the Teamsters. They were unwilling to have a vote. They wanted 
to organize from the top and have us sign and not have a vote of the employees. 

The Chairman. Who wanted you to do that? 

Mr. Skaff. The Teamster business agent, Mr. Frank Kierdorf. 

The Chairman. He wanted you to sign without having a vote of the em- 
ployees ? 

Mr. Skaff. That is correct. So on February 22, 1956, they started picketing 
our store. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that the first time you had heard from them, or had you 
originally? 

Mr. Skaff. No, we talked, and their demanding recognition and our refusing 
recognition, all during the month of February. On February 22, the picketing 
started. 

Senator Mundt. Prior to that time had you told the business manager you 
were willing to have a vote ? 

Mr. Skaff. Many, many times we expressed our desire to have a vote. 

Senator Mundt. Prior to the time of the picketing? 

Mr. Skaff. Prior to the time of picketing. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then it goes on to state tliat the picket line was 
set up. 

"Would you just read this [indicating] ? 
Mr. Salinger (reading) : 

Approximately on March 20, were two stink bombs thrown into the window of 
my mother's home in an effort to make us succumb to their demands, at a cost 
of about $1,500, and several months of misery. On March 28 or thereabouts, 
the front \^indow of our store was broken and a fire was started in the store 
of unknown origin. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you read over here, on page 6432 ? 
Mr. Salinger (reading) : 

On April 4, we had 2 men out, 1 by the name of Bill Moore, and he was standing 
beside his truck waiting for direction as to where to pick up his merchandise, 
and there was a vicious attack by 4 or 5 men who hit him with a sharp object, 
as the doctor called it at the hospital, and knocked him to the ground. Then 
they spun around the railroad station attempting to run over him and he rolled 
under his truck, and when we took him up to the hospital he had 20 stitches in 
his head and a very serious, brutal attack was made on him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there any identification of the car or automobile at that 
time? 

Mr. Skaff. Yes, sir ; the car was recognized by railroad employees, the license 
number was taken, and it was a car owned by Local 332 of the Teamsters in 
Flint. 

Mr. Kennedy. What investigation did you make after this testi- 
mony was developed before the committee ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I discussed his entire testimony with Mr. Kierdorf, and 
he said it was not true. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you contact anybody, any of these small-busi- 
ness men that were involved in this ? 

Mr. HoFFA. No, sir ; I did not. 

Mr. KJENNEDY, You did not do any of that ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13513 

Mr. HoFFA. No, sir, because I do not believe Mr. Skaff would have 
been very acceptable to me talking to him, since he is very antiunion. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about the other businessmen ? 

The Chairman. Mr. Hoffa, you say he would be antiunion ? 

Mr. HoFFA. That is right. 

The Chairman. Well, one has a right to be opposed to unions. The 
fact that he may be does not necessarily brand him as one unworthy 
of belief. If he gets hurt, even though he may oppose a union, if he 
gets hurt illegally, by acts of the union and union representatives, is 
that no concern of yours ? 

Do you condone and approve of such acts ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't condone or approve of it, but there is police 
departments who have investigative powers in Flint, Mich. 

The Chairman. So you feel no responsibility ? 

Mr. Hoffa. What would I do about it, Senator ? 

The Chairman. Well, if you found that your agents were lacting 
that way, you could do plenty about it, and do it fast. 

Mr. Hoffa. If they deny it, what could I do. Senator ? 

The Chairman. You don't have to believe their denial, if the other 
facts absolutely sustain the position that they did it. 

You apparently seem to have no concern in these cases. If they go 
out and beat them up or blow up their buildings or something, it is 
all right with you, if the fellow who is supposed to have done it tells 
you he didn't do it. You stop there. I can't understand it, unless 
that is your policy and pliilosophy. 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, it isn't my policy nor philosophy. Neither is it 
to try to make people guilty who claim they are innocent, until there 
is proof positive. 

The Chairman, You don't seek any proof to find out whether they 
are doing it or not, and attaching the blame to your miion. 

It is no matter whether you favor unions or want to belong to a 
union or don't want to belong to a union, people have a right to live 
in peace in this country and not be subjected to assaults, vandalism, 
and attacks. I can't understand your position having no concern and 
no interest, and doing nothing to try and stop it. 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't think there is any difference between your views 
and mine. Senator. 

The Chairman. There is a whole lot of difference between your 
action and mine if I occupied your jDosition, I can assure you of that. 

I^t's proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then according to the report out of Michigan over 
the last 24 hours, he was involved in an attempt to ignite or set on 
fire some places of business of other employers, Mr. Hoffa. 

Do you know anything about that ? 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, I think this is where we ought to 
have the basis for that report. We are playing with a dead man's 
reputation. I did not know that he died. But I understand from 
counsel that he died. Now we are talking about him in terms of an 
act of arson, as I understand it. If there is a report on this dead man 
having committed arson, I think the dictates of decency would require 
that we have what the report is based on. 

The Chairman. I think it is in the press, isn't it ? 



13514 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. It is, from the attorney general of the State of 
Michigan. 

The Chairman. He is being investigated on that basis by the attor- 
ney general. The question is: Do you know anything about that 
activity ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Positively nothing. 

Mr. I^nnedy. You did not give any instructions of any kind that 
there would be any arsons committed of any of these employers ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I did not. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. W^iat about Mr. Herman Kierdorf, who ended up, 
according again to the reports in the newspapers, where he brought 
a gun with a silencer on it to his neighbors' home. 

Mr. HoFFA. How would I know about that ? 

Mr. Kennedy. These are the people you employ. These are the 
people you brought out of the penitentiary to work for you. 

The Chairman. Just ask him if he knows. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. These are the people whose words you take. Do 
you know anything about that? 

Mr. HoFFA. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he also delivered some telephones, extra tele- 
phones, to his neighbor's home. Do you know anything about that? 

Mr. HoFFA. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me ask you about another man. What about 
Mr. Lawrence Welch ? 

Mr. HoFFA. What about him ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you make an investigation of Mr. Hariy Welch 
after the testimony before the committee? He has been convicted of 
a crime against nature. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. HoFFA. I discussed this matter with Welch. He told me it 
happened during his time in the Army wlien he came back from the 
frontlines, and he has done nothing to the contrary since he came 
back. I think he was 17 years old at that time. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Did you investigate his activities as they were sworn 
to before this committee regarding his activitias as a business agent 
of local 985 ? 

Mr. HoFFA. To what degree ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you investigate them ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Well, I didn't know there was anything to be investi- 
gated. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you read the testimony ? 

Mr. HoFFA. No, I didn't read the testimony. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say yesterday. "I read every bit of the testi- 
mony and I read it word for word." That is what you swore to 
yesterday. 

Mr. HoFFA. I read the testimony but not concerning any investiga- 
tions, and I simply went through the testimony in each individual 
case, but what was there in there that I was to investigate? 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you read the testimony regarding the activities 
of Mr. Lawrence Welch ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I have gone through each book that has been presented 
to me concerning Teamsters and I saw nothing in there unless you 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13515 

can advise me now other than the incident you mentioned concerning 
Welch. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. The testimony before the committee is that he was 
picketing and he established pickets at a place of business in order 
to get business for a friend of liis name Ziggy Snyder who operated 
a nonunion car-wash. He was also a business agent for your local, and 
he also has a long criminal record. 

Mr. HoFFA. I don't think that is the testimony, and I can't recall it 
offhand, but I don't think that is the testimony. I think someone made 
that statement but I don't think Welch made that statement. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ask Welch about it ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Yes, sir, and Welch said he didn't do it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you make any further investigation ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Where would I investigate ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you make any further investigation? 

Mr. HoFFA. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. The only thing you did is you went to Mr. Welch ? 

Mr. HoFFA. That is right. 

Senator Ervin. How did it happen that you went to Mr. Welch to 
ask him about something that you swore just a moment ago that you 
never heard of and it wasn't in the record ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I didn't say that. 

Senator Ervin. Didn't you say just a minute ago that the only thing 
that reflected on Welch in the record was the fact that in his youth 
he had committed a crime against nature and there was nothing else 
derogatory about him in the record ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I think the statement was that in the record there was 
a complaint by other indviduals and not Welch, but the committee com- 
plained that Welch had been involved in some situation. 

Senator Ervin. Suppose you go back and let me see if I was wrong. 

Wait a minute and let us read the record. 

The Chairman. The crux of this particular inquiry at the moment 
is that you told the committee last year that you were going to make 
an effort to clean up some of these conditions we had found and that 
record, of course, was public information, and I am sure that you read 
the record or you had it called to your attention. The purpose of this 
inquiry at the moment is to ascertain what you have done and how 
you go about trying to clean up and find out what is wrong. 

Mr. HoFFA. Senator, I have here in front of me, while looking for 
the record, to the best of our ability, a check on the individuals you 
mentioned. I am trying to give it to you from this sheet of paper. 

The Chairman. What is that ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I am trying to give it to you from this sheet of paper, 
the information that you are asking for today. 

The Chairman. All right; if you have any notes or memorandums 
or information that will help you give the facts, proceed with them. 

You may refer to anything and any note that you have or any docu- 
ment or any memorandum refreshing your memory. 

(Whereupon, the reporter read the previous testimony.) 

Mr. HoFFA. These were people who made statements concerning 
Welch, and it was not Welch himself. 



13516 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Williams. Senator Ervin, there is no question that you are 
right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you talk to Mr. Welch about it ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Yes; I talked to Mr. Welch about the situation that 
was revealed at the hearing. I talked to Welch about his activities 
with the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you talk to him about? 

Mr. HoFFA. Whether or not he had been involved in anything that 
was illegal in the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Specifically, what did you talk to him about? 

Mr. HoFFA. T\niether or not he had been involved in anything, and 
notliing specific. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss this specific thing mentioned here in 
the transcript? 

Mr. HoFFA. No. Specifically, was he involved in anything illegal 
in the union ? 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't ask him any questions about these things 
that were in the transcript ? 

Mr. HoFFA. They alleged that he did certain things, of which if it 
were true would probably be illegal, and so I asked him whether or 
not he had done anything illegal, and he said, "No." 

]\Ir. Kennedy. Did you discuss witli him specific things mentioned 
in the transcript ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Not specifically, but in general. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you go into any other source to find out the true 
inf (M'mation on it ? 

Mr. HoFFA. No: I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the total investigation that you made? 

Mr. HoFFA. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you just read the pertinent part of the 
transcript there regarding activities of Mr. Harry Welch, who has 
been convicted of a felony ? 

Mr. Salinger. This was the testimony of Mr. Neff, manager of the 
parking garage in Detroit, on page 5525— 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell u.s whether you were approached by any union 
official to change the place where you were taking the cars? 

Mr. Neff. I was called by Mr. Welch. 

Mr. Kennedy. Identify Mr. Welch. 

Mr. Neff. He is business agent for the Teamsters and I don't know what 
local he is with. He called and asked me if I could send my cars. 

Mr. Kennedy. Local 985? 

Mr. Neff. I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is William Buffalino's local? 

Mr. Neff. I believe so. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Welch is a business agent and he came to ask you to change 
the place you were sending your cars? 

Mr. Neff. He said he had a friend who was starting up a car-wash, and would 
like to have those cars sent over to him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where did he say he wanted you to send your cars? 

Mr. Neff. He didn't say the exact name of the place, and he said it would 
start up on Temple and Cass. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is it the Fort Wayne Manor Auto Wash in that area? 

Mr. Neff. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wasn't it later established that a picket line was 
placed in front of this other place of business, and that the place that 
Mr. Welch wanted this gentleman, Mr. Neff, to send his cars was a non- 
union shop ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13517 

Mr. Salinger. That is right. 

Mr. Kp:nnedy. Did you look into that at all ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I found that you are right. I understand that you were 
right, and Ziggy Snyder was nonunion. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you take disciplinary action against Mr. Welch 
for doing that ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to ask you about another individual, Mr. 
Glenn Smith, who is the president of local 515 in Chattanooga, Tenn., 
as well as president of Joint Council 87, which covers the whole State 
of Tennessee and part of Kentucky. 

Did you make an investigation of Mr. Glenn W. Smith ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I understand there have been charges filed against 
Smith, and also understand he is under indictment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you make an investigation of Mr. Glenn W. 
Smith? 

Mr. HoFFA. No; I didn't, because — or I said I didn't but I asked 
whether he had been arrested, and I was told he had been arrested, 
and I made no other investigation because he has charges now against 
him, and he is now indicted. 

Mr. Kennedy. You haven't taken any action against him yourself ? 

Mr. HoFFA. The union will follow the regular constitutional pro- 
cedures. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is he still in office ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Yes ; I believe he is. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now ; he has admitted, Mr. Hoif a, that he paid $20,- 
000 of union funds for the purpose of fixing a case in which he was the 
defendant. That was the $20,000 that was paid back in 1952 of 
Teamsters Union funds that were paid in connection with fixing a case. 

Have you taken any action against him in that matter ? 

Mr. HoFFA. No ; I haven't, because there are charges pending against 
him, which will be heard in the regular constitutional procedure of our 
constitution. 

Mr. Kennedy. You can remove him under the constitution? 

Mr. HoFFA. I can remove him after a hearing ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You could remove him now ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Only in the case of an emergency. 

Mr. Kennedy. Don't you feel it is an emergency when a man admits 
he has paid $20,000 of union members' dues money for the purposes 
of fixing a case ? Isn't that sufficient for you, Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. Hoffa. There are charges filed, and as the due process takes 
place under the constitution we will deal with it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, isn't that sufficient for you to take action ? 
The man admitted it under oath, and he admitted paying $20,000 of 
union members' dues money? Isn't that sufficient for you to take 
action, Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I did not take action, and I will not take action until 
the decision on the charges has been heard. 

The Chairman Mr. Hoffa, this is almost beyond comprehension, 
that a man will come in and admit that he took $20,000 of union money 
and state it under oath before a legal or properly constituted tribunal, 
the senate of a sovereign state, acting as a trial court on an impeach- 
ment, and makes that statement, under oath, that he took union dues 
money and used it to fix a criminal case against him to keep from being 



13518 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

convicted or going to the penitentiary, as likely he would have had 
he been convicted. Now, do you mean to say that as president of this 
great international union that doesn't cause you any concern to act, 
to protect your membership ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Certainly it is disturbing news, but since there are 
charges filed, and the due process will take care of the question of that. 

The Chairman. Everyone we have asked you about here, what you 
did to investigate, you said, "I asked them, and they say 'No,' and I 
just accept it." 

Now, when a man says, "Yes, I took $20,000 out of union dues 
money to fix a case," he says, "Yes," and not when somebody else says 
it, and says it under oath, will you act on that ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I will act on the charges that are filed. 

The Chairman. When will you act on it? 

Mr. HoFFA. As they come to my ofSce, through due process of the 
constitution. 

The Chairman. Have any charges been started toward your office? 

Mr. HoFFA. Charges, I believe 

(Witness consulted with counsel.) 

Mr. IToFFA. I believe what we can recall quickly, they are at the 
joint council level, and the next step will be the international union. 

Mr. Kennedy. But he is president of the joint council? 

Mr. HoFFA. He would not be able to hear his own case, and the 
vice president would take the chair and fill the vacancy. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is president of local No. 515 and he is president 
of the joint council at this very moment ? 

Mr. HoFFA. That is right. 

Mr. Kenneedy. And you have the power to get rid of him, and you 
haven't taken any step along those lines; is that correct? 

Mr. HoFFA. That is right. 

Senator Ives. I want to interpose something there, Mr. Chairman. 
I am not going to do this now, but my name has been mentioned here 
this afternoon, and before this hearing is over I am going to repeat 
out of the record of a year ago, or a year ago this month, when Mr. 
Hoffa was before us the last time, exactly what he said and exactly 
the pledge that he gave in connection with running a decent, orderly 
union. Do you remember those questions I asked ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I certainly do, and I believe we have a decent orderly 
union. 

Senator I^^:s. I don't think in this instance you have. This is a 
direct violation of what we were talking about. Perhaps we didn't 
understand the matter the same way, though I certainly think that 
we did understand the matter the same way, but I will read it before 
we get through. 

Senator Curtis. My question has been partly answered in the last 
colloquy, but I wanted to make sure, when Mr. Hoffa referred to 
charges pending, are you referring to charges in the courts or charges 
within the union? 

Mr. HoFFA. Senator, I believe he is indicted in the courts, and also 
there are charges from the union. 

Senator Curtis. Tell me just briefly what are the mechanics of 
bringing a charge in the union ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13519 

Mr. HoFFA. Charges are filed and they first go to the local executive 
board, and if it isn't adjudicated there to everybody's satisfaction, 
they have appeal to the joint council, and from the joint council to 
the international union and if they are not satisfied with the interna- 
tional union's decision they have a right of appeal to the monitors 
and before making a decision on the executive board we discuss the 
matter and consult with the monitors, before malting a final decision. 

Senator Curtis. To your knowledge have the monitors gone into 
these cases that were presented in previous hearings, and have been 
mentioned today? 

Mr. HoFFA. Excuse me. 

(Witness consulted with counsel.) 

Mr. HoFFA. We are working with the monitors on it. Mr. Wil- 
liams is handling the monitors from our end of the union, and Mr. 
Williams is working with the monitors on these particular cases. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have a copy of the constitution there? 

Mr. HoFFA. No. 

Mr. Williams. I think that I have one. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairaian, this is page 18, section 5, entitled: 

Power of general president to appoint trustees and duties and obligations of lo- 
<;al unions under trusteeship. 

I would like to have Mr. Salinger read that section into the record, 
if I may ? 

The Chairman. A copy of the constitution was furnished by the 
witness or by his comisel, is that correct ? 

Mr. I^JENNEDY. That is correct. 

The Chairman. All right, the section may be read into the record. 

Mr. Salinger (reading) : 

Section 5 (a). If the general president has or receives information which 
leads him to believe that any of the officers of a local union or other subordinate 
bodies are dishonest or incompetent or that such organizations are not being 
conducted in accordance with the constitution and laws of the international 
union, or for the benefit of the membership or are being conducted on such a 
manner as to jeopardize the interests of the international union, he may appoint 
a temporary trustee to take charge and control of the affairs of such local union 
Or other subordinate bodies : Provided, hoicever, That before the appointment 
of such temporary trustee the general president shall set a time and place for 
a hearing for the purpose of determining whether such temporary trustees shall 
be appointed : And further provided. That where in the judgment of the general 
president an emergency situation exists within the local union or other sub- 
ordinant body, the temporary trustee may be appointed by or to such hearing 
but such hearing shall then commence within 30 days and the decision made 
within 60 days after the appointment of such temporary trustee. 

Mr. Kennedy. In all of these cases, Mr. Hoffa, you could step in 
and remove these officers, could you not ? 

Mr. HoFFA, In an emergency ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't feel this was an emergency ? 

Mr. Hoffa. The question of emergency is one that in my opinion 
should not place a local union in trusteeship and involve all of the 
members because of some one person. When there can be charges filed 
against the person and there are charges, and when I get it from Mr. 
Williams. 



13520 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. It says here even without an emergency — 

If the general president has or receives information wliich leads him to believe 
that any of the officers of a local union or other subordinate body are dishonest 
or incompetent — 

and then it goes on — 

that he may appoint a temporary trustee to take charge and control of the affairs 
of such local union or other subordinate body : Provided, however. That before 
the appointment of such temporary trustee, the general president shall set a 
time and place for hearing for the purpose of determining whether such tem- 
porary trustee shall be appointed : And further provided. That where in the judg- 
ment of the general president an emergency situation exists within the local 
union or other subordinant body. 

Certainly where there was an admission of the use of union funds for 
these purposes, certainly a situation has arisen that you could take and 
should take such action, Mr. Hoffa ? Do you not think so ? 

Mr. Hc^FFA. I believe that the action taken will clear up the situa- 
tion in due time. 

INfr. Kennedy. What about Mr. Boiling, H. L. Boiling, secretary of 
local 515 of the Teamsters Union in Chattanooga, Tenn.? He was 
convicted in 1939 of illegal transportation of alcohol, and given an 
18 months' sentence, .and $200 fine. 

He was indicted for conspiracy to violate the income-tax laws with 
Glenn W. Smith, and he was linked with the violence in our hearings. 
Have you made an investigation of him ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Excuse me ; I am trying to find out something ; will you 
please? 

nVifiTPSS consulted with counsel.) 

Mr. Hoffa. I c;in't recall but Attorney Williams and myself seem 
to recall that the^-e are the same charges against Boiling as against 
Smith, but we will have to check that and find out. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you made any independent investigation of 
him yourself ? 

Mr. HoFFA. No ; I don't believe that I did. I think that I talked to 
Boiling at the southern conference but insofar as an investigation was 
concerned T don't believe that I did, because the record regarding the 
money as far as the testimony was concerned was public knowledge in 
your record. 

ISfr. Kennedy. Did you take any steps against him ? 

Mr. Hoffa. The same procedure will be handled as against Smith ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Have vou preferred anv charges against H. L. 
Boiling? 

Mr. Hoffa. No ; I have not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you taken any steps against Mr. W. A. Smith 
who hns b'^en arrested some 14 times, and who is involved or tied up 
closely with the violence before the committee ? He is a business agent 
of local 327 in Nashville, Tenn. Have 3'ou taken any steps against 
him ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I have taken no action, and he is on appeal regarding 
a sente^Tce. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you made an investigation of him ? 

IMr. Hoffa. There was a court case. 

Mr. Kennedy. PTave you made any investigation of him ? 

Mr. Hoffa. And the question concerning Smith was a matter of 
newspaper articles, and I read the articles, and I have talked to Smith, 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13521 

if I am not mistaken, concerning it on the telephone, and since he has 
been convicted there wasn't anything to investigate. If he is found 
guilty he will be out. 

Mr. Kennedy. He has been convicted, and he has been sentenced to 
2 to 10 years. 

Mr. HoFFA. He is out on appeal. 

Mr. Kennedy. He has been arrested 14 times prior to that, and he 
had a number of convictions, and he has just been sentenced from 2 to 
10 years and he is still business agent of local 327, and you haven't 
taken any steps against him ? 

My. Hoffa. You are right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you made an investigation of it ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I think it was a matter of discussion on the phone with 
Smith and I realize he is under charges, and they were waiting for the 
appeal. 

Mr. Kennedy. Once again I call to your attention that you said 
when you appeared before the committee, how good your word was 
would depend on what kind of an investigation you made. 

Mr. Hoffa. I think the investigation was all that could have been 
made. No matter how thoroughly you investigated, you wouldn't 
have found out anything else. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Hoffa, we had a good deal of sworn testi- 
mony before this committee, regarding these individuals Mr. Boiling 
and Mr. Glenn W. Smith have admitted to the $20,000. Mr. W. A. 
Smith has just been convicted and sentenced from 2 to 10 years, and 
no steps of any kind have been taken by you. 

Mr. HoFFA. I think the man has a right of appeal, to the final 
highest court in the country. 

The Chairman. Mr. Hoffa, from tliis testimony do you know any 
other conclusions that fairminded men, impartial, can draw otlier 
than the fact that you surround yourself with criminals in the course 
of the administration of the affairs of the Teamsters Union, that you 
keep them there, and intend to keep them there if you can have your 
way about it ? 

Mr. HoFFA. This situation will clear up. I am sure of that. 

Senator Erwn. Is that your best answer ? 

Mr. HoFFA. The situation will clear itself up, I have been president 
6 months, and I have been confronted with many problems much more 
serious tlian this particular problem, and I have attempted to work 
them out, and as I get to these problems and I have sufficient time I 
will work these problems out. 

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

Senator Ervin. Mr. Hoffa, there is one thing that I cannot under- 
stand. I can understand why anybody would try to rehabilitate a 
man, and I am certainly sympathetic with the idea of giving people 
employment when they are released from prison. 

But the thing I can't understand is your action in respect to Herman 
Kierdorf, the evidence was that he 'falsely impersonated a Federal 
officer, and served a term in the Federal prison at T^avenworth for 
so doing. Then the evidence is that after he had done that, he was 
convicted of armed robbery in Ohio, and sentenced to serve a term of 
not less than 10 or more than 25 years in the State prison of Ohio. 



13522 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Now, a man who commits armed robbery is a man who steals. In 
otherwords, he has the heart of a thief. And a man who resorts to 
armed robbery is a potential murderer, because experience has shown 
that men who engage in robberies will not hesitate to kill to prevent 
apprehension. 

As a consequence of that, I think that virtually ever}^ State in the 
American union has a statute making it murder in the first degree for 
a man to kill another while perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate 
a robbery. The evidence of this committee is uncontradicted about 
those matters. 

It appears here that before Herman Kierdorf was released from 
the prison, that you offered him employment, and I would not criticize 
you for offering him employment. But the thing I don't understand 
is why you take a man of that character and bring him out of prison, 
and not only give him employment, but ]3ut him almost innnediately 
in a position to exercise authority, over honest men, members of the 
union, and why a short time after his release you make him a business 
agent, as I recall the testimony; then you want to put him on the 
executive board at a salary of $12,000 a year to exercise authority over 
honest men; and then when outsiders, people of the general public, 
make a complaint to you in the form of a telegram about his conduct, 
you not only do nothing about it but you don't even have the courtesy 
to make a reply to the people that are protesting to you about the 
conduct of one of the agents of your union. 

That is something that just exceeds my comprehension. I cannot 
understand how such things could be done by a man who has the tre- 
mendous power and responsibility which you have as the head of the 
Teamsters Union, or as head of a conference of the Teamsters Union. 

I cannot understand why you have such an apparently calloused 
indifference to the protests of the public about this conduct of this ex- 
convict. 

The evidence before this committee would seem to justify the infer- 
ence that after you took him out of prison and gave him a position of 
authority over other men, he practiced what the law calls extortion. 
"When protest is made to you about some of his acts you pay no atten- 
tion whatever to the protest and don't even reply to the protestants. 

I could miderstand how a man out of the kindness of his heart would 
give employment to an ex-convict, but why he takes an ex-convict, an 
ex-felon, convicted of such serious crimes, and gives him a position 
of authority over honest men. You suggested that you op])ose the 
Kennedy-Ives bill because it prohibits the holding of union offices by 
ex-convicts who had been convicted of felonies until their civil rights 
are restored. I belong to the legal profession. If a man in my pro- 
fession or Mr. Williams' profession, is convicted of a felon}^ he is 
denied the right to practice his profession. He can't even follow his 
way of making a living that he was trained for. 

For the life of me, I cannot understand how a man who heads a 
union of 1,500,000 dues-paying members would take a man, who has 
been convicted of crimes that involve stealing, out of prison and put 
him at the head of a local union to exercise authority over honest men. 
Then when people of the public protest to him about the conduct of 
that man, he makes no effort to investigate the alleged misconduct, and 
makes no inquiry of anybody except the man accused of being guilty 
of misconduct. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13523 

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

The Chairman. I don't think there is any justification. I don't 
think any justilication can be found for taking people convicted of 
felonies of the character that Herman Kierdorf was convicted of, and 
giving them a position to exercise authority over honest men who, 
under the union contracts, are compelled to submit themselves to his 
authority in order to earn their daily bread by the sweat of their own 
brow. 

Senator Ia^s. I think the answer is obvious. There is only one 
possible answer we can get out of all this. You want that kind of 
folks, don't you ? 

You want jailbirds and men like that, crooks, gangsters, racketeers, 
and that kind ? Because you want tough people to make it doggone 
tough on these people you are leading. Just use force against them, 
if necessary. That is the kind you want. I think you are underesti- 
mating the members of the Teamsters Union. The ones I know, and I 
know a lot of them, are very fine people. You don't have to use force 
against that type of person at all. They w-ill respond to anything 
that is reasonable. The vast majority, the great majority, are honest 
people. 

But I want to say to Senator Ervin, I think the answer to the ques- 
tion he poses is obvious. 

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

Senator Ervin. I would say also I know some of the teamsters in 
Xorth Carolina. They have a local at Hickory, about 20 miles from 
me, and the Hickory Teamsters are good people. But they have been 
kept under trusteeship. I think virtually every Teamsters local in 
North Carolina until lately was kept under trusteeship and deprived 
of the right to have officers of their own choice. 

Mr. HoFFA. But the same officers who led them, sir, under trustee- 
ship, by the majority were elected as their business agents and officers. 
I also may say the only way we could build a union in North Carolina 
was to have a trusteeship to where we could have supervision, funnel- 
ing enough finances into that territory, because we could never have 
done it out of dues, to be able to organize and gain the benefits for 
the workers we have gained in Carolina. It so happens, sir, that I 
negotiated the major contract in both North and South Carolina, 
increasing their wages tremendously. 

Senator Ervin. There was a good deal of friction in the Charlotte 
local to get the trusteeship off. There was a considerable amount of 
notoriety about it. That is all I will say on that subject. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, according to a statement that was written 
by Mr. Mollenhoff, of Look magazine, when he asked you abou<- indi- 
viduals such as Glen Smith and W. A. Smith, and why they had been 
given positions of power, you replied, "We need somebody down there 
to kick those hillbillies around." 

Mr. Hoffa. I am not responsible for what Mr. Mollenhoff wrote. 
He may have misunderstood me. But for clarification of the record, 
I don't consider southerners anything other than Americans, and I 
have many, many friends all over the South, and I highly respect 
them. I resented the remark, but there was nothing I could do 
about it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you make that statement ? 



13524 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. HoFFA. I can never recall making that statement. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you deny that you made it ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I don't believe I made it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you deny that you made it ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I am not going to get into a debate on the question, 
because I do not even recall Mr. Mullenhoff interviewing me on such 
a subject. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Mr. HofFa, all I am asking you is do you deny 
malving the statement ? 

Mr. Williams. I think he has answered the question, and I don't 
think it has any pertinency what he may have said to Mr. Mullenhoff, 
writing a piece for Look magazine. 

The Chairman. It does have a little pertinency in my mind, from 
my viewpoint. Here is testimony that we are developing that this 
man at the head of this great organization is absolutely failing to 
meet the moral responsibility that is his, that he gave a pledge here 
he would meet before this committee. Immediately afterward he 
steps out and says he has to have men like Glen Smith, characters like 
that, to kick American citizens around, whom he chooses to call hill- 
billies, and the employers of whom he calls liars. You tell me that 
is not pertinent when we are trying to find a way to clean up the 
corruption and violence in unionism ? 

Of course, it is pertinent. It goes to the very heart and crux of 
the things we are inquiring into here. 

American dues-paying members in imions have a right to decent 
and honest administration. 

Mr. Williams. I agree. I think he has answered the question, if 
you rule it is pertinent. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you deny that you made such a statement? 

Mr. HoFFA. I don't recall making such a statement. 

The Chairman. Sometimes you go and say that is 10 years ago 
or 8 years ago, and "I can't remember." This was last December. 

Mr. HoFFA. And I have met probably 100 or more reporters and 
haA^e had that many interviews since then and cannot recall it. 

The Chairman. Did vou see this publication right after you said 
it? 

Mr. HoFFA. I did. 

The Chairman. Did that not refresh your memory then ? 

Mr. HoFFA. No ; it did not. 

The Chairman. How long was it after this interview with Mr. 
Mullenhoff before it appeared in print ? 

]Mr. HoFFA. I don't recall how long, but I remember the article. 
I am quite sure I do. 

The Chairman. You mean it did not refresh your memory then? 

Mr. HoFFA. No, sir ; it did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Ploffa, you are leaving the record that you will 
not deny making such a statement ? 

Mr HoFFA. I will not deny under oath, we may have made some dis- 
cussions on a kidding basis or some way, but I did not make any such 
statement, and I do not intend to leave any impression here that I 
do not respect our members in the South, North, East, or West as 
American citizens. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13525 

The ChairMxVN. You see, your action or your lack of action, tends 
to confirm exactly the sentiments the article conveyed. 
■ You kept these men down there, crooks and criminals, and you used 
them to be there, and you still have them in there. 

Mr. HoFFA. There are charges filed against them. It will be handled 
according to the constitution. 

The Chairman. But they are still there with the authority of the 
official position they have in the union. They are there right now. 

Mr. HoFFA. You are right to that point. 

The Chairman. We are not beyond this point. We can't get beyond 
it until another day comes. I say to you, sir, right now, that those 
men have no right, in your hearts I believe you know it, to sit in any 
official position of your miion another hour. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then the record will stand, unless you want to cor- 
rect it, Mr. Hoft'a. What about Mr. Tony Ducks Corrallo, vice presi- 
dent of Local 293 of the Teamsters? Excuse me, it is Local 239 
of the Teamsters. 

Mr. HoFFA. I never met the man, don't know the man, and never 
checked with the man. It is my understanding that the man is in- 
tending to resign from our union, 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you made any investigation of him ? Accord- 
ing to the testimony before our committee, he is a leader in the nar- 
cotics trade in New York City, This was when we had the hearings 
a year ago. He controls Local 875 of the Teamsters, Local 275 of the 
Teamsters, and influenced a good deal of control over Local 522 of the 
Teamsters, four teamster locals. Did you make any investigation of 
him ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I don't know what he is supposed to control. I think 
you said he is a vice president. Is that right ? 

Mr, Kennedy. Vice president of local 

Mr. HoFFA. Vice president of the union, 

Mr, Kennedy. Wait a minute. According to the testimony before 
our committee, he controlled Local 875 of the Teamsters, in addition to 
Local 239, Local 275, and had influence over Local 522 of the Team- 
sters. 

Mr. HoFFA. I believe that they have autonomy of their organiza- 
tions, I don't think they are in trusteeship. How he would control 
them, I don't know. 

Mr, Kennedy. He has been arrested 12 times, ranging from robbery, 
grand larceny, and narcotics. He was identified before the committee 
as an important figure in narcotics, and he was a close friend of 
Johnnie Dioguardi, My question is, Have you made any investigation 
of him ? 

Mr, HoFFA. I discussed that question concerning him. As I stated 
before, I understand he intends to resign from his position in the 
union, 

Mr, Kennedy. This is a year ago that we had this testimony, Mr. 

Mr.HoFFA. That is right. 

Mr, Kennedy, Have you taken any steps against Mr, Tony Ducks 
Corrallo ? 

21243 — 58 — pt. 3G 17 



13526 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. HoFFA. As of now, no. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr, Corrallo, from 1929 to 1941 only could show 
2 weeks of gainful employment, but he was deferred from the draft 
because he was the sole support of his mother. Do you know anything 
about him at all ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I never met him. Senator. 

Senator Kennedy. It has been a year since you came before the 
committee or taken any action. I thought he was one of the worst 
witnesses we had last summer; have you taken any action about it? 

Mr. IIoFFA. Not yet, no, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. Weren't you disturbed ( He was pretty well 
characterized l:)efore this committee as one of the most notorious 
hoodlums we had in the country. Do you mean to say tliat didn't 
cause some disturbance in A^our mind, some distress about the repu- 
tation of the Teamsters^ Did you proceed to take any action? 

Mr. HoFFA. The testimony certainly was not good publicity for the 
organization of the Teamsters. But on the other hand, the organi- 
zation certainly had a right to tile cliarges against him and remove 
him if they find he is not a proper person. 

Senator Kennedy. We asked him some questions about liis activ- 
ities as a Teamster official and he took the tifth amendment and gave 
no information. Mr. Hoffa, when Mr. Ives talked to you last year, 
you made some pledges which I hoped you would carry out to clean 
up ih.^ Teamsters Union. But I don't see any indication that you 
are prepared to take that action. You don't seem to feel that when 
a witness comes before us and takes the fifth amendment, quite obvi- 
ously technically he is entitled to that right but it does not seem to 
disturb you at all. You said yesterday "Why don't you leave him 
alone?" Talking then about Mr. Bushkin. Then you Avere about 
to pull out a Supreme Court decision talking about his rights. Mr. 
Corrallo is a notorious hoodlum in this country. This matter has 
been in your knowledge for a year. 

I can't understand how you, who are about to attempt to acquire a 
dominant position in the whole transportation system in the United 
States, can be so inditferent to that. 

Quite obviously, if you don't do something about it. someone else 
will have to. 

Can you tell me why you wouldn't? 

Mr. HoFFA. In my opinion, the situation will be corrected. 

Senator Kennedy. When? That is a year now, Mr. Hotl'a. 

Mr. HoFFA. I have been president of this international only since, 
I believe, the 31st of Januaiy. I have had many problems facing 
me, many important contracts. I have not gotten around to adjust- 
ing all of the problems that I will be adjusting as I get to them. 

Senator Kennedy. I don't think that is an adequate excuse. In 7 
or 8 months, your powers are very vast under the constitution. In 
addition, you, for example, supported two international vice presi- 
dents who took the fifth amendment. You supported them in October 
for international vice president, two witnesses who came before us 
and took the fifth amendment. This was after you came before the 
committee yourself. 

Mr. HoFFA. Senator, I am not going to change my mind for this 
committee or anybody else concerning a man's right to exercise a con- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13527 

stitutional right of a free American citizen, and I do not believe that 
I have the right to deprive them of a constitutional privilege he 
desires to put into effect. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, can I just ask you, when a witness 
comes before this committee and takes the fifth amendment on matters 
involving the use of union funds, whether that puts up a danger 
signal in your mind, and, therefore, it is your custom and habitto 
immediately begin an investigation as to what he may have done with 
union funds ? Is that your practice or not ? 

Mr. HoFFA. We will sit as an investigating committee under the 
constitution to check into the affairs of his union. 

Senator Kennedy. Have you done that? 

Mr. HoFFA. We have in many, many instances, yes. 

Senator Kennedy. Have you done it in the case of your interna- 
tional vice presidents who took the fifth amendment ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Do you mean Mr. O'Rourke and Mr. Brennan ? 

Senator Kennedy. That is correct. 

Mr. HoFFA. I have not had tlie opportunity to send anybody into 
those local unions, because I have been busy, insofar as other affairs of 
this union are concerned. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, I don't think there is any thing more 
important. You are now seeking to arrange an alliance with Mr. 
Bridges, with the west coast union, to extend your power over the 
transportation system in the United States. You don't seem to be 
interested in cleaning up corruption in your own union. It is not 
very difficult to you. You have extensive powers. These people are 
notorious, some of them Avho came before us. You don't seem to take 
any action. 

Mr. HoFFA. There will be action taken in due time. 

Senator Kennedy. Yet you oppose the Congress taking action. 

Mr. HoFFA. I don't think the bill you introduced would keep a man 
from taking the fifth amendment and becoming an officer of a union. 

Senator Kennedy. No, but it would make it a Federal crime to 
embezzle union funds, it would make it necessary to report the ex- 
penditures of unions' funds to the Government, it would make the 
destruction of union records or books a Federal crime. 

I think chiefly you, Mr. Hoffa, have failed to take action yourself. 
You are the greatest stimulus to all of the legislation we have had down 
here. 

JVIr. Hoffa. When those bills go into effect, every citizen will have 
to comply with them. 

Senator Kennedy. That is correct, and you are opposing their 
going in. But I say your failure to take action yourself with all the 
power you have seems to me to be a major reason why we have to do 
it, even though it is not a happy situation that we are forced to do it. 
But you are totally uninterested in it. 

Now, Mr. Hoffa, the other day when you came down here, did you 
talk to those witnesses that appeared before us on the laundry matter? 

Mr. Hoffa. The laundry matter ? 

Senator Kennedy. Yes. Mr. Meissner. 

Mr. Kennedy. The Detroit Institute of Laundry. 

Mr. Hoffa. I said hello to them, yes. 

Senator Kennedy. Where? ' 



13528 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. HoFFA. On the way down on the airplane and both airports. 

■Senator Kennedy. Did you discuss Mr. Holtzman ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Yes. I said, "Did you fellows have any business with 
Mr. Holtzman ?" And they said "Yes." 

Senator Kennedy. Did you say anything about the fact that any 
-money they got must have gone to Mr. Holtzman and not to you ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Did I say anything to them ? 

^Senator Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. HoFFA. I don't know. I think they mentioned it, if I remember 
it correctly. 

Senator Kennedy. Did you use the words "any money that they 
received must have gone to Mr. Holtzman, it did not go to you ?" 

Mr. HoFFA. It certainly did not go to me. 

Senator Kennedy. Did you say that to them? Did you remind 
them of that? We have been rather concerned with their change of 
testimony. Did you refresh their recollection ? 

Mr. HoFFA. What did you say ? 

Senator Kennedy. I said we have been concerned in the committee 
about the change of testimony of some of these witnesses. I am asking 
you if you refreshed their recollection on the way from Detroit to 
Washington that the money they paid went to Mr. Holtzman and did 
not go to you ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I don't think that matter was discussed. It may have 
been. They may have told me that they paid Holtzman some money. 
Well, I think that it what happened. 

Senator Kennedy. "When you came before this committee, Mr. Ken- 
nedy, the counsel said, talking about the Detroit Institute of Laundry, 
Mr. Bushkin and Mr. Holtzman : 

Did you have some discussions with them about that? 
Mr. HoFFA. I don't think I discussed it with them. 
^ Mr. Kennedy. Discuss 

Mr. HoFFA. With who? 
' -Senator Kennedy. Mr. Bushkin and Mr. Holtzman. 

Mr. HoFFA. I did not discuss it with Mr. Bushkin and Mr. Holtz- 
man, as I remember. 

Senator Kennedy. You don't recall ever discussing the Detroit 
Institute of Laundry case with Mr. Bushkin or Mr. Holtzman? 

Mr. HoFFA. Are you talking about the question of these negotia- 
tions? 

Senator Kennedy. What did you say ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Are you talking about the question of these negotia- 
tions ? 

Senator Kennedy. The 1949 negotiations, that is correct. 

Mr. HoFFA. As I said, I don't recall discussing the question. 

Senator Kennedy. Why did you bring up the matter with the two 
witnesses coming down here ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I had read in the newspaper articles, and I had listened 
to discussions around concerning the problem. 

Senator Kennedy. What newspaper ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I don't remember. 

Senator Kennedy. Was it in the newspaper actually, Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I think there was some insinuation that there had been 
a pa^-ment made by some laundry or something. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13529 

Senator Kennedy. You don't recall 



Mr. Kennedy. There was nothing in the newspapers about such 
a situation. 

Mr. HoFFA. There was something m the paper about somebody 
having made a payoff. 

Mr. Kennedy. Irving Paul Miller. But how did you know it was 
in connection with Holtzman ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I did not know it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. You told these witnesses coming down to remembei: 
that they gave the money to Mr. Holtzman. 

Mr. HoFFA. I discussed with the witness 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you deny that you said that to them ? 

Mr. HoFFA. What is that? 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you deny that you said to them, "Remember that 
you gave the money to Holtzman" ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I don't remember discussing that with them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you deny it ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I am not going to sit here and tell you from memory 
what I did or did not, but I don't believe that I did. 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, I think in the interests of fairness, 
Senator Kennedy has said that these witnesses changed their testi- 
mony. 

Senator Kennedy. Right. 

Mr. Williams. I think if there was ever any testimony given to 
this committee in executive session, or if anyone ever said to any 
investigator from this committee that any of this money went to 
this witness, that we ought to have that evidence now. I invite it 
to go into this record, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Williams, I made the statements that the 
witnesses changed their testimony before the committee. You were 
here when Mr. Miller changed his affidavit that had been notarized 
and that he had initialed. I am giving you one example of the 
change of testimony before this committee. 

Mr. HoFFA. I don't think I even know Miller. 

Senator Kennedy. I am just giving you the example of the change 
of testimony. I gave you the second example of Mr. Meissner. I 
think when you remember what the changes were in the testimony, 
I think it will be a matter of record. 

Mr. Williams. I think in the interests of fairness, we should say 
for the record that if Mr. Meissner changed his testimony, it was a 
change of speculation or assumption concerning the ultmiate destina- 
tion of the money to which he testified. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, then, the counsel asked you on page 
33 of the testimony, "Did you discuss the Detroit Institute of Laundry 
with Mr. Holtzman ? " You said, "I may have." 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember that? 
Mr. Hoffa. No, I don't. 
Mr. Kennedy. You don't remember? 
Mr. Hoffa. No, I don't. 

Mr. Kennedy. In 1949, did he make arrangements for you to visit with any 
of tlie representatives of the Detroit Institute of Laundry? 

in other words, you were rnther familiar with this whole matter 
when you discussed it with the witnesses. The question that Mr. 



13530 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Kennedy asked you regarding the Detroit Institute of Laundry with 
Mr. Ploltzman did not come as a surprise to you. 

Mr. HoFFA. I still say that I may have discussed it with them. 

I think I said the other day after LoCicero got through testi- 
fying 

Senator Kennedy. Why did you raise the question of Holtzman 
with them? 

Mr. HoFFA. Well, I think they know Holtzman. No particular 
significance. 

Senator Kennedy. Did you think you were under suspicion at that 
time by the committee for receiving the money? 

Mr. HoFFA. I am not under suspicion now. 

Senator Kennedy. That is w^iy I am asking you about Monday. I 
am asking you if you knew before you came down here that this matter 
would come up, and how you knew it. 

And why you chose to discuss it with witnesses and why you chose 
to remind them it was Mr, Holtzman who got the money. 

Mr. HoFFA. They told me they w^ere coming down to testify. 

Senator Kennedy. They called you? 

Mr. HoFFA. No. I met them at the airport. I did not even know 
they were going to be on the same plane. 

Senator Kennedy. Why did you raise the matter of Holtzman ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Why did I raise the matter with Holtzman ? 

Senator Kennedy. Of Holtzman? 

Mr. HoFFA. Maybe they did. I don't know. 

Senator Kennedy. You don't recall ? 

Mr. HoFFA. No, I don't. 

Senator Kennedy. AAHio was it you talked to ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I think both Meissner and Balkwill was there. But I 
think it was in a kidding way. I don't think we made any serious 
discussion concerning this problem. As a matter of fact, I know we 
did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, after the hearing was over on Tuesday, 
while leaving the hearinjjs after these people had testified regarding 
this matter, did you say, "That S. O. B., I'll break his back" ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Who ? 

Mr. Kennedy. You. 

Mr. Hoffa. Say it to who ? 

Mr. Kennedy. To anyone. Did you make that statement after these 
people testified before this committee? 

Mr. Hoffa. I never talked to either one of them after they testified. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not talking about them. Did you make that 
statement here in the hearing room after the testimony w^as finished ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Not concerning them, as far as I know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who did you make it about, then ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't know. I may have been discussing someone in a 
figure of speech. I don't even remember it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Whose back were you going to break, Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. Hoffa. It was a figure of speech. I don't know what you are 
talking about. . 

Mr. Kennedy. I am trying to find out whose back you were trying 

to break. 

Mr. Hoffa. It is a figure of speech. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat? 

Mr. Hoffa. A figure of speech. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13531 

Mr. Kennedy. A figure of speech about what? 

Mr, HoFFA. I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who were you talking about ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I have no knowledge of what you are talking about. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you deny that you made the statement ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I don't recall making it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you deny that you made it ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I could have made a remark to somebody we had been 
talking about the day before or the day after. 

It is a figure of speech. 

Mr. Kennedy. Whose back were you going to break ? 

Mr. HoFFA. It does not mean physically. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let's find out whose back you were going to break 
figuratively. 

Mr. HoFFA. I don't know. I don't know. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you this question : Whether physically 
or figuratively 

Mr. HoFFA. What, sir? 

The Chairman (continuing) . Did you make that remark about any 
member of this committee, any member of its staff, or any witness who 
may have testified before it or whose testimony is expected ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I do not recall making any such a statement. I cer- 
tainly did not make it about any member of this committee or any staff 
member or any witness that I can recall. I know I did not. I am sure 
of that. 

The Chairman. You certainly could recall back to Monday. 

Mr. HoFFA. I can't recall making any such statement, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman ? 

Mr. I^nnedy. Let me ask you — excuse me. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, I just want to state for the record 
that in reference to cases that have been called up of gross wrongdoing 
on the part of union officials, agents, others, I concur in the belief that 
those men should be removed from their jobs. I do not think that the 
matter should end there. 

I do not think that if that is accomplished this committee has com- 
pleted its work or the Congress has. 

A few weeks ago we had as our witness Mr. Daniel P. Sullivan, of 
the Crime Commission of Greater Miami and Miami, Fla. He dis- 
cussed some of their problems down there and the fact that some of the 
hoodlums and gangsters they were dealing with did have and had had 
union connections, and I asked Mr. Sullivan this question: 

Why does this gangster element move into the field of unions ? 

Mr. Sullivan replied by quoting one such gangster, as he had stated 
to him, as the reason, and this is what he said : 

Well, first of all, when you have a checkoff system, you have a foolproof 
system of collections. It does not cost you any money to operate. Secondly, 
if you run one of these insurance companies or welfare outfits, you don't pay 
out any money and you take it all in. And thirdly, you have no insi^ection on 
the local, county. State, or Federal level, so your funds are not audited. 

My point in bringing that up is that while I concur strongly that 
responsible union officers should remove unworthy characters from 
places of trust in the union, that this committee and this Congress have 
not discharged their responsibilities until laws are made that take the 
power and opportunity away from these people. 



13532 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

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

Mr, Kennedy. I would like to call a witness, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Williams. Are we excused ? 

The Chairman. No, You may remain where you are. There is 
one point we want to clear up, and see if we can refresh Mr. Hoffa's 
memory a bit. 

Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Roberts, 

The Chairman, 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. Roberts. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT D, ROBERTS 

The Chairman, State your name, your place of residence, and your 
present employment, 

Mr, Roberts. My name is Robert D, Roberts. I live at 120 C Street 
NE. I am a member of the Capitol Police force. 

The Chairman, You live here in the city of Washington ? 

Mr, Roberts, Yes, sir ; I do. 

The Chairman, Where is 3^our home ? 

Mr, Roberts, My home is Jefferson City, Mo. 
. The Chairman. Jefferson City, Mo. ? 

Mr. Roberts. Originally, yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How long have you been in Washington ? 

Mr. Roberts. About a year and a half, sir. 

The Chairman. How long have you been on the Capitol Police 
force ? 

Mr. Roberts. A year June 7. 

The Chairman. A year June 7 ? 

Mr. Roberts. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You waive counsel ? You know you are entitled to 
have an attorney present, if you desire. 

Mr. Roberts. Yes, sir. 

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

Mr, Kennedy. You are a member of the Capitol Police ? 

Mr. Roberts. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have been a member how long ? 

Mr. Roberts. One year June 7. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were on duty, were you, on Tuesday in this 
hearing room, of this week ? 

Mr. Roberts, Tuesday ; yes, sir, I was on duty here in the hearing 
room, 

Mr, Kennedy. Mr. Roberts, you were on duty at the end of the 
session, were you ? 

Mr. Roberts. Yes, sir; until the session was over. I stayed here 
until the area was cleared. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you hear a statement made by the witness, Mr. 
Hoffa? 

Mr. Roberts. Yes, sir ; not in this room, though, 

Mr, Kennedy. Where was the statement made ? 

Mr. Roberts. On the street. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell the 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13533 

Mr. Roberts. After the session was over, then I went downstairs, 
and from there I was to perform the rest of my duties outside, in front 
of the entrance of Delaware and C Streets, right by the trolley-car 
tracks. I was standing there, and that is where I overheard the state- 
ment. 

The Chairman. Speak a little louder. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell the committee what he stated, what 
Mr. Hoffa stated, putting blanks in where blanks are necessary. 

First, would you write it out, and then would you make the state- 
ment ? 

Mr. Roberts. You want me to write it out, leaving out the pro- 
fanity ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Ko; just state what he said and leave out the pro- 
fanity. Then I will have you write it out. 

Mr. Roberts. He said, "That sneaky little 'blank.* I'll break his 
back." 

I have no way of knowing what he was talking about or who he 
was referring to. It was just that one statement that I heard. 

The Chairman. Had he just left the hearing room here ? 

Mr. Roberts. I presume so. 

The Chaikman. Had w^e just adjourned ? 

Mr. Roberts. Yes. It was very soon after adjournment. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. To whom did he make the statement ? 

Mr. Roberts. He was talking to this gentleman that was with him. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know who he was ? 

Mr. Roberts. I am not sure who he was. I think I know who he 
was, but I am not sure. I could identify the man, but I don't know if 
this is his name. I think it was Mr. Fitzgerald. 

Senator Curtis. Do j^ou know about whom he made the statement ? 

Mr. Roberts. I have no idea, sir. I only heard that one statement ; 
that is all. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know what subject matter was under dis- 
cussion when he made the statement ? 

Mr. Roberts. I have no idea, sir ; none whatsoever. 

The Chairman. Now write out the statement so that it may be incor- 
porated into the record. 

Mr. Roberts. Verbatim, sir ? 

The Chairman. Write it verbatim. 

TEXTIMONY OF JAMES R. HOFFA, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
EDWARD BENNETT WILLIAMS, GEORGE FITZGERALD, AND 
DAVID PREVIANT— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Does that refresh your recollection, Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. HoFFA. It doesn't refresh my recollection. We may have been 
discussing some situation, and I may have said that. 

The Chairman. The important thing in this, and I don't know nor 
does anyone else, is whether you were directing those remarks to any 
member of this committee, any member of its staff, or any witness who 
had testified or whose testimony the committee expected to receive. 
That is the point. 



13534 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. HoFFA, You can rest assured it was not. 

The Chairman. You can state unequivocally under oath you were 
not referring either physically or figuratively to any of those whom 
I have identified ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I did not. 

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

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Mr. Hoffa, we had some testimony before this com- 
mittee regarding Mr. Milton Holt, secretary-treasurer of local 805, in 
New York. Could you tell us whether you have taken any steps 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, may I see what the witness wrote out ? 

The Chairman. Yes; you may. I cannot permit it to be verbally 
stated in the language in which it is written over the air or before this 
audience. 

Mr. Williams. You can go ahead with the examination. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, we have had testimony regarding Mr. Mil- 
ton Holt, secretary-treasurer of local 805. 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes? 

Mr. Kennedy. O. K. 

Mr. Hoffa. Sure. Go ahead. 

Mr. Kennedy. Secretary-treasurer of local 805, Mr. Hoffa. 

Mr. Hoffa. What about it ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you taken any steps against Mr. Milton Holt? 

Mr. Hoffa. I have not. The man is indicted, waiting trial. He was 
found guilty of an antitrust, the same as all the employers who are 
involved with him. I have discussed the matter with him. But I have 
taken no action. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have taken no steps to have him removed from 
his position ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I have not. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is very close and was identified as being very 
close to Johnnie Dioguardi before this committee. 

Mr, Hoffa. Is that a question ? 

Mr. Kennedy. You have still taken no steps against him ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was involved also in the so-called bouncing char- 
ter, where this charter bounced around from one individual to another, 
according to the testimony before our committee; that he was very 
close to Mr. Johnnie Dioguardi and Mr. Getlin, in that matter. 

Can you tell us whether you looked into that at all ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I think I have talked to Milton Holt concerning the 
problem. His case is coming up in court. We will take proper action 
at that time if necessary. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have taken no steps against him ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No ; we have not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat about Mr. Abe Gordon, the administrator of 
the welfare fund of local 805 of the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Wliat about him ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you taken any steps against him ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No ; I have not. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is a vice president of local 805. An investigation 
by the New York Insurance Commission in 1956 revealed that he 
received a certain percentage of the contributions as salary. Also it 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13535 

was developed that he formed a trucking company back in 1932, he 
became president in 1934, his partner was Kovolick, who was described 
by former New York District Attorney Tom Dewey as a vicious 
strong-arm man for Lepke and Durra, when these two men controlled 
the garment industry in New York City during the 1930's. Have you 
taken any steps against Abe Gordon ? 

Mr. HoiTA. I have not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Kovolick has a long police record. 

Mr. HoFFA. I don't think he is a Teamster member. 

Mr. Kennedy. No ; he is a partner of Mr. Abe Gordon. 

Mr. HoFFA. Isn't it true that Gordon gave up his truck company ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Had he given it up ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I am under the impression he has. 

Mr. Kennedy. Also, Mr. Hoffa, according to an investigation that 
was made by the New York Insurance Agency, it was found that he 
sold a piece of property to the union welfare fund, which in April of 
1953 he advertised for sale for $15,000, plus the mortgage, which I 
believe was $11,000. In October 1953 he sold the same piece of prop- 
erty to the union, to himself, for $85,000. 

Did you make an investigation of that ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I believe former President Beck did, and I believe the 
charges were dropped. They were never pressed. 

Mr. Kennedy. The evidence was in the record in connection with 
that. Have you ever looked into it ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Not into the question of his development. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not look into that ? 

Mr. HoFFA. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was very close to Mr. Johnnie Dioguardi ; isn't 
that correct ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I understand he knew him. How close he was is a 
question. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, according to the testimony before our commit- 
tee, Johnnie Dioguardi operated out of Abe Gordon's office, local 805. 

Mr. HoFFA. He may have. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you taken any steps against Mr. Gordon? 

Mr. HoFFA. I have taken no steps against Gordon. 

Mr. Kennedy. And it was shown, revealed before the committee, 
that Mr. Johnnie Dio used Abe Gordon's office as his contact, as his 
telephone contact, when he and Tony "Ducks" were working on the 
election of a joint council in New York. Did you look into that ? 

Mr. HoFFA. No ; I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. In fact, Mr. Abe Gordon is a close friend of yours, 
is he not, Mr. Hoffa? 

Mr. HoFFA. A friend of mine ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is he over at the Teamsters headquarters now? 

Mr. HoFFA. No ; I think he went home this afternoon. 

Mr. Kjennedy. He has been over there until now ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. He was over there yesterday ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the day before ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And on Monday ? 



13536 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. HoFFA. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he was down here with you ? 

Mr. HoFFA. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is Mr. Abe Gordon, Mr. Chairman, one of 
Johnnie Dio's closest associates, who has been involved, linked up, 
with numerous racketeers and gangsters in New York City. 

Mr. HoFFA. Let the record show — excuse me. 

The Chairman. What is his connection ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Administrator of the welfare fund of local 805 of the 
Teamsters, vice president of local 805, and the New York Insurance 
Commission found that he had sold property, his own personal prop- 
erty, his family's, to the welfare fund for an exorbitant profit back 
in 1953. 

Mr. HoFFA. I think the record ought to show, sir, that the New 
York Insurance Commission, I believe, regularly checks welfare funds. 
There is nothing reported to be wrong with that fund. 

Senator Ives. May I get something straight here before you go any 
further on the commission business? Is that the New York State 
Insurance Commission or the New York State Insurance Department ? 

Mr. HoFFA. It could be either one. 

Senator Ives. I don't think they have a New York State Insui*ance 
Commission. I think it is a department. 

Mr. HoFFA. Whichever one checks the records. I know you have 
to file some type of form. 

Senator Ives. It is department. 

Mr. HoFFA. Department. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. You have not made an investigation of him, then, 
either? 

Mr. HoFFA. I have discussed Gordon's operation with him. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about John McNamara, local 808 and local 
295 of the Teamsters ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I discussed John McNamara's operations of both local 
unions with John McNamara. We have under consideration now an 
audit of 295 and an audit of 808 by Price Waterhouse, to determine 
whether or not the books are in order. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you had an investigation and hearing of him ? 

Mr. HoFFA. There are no charges filed against McNamara. He is 
out on a certificate of reasonable doubt. 

Mr. Ivennedy. You stated specifically before this committee in 
answer to a question of Senator Ives, that based on the material that 
we developed regarding McNamara's tie-in with the paper locals, you 
would conduct a hearing and have an investigation of Mr. IMcNamara. 

Mr. HoFFA. It is a question of what you call an investigation. I 
have discussed this matter with McNamara and I consider that an 
investigation. 

Senator Ives. I pointed out, you know, that Mr. Hoffa's interpre- 
tation of a clean and decent administration of a union might be some- 
what different from mine. 

The Chairman. Mr. Hoffa, surely, a man of your intellect does not 
want the record to stand that that is what you consider an appropriate 
investigation, just to simply ask a man who may be charged, or whom 
all the testimony has accumulated against, just ask him, and then you 
say that is your investigation ? . 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN IHE LABOR FIELD 13537 

Mr. Ht»FFA. McNamara has no charge against McNamara except the 
iact that while he was in jail they asked to have the vacancy filled. 
If I recall correctly, the vacancy was filled by the board. McNamara 
came out. It is onr report that he appeared in front of the inember- 
ship and the membership retained him, subject to the question of a 
hearing by the higher court. 

There is no complaint that I know of concerning McNamara's or- 
ganization, except that the monitors have requested and we have 
agreed, to have both local unions audited by Price, Waterhouse. 

Mr. Kennedy. There is one other thing that might have slipped 
your mind, and it might be very small in your estimation, but he was 
convicted with Johnny Dio in an extortion matter, and he was found: 
guilty by a jury. 

Mr. HoFTA. And it is still subject matter of an appeal. 

Mr. KIennedy. But this is the man that still holcls this position. 

Mr. HoFFA. Subject later to appeal. 

Mr. Kennedy. He has been found guilty by a jury, and he is still 
holding the important position in two locals in New York City. 

Mr. IIoFFA. I recognize that, and I recognize he has a right of 
appeal. 

Mr. Kennedy. You said you were going to make an investigation 
and have a hearing on him. 

Mr. HoFFA. I did make an investigation. 

Mr. Kennedy. You talked to him ? 

Mr. IIoFFA. That is right, and that is an investigation. 

Senator Chukch. In view of Mr. Hotfa's definition of an investiga- 
tion, I would like to ask him what his definition might be of another 
term I have heard liim use this afternoon. 

Mr. Ho If a, I was not a member of this committee at the time you 
first appeared. I understand that at that time you indicated to tlie 
conimittee that it was your intention to clean up these problems in the 
Teamsters Union with reference to many people whose names have 
now been discussed and who had criminal records and were convicted 
of serious crime, and that at that time, it is my understanding, that 
you gave your pledge that this would be your effort as president of the 
Teamsters Union. 

Today I have heard many of these names discussed, and I have 
heard you testify that you have taken no action, but you have said 
repeatedly that these matters would be cleared up in due time. 

Now, your earlier appearance was about a year ago, and no apparent 
p'-ogress has been made, and what do you mean" by "these matters 
will be cleared up in due time"" ^ How would you define that? What 
do you mean by it ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I wasn't the general president of this union when I 
appeared here last time, and^ I became general president, I believe, 
the 31st of January of this year. I have had a considerable number 
of problems which arose during the question of the court proceedings, 
and the question of monitors, and we have had trusteeship hearings, 
and executive board hearings, and we have had several hearings or 
many hearings out in the field by panels, reporting them back to 
the monitors. It is my intention to do the same thing as complaints 
come in, because when a complaint comes in we submit the complaint 
to the monitors, and the monitors are aware of the complaints, and 



13538 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

we in turn send out panels and hold hearings, and those hearings 
come back, and the monitors have an opportunity to listen or read 
the testimony and prior to making a decision we consult with the 
monitors on those cases. 

As the cases come in from the membership, under our constitution 
-I will apply the procedure of the constitution. 

Mow long that will take, that is an undetermined time. 

Senator Church. In other words, you couldn't give this committee 
any estimate of what "in due time" would mean ? 

Mr. HoFFA. No ; I could not. 

Senator Ives. You have changed that now to make it your intention 
to do that and it is no longer your pledge. Remember you promised 
me a few things, and I am going to read them to you before we get 
through. 

Mr. HoFFA. Senator, I am well aware of what I said last time 
to you. 

Senator Ives. You have got a good memory today, I know that. 

Mr. HoFFA. I am also aware of the question of the responsibility of 
this union, and the problems that I had facing me when I took over, 
and I have adjusted many of them. Those problems will be adjusted 
as time goes on and will be corrected. 

Senator Ivt:s. Your idea of '"as time goes on" seems to be indefinite. 

Mr. HoFFA. I don't think 6 months is a long time. Senator, to take 
a position that it is indefinite. 

Senator Ives, It is a little more than 6 months ; isn't it ? 

Mr. HoFFA. It is not more than 6 months. It was January 31, and 
it is a little after August now, the 6th or 7th. 

Senator Ives. There are some of these things that are crying for 
attention, 

Mr. HoFFA. I beg your pardon ? 

Senator Ives. There are some of these things that are demanding 
attention, 

Mr, HoFFA. They are getting attention. 

Senator Ives, You know what we were talking about in our con- 
versation that day. Now, it seems to me if you really would put your 
mind to it and your will to it, you could have taken care of these things 
in much less than 6 months. 

Mr. HoFFA, Well, Senator, if you would sit in the office of the 
Teamsters Building I think you would be willing to testify that I put 
in a good day's work, and I think that I put in a good evening's work, 
I think I have attended to my business concerning the teamsters as 
faithfully as any international president of any international union. 
This is a tremendous job to do, and it cannot be carried out overnight. 

Senator I\^s. I am not talking about your routine work. I am talk- 
ing about placing first things first. 

Mr. HoFFA, First things first is to get this union on an operating 
basis. 

Senator Ives, First things first in your position is to have a decent, 
honest union, operating under decent and honest leaders. You haven't 
done that so far. 

Mr, PIoFFA, This union is a union of one-million-five-hundred- 
thousand-odd members, and it has local unions all over the country, 
with all types of people working for it and all types of members. The 



IMPROPER ACTWITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13539 

membei's have a perfect right to file complaints concerning the opera- 
tion of this union, and I have tried to adjust those complaints as they 
come into our office, either in front of the board by sending out panels, 
or personal interviews, by telephone conversations, and other methods 
of adjusting this union. 

Senator Iv^s. You realize, and I suppose you do, that the larger 
your union is, the more imperative it becomes that this question of 
honesty and decency in the administration of the affairs of that union 
be paramount, and have first attention. I don't think that you have 
done that, and you haven't convinced me you have done it in any way, 
shape, or manner. 

Mr. HoFFA. There is no question that there must be honesty in the 
organization, but also we must keep in mind the fact that those things 
will be adjusted as they are brought to our attention, with due process 
of the constitution, and we must keep in mind, also, that the everyday 
affairs of this union affecting the worker driving a truck and working 
in warehouses is of primary importance of this union, and the other 
things will be taken care of in due time. 

Senator Ives. It is what you consider first things first. Apparently 
you consider these other things you are talking about as most impor- 
tant, and I don't. 

Mr. HoFFA. I think wages, hours, and conditions. Senator, and con- 
tracts, are very urgent and very important to our members. ' > 

Senator Ives. You mean to tell me that those matters are more 
important than common honesty ? 

Mr. HoFFA. No ; it isn't ; common honesty is 

Senator Ives. That is what is involved here basically. 

Mr. HoFFA. Common honesty will be taken along the same course 
in our constitution as everything else. 

Senator Ives. Common honesty is first and demands first attention 
and there can be no delay in that at all. 

You have delayed, and that is what I am driving at. 

Mr. HoFFA. As they are brought to my attention, as charges are filed, 
and they follow the constitution, we will take care of them. 

Senator Ives. Whose constitution? Your own constitution, or the 
Constitution of the United States ? 

Mr. HoFFA. The international constitution, and the Constitution of 
the United States. 

Senator Ives. You have got a peculiar constitution if it allows that 
kind of interpretation. Certainly the Constitution of the United 
States, unless you want to be very technical, never embraced that idea 
of carrying out the thought of honesty. Honesty is honesty, and you 
know whether you have been honest about this yourself, and you know 
whether you have carried out the promise you made to this committee. 
Down in your heart you know darn well you haven't. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

Senator Ervin. I believe that I would like to ask him one question, 
in view of the testimony of Mr. Brennan. 

How many vice presidents do the Teamsters have ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Thirteen, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Where is Mr. Brennan's office ? 

Mr. HoFFA. In Detroit, Mich. 

Senator Ervin. In the same building with yours ? 



13540 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. HoFFA. In the same building ; yes. 

Senator Ervin. And you have daily associations with him ? 

Mr. HoFFA. We used to, and today I am in Washington primarily 
the bidk of my time. 

Senator Ervin. Now, I notice that when Mr. Brennan, a vice presi- 
dent of the Teamsters, was called here as a witness tlie other day, he 
swore in substance that if he told this committee anything whatever 
about any action taken by him as a vice president of the Teamsters 
Union that the disclosure he would make would tend to incriminate 
him. You heard his testimony, I believe. 

Mr. HoFFA. I did. 

Senator Ervin. How can you, as the president of the International 
Union of Teamsters, tolerate the presence in as important an office 
as a vice president, of a man who comes and states on his oath that any 
disclosure he might make about his action as a vice president, or action 
taken by him as a vice president of tlie Teamsters, might tend to in- 
criminate him, that is, might tend to show he was guilty of some crim- 
inal oU'ense ^ Don't you think that your members of your union are 
entitled to have the services of officers who can make a frank and 
honest and a full disclosure of all of their actions as officers under the 
glare of the noonday sun in the presence of everybody ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Senator, I must say that Mr. Brennan has a right as a 
citizen to take the fifth amendment without me trying to decide 

Senator Ervin. As a citizen ; yes. 

Mr. HoFFA. To decide whether or not he has performed some duty 
that he does not want to disclose, but until that duty is brought to the 
attention of the union, it may be a personal responsibility. 

Senator Ervin. He was asked about his actions as an officer of the 
union. 

Mr. HoFFA. I understand, but I believe that IVIr. Brennan in answer- 
ing those questions, I think he said something here, and I can't recall 
exactly what he said, about being able to differentiate between one as 
against the other, and so he felt that to protect himself he ought to 
take the fifth on every question. 

Senator Ervin. But he is protecting himself, he swore, against a 
possible criminal charge by refusing to make any disclosure not about 
his conduct as an individual, but about his conduct as a vice }>resident 
of the Teamsters Union. 

Now, I would commend to your reading a very celebrated opinion of 
Chief Justice Holmes. Your very brilliant lawyer, for whom I have 
the highest regard, can explain it to you. 

On one occasion, in the city of Boston, they discharged a policeman 
for participating in politics in violation of a city ordinance which for- 
bade policemen participating in politics. So he went to court on the 
theory, he said, that every American citizen had a constitutional right 
to be interested in politics. 

But Judge Holmes said that it was true that every American citizen 
has a constitutional right to be active in politics, but every American 
citizen doesn't have a constitutional right to be a policeman of the city 
of Boston. 

Now, I would say it seems to me that every American citizen has a 
constitutional right to plead the fifth amendment, but I don't think 
that a man who pleads the fifth amendment when he is asked about the 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13541 

discliarge of the duties and obligations wliicli he owes as an officer of 
the union, has a ritrlit to remain in that office after he pleads the fifth 
amendment. I would be glad to have your views on that subject. 

Don't you think that the Teamsters are entitled to have officers whose 
conduct in their offices is such that they are not compelled to invoke 
the fifth amendment when they are required to give an account of 
their official conduct? 

Mr. HoFFA. Senator, my answer to you is that the membership of 
Brennan's local union, through its duly elected representatives, had 
an opportunity to decide that question. They decided the question in 
favor of Mr. Brennan, and he brought to their attention the fact that 
he had taken the fifth amendment here, and they still voted that he 
did a job for them in negotiating wages, hours, and conditions and 
voted to retain him in his position. 

Senator Ervin. I didn't ask you anything aoout the opinion of the 
members of Mr. Brennan's local. I asked you as the president of the 
largest labor union in the United States, whether or not you think that 
the members of your union are entitled to have in office, to look after 
union affairs, men of such character that when they are asked about 
their official conduct in union offices, they do not have to invoke the 
privilege of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. HoFFA. I believe we have a right to be a president or vice presi- 
dent of this union as long as the people that we are vice president or 
president of desire to maintain them in office, fifth amendment or not. 

Senator Ervin. You know, there are three ways to avoid answering 
a question. One is to plead the fifth amendment, and another is to say 
you do not remember, and a third is not to answer the question but talk 
about something else. 

Mr. HoFFA. 1 thought I answered your question. I am sorry. 

Senator Ervin. You said you thought they ought to be allowed to 
stay there as long as the people wanted to keep them, but I am not 
asking you about that. I am asking you for your personal opinion. 

Mr. HoFFA. My opinion is the same as the people, and they have a 
right to stay there. 

Senator Irvin. In other words, you think it is perfectly all right for 
men to be retained in offices of the Teamsters Union who are conduct- 
ing themselves in such a way in the discharge of their official duties 
that they have to succumb to the temptation to plead the fifth amend- 
ment when inquiry is made of them about their official conduct. You 
think that is perfectly all right. 

The Chairman. Do you have any more questions ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, this is the group that we have who have 
criminal records, in addition to those we have established before the 
committee that have committed some acts that would appear to be 
detrimental to the union. This is not just the group of those who 
have criminal records, but in addition, in their capacity as union 
officials we have had some testimony about them. 

So we haven't really started yet. These people are all still union 
officials. 

The Chairman. We can't possibly conclude this afternoon. 

Senator Church. I think in order that we can keep this matter 
that Senator Ervin inquired about in proper perspective with respect 
to its relationship to the union movement in general, it might be well 

21243—58 — pt. 36 18 



13542 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

for the record to show that many of the international presidents of 
numerous important and influential labor unions in this country have 
publicly taken a position very much different from that that has been 
stated by the witness today. They have expressed their feeling that 
if union leaders in their organizations are unwilling to give a public 
accountancy of their stewardship when competently inquired into by 
this committee or any other public authority, and instead invoke the 
fifth amendment, they are not entitled to remain in office. 

I think that position is eminently sound and that it is necessary 
to the preservation of a wholesome union movement in this country. 
I would not want the record to leave any inference that the position 
taken in this matter by the present witness is representative of the 
position taken by the union movement as a whole. 

Mr. HoFFA. May I make a statement? 

The Chairman. Yes, you may. 

Mr. HoFFA. I wonder if Senator Church is aware of what the board 
of review of the CIO did in regard to those individuals that took 
the fifth amendment concerning communism. 

Senator Church. I think the position taken by the board with 
respect to that matter is not relevant to the position taken by these 
labor leaders in connection with the point of inquiry as to the steward- 
ship of union leaders and an accountancy that they owe when that 
stewardship is inquired into. 

I think that the position that many labor union leaders have taken— 
that if one wants to invoke the fifth amendment and refuse to dis- 
close his stewardship over any particular local, when the questions 
pertain to his official duties as a union leader, that such a person 
ought not to continue as a union leader, if he refuses to give an 
accountancy — is sound and in the best interests of the union move- 
ment. That is my view, and it appears also to be the view of a great 
many important and responsible union leaders in this country. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Hoffa, what system of audits of local unions 
by the international union prevails in the Teamsters Union, if any? 
' Mr. Hoffa. Up to this new constitution, the Teamsters Inter- 
national Union had auditors who audited the books of the local 
unions. Under the new constitution, the local unions are required to 
have a CPA audit, and their international union, I believe, every 2 
years, audits the books of the local union by CPA's for the first time 
we have established that. 

Senator Curtis. When was the change made from the old consti- 
tution? 

Mr. Hoffa. In October, and it took effect when the court decision 
was handed down. 

Senator Curtis. And the old method called for an audit by interna- 
tional officers ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. And I assume that sometimes they were profes- 
sional auditors, and sometimes they were not; is that right? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. 

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

Senator Curtis. Under your new system, you require the local union 
to have its books audited by an outside auditing firm ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13543 

Mr. HoFFA. A CPA, yes. They could have their own CPA, if there 
was a sufficient number of people in the building to have one, to hire 
him regularly for their business. 

Senator Curtis. Yes, but they would not be officers and members of 
the union ? 

Mr. HoFFA. No. They might be members. Pardon me, they may be 
a member, a CPA. I don't know. 

Senator Curtis. That would be rather coincidental. And what 
system of auditing funds of other subordinate bodies exist between 
locals and the international ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Under the section of the constitution, subordinate bodies 
will be treated the same as local unions. 

Senator Curtis. And as they are required to have an audit by a 
CPA, with whom are copies of that audit filed? 

Mr. HoFFA. Filed with the international union. Also a 990 is filed 
with the Department of Labor. 

Senator Curtis. How about the membership ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Membership has a right to have copies of the audit and 
copies of the 990. 

Senator Curtis. "Wliat procedure is followed when those copies 
reach the international headquarters? 

Are they filed and remain dormant until a specific question is raised, 
or are they specifically examined when they come in, or soon there- 
after? 

Mr. HoFFA. I would imagine since it is not my department, and I 
can only imagine what will happen, I imagine the secretary-treasurer, 
English, will have somebody check those reports and if there are any 
questions, they will raise the questions. 

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

Senator Curtis. First let me ask : At what level in the Teamsters' 
organization are welfare funds maintained ? Are there welfare funds 
pertaining only to locals, or are they area funds? What system is 
followed ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Area and local, and multiple locals also without areas. 

Senator Curtis. What do you mean by multiples ? 

Mr. HoFFA. There could be more than one local union in a particular 
fund. 

Senator Curtis. That is health and welfare. Do you have any 
pension funds, too ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Yes, sir, we do. 

Senator Curtis. And generally how are they maintained ? 

Mr. HoFFA. On the same basis. 

Senator Curtis. What system of auditing do you have in regard to 
health and welfare funds ? 

Mr. HoFFA. We have no system of auditing health and welfare funds 
from the international union, because those funds are operated under 
a trust agreement and are not chartered by this international union. 

Senator Curtis. By trust agreement, you mean there is employer 
participation ? 

Mr, HoFFA. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Do those agreements call for a system of auditing? 

Mr. HoFFA. Yes, I believe they do. The ones I am familiar with do 



13544 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. What system of auditing do you have in reference 
to pension funds ? 

Mr. HoFFA. On the same basis. 

Senator Curtis. Have you personally had an opportunity to ex- 
amine any audits that come in of local unions or joint councils or any 
other teamster groups that have funds ? 

Mr. HoFFA. There are only two funds that I am familiar with, 
actually, and that is the Central States-Southeast-Southwest, pension 
and welfare fund, and the Michigan Conference of Teamsters. I have 
seen audits of all three of those funds. 

Senator Curtis. To what extent does the Teamsters Union engage 
in politics ? 

Mr. HoFFA. To what extent ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. HoiTA. On a local level we engage in politics in some instances 
actively, in other instances not, and in some instances from the inter- 
national standpoint we operate also in requests of local unions in 
politics. 

Senator Curtis. Your political operation on a local level, what con- 
stitutes that ? 

Mr. HoFFA. It is a question of helping candidates get elected, dis- 
seminating information to our members, and doing whatever we can do 
legally. 

Senator Curtis. How do you define "local candidates" ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Those running for other than Federal office. 

Senator Curtis. Those what ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Those who are running for office other than Federal 
elections. 

Senator Curtis. Other than Federal. That would include State, 
county, and city officials ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Very easily. 

Senator Curtis. Are you prohibited by law in any States from doing 
that? 

Mr. HoFFA. I am not familiar with all the States. I don't know 
if we are or not. 

Senator Curtis. Do you engage in politics in reference to the elec- 
tion of judges? 

Mr. HoFFA. I beg your pardon ? 

Senator Curtis. Do you have any political activity in reference to 
the election of judges to State and local courts ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I am quite sure that we participate in those elections. 

Senator Curtis. Do you in Michigan ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Any other States? 

Mr. HoFFA. I wouldn't want to get committed, but I would assume so. 

Senator Curtis. In those cases where you know about, does that sup- 
port of candidates for judges include a contribution in money ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I think it could do both. 

Senator Curtis. I know it could, but I say does it ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Well, I can't answer that, frankly. I would think that 
it does both ways; but I am quite sure that we have from time to time 
gave donations to political candidates by check or by cash. 

Senator Curtis. From w^here would that money come ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13545 

Mr. HoFFA. From local unions. 

Senator Curtis. From what fund in local unions ? 

Mr. HoFFA. What is that ? 

Senator Curtis. From what funds in local unions ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I would imagine in most instances the general fund. I 
understand some of our locals have a special fund. 

Senator Citrtis. From what source does the income come that makes 
up the general fund of a union ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Initiation fees, dues. 

Senator Curtis. Do you engage in politics in the election of any 
officials connected with schools and education ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, I see it is 5 o'clock. 

Will the witness be back another day ? 

The Chairman. Yes ; I am confident he will. 

I was hoping we could recess at this time. I have a matter to look 
after on the floor, and I would like to get over there before adjourn- 
ment. 

Senator Curtis. At some time I wish to pursue this inquiry that I 
am making now, because I am very definitely interested in legislation 
concerning it. 

The Chairman. The Chair would not at all undertake to preclude 
you from pursuing it. 

I would anticipate that it would run into quite a lengthy interroga- 
tion possibly. I am hoping we could defer you until another day. 
Mr. Hoffa will be before the committee again, of course. iVs we 
adjourn, I wish to associate myself with the remarks of Senator 
Church. I notice he has left the committee room, but I think his re- 
marks were very timely and most appropriate with respect to the 
position that has been taken publicly, and the code of ethics that has 
been adopted by other unions with respect to certain activities. I 
regret exceedingly that this witness has a different opinion of what 
ethics are and what his responsibility may be to the membership with 
regard to these matters. 

I am saddened by the impact of the testimony of this witness. I 
think as you listen to what has been recorded here this afternoon, the 
conclusion is inescapable that under the character of leadership now 
being given to the largest labor union in the country, the prospects of 
restoring integrity, where integrity has not been heretofore, and pro- 
viding a leadership and administration that is capable and willing to 
meet the responsibilities the membership of this union are entitled to 
have, I think the impression has gone out that the prospects get dimmer 
the further we go along for the reforms that are needed. 

Mr. Hoffa, I think you have also created an impression and you may 
want to correct it, if you care to — you will be given the opportunity — 
created the impression in the minds of some people that possibly one 
of the reasons you don't do any more toward cleaning up then is 
because you are in the same category with those who you are failing to 
take action against. 

Mr. Hoffa. May I answer that? 

The Chairman. You may answer it. 

Mr. Hoffa. I say to you Senators respectfully, that the wages, 
hours, and conditions of the Teamsters' membership is equal to or 



13546 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

better than most labor organizations. And I say that under my lead- 
ership I have eliminated trusteeships to the degree that I have been 
allowed to eliminate them. 

I have adjusted complaints that have come into my office and am in 
the process of adjusting additional complaints. 

I intend to comply with the constitution of our international union. 
I expect that the membership of this country has a right to determine 
whether wages, hours, and conditions and the functionings of this 
international union, to be able to determine whether or not this inter- 
national union is operating in their benefit. 

I do not concur, nor do I think it is right nor fair for you to say, as 
chairman of this committee, that there is something wrong with my 
leadership, simply because I will not deprive people of the right to 
make a living nor deprive people of the right and protection of a 
constitution which I am bound to uphold. 

The Chairman. Your opinion is yours and you are entitled to it. 
The Chair made this statement. I did not want to go out and make it 
to the press, as I feel about it and as I might be asked about it, but I 
wanted to say it looking at you, and say it for the record, because I 
don't go out and make speeches and say something, or give out state- 
ments to the press about someone that I don't say to their face. 

The committee stands in recess until 10 : 30 in the morning. 

(Whereupon, at 5 p. m. the hearing recessed, to reconvene at 10 : 30 
a. m. Friday, August 8, 1958. The following members were present : 
Senators McClellan, Ives, Ervin, Kennedy, and Curtis.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1958 

United States Senate, 
Select Committee on Improper Activities 

IN the Labor or Management Field, 

Washington^ D. C. 

The select committee met at 10 : 30 a. m., pursuant to Senate Reso- 
lution 221, agreed to January 29, 1958, in the caucus room. Senate 
Office Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select 
committee) presiding. 

Present : Senator John L, McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas ; Senator 
Irving M. Ives, Republican, New York ; Senator John F. Kennedy, 
Democrat, Massachusetts ; Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Democrat, North 
Carolina ; Senator Frank Church, Democrat, Idaho ; Senator Karl E. 
Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; Senator Carl T. Curtis, Repub- 
lican, Nebraska. 

Also present: Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel; Paul Tierney, 
assistant counsel; John J. McGovern, assistant counsel; Carmine S. 
Bellino, accountant; Pierre E. Salinger, investigator; Leo C. Nulty, 
investigator; James P. Kelly, investigator; James Mundie, investi- 
gator; John Flanagan, investigator, GAO; Alfred Vitarelli, investi- 
gator, GAO ; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk. 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

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

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have here an affidavit from Mr. 
Anslinger, in connection with the statement that he made swearing to 
the truthfulness of the statement that was put in the record some 3 
weeks ago, which was to be accompanied by an affidavit. I would like 
to have permission to place the affidavit in the record. You gave 
instructions to get the affidavit from Mr. Anslinger. 

The Chairman. We used a statement that was not sworn to? 

Mr. Kennedy. The witness, Anslinger, was expected to testify, but 
he became ill, and his testimony was placed in the record with the 
understanding that there would be an affidavit to accompany it. 

The Chairman. All right ; the affidavit may be placed in the record 
at the proper point.^ It is the same as his previous statement ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. 



1 The affidavit referred to may be found on p. 12487 in pt. 32 of the present series of 
hearings. 

13547 



13548 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

At the close of yesterday, there was some discussion by the witness, 
Mr. Hoffa, regarding his interest in the wages, hours, and conditions 
of the employees, and we also had some discussion yesterday after- 
noon about gangster control of certain unions. We went last year 
into the situation in New York City and the paper locals and what 
was the result of gangsters' and hoodlums' control over certain of 
those unions to the detriment of certain of the Puerto Rican and 
Negro workers in New York City. 

Today, I would like to, in view of Mr. Hoffa's statement yesterday, 
take a situation in Philadelphia, Pa., which Mr. Hoffa had some- 
thing to do with, and show the results of gangster and hoodlum con- 
trol over a local there and the results on the employees. In that con- 
nection, Mr. Chairman, I would like to call Mr. William J. Brennan. 

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. Brennan. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM J. BKENNAN 

The Chairman. Mr. Brennan, will you state your name, and your 
place of residence, and your business or occupation ? 

Mr. Brennan. JNIy name is AYilliam J. Brennan, president of Local 
138, Hotel and Restaurant Employees, city of Philadelphia, and I 
reside at 5443 Angora Terrace, Philadelphia. 

The Chairman. Do you waive counsel ? 

Mr. Brennan. I do. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Now^, Mr. Brennan, from 1942 to 1958, you were 
president of the joint board in Philadelphia ? 

Mr. Brennan. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Made up of the eight Restaurant Workers locals in 
the Philadelphia area ? 

Mr. Brennan. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then, in 1958, you decided not to run for that 
oflSce again? 

Mr. Brennan. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, you are also at the present time president of 
the State council of the Restaurant Workers locals? 

Mr. Brennan. I am. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you also are vice president of the Pennsyl- 
vania State Federation of Labor ? 

Mr. Brennan. I am. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you are acting secretary-treasurer and admin- 
istrator of the Restaurant Workers Local 87; is that correct? 

Mr. Brennan. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliich was created to supplement local 410 ? 

Mr. Brennan. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. ^Yhich we will be discussing ? 

Mr. Brennan. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, you have been in the labor movement how 
long, Mr. Brennan ? 

Mr. Brennan. Twenty-four years. 

Mr. Kennedy. During your period with the Hotel and Restaurant 
Workers Union, had you made any attempt to organize the Dewey 
chain of restaurants in the Philadelphia area ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13549 

Mr. Brennan. Yes ; in the forties ; in the late forties, I don't know 
the exaxit year, offhand. I would say around 1946 or 1947. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you had some difficulty at that time ? 

Mr. Brennan. Well, we didn't seem to make any headway at all. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you gone back in 1955 and had some conversa- 
tions with the officials of that company to inform them you were in- 
terested in organizing them ? 

Mr. Brennan. I, personally, didn't, but I do believe that an official 
of our organization, some of the officers of the joint board, did discuss 
with Mr. Baylenson, I believe it was, relative to the organization of 
the employees of Dewey's, and Dewey informed him that, "Go get the 
people and I will sit down and talk." 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you learn around May of 1956 that the em- 
ployees of this restaurant and chain had been signed up in another 
union ? 

Mr. Brennan. I first learned about it the last few days of April 
1956, that there was an organization drive going on among Dewey's, 
and they were signing cards to jom the Independent Unionist of 
America, Local No. 1. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you ever heard of that local ? 

Mr. Brennan. I never heard of it before. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know anything about who was behind this 
local? 

Mr. Brennan. At that moment, I did not. I did not know any 
of the officials, or any of those who were in the drive. 

Mr. Kennedy. But it wasn't a local that you had known of in your 
union experience in Philadelphia ? 

Mr. Brennan. No, and I don't think anybody else did. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many restaurants are there approximately in 
the Dewey chain ? 

Mr. Brennan. Well, first they are actually are not restaurants, there 
are only three restaurants, and the others are hamburger stands, and 
orange juice stands. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many approximately ? 

Mr. Brennan. Thirteen altogether. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know how many employees were involved ? 

Mr. Brennan. At that time I would say in the neighborhood of 
250 employees. 

Mr. Kennedy. "What else did you hear about this local in April of 
1956 in this situation ? 

Mr. Brennan. Two or three Dewey employees came to my office to 
see me, and they informed me that they had received applications to 
join this local union, and that they would rather go into local 138, 
which I head. I immediately checked and investigated further, and 
then filed charges with the labor board against the procedure that was 
going on between the union and, as I interpreted it, the employer in the 
signing of these applications. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tell us what these employees reported to you. 

Mr. Brennan. They reported that they had been told to sign the 
cards or they would be fired. 

Mr. Kennedy. By whom had they been told this ? 

Mr. Brennan. Well, by the managers. They were supposed to be 
told by the managers, and, of course, the managers there are working 
managers, and they participate the same as an employee. 



13550 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Had they been permitted to vote as to whether they 
wanted to go into the union ? 

Mr. Brennan. To my knowledge, no. 

Mr. Kennedy. As they reported this to you, did they say they had 
been consulted about belonging to the union 'i 

Mr. Brennan. They said they were handed a card to sign, and they 
were not consulted about it at all. 

Mr. Kennedy. And told they would have to join the union or be 
fired? 

Mr. Brennan. That is correct; that is why I filed the charges. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did quite a number of employees come to you with 
this? 

Mr. Brennan. Those that voluntarily came to me would number 
approximately 45. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you learn during this period of time who was 
behind this local No. 1 ? 

Mr. Brennan. Yes ; I found out, I would say, about the first part 
of May, that a fellow by the name of Abe Goldberg was supposed to 
be leading the organization. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was xVbe Goldberg ? 

Mr. Brennan. Abe Goldberg is a former business agent of the 
Teamsters Union, in Philadelphia. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that the same Goldberg who did organizational 
work for Johnny Dioguardia in New York City, for local 102 ? 

Mr. Brennan. Well, personally I don't know that, but from what 
I gathered, he was. 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we have established 
that he was one and the same, that he did go up to work for Mr. Dio- 
guardia after local 102 was formed. Now, he was one of the people 
behind this ? 

Mr. Brennan. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know anything more about Abe Goldberg ? 

Mr. Brennan. Well, all I know, he was a former business agent of 
the Teamsters Union in Philadelphia, Local 929. There had been 
some question on a previous congressional investigation, and he was 
removed from office at that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Salinger could just give 
a little summary of his background. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Salinger. 

Mr. Salinger. Mr. Abraham Goldberg was former secretary-treas- 
urer of Local 929 of the Teamsters Union. In 1947, along with a num- 
ber of others, he w^as indicted for violation of the Hobbs Antiracketeer- 
ing Act, and as a result of this indictment was sentenced to 3 months 
and a fine of $2,500 and the sentence was then suspended and he was 
placed on 2 years' probation. 

One condition of this probation was that he resign as secretary- 
treasurer of local 929 and hold no union office for a period of 2 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. Also involved in that matter. Mr. Chairman, was the 
witness that we have had some discussion about in prior hearings, and 
that was Mr. Ben Lapensohn. He was involved with this, and Abe 
Goldberg in 1947. But any way you heard he was one of the indi- 
viduals, and did you hear about anybody else that was behind this 
union ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13551 

Mr. Brennan. Not at that particular time. It was sometime later 
that I found that Mr. Feldman was interested. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was Mr. Feldman ? 

Mr. Brennan. Mr. Feldman was Sam Feldman, an officer of 929 of 
the local Teamsters in Philadelphia. 

Mr. Kennedy. Does he still hold that position ? 

Mr. Brennan. As far as I know ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know how many times Mr. "Shorty" Feld- 
man has been arrested ? 

Mr. Brennan. Frankly, I have been told at the time of the publicity, 
and I never knew he was arrested. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, we have Mr. Feldman's background 
also, and we would like to place that in the record. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Salinger. Mr. Samuel "Shorty" Feldman who also used the 
name of Samuel Frank, and Samuel Harris, has been arrested on 18 
occasions, has been convicted 6 times, and has served 2 prison terms. 
In 1924 he served a 6-month county prison term for larceny by shop- 
lifting and in 1929 he served a 3- to 10-year term in the Eastern State 
Penitentiary of Pennsylvania for entering to steal. 

Conspiracy in carrying burglary tools. He also served a peniten- 
tiary sentence in 1935 in Sing Sing Prison in New York, 4 years, for 
burglary and attempted grand larceny in the second degree. Mr. 
Feldman was arrested by the FBI last week for interstate transporta- 
tion of stolen bonds. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Feldman was also involved in our hearings on 
the Philadelphia Teamsters. We had some testimony, Mr. Chairman, 
that he stated to an employer there that "for $50,000 or $25,000 I could 
have some picket lines removed from the employer's place of business." 

The Chairman. That is already in the record by sworn testimony ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Salinger, what is Mr. Feldman's present 
position ? 

Mr. Salinger. Business agent of Local 929 of the Teamsters Union 
in Philadelphia. 

Mr. Kennedy. He still remains a business agent of the Teamsters' 
Union ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Salinger. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Despite his criminal record and what we revealed of 
his activities last year ? 

Mr. Salinger. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was one of those that you found to be active 
behind this union ? 

Mr. Brennan. Well, yes; I found that he was connected. I don't 
know whether directly or indirectly, but he was connected. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us what steps you took ? 

Mr. Brennan. I will have to refer to my memory on dates. I do 
have some chronology here. But on May 4 I filed charges of unfair- 
labor practices against the local union and also against the employer, 
Dewey. 



13o02 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. "NVlio was it, specifically, as far as the employer was 
concerned ? Did you mention anyone ? 

Mr. Brennan. Dewey Yessner. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you talk to the international union about filing 
these charges ? 

Mr. Brennan. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. The internationa,l union of the Hotel and Restau- 
rant Workers ? ; i ;. 

Mr. Brennan. Yes. I got in touch with them and told them that 
there was an organization, I believe that the situation was, that this 
was an independent group. I had never heard of them before. Of 
course, I will have to say that I was a little confused at the time 
because there was another Hotel and Restaurant Workers' Union, local 
No. 1, in the city of Philadelphia, an independent group, and I had 
them confused with them. 

But by this time I had found out that it was not the same group ; 
they were different gi'oups. I told them that I didn't appreciate the 
way the organization campaign was going on, and I thought it was 
very bad, and I felt as though I isliould immediately interfere, and 
they told me to go ahead, to do everything I could to stop them, 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell us what you did then ? 

Mr. Brennan. I then filed the charges, and, as a result of further 
connections with the employees, I. sent out communications and letters 
to all the individual employees in Dewey's restaurant. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were there hearings held ?, 

Mr. Brennan. There were hearings held by the State labor-rela- 
tions board. I believe the first one was held on May 28, 1956. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you hear or learn during this period of time any 
of the other people that were behind this ? 

Mr. Brennan. Through newspaper publicity, and active neAvspaper 
publicity through the district attorney's office in Philadelphia. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat did vou learn from the district attorney's 
office? ^ ; 

Mr, Brennan. I learned from the district attorney's office that they 
informed me that behind it was Shorty Feldman, that he had been a 
part of it, and also that Mr. Hoffa had interceded. 

However, our own international union had advised me that they 
had been approached by the Teamsters Union relative to issuing a 
charter to the Philadelphia group. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Just SO that we get it in perspective, this local 1 
was going, and you filed charges against local 1, this independent 
union? 

Mr. Brennan. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You knew at that time that Shorty Feldman was 
behind it, and you knew that Abe Goldberg was behind it. 

Mr. Brennan. Correct. , 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you were filing charges. You talked to your 
own international union, and they told you to go ahead and fight this 
group. Then you filed the charges, and there were some hearings 
held. Then what happened? 

Mr. Brennan. Then there was considerable publicity in the Phila- 
delphia newspapers and over the air relative to further background 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13553 

of this organization. Our joint board instructed a committee of three 
to check on this publicity. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is this still 'just local 1 ? 

Mr. Brennan. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is still local 1 ? 

Mr. Brennan. No ; this is local 410. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have to explain how we got from local 1 to 
local 410. Wliat happened then ? How did local 1 become local 410 ? 

Mr. Brennan. Local 1 became local 410 on the application of a 
charter after the Labor Board case, after they had been cited by the 
Labor Board, and Goldberg had been removed. 

Mr. Kennedy. This was a hearing before the Board. Then local 
1 became 410 of what international union ? 

Mr. Brennan. The Hotel and Restaurant. 

Mr, Kennedy. So, they received a charter from your own interna- 
tional ; is that correct? 

Mr. Brennan. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you learn how they were able to get that charter 
when they had this bad background ? 

Mr. Brennan. Well, I believe that at the time the international 
union issued this charter, I believe, the background had been re- 
moved. In other words, the fact of Goldberg and it was now an 
independent group, a fellow by the name of Barrone, a fellow by the 
name of Hughes, a fellow by tliQ name of Bergowitz. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't they have a man by the name of Julius Berg 
in that local ? 

Mr. Brennan. It was Julius Berg or Bergowitz. 

Mr. Kennedy. Berg? 

Mr. Brennan. Or Bergowitz. Originally, it was Bergowitz, I be- 
lieve. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't he one of those who was behind the local, in 
addition to Goldberg, in addition to Feldman ? 

Mr. Brennan. At that time, not of our knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you learn that, subsequently ? 

Mr. Brennan. After the charter had been issued and on informa- 
tion from the district attorney's office. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wasn't he made secretary of this local 410? 

Mr, Brennan. That is correct. That was preceding the informa- 
tion we received. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know how many times he had been arrested ? 

Mr, Brennan, No; I did not. In fact, I have been asked by the 
international union, and I had no knowledge of any record of Hughes, 
Barrone, or Bergowitz. 

Mr. Kennedy. He had been arrested 11 times and had 2 convictions. 

Mr. Brennan, I since learned that, but I did not know it then, 

Mr, Kennedy. Was there also a Samuel Hoffman behind this local ? 
Did you learn that? 

Mr. Brennan. His name was mentioned, and the D. A. said that he 
was. But I don't know that. I don't even know Hoffman; I never 
met him. 

Mr. Kennedy, But you were told that by the district attorney ? 

Mr. Brennan. We were told that by the district attorney. 

Mr. Kennedy. He has a record of 14 arrests and 5 convictions. 



13554 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Brennan. Well, I read of Hoffman in the newspapers for yetirs 
during my life in Philadelphia, but I have never yet met him. I 
don't even know anything about him, although the newspapers con- 
tinually publicize tlie fact that he is supposed to be a racketeer. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is also known as Cappy Hoffman, is he not? 

Mr. Brennan. I believe so ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you learn as to why the charter was given 
by your international union ? 

Mr. Brennan. The international union informed us that they had 
received a request to install a charter in the luncheonette field in 
Philadelphia; I, as president of the joint board, had to admit that we 
were derelict in not concentrating on this field, because it existed and 
there are quite a few people in it. All the local unions in Philadelphia 
seemed to have passed up the field. But they had requested to put a 
charter in for this independent group, the people who were now with- 
out a local union, so to speak. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Avho made the requests that they be given a 
cliarter ? 

Mr. Brennan. We were led to believe that it was through the 
Teamsters Union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who in the Teamsters Union? 

Mr. Brennan. I believe it was through Mr. Hoffa. In fact, if my 
information is correct, Mr. Hoffa himself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa himself? 

Mr. Brennan. I believe lie interceded. I may be wrong, but I be- 
lieve he did. I know Mr. Miller did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who did you learn had contacted Mr. Hoffa to make 
this request? 

Mr. Brennan. Mr. Feldman, I believe. 

Mr. Kennedy. Shorty Feldman ? 

Mr. Brennan. I believe so; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is Mr. Feldman, who has been arrested 18 
times and convicted 6 times ? 

Mr. Brennan. Well, now I know that, but before I didn't. I knew 
Feldman originally as a business agent of local 929, whom I met at 
various State conventions. I knew nothing about any record, other 
than the fact that he was a business agent, elected business agent of 
a local union, up until the time that this situation developed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you also understand that involved in this was 
a man by the name of Julius Berg, from Detroit? Excuse me; Mr. 
Maxie Stern, from Detroit. 

Mr. Brennan. The D. A. mentioned a man by the name of Stern, 
from Detroit. Also, the newspapers published it at that time. In 
other words, the D. A. informed us. I believe it was the county 
detective, the chief of county detectives, who informed me about it 
in the D. A.'s office. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know anything about Maxie Stern? 

Mr. Brennan. No. I would not know him if I fell over him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you hear about anything in connection with the 
Briggs Hotel out there ? 

Mr. Brennan. Well, I was told that there was a conference in the 
Briggs Hotel or a meeting in the Briggs Hotel or a phone call to the 
Briggs Hotel to a fellow by the name of Stern, who. I subsequently 
learned, was supposed to be a fellow by the name of Maxie Stern. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13555 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you also learn that lie discussed the matter 
withMr.Hoffa? 

Mr. Brennan. I was informed of that, yes, through the D. A.'s 
office. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know about his background — Maxie Stern ? 

Mr. Brennan. No ; I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have some information. 

Would you give the background of Maxie Stern ? 

Mr. Salinger. Maxie Stern, also known as Max Sterns, Michael 
Jack Ross, and Jack Marino, in 1982 was arrested for breaking and 
entering in Detroit, and the charge was dismissed. In 1933, as Mich- 
ael Jack Ivoss, he was arrested for contributing to the delinquency of a 
minor. This was dismissed. In September of 1934, he was sen- 
tenced to the State penitentiary at Jackson, Mich., for armed robbery. 
From there he was paroled and violated back to the penitentiary on 
a number of occasions until December 1945, when he was finally re- 
leased from his parole. In 1948 he was arrested for violation of the 
National Stolen Properties Act. Mr. Stern is known as a close asso- 
ciate of Angelo Meli, Peter Licavoli, Joseph "Scarface" Bommarito, 
and Joe Massei. He is also known to be in contact with Raffaele 
Quasarano. He has been employed and associated with the Mexican 
Villa Policy and Mutual House, a numbers operations in Michigan, 
also employed by the Michigan Mutual Distributing Co., a company 
owned by Peter Licavoli and Joe Bommarito. The headquarters of 
this Mexican Villa Policy and Mutual House was in a building leased 
by Max Stern. 

Mr. Kennedy. So this local 1 became local 410 of the Hotel and 
Restaurant Workers Union. Did you have any difficulty with them 
after that? 

Mr. Brennan. No. The district attorney informed us that they 
had made threats against me, but nobody, personally, threatened me 
at all. 

Mr. Kennedy. They had information ? 

Mr. Brennan. They had information that they had threatened me. 
In fact, the newspapers published it, but nobody at any time ever 
threatened or approached me, personally. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened, so far as local 410 is concerned ? 

Mr. Brennan. Local 410, after being chartered, naturally, had their 
own autonomy, and ])roceeded to follow the ordinary procedure of or- 
ganization, as I understand it. During that time, there was consid- 
erable publicity over a period of about 6 or 7 months. The news- 
papers contended that they were coercing and intimidating em- 
ployers. These complaints came to the joint board, but, of course, the 
joint board had no authority over a charter other than to try to clieck. 
We did check, and we could find nothing out. So, we asked the in- 
ternational union to investigate the situation. The international 
union did investigate over some period of time, and still the publicity 
was going on, which everybody in Philadelphia connected with our 
joint board was very much disturbed with, because I, myself, found 
my name in the newspaper every time I turned around, and it was 
sandwiched in between names of people whom I had never met, never 
saw in my life before, and, of course, 9 out of 10 people just don't read 
the newspapers and read what it says altogether. They read my 



13556 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

name and they read other names and I found that even the neighbors 
were kind of sliying away from me. 

They felt that I was guilty by association in some way. However, 
during this course, we kept pressing the international union, and Ed 
Miller said that he, himself, if necessaiy, would come in and investi- 
gate. Finally, I would say around about March 1057, our general 
president, Ed Miller, came into Philadelphia, to my office, and I be- 
lieve he called in Berg, Feldman, Barrone, and Hughes, and had a 
conversation with them. 

After the meeting was over with, he told me that these fellows were 
out. He wanted me to take over. On March 12, I believe, he noti- 
fied me or gave me the authority to take over the union and expel or 
dismiss those who were associated with the local union. On March 
13, 1 took possession of the local union. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the status of the funds in the local union ? 

Mr. Brennan. Well, I could not say, from memory. I actually 
have the figures here. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just generally. 

Mr. Brennan. Generally, the receipts during the period of time — 
that is actually, the charter was issued June 11 — between the time of 
June 11 and March 13, the receipts were in the neighborhood of $19,- 
000 or $20,000. The assets when I took over was about $400 worth of 
furniture and $52. The liabilities of the audit report, as the inter- 
national had the books audited, showed actually $19,000, $19,900, in 
liabilities, and subsequently I found there was $3,000 or $4,000 more 
in liabilities. So, the actual receipts were approximately $19,000 dur- 
ing the period of time, and the liabilities, when I took over, were in 
the neighborhood of $22,000 or $23,000. 

The Chairman. Do you mean that is in addition? They owed that 
much in addition to what they spent out of their receipts ? 

Mr. Brennan. Yes, sir. In other words, they took in $19,000, they 
had $52 left, and they owed $23,000. 

The Chairman. How long a period of time had that operated ? 

Mr. Brennan. Between 8 and 9 months. 

The Chairman. Were there any assets to show for any expendi- 
tures or for the liabilities ? 

Mr. Brennan. Well, they had the equipment, I would say, which, I 
would say, was in the neighborliood of four to six hundred dollars. 
However, a great many of these liabilities were printing bills, tele- 
phone bills. They were behind in their Federal taxes, and so forth. 

In fact, quite a good deal of it was 

The Chairman. In other words, there had been no investment of 
funds? 

Mr. Brennan. No. 

The Chairman. They had spent the $19,000 they had received and 
had incurred debts for $22,000 more ? 

Mr. Brennan. That is right. Wliich, on the record, appears to be 
the normal, shall I say, printing bills, organization, picket lines, and 
so forth. 

The Chairman. They would not hardly have that much printing, 
$22,000. 

Mr. Brennan. Well, I will admit it is a lot of money. 

The Chairman. How many members did it have ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13557 

Mr. Bkennan. At that time, approximately 300 to 350 members, 
I guess. 

The Chaieman. It was a pretty fast operation, wasn't it ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Weren't there also some checks made to individuals 
that you questioned ? 

Mr. Brennan. Yes. In other words, there was checks — well, shall 
I refer to them as bouncing checks ? When I took over, checks were 
issued for which there were no funds to cover them, and I was in- 
structed by Cincinnati to try to take care of what 1 thought were 
legitimate business obligations, which I did, as we went along. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Feldman have anything to do with the money 
from the union, with the checks ? 

Mr. Brennan. Feldman informed me that he knew that the union 
was broke, and there was 4 or 5 checks, I am not sure which, amount- 
ing in total to $151, that he had cashed for these individuals. He 
wanted me to make them good. Up to now I have not done so because 
the local union does not have that kind of money that I can pay out 
indiscriminately to everybody w4io sayes they have money coming. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. What about its organizational work during the time 
of its existence^ Were you satished with the kind of work it was 
doing, or were they just organizing from the top down, just going to 
the owners of these places ? 

Mr. Brennan. Well, from what we could find out immediately fol- 
lowing my taking over, several people who were members of the local 
union protested their membership. They were employed by 3 or 4 
different employers. You have to remember that these establishments 
normally hire anywhere from 3 to 7 or 8 people, each one of these 
individual establishments. They are not big operations. They came 
to me and told me that they did not want to be in the union. 

Of course, while they were still, shall I say, being paid below the 
scale, I told them very frankly, and the Labor Board — a couple of 
them went to the Labor Board — that we did not want them, if they 
did not want to be members of the union, we certainly did not want 
them in the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you also find fault with some of the contracts 
that were made? 

Mr. Brennan. Well, yes. You have to take into consideration that 
the wage scale in that particular field is very, very low, and in most all 
of these instances the contracts provided for improvements. But I 
would say the wages still were not enough. 

Mr. Kennedy. And generally they were cut down contracts? 

Mr. Brennan. I was informed of that by these employees that 
came to me. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. I might also point out, Mr. Chairman, that a year 
ago he was sometimes confused by his neighbors with the other" Mr. 
Brennan who was involved with some of these people. He has been 
down here for several days, and since the testimony of the last few 
days some of his neighbors have been reading in the paper t: at Mr. 
Brennan is taking the fifth amendment. I think we better straighten 
it out. 

Mr. Brennan. Yes. One of the witnesses in the room came and 
talked to me and said they were talking about me all morning. I don't 

21243— 5.8— pt. 36 19 



13558 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

know tlie other Mr. Brennan. I never met him. But I was very much 
concerned when even my wife was under the impression that I had 
taken the fifth amendment. That I did not like. I might find my 
suitcase on the porch when I go home. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Brennan has a very high reputation in the com- 
munity and also a very big reputation in hxbor circles in Pennsylvania. 
I wanted to make sure it was understood that it was a different Mr. 
Brennan, with no relation. 

Mr. Brennan. I felt a little disturbed. Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you disturbed at this kind of an operation as a 
labor union official, Mr. Brennan ? 

Mr. Brennan. I don't know whether you would call it disturbed or 
not, but I certainly didn't feel too good. It worried me. I could not 
sleep very well. I say this, and I say it without a question of doubt, 
every announcer, every newspaper broadcaster, or every station broad- 
cast, every television program, every paper you picked up had some- 
thing about local 410 and the people who were supposed to be behind 
it, people I never met in my life, never talked to. 

And sandwiched in between there would be the name of Bill Bren- 
nan. Of course, naturally, even in my own family, certain parts of it, 
they said, ''Well, he must be associated with these people or his name 
would not be in there." 

Mr. Kennedy. I am thinking more of an operation as a union official, 
in this kind of an operation. 

Mr. Brennan. I spent 25 years in the labor movement, with the 
thought in mind that my obligation was to look out for the people I 
represent, and take care of them, and I was very much disturbed to find 
that here we were in a position through no fault of our own, and I say 
that very frankly, through no desire on our part we found ourselves in 
a position where we were under condemnation and even the members of 
the unions, belonging to other local unions, who for one reason or 
another possibly had a gripe, were advocating the fact that all local 
unions, and union leaders were a lot of thieves, burglars, and what 
have you got. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is this one of the worse operations that you have seen 
in your experience as a union official ? 

Mr. Brennan. I would say publicitywise. I have never experienced 
anything like it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Other than just publicitywise, the operations of the 
local and those who were behind it who have some 50 or 60 arrests be- 
tween them ? 

Mr. Brennan. Well, in the final charges brought against the local, 
naturally the international union has certain rules, and the final charges 
were brought against the local of bringing the labor movement and 
the local union into disrepute; and failure to make proper reports, and 
failure in the course of that time to submit constitutions and rules of 
order for the international approval. That was the charge on which 
the charter was lifted. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Are there any questions ? 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman, I w^ould just like to commend Mr. 
Brennan for the fine reputation which he has acquired in working for 
the interests of labor in this Nation. It is refreshing to have, in the 
course of these hearings, a labor leader like yourself come before the 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13559 

committee and make a full and frank statement without resorting to 
the hftii amendment and without resorting to a bad memory or any 
other thing to prevent the committee from receiving evidence from 
you. 

I want to commend you, and express the hope that men like your- 
self will be in charge of the labor movement in this country in the years 
to come. 

Mr. Brennax. Thank you very much, Senator. 

The Chairman. Mr. Brennan, what is the present status of that 
union ? 

Mr. Brennan. There is no more 410, I am happy to say. There is 
now local 87, which was during the course of the time that I was trustee 
of local 410, I held meetings of the individual members, and the total 
membership now is approximately 310. In that time, during the 
course of these meetings, the members informed me, couldn't I do 
something about 410, and it had a bad name, and a bad reputation, and 
I should do something about it. They were people that didn't want to 
wear the buttons that had 410 on them and I had to supply them with 
smaller buttons that had no numbers. I told them in view of the fact 
that they comprised the local union, I could make recommendations but 
the fact that they comprised the local miion it would have to be them 
and them only who made the request for change in identification. 

Subsequently they drew up a petition and this petition was signed 
voluntarily by approximately, I don't have it with me, but I believe it 
was signed by 160 of the membership at that time. I forwarded that 
to Cincinnati, and Cincinnati immediately changed the name or num- 
ber of the local union to local 87, and changed my position from 
trustee to acting administrative secretary and treasurer which I now 
am doing. 

The Chairman. So local 410 as such and in name has been liqui- 
dated ? 

Mr. Brennan. Thank God. 

The Chairman. And its assets such as it had, and its liabilities too, 
I assume, were transferred to a new local, 87 ? 

Mr.^ Brennan. That bringes in something, I understand. Senator. 
I don't want to say its assets and liabilities, that is for the interna- 
tional union to say what it is. I don't want to be held responsible for 
the liabilities of local 410. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Brennan. I understand there is a suit now relative to wages 
which I have refused to pay to previous officers of 410. 

The Chairman. Then local 87 is a new local, but it is comprised 
primarily of members of old local 410 ? 

Mr. Brennan. That is correct. 

The Chairman. So you are trying to make a fresh start, and get the 
stigma off, and give them decent union leadership and representation 
and administration ? 

Mr. Brennan. That is correct. Senator. 

The Chairman. I hope you have marked success, and we wish you 
well. 

Mr. Brennan. From the reaction of the previous publicity, and 
since 87 has been in existence, I think the change has been healthy for 
the individual member because we have been able to negotiate con- 



13560 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

tracts covering the original membership which have improved their 
benefits within the last 2 or 3 months. 

The Chairman. May I make this statement, and I am sure you 
agree with me, that such operations and such character of adminis- 
tration and manipulations as you found tending an associate had with 
local 410, when it becomes known and you have this adverse publicity 
and when members in other locals as you point out find out about these 
things, it does have an impact upon honest and decent unionism. It 
causes people to wonder, and sometimes the innocent and the good in 
unionism gets a black eye by reason of some of these rotten apples that 
appear here and there. 

Mr. Brexxan. I certainly do, and as a matter of fact I run into it in 
this particular case. I emphasize that I liope the press and the public 
will recognize the fact that local 87 is going to be the right kind of a 
union, or it won't be a union at all. 

The Chairman. Let me aske you. I have very strong view^s about 
this. Since you bear the reputation you do, and you have be«n in the 
labor movement a long time, and you have been identified with this 
problem and in contact with it, and since it has become your respon- 
sibility to try to find a solution to the conditions you found there, what 
is your view with respect to taking people as soon as they get out of the 
penitentiary and putting them in a local union as business managers, 
or organizers, or giving them any other official position ? 

What is your reaction to those practices as a decent union labor 
leader ^ 

Mr. Brennan. Well, I would say this, and of course I don't know, 
that sometimes people go to the penitentiaries for different things, 
and I wouldn't want to say in general that an individual's mistake 
should be held against him all of the rest of his life. I believe the 
type and kind of an offense he has committed is important. 

The Chairman. What is that ? 

Mr. Brennan. The type and kind of an offense he has been charged 
with would have something to do with it, and I believe in justice to 
the individual member of the union that certainly the individual 
member should give some consideration to the individual himself 
who feels he is going to represent a group of people. I don't believe 
as a practice a man should be, shall I say, denied the right to hold 
office in the union just because he has been found guilty or has been 
charged with some particular offense. 

However, I don't think it should be used and continued, the practice 
should be used and continued in his occupation from the time that 
he is released from prison, so to speak. 

The Chairman. It seems to me to be one of the great evils that is 
tending to grow up in the labor movement. I just can't understand 
how people who are convicted of robbery and burglary, and other 
crimes of that nature, arson, and so on, I just can't see that upon their 
release tlie}^ are immediately qualified to have such responsible posi- 
tions. I do not believe in putting obstructions in their way toward 
rehabilitation, but I don't think the practice of putting them in posi- 
tions of authority and trust and over working people is a good 
practice or a good policy until they have demonstrated their course. 

Mr. Brennan. That I agree with. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13561 

The Chairman, I think it is something we are going to have to 
legishite about, and I am going to support legislation to try to eradi- 
cate that 2)ractice from the labor movement. 

Mr. Brennan. I agree with you 100 percent, Senator. 

The ChairMx\n. Thank you very much. 

Senator Ervin. If I may make an observation along that same line, 
I agree with Mr. Brennan that no man should be barred from em- 
ployment because of his conviction of a crime, and there are crimes 
which do not involve moral turpitude which I think ought not to bar 
a man from union office. There are a lot of misdemeanors that 
people can be convicted of that don't involve moral turpitude. But 
I think a crime that involves moral turpitude, especially such felonies 
as armed robbery and burglary which are perpetrated for the purpose 
in the main of committing thefts, are ofi'enses which ought to bar a 
man from being permitted to be appointed to an office and to exercise 
authority over honest men, at least until such time as his conduct 
subsequent to release from prison indicates in the w^ords of the Scrip- 
ture, that he has "brought forth fruits and meat for repentance." 

But we have had in this case a man who allegedly had participated 
in an armed robbery, where $23,000 I believe was involved, who was 
convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of not less 
than 10 or more than 25 years. 

The president of the Teamsters according to the evidence assisted 
in getting the man released from imprisonment and placed upon 
payroll by the offer of a job and very shortly after he is released he is 
made a business manager of a local union, and then given a place 
among the executive board at a reputed salary of approximately 
$12,000 a year. 

Then after he takes his official position in the union, he goes around 
and he does acts which give rise to inferences that are very strong 
of misbehavior in an abuse of his otHcial rank. When his conduct 
is reported by the persons affected to the president of this great union, 
the president of this great union acquits him of all wrongdoing upon 
his own testimony without making any effort to contact the person 
wdio claimed to have been wronged. 

I think that Congress is going to have to step in and prevent per- 
sons immediately after their release from prison, where they serve a 
sentence on commission of crimes involving moral turpitude, I think 
Congress ought to step in and pass some laws to put an end to a prac- 
tice which puts men of that character in positions of authority over 
honest men. 

Mr. Kennedy. I might just say, you have an individual similar to 
that in Philadelphia right at this time, in ''Shorty" Feldman, have you 
not? 

Mr. Brennan. Well, of course, the knowledge of these facts is the 
thing that governs your thoughts. I say to you that I always looked 
upon "Shorty" Feldman, until this publicity, I always looked on him 
as a business representative of a local union there and I had no knowl- 
edge about him, and at no time up until this incident did I laiow that 
he had ever been arrested before. 

Mr. Kennedy. He has been convicted twice of burglary and sent 
to Sing Sing and to Eastern State Penitentiary in Pennsylvania, and 



13562 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

arrested 18 times, with 6 convictions, and he is still a union official 
of this local Teamsters Union, is he not ? 

Mr. Brennan. That Mr. Kennedy, is the problem of the Team- 
sters Union, and I don't know anything about "Shorty" Feldman 
other than what I have read. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't have anybody like him under you, do you ? 

Mr. Brennan. I certainly do not, not to my knowledge and if I 
do I would want to know it. 

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Miss Lulubelle Eose. 

The Chairman. Will you be sworn, please ? 

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

Miss Rose. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF MISS LULUBELLE ROSE 

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

Miss Rose. My name is Lulubelle Rose, 1516 South Woodstock 
Street, Philadelphia, Pa. I work for Dewey's. 

The Chairman. For Dewey's Restaurant ? 

Miss Rose. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you waive counsel ? 

Miss Rose. Yes ; I do. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are a waitress at Dewey's, is that rights 

Miss Rose. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you work at 1225 Market Street ? 

Miss Rose No; I have been transferred from 1225 Market Street. 

Mr. Kennedy. ^Yliere are you now ? 

Miss Rose. I am at 326 North Broad Street. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been a waitress for Dewey's? 

Miss Rose. Seven years. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, during April of 1956, were you notified or 
given any notification regarding a union ? 

Miss Rose. Yes ; the employees there were approached by Mr. Harry 
Shapiro, he is our day manager, and he told us that Mr. Dewey yester- 
day signed a contract with this independent union No. 1 for our benefit 
and he gave us these cards to sign. 

We were given these cards to sign and we were told that we were 
automatically already in the union, but they wanted our signature, 
and we had 1 week to sign or we would be automatically fired. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never had been consulted about the union? 

Miss Rose. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never had been asked whether you wanted to 
join the union ? 

Miss Rose. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. And nobody from the union had approached you? 

Miss Rose. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were told by the management that you signed 
up with the union or otherwise you would be fired; is that correct? 

Miss Rose. That is correct. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13563 

Mr. Kennedy. So what did you do, did you want to join the union? 

Miss KosE. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not ? 

MissKosE. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. So what did you do, did you sign the card ? 

Miss Rose. Well, to protect our job, the majority of the people did 
sign, and some quit their jobs before they would sign, and after that 
a committee of employees got together, and weno up to see Mr. 
Brennan. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was Mr. Brennan who just testified here? 

Miss Rose. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you protested to Mr. Brennan as to what had 
happened ; is that correct ? 

Miss Rose. Yes ; we told him the situation. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he state that he would file charges before the 
Pennsylvania Labor Board ? 

Miss Rose. Yes ; he did. 

Mr. Kennedy. There were some hearings, were there ? 

Miss Rose. Yes, sir ; there were. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you told then or subsequently about your 
initiation fees or your dues ? 

Miss Rose. Yes, sir ; we were told that our initiation fee would be 
$15, and dues would be $4 a month, but that our employer, he would 
pay our initiation dues for us, and our first month's dues. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know that your employer had paid any 
money to Mr. Feldman for the purposes of bringing this union in ? 

Miss Rose. No ; we did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't know anything about that ? 

Miss Rose. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you hear anything further after that? You 
signed the card and then what happened ? 

Miss. Rose. Later on we had a meeting, we were called to a meeting 
at the Majestic Hotel, and the majority of the employees did go be- 
cause they wanted to hear some more about this union that we were in. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who presided ? 

Miss Rose. Mr. Abe Goldberg presided over that meeting. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there any one else present ? 

Miss Rose. There was Mr. Jules Berg sitting on the sideline. 

Mr. Kennedy. They seemed to be the ones in charge ? 

Miss Rose. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have already discussed their background and 
criminal records. Wliat happened after that ? 

Miss Rose. You mean at that particular meeting ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No, after the meeting, then did they read anything? 
Did they read the contract to you ? 

Miss Rose. They read parts of the contract to us, and they read that 
we wouldn't be fired for anything except drunkenness and stealing 
and that he would get raises for us which we never received and a lot 
of other things that had no meaning whatsoever, and the majority 
of the meeting was taken up with self-praise of himself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Abe Goldberg ? 

Miss Rose. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he tell you about his convictions and his arrests? 



13564 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Miss Rose. Oh, no, and he said he was recommended by the labor 
board, and he had about 2 hours of self-praise about his wonderful 
work in the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he tell you Mr. Jules Berg's arrests and con- 
victions ? 

Miss Rose. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. He didn't mention that ? 

Miss Rose. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were in that union, and were you subsequently 
transferred to another union ? 

Miss Rose. Yes; we were. After the labor intervened for us, we 
were transferred to 410, and Mr. Brennan called us to his office and 
there we met a Mr. Ciccardini, who was a representative of the inter- 
national union, and he told us that Mr. Jules Berg would preside over 
us, and he recommended him, and he called him a brother member or 
something or other, which they used among union officials. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were transferred into local 410 ? 

Miss Rose. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the membership want to transfer into 410 ? 

Miss Rose. Well, we all talked and said, "Well, we will see exactly 
what they have to offer," and we went to their meeting, and we found 
the same thing, Mr. Jules Berg presided over the meeting, and the same 
conditions that Mr. Abe Goldberg had presided over before. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. So it Avas just the same ? 

Miss Rose. It seems that way. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were never allowed to vote ? 

Miss Rose. No ; we never voted on anything. We never saw a con- 
tract. We never read a contract, and we were never allowed to vote 
on any matters whatsoever. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were never consulted at all on these matters? 

Miss Rose. On any aft'airs ; no. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were put in by the employer to local 1 and then 
transferred from local 1 to 410 ? 

Miss Rose. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And during all of this you were never consulted ? 

Miss Rose. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never received financial reports ? 

Miss Rose. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never knew what happened to your money ? 

Miss Rose. No ; this is the first I heard of it now. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have to pay any dues ? 

Miss Rose. Yes : we were paying $4 monthly. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't know what happened to that money ? 

Miss Rose. No ; we do not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that held out of your pay ? 

Miss Rose. That was automatically taken out. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was automatically taken out ? 

Miss Rose. Yes ; it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you sign cards authorizing that ? 

Miss Rose. No ; we did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was just automatically done ? 

Miss Rose. That is correct. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13565 

Mr. Kennedy. All right. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

If not, thank you very much. Your testimony has been very helpful. 

Miss Rose. You are welcome. 

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Shorty Feldman. 

The Chairman. Come forward, Mr. Feldman. 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. Feldman. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF SAMUEL FELDMAN 

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

Mr. Feldman. Samuel Feldman, 1124 Unruh Avenue, Philadelphia. 

The Chairman. What is your occupation, Mr. Feldman ? 

Mr. Feldman. I decline to answer that on the grounds that it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you mean your occupation is such that you 
cannot acknowledge publicly what it is ? 

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

The Chairman. Do you have counsel ? 

Mr. Feldman, No, sir. 

The Chairman. The Chair will state to you that the committee 
will not take any advantage of the fact that you do not have counsel, 
but you will be interrogated just as other witnesses who have assumed 
the same attitude who did appear with counsel. 

Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are a business agent for local 929 ? 

Mr. Feldman. I refuse to answer on the ground that it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy, How long have you held that position ? Could you 
tell us that? 

Mr. Feldman. I refuse to answer on the ground that it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Actually, you have been with the Teamsters Union 
since 1940, isn't that correct ? 

Mr. Feldman. I refuse to answer on the ground that it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Feldman, as Mr. Salinger stated, 
has just been arrested for the transportation of stolen bonds last week 
and is out on bail at the present time. I don't expect to go into that 
matter at this time. 

The Chairman. That matter will not be gone into. That is, any- 
thing touching upon the merits of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. I wouldn't go into it at all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Don't go into that, but interrogate him about his 
work with the union and any other activities that might be pertinent 
to labor-management relations. 

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



13566 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Feldman has been before the committee before 
in connection with the testimony that we had that he tried to shake 
down some employers up in Philadelphia, for, I believe, either $25,000 
or $50,000. 

The Chairman. Which amount is correct, Mr. Feldman ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe it is $50,000, isn't it, Mr. Feldman ? 

Mr. Feldman. I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't know which it is. Did you get any of the 
money ? 

Mr. Feij)man. I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

The Ciiair:man. Let's have order. 

Mr. Kennedy. What I would like to ask you about specifically, Mr. 
Feldman, is your connection with the establisliment of this local inde- 
pendent No. 1. Could you tell us about the background of that? 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell us about your conversation with 
Mr. Hoff a regarding that matter ? 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us why you approached Mr. Hoffa 
to help you on this matter ? Why you went all the way out to Detroit 
or contacted Detroit, contacted Mr. Hoffa out there to help you and 
assist you in this matter ? 

Mr. Feldman. I refuse to answer on the ground it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was it about ISIr. Hoffa that led you to believe 
that he would help somebody such as yourself ? 

Mr. Feldman. I refuse to answer on the ground it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy, Did you also contact Mr. Maxie Stern, in Detroit? 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Why did you contact Mr. Maxie Stern who also has 
a long criminal record ? 

Mr. Feldman. I decline to answer on the ground that it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you arrange for Mr. Maxie Stern to contact 
Mr. Hoffa in connection with this also ? 

Mr. Feldman. I decline to answer on the ground that it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you paid, Mr. Feldman, by Dewey's restaurant 
chain to organize, to take in these employees ? 

Mr. Feldman, I decline to answer on the ground that it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they pay and finance you in signing up the 
employees ? 

Mr. Feldman. I decline to answer on the ground that it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you identify this check ? 

The Chairman. I believe you said your name is Samuel Feldman, 
is that what you stated ? 

Mr. Feldman. That is right. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13567 

The Chairman. I hand you a check, a photostatic copy of a check, 
dated June 21, 1956, in the amount of $750, given on the account 
of Dewey's Famour, Inc., and it shows here on the margin of the 
check that it is for traveling expense. 

I ask you to examine the clieck, this photostatic copy, and the en- 
dorsement thereon, made payable to Samuel Feldman, and state if you 
identify the check, and if you are the Sanuiel Feldman who received 
the money. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Feldman. I refuse to answer that on the ground it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You have seen the check ; have you ? 

Mr. Feldman. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You have examined it ? 

Mr. Feldman. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Is that your endorsement on the reverse side of 
the check ? 

Mr. Feldman. I don't know whether it is or not. I can't recog- 
nize it. 

The Chairman. Did you have someone endorse it for you ? 

Mr. Feldman. No ; yes. This is mine, my name. 

The Chairman. It is your name ? 

Mr. Feldman. Yes. 

The Chairman. Your signature ? 

Mr. Feldman. Yes. 

The Chairman. Your signature and your name. Very good. The 
check may be made exhibit No. 10. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 10" for ref- 
erence and will be found in the appendix on p. 13718.) 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you get that for '( 

Mr. Feldman. I refuse to answer on the ground it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that for your work that you were doing in con- 
nection with signing up their employees ? 

Mr. Feldman. I decline to answer on the ground that it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you : Was this check given voluntarily,, 
willingly, by the Dewey's Famous, Inc., or was a little pressure ap- 
plied, that if they didn't pay off a bit something might happen here 
or there ? 

Mr. Feldman. I decline to answer on the ground that it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. What I am trying to find out, and you can be help- 
ful, I am trying to find out if they are cooks, too, or if they were 
simply, you know, imposed on and felt they had to do it in order to 
avoid some harmful results. Can you tell us i 

I have just as much feeling against those who are in business who 
resort to these tactics as I do those that are not in business or on the 
labor side of the issue. I just think it is contemptible in every respect. 
I would like to have your help. I would like to know if this is an 
arrangement that they voluntarily entered into with you, where you 
or your union, so called, and management was to profit from it in 
full disregard of the rights and welfare of the working people. 



13568 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Will you be helpful and tell us something about it ? 

Mr. Feldman. I refuse to answer on the ground that it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr, Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it correct that you were in touch with Mr. 
Hoffa during May and June of 1956 ? 

Mr. Feldman. I decline to answer on the ground that it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it correct that you went out to Detroit and 
had a conference personally with Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. Feldman. I refuse to answer on the ground that it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. This check says on the side "traveling expenses." 
Did you get this $750 for traveling out to see Mr. Hoffa? 

Mr. Feldman. I decline to answer on the gi'ound it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the Dewey chain think it was that important 
that you go out to see him ? 

Mr. Feldman. I refuse to answer on the ground that it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

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

Mr. Ivennedy. Mr. Chairman, I would like to put in some of the 
records of the telephone calls that we have that were made during 
that period of time, what the tickets show as to the contact between 
Mr. Feldman and Mr. Hoffa, and Mr. Maxie Stern. 

Senator Kennedy. AVithout objection that may be done. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Salinger. 

Mr. Salinger. The record shows that between May 1 and JNIav 4, 
1956, Mr. Feldman made 3 calls to Woodward 1-1241, Detroit, 
Mich., the office of local 299 of the Teamsters Union in Detroit, and 
he made 4 calls to Woodward 3-6800, which is the Briggs Hotel 
in Detroit, and asked for Max Stern. 

Mr. Kennedy. IMr. Feldman, do you know Mr. Bushkin? 

Mr. Feld3ian. I decline to answer on the ground it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the Bushkin of the firm, the labor consul- 
tant firm, of Bushkin & Holtzman. Do you know Mr. Jack Bushkin ? 

Mr. Feldman. I refuse to answer on the ground it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it correct that you were also in touch with 
Mr. Dave Bushkin? 

Mr. Feldman. I refuse to answer on the ground it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. ^Yhy would you be contacting Mr. Bushkin as well 
as Mr. Hoffa? 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Salinger, do we have some telephone records 
that indicate that Mr. Feldman was in touch with Mr. Bushkin, about 
whom we have had some testimony, and who has just appeared before 
the committee and taken the fifth amendment? 

Mr. Salinger. On August 16, 1956, a call was made to Detroit, 
Mich., Temple 2-1081, listed to Holtzman & Bushkin, 2955 Grand 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13569 

River, Detroit. This call was placed from the office of local 929^, 
of which Mr. Feldman is a business agent, but was charged to local 
410 of the Hotel and Restaurant Workers Union. 

In addition, calls were also made to Mr. Bushkin at his residence 
on August 17, 1956, and August 18, 1956, and a call was made to 
Dave at the office of Holtzman & Bushkin on September 17, 1956. 

Mr. Kennedy. From local 410 ? 

Mr. Salinger. From local 410, that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you tell us anything about that? 

Mr. Feldman. I decline to answer on the ground that it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

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

Senator Kennedy. The witness is excused. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Feldman ? 

Mr. Chairman, can we keep Mr. Feldman under subpena? We are 
very interested, and always will be interested, in his activities. We 
have some other information we are working on. If it is possible, Mr. 
Chairman, I would like to keep him under subpena, with the agreement 
from him that he would report back when requested. 

Senator Kennedy. Do you agree to that, Mr. Feldman? Do you 
agree to report back to the committee, remain under the subpena, and 
agree to report back to the committee when they request you ? 

Mr. Feldman. Sure. 

Mr. Kennedy. Upon reasonable request ? 

Mr. Feldman. Unreasonable ? 

Senator Ivennedy. On reasonable, with proper notice. 

Mr. Feldman. Yes. 

Senator Kennedy. Thank you. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Max Stern. 

The Chairman. Do you solemnly swear the evidence you shall give 
before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, 
would you mind letting us conclude the oath ? 

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. Stern. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF MAX STERN, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
BELFOED V. LAWSON 

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

Mr. Stern. My name is Max Stern. I live at 114 Adams, Detroit, 
Mich. 

The Chairman. You decline to give your occupation or your busi- 
ness? 

Mr. Stern. I respectfully decline to answer the question and exer- 
cise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Do you have counsel ? 

Mr. Stern. I do. 

The Chairman. Counsel, will you identify yourself ? 



13570 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Lawson. I am Belf ord V. Lawson, of Washington, D. C. May 
I say, Mr. Chairman, that my miderstanding is that Mr. Stern has long 
since advised the committee that he was going to invoke and exercise 
the fifth amendment. I wonder if it is going to serve any useful pur- 
pose — could we not just stipulate that his answers would be identical? 

The Chairman. Well, we thank you for giving us that informa- 
tion, so w^e will not be taken by surprise, but we do not permit the 
taking of the fifth amendment by proxy. Of course, it can be hoped — • 
it may be a vain hope — that the witness would change his mind and 
decide to cooperate with his Government. I don't know. Maybe he 
will not. Anyway, proceed, Mr. Kennedy, 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman, it might be worthy of observation 
at this point that there is nothing whatever in the Constitution that 
requires any person to invoke the fifth amendment. It is entirely a 
voluntary act on their part. 

Mr. Lawson. Nothing prevents them, either. 

Senator Ervin. There is nothing in it that prevents them from 
waiving it. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. I know Mr. Stern has been here several days, and 
I am sorry we have inconvenienced him by keeping him waiting. But 
I understand from what he has told Mr. Salinger that he has been 
helping Mr. George Fitzgerald while he has been here. So his time 
has not been completely wasted. 

Mr. Stern. That is a lie. Quit smearing people. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Haven't you been carrying his bag ? 

Mr. Stern. No; I haven't been carrying his bag. Mr. Salinger 
better get a little better information. 

The Chah^man. All right, if you will just speak up like that and 
answer questions, that will be very helpful. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us then, Mr. Stern, if you know 
anybody from the Teamsters ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Stern. I respectfully decline to answer the question and exer- 
cise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Mr. James Holla? 

Mr. Stern. I respectfully decline to answer the question and exer- 
cise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us, Mr. Stern, why Mr. Feldman 
contacted you in Detroit in connection with obtaining a charter in 
Philadelphia for this group of friends of his ? 

Mr. Stern. I respectfully decline to answer the question and exer- 
cise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did j^ou help and assist Mr. Feldman in connection 
with that? 

Mr. Stern, I respectfully decline to answer the question and exer- 
cise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us why you were in touch with Mr. 
James Hoffa during this period of time ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13571 

Mr. Stern. I respectfully decline to answer the question and exer- 
cise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. What I would like to find out is why you would be 
interested in obtaining this charter and why Mr. Hoffa and Mr. 
Brennan would be discussing the matter with you. Can you tell us 
anything about that ? 

Mr. Stern. I respectfully decline to answer the question and exer- 
cise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. What connection have you had with labor organiza- 
tions, generally, Mr. Stern ? 

Mr. Stern. I respectfully decline to answer the question and exer- 
cise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have been in touch throughout the country with 
some of the well-known gangsters — Mr. Dave Yaras, down in Miami — 
have you not ? 

Mr. Stern, I respectfully decline to answer the question and exer- 
cise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have been in touch with Mr. Tronolone, down 
in Miami, also ? 

Mr. Stern. I respectfully decline to answer the question and exer- 
cise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Pie is known also as "Peanuts"; isn't he? 

Mr. Stern. I respectfully decline to answer the question and exer- 
cise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennp;dy. And you are also a good close friend of Mr. Jack 
Bushkin ; are you not? 

Mr. Stern. I respectfully decline to answer the question and exer- 
cise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. And also you are a close friend of xVngelo Meli, Pete 
Licavoli, Scarf ace Bommarito, and Joe Massei; are you not? 

Mr. Stern, I respectfully decline to answer the question and exer- 
cise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel). 

Mr, Kennedy, Have you had conversations with Mr. Owen Bert 
Brennan and with Mr. Hoffa during 1957? 

Mr, Stern, I respectfully decline to answer the question and exer- 
cise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr, Kennedy, I guess that is all. 

The Chairman. Are there any questions ? 

Have you any questions. Senator ? 

Senator Ervin. No questions, Mr, Chairman ? 

Tlie Chairman, Are you kind of a missing link that we have dis- 
covered between the underworld racketeers and some union activities? 



13572 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Stern. I respectfully decline to answer the question and exer- 
cise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Are you an American citizen ? 

Mr. Stern. I respectfully decline to answer the question and exer- 
cise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. With the approval of the committee, the Chair 
orders and directs you to answer the question : Are you an American 
citizen ? 

Mr. Stern. I respectfully decline to answer the question and exer- 
cise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States Con- 
stitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Were you born in this country ? 

Mr. Stern. I respectfully decline to answer the question and exer- 
cise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States Con- 
stitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. With the approval of the committee, the Chair 
orders and directs you to answer the question : Were you born in this 
country ? 

Mr. Stern. I respectfully decline to answer the question and exer- 
cise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States Con- 
stitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. The two orders the Chair has given you and direc- 
tions to answer the two previous questions will continue to be in effect 
during the remainder of your time on the witness stand. 

Are you a naturalized citizen or a natural citizen of this country? 

Mr. Stern. I respectfully decline to answer the question and exer- 
cise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

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

Mr. Stern. I respectfully decline to answer the question and exer- 
cise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States Con- 
stitution — — - 

The Chairman. Are you married ? 

Mr. Stern. Not to be a witness against myself. 

(The witness conferred w'ith his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Are you married ? 

Mr. Stern. I respectfully decline to answer the question and exer- 
cise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States Con- 
stitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Do you have children ? 

Mr. Stern. I respectfully decline to answer the question and exer- 
cise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States Con- 
stitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Are you loyal to the United States of America ? 

Mr. Stern. I respectfully clecline to answ^er the question and exer- 
cise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States Con- 
stitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Are you willing to fulfill the obligations of citizen- 
ship that are required of citizens of this country who enjoy its blessings 
of liberty and freedom ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13573 

Mr. Stern. All right, yes. 

The Chairman. I didn't hear you. 

Mr. Stern. Yes. 

( The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Are you willing to perform any service for your 
country ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Are you willing to perform any service for your 
country, for the United States of America? You haven't said it is 
3^our country. 

Mr. Stern. Yes. 

The Chairman. You say "Yes" ? 

Mr. Stern. Yes. 

The Chairman. I give you the opportunity, then, right now, to 
cooperate w4th your Government and give us the information we have 
been seeking from you. Will you do that ? 

Mr. Stern. I respectfully decline to answer the question and exer- 
cise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. All right. You have said you would perform a 
service for your Government. Would you tell us what service you 
would be willing to perform for it ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Stern. I respectfully decline to answer the question and exer- 
cise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The C11AIR31AN. Do you honestly believe that if you answered the 
question truthfully, the question "Are you a citizen of the United 
States?" that a truthful answer thereto might tend to incriminate 
you? 

Mr. Stern. I honestly believe that if I am forced to answer the 
question I will be forced to be a witness against myself in violation 
of my rights under the fifth amendment of the United States Con- 
stitution. 

The Chairman. We have some peculiar people in this country. 

Are there any other questions ? 

Senator Kennedy ? 

Senator Kennedy. I don't understand at all — you are not in the 
labor movement — why you would have anything to do with this 
matter, why you w^ould be the one who would be an intermediary 
between Mr. Feldman and Mr. Hoffa. 

I don't know what Mr. Hoffa's connection is with you, I don't know 
Mr. Feldman's. But why should you be involved at all in a labor 
movement ? 

Mr. Stern. I respectfully decline to answer the question and exer- 
cise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Senator Kennedy. You have been arrested a number of times. 
What are your means of support now ? 

Mr. Stern. I respectfully decline to answer the question and exer- 
cise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

21243— 58— pt. 36 20 



13574 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. You will remain under the same subpena, subject 
to recall for further interrogation at such time as the committee may 
desire your presence. Do you agree to that ? 

Mr. Stern. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

You will be given reasonable notice, you and your attorney, of the 
time and place that the committee may desire you. 

Mr. Stern. Thank you. 

The Chairman. With that understanding, you may stand aside. 

Mr. Stern. Thank you. 

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

(Whereupon, at 12:04 p. m. the hearing recessed, to reconvene at 
2 p. m. of the same day, with the following members present: Sen- 
ators McClellan, Ervin, Kennedy.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

(Members of the committee present at the reconvening of the ses- 
sion were: Senators McClellan, Ives, Church, and Curtis.) 

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we are going now into a trans- 
action in connection with the estate of Paul Ricca, and we had re- 
quested Mr. Fitzgerald for the file from the Teamsters Union in 
connection witli that, and I would like to ask Mr. Fitzgerald to pro- 
duce the file. 

]Mr. Fitzgerald. W^ell, I have no Teamsters Union. I understand, 
if I may sit here, that you have all of the files from the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have a file ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I have a file in my office which I explained, Mr. 
Chairman, to Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Bellino, that is my file on the 
matter. I said as an attorney if a proper waiver is made by my clients 
I would produce the file. Until that is done, it would be a privileged 
communication. 

The Chairman. "VVlio is your client in this instance ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I think in this case, if I recall properly, and I 
might say that my lack of knowledge of it or lack of information 
on it is because I didn't handle it myself, but I believe it involves two 
locals, local 337 and local 299. I could be mistaken on that. Now, 
it will be necessary to obtain from them the waiver, and if they make 
the waiver I will be happy to produce the file. 

The Chairman. Have you made that request ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I have talked about it but we have not had any 
meeting on it due to the pressure of all of these things, I just found 
out now. They mentioned it to me 2 or 3 times but after all I just 
happen to be 1 person, and I haven't been able to even get together 
on it and it is a matter that would affect, I believe, an action of the 
general executive board of both of those locals. 

The Chairman. You do not have the records today ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, I do not. No ; this is not the files of the union. 

The Chairman. This is your professional file as an attorney ; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is correct. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13575 

The Chairman. I am not familiar with this. I think you and I 
should have a talk about it and then I will take it up with the com- 
mittee and we will undertake to work out something satisfactory. 
In the meantime, urging your clients to give their consent. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. All right. 

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Paul Ricca. 

The Chairman. Will you be sworn, please ? 

You do solemnly swear that the evidence, given before this Senate 
select conmiittee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 
the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. De Lucia. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF PAUL DE LUCIA (ALIAS PAUL RICCA), ACCOM- 
PANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, HARRY CLIFFORD ALLDER 

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

Mr. De Lucia. My name is Paul De Lucia, 1515 Bonnie Brae, River 
Forest, 111. 

The Chairman. What is your business or occupation, Mr. Ricca ? 

Mr. De Lucia. I am retired. 

The Chairman. What has been your business or occupation, Mr. 
Ricca ? 

(Witness consulted with comisel.) 

The Chairman. I will ask you first, do you have an attorney repre- 
senting you ? 

Mr. De Lucia. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Attorney, identify yourself for the record. 

Mr. Allder. My name is Harry Clifford Allder, a member of the 
District of Columbia Bar. 

The Chahoian. All right, Mr. Ricca, what was your previous occu- 
pation ? You say that you are now retired. 

Mr. De Lucia. Under the fifth amendment of the Constitution of 
the United States, I decline to answer on the ground that my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. When did you retire, Mr. Ricca ? 

Mr. De Lucia. Under the fifth amendment of the Constitution of 
the United States, I decline to answer on the ground that my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you think it would make any difference whether 
you retired in September or whether you retired at some other date ? 
I don't see the sense of that. You say you retired, and I just simply 
asked you when you retired. It doesn't make much sense to me that 
you can say that you retired, and not state when you retired. 

Mr. De Lucia. Under the fifth amendment of the Constitution of 
the United States, I decline to answer on the ground that my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. With the approval of the committee, the Chair is 
going to order and direct you to state when you retired. You said 
that you were retired. 

Mr. De Lucl\. Under the fifth amendment to the Constitution of 
the United States, I decline to answer on the ground that my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 



13576 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. The order and direction just given you by the Chair 
will continue throughout the remainder of your appearance before 
the committee. 

All right, Mr. Counsel, you may take over and proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. De Lucia, are you also known by the name of 
Mr. Ricca ? 

Mr. De Lucia. LTnder the fifth amendment of the Constitution of 
the United States, I decline to answer on the ground that my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. As we understand it you are known as "Ricca," and 
also as "De Lucia," is that correct? 

Mr. De Lucia. Under the fifth amendment of the Constitution of 
the United States, I decline to answer on the ground that my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Wliich is your correct name ? What is your cor- 
rect name? 

Mr. De Lucia. Paul De Lucia. 

The Chairman. That is your correct name ? 

Mr. De Lucia. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. De Lucia, what I wanted to ask you about 
specifically is the purchase of your home, or supposed purchase of 
your home in 1956, your home in Indiana, by the Teamsters. Could 
you tell us about that ? 

Mr. De Lucia. Under the fifth amendment of the Constitution of 
the LTnited States, I decline to answer on the ground tliat my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedys Could you tell the committee whom you discussed 
the purchase of this home with in the Teamsters Union ? 

Mr. De Lucia. Under the fifth amendment of the Constitution of 
the United States, I decline to answer on the ground that my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss this matter with Owen Bert 
Brennan ? 

Mr. De Lucia. Under the fifth amendment of the Constitution of 
the United States, I decline to answer on the ground that my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a blown- 
up picture of the estate put up here on the chart. 

The Chair]man. The committee exliibits to you a picture and it is 
now placed before you and we ask you to examine it and state if you 
recognize what it is. 

(Witness consulted with counsel.) 

Mr. De Lucia. Under the fifth amendment to the Constitution of 
the United States, I decline to answer on the ground that my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I hand you here now a photograph, the same as 
that displayed in blown-up form, and I ask you to examine this photo- 
graph and state if you identify it. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

The Chairman. Have you examined the photograph ? 

Mr. De Lucia. Yes. 

The Chairman. Do you identify it? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13577 

Mr. De Lucl^. Under the fifth amendment of the Constitution of 
the United States, I decline to answer on the ground that my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. The pliotograph may be made exliibit No. 11. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 11," for identifica- 
tion, and may be found in the files of the select committee. ) 

The Chairman. Do you not recognize that as a photograph of your 
property or your former property, which you occupied as a home at 
Long Beach, La Porte County, Ind. ? Do you not recognize that as 
a picture of your former property or home ? 

Mr. De Lucia. Under the fifth amendment of the Constitution of 
the United States, I decline to answer on the ground that my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. All right, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, these are two checks which have been 
exhibits earlier, checks Nos. 161 and 162, a total written on the bank 
account of local 337 in Detroit, totaling just under $150,000, which 
we understand were used for the supposed payment for Mr. Ricca's 
estate. 

The Chairman. He calls himself De Lucia, and so I will call him 
Mr. De Lucia. Mr. De Lucia, I hand you here two checks. One has 
been made exhibit 161 and the other made exliibit 162 in testimony 
taken on the 21st day of August, 1957, before this committee. I ask 
you to examine these checks, and state if you identify them ? 

(Witness consulted with counsel.) 

The Chairman. Have you examined the exhibit ? 

Mr. De Lucia. Yes, sir. 

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

The Chairman. Do you identify those checks ? 

Mr. De Lucia. Under the fifth amendment to the Constitution of 
the United States, I decline to answer on the ground that my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Wliat is the Nancette Estate ? 

Mr. De Lucia. Under the fifth amendment to the Constitution of 
the United States, I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that 
my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I notice on the back of these checks it says, on each 
of them it says first "In full payment of Nancette Estate." And the 
other one says "Payment on Nancette Estate." 

Each of them then is endorsed "Pay to the order of and deposit to 
the account of Paul De Lucia." 

They are signed "Joseph Bulger, attorney for trust 96." Are you 
the Paul De Lucia that these checks were endorsed to ? 

Mr. De Lucia. Under the fifth amendment to the Constitution of 
the United States, I decline to answer on the ground that my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Did you ever own a home or an estate in Indiana ? 

Mr. De Lucia. Under the fifth amendment to the Constitution of 
the United States, I decline to answer on the ground that my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. These checks — one of them is dated July 27, 1956, 
and the other is dated August 8, 1956. 



13578 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

You make no contention that you don't remember. You j ust think 
they might incriminate you if you acknowledge them, is that correct? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. De Lucia. Under the fifth amendment to the Constitution of 
the United States, I decline to answer on the gi'ound that my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You do remember the transaction, do you not? 

Mr. De Lucia. Under the fifth amendment to the Constitution of 
the United States, I decline to answ^er on the ground that my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You did receive this money, did you not? 

Mr. De Lucia. Under the fifth amendment to the Constitution of 
the United States, I decline to answer on the ground that my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we don't seem to be proceeding too 
far with Mr. De Lucia. I would like now to call Mr. Adlennan, who 
has made a study of the situation. 

The Chairman. Mr. De Lucia, I wish you would pay very close 
attention, and if there is anything stated by this witness that is inaccu- 
rate or incorrect, we would be happy to have you correct his testimony. 

Mr. Adlerman, you have been previously sworn, have you ? 

Mr. Adlerman. I have, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF JEROME ADLERMAN— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Adlerman, have you made a study of the docu- 
ments in connection with the so-called sale of this property to the 
Teamsters Union, the property of Paul De Lucia ? 

Mr. Adlerman. I have. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us when the so-called sale took place? 

Mr. Adlerman. The sale on the so-called tract No. A which con- 
sists of lots 35, 36, 41, and 42, took place on September 20, 1957. And 
the sale on tract B, lots 37, 38, 39, 40 took place a year and 2 months 
earlier, on July 31, 1956. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let's just understand. The part No. B was trans- 
ferred over to the Teamsters in 1956, is that right ? 

Mr. Adlerman. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. According to the records for the sale of that prop- 
erty, the Teamsters paid $150,000 ? 

JNIr. Adlerman. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was all that was transferred in 1956 ? 

Mr. Adlerman. That was all that was transferred. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all that the Teamsters received in 1956; is 
that correct ? 

Mr. Adlerman. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Point out on that map just what part was conveyed 
at the time these checks were given or just preceding the checks. 

Mr. Adlerman. There are 4 lots in this area that were conveyed in 
1956, these 4 lots, and that contains the main house, which is a 20-room 
house, and it also contained a part of the tennis court and a corner of 
the swimming pool. 

Mr. Kennedy. All the rest of the property was still owned in the 
name of Mr. De Lucia ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD ISSVQ' 

Mr. Adlerman. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. So Mr. De Lucia and the Teamsters were going to 
share the tennis court and share the swimming pool ; is that right ? 

Mr. Adlerjian. I believe so. 

Mr. Kennedy. This was mutually owned by the two organizations, 
by Mr. De Lucia and by the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Adlerman. Well, this part A was owned by Mr. De Lucia and 
this part B by the Teamsters. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. De Lucia owned half of the tennis court and 
the Teamsters the other? 

Mr. Adlerman. That's correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the Teamsters owned just a little bit of the 
swimming pool and Mr. De Lucia the rest of it ? 

Mr. Adler:man. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is from an examination of the records ? 

Mr. Adlerman. An examination of the records and the engineer's 
map and survey that was made. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have a copy of that ? 

Mr. Adlerman. Yes, we have a copy of that. 

The Chairman. I ask you to examine this map that I present to 
you, this document, and state what it is. 

Mr. Adlerman. Tliis is a plat of a survey made by Richard R. 
Frame, professional engineer for the State of Indiana. 

It is a plat of the lots, of the eight lots, that involves Mr. DeLucia's 
property or the Teamsters' property. 

The Chairman. Where did you obtain that plat ? 

Mr. Adlerman. That was obtained in the course of our investigation 
from the trust company. 

The Chairman. From the trust company ? 

Mr. Adlerman. That is right. 

The Chairman. And that is the plat the engineer had filed with the 
trust company ? 

Mr. Adlerman. That is right. 

The Chairman. All right. That plat may be made exhibit No. 12. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 12" for 
reference and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. Who was the grantor in the deed or other convey- 
ance that conveyed the title on the area marked "B". 

Mr. Adlerman. The property was originally held by Mr. and Mrs. 
De Lucia. They signed a trust agreement with their attorney, Mr, 
Bulger, and the Lake County Trust Co., under w^iich trust agreement 
the Lake County Trust Co. was acting as trustee under the direction 
of Mr. Bulger and Mr. De Lucia for the benefit of Mr. De Lucia. 

Mr. Bulger handled the conveyance from thereafter under this trust 
agreement. 

Senator Cltitis. Was it free from encumbrance ? 

Mr. Adlerman. I believe it was unencumbered. I mean as far as 
the Teamsters are concerned, I think it is unencumbered. 

Senator Curtis. No, I mean at the time of the conveyance. 

Mr. Adlerman. That I don't know. 

Senator Curtis. I see. 



13580 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Adlerman will be back in a moment to put in 
documents to back up his testimony. 

Mr. Adlerman, I would like to have you testify as to what happened 
immediately or shortly following our hearing in August 1957, when 
Mr. Hoffa was asked questions about the transfer of this estate. 

Mr. Adlerman. Shortly thereafter they took steps to convey tract 

A. We have in the records a letter from Mr. Bulger to the Lake 
County Trust Co., saying that for the purpose of correcting the omis- 
sion of the four lots he is exercising a direction to the Lake County 
Trust Co. to convey the property to the trust company under a trust 
agreement with the Teamsters. 

In other words to convey the property to the Teamsters. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you mean after our hearing which was in August 
of 1957 

Mr. Adlerman. This letter was dated September 20, 1957. 

Mr. Kennedy. After that, the Teamsters got the rest of the prop- 
erty ; is that right ? 

Mr. Adlerman. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Until the hearings took place, the Teamsters had 
paid $150,000 only for plot B ? 

Mr. Adlerman. They had paid $150,000. A few cents short of 
that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just for B ? 

Mr. Adlerman. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just for plot B ; is that right ? 

Mr. Adlerman. That is right. 

]\Ir. Kennedy. Did they pay any consideration for plot A when 
that was transferred in 1957 ? 

Mr. Adlerman. I think maybe they have a $10 or $100 considera- 
tion. 

Mr. Kennedy. But no material consideration ? 

Mr. Adlerman. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you put the documents in that will sub- 
stantiate your testimony ? 

Offer the documents to the chairman. 

These are the various trust agreements and transfer of the deed. 

The Chairman. As you offer the documents, identify them and we 
will have them made exhibits in the order of your presentation. 

Mr. Adlerman. I feel as far as the first part, the transfer of prop- 
erty B, it is rather complicated, and it might be involved and rather 
hard to understand. They made a mistake when they transferred the 
property to the local 299 and local 337. They made a direct transfer 
to those locals in 1956. The Indiana law prohibited a local holding 
any real estate, so they had to make these numerous documents trans- 
ferring the property back and forth and so forth to get correct title. 

Mr. Kennedy. Which is not directly involved in what we are look- 
ing into. They made another error in the transfer in 1956 of plot 

B, Mr. Chairman, in which they transferred it once, found out it was 
illegal, so they had to transfer it back and transfer it again. 

We have all of those documents. It ultimately would appear to 
have ended up in the possession of the Teamsters, however, in 1956. 

The Chairman. Those documents referring to the correction of an 
error may be attached and made exhibit No. 13 for reference. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13581 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 13" for ref- 
erence and may be found in the files of the selected committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you have the transfer of the property in 
plot A. 

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

Mr. Adlerman. On tract A wliich are lots 35, 36, 41, and 42, which 
is the sort of elbowed shape part of the property, there is a trust 
agreement, No. 97. Can I have the plat, please ? 

I have in my hand four documents which relate to the conveyance 
of tract A. I would like to put those into the record. 

The Chairman. They may be made exhibit No. 14, for reference, 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 14" for ref- 
erence, and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Adlerman. There are six of them, actually. 

The Chairman. They may be attached, the 5 documents, and 
made exhibit 14 for reference. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Adlerman, from an examination of this map, 
there is no possible way, there would not appear to be any possible 
way to be confused about the transfer of this property ? 

Mr. Adlerman. No, I can't see how. 

Mr. Kennedy. Each lot of land is very clearly set out, is it not? 

Mr. Adlerman. Not only that, but if you look at the plat, it refers 
to the trust agreement, which only affects property B. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the property is clearly split into lots, and the 
property that was transferred to the Teamsters clearly stated that 
they were to only get 37, 38, 39, and 40 ; isn't that correct ? 

Mr. Adlerman. The trust agreement only j^rovides for that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just for lots 37, 38, 39, and 40 ? 

Mr. Adlerman. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the lots 35, 36, and 41 and 42 were not even 
mentioned ; is that right ? 

Mr. Adlerman. As far as I am concerned, they are still not men- 
tioned in the trust agreement. I spoke to the trust officer this morning, 
and he said as far as they are concerned, they are not in the trust 
agreement. 

Mr. Kennedy. You mean it is possible they still do not own the 
property ? 

Mr. Adlerman. If they do own it the trust company has no knowl- 
edge of it, because they still do not have the fhial deed on it. 

Mr. Kennedy. They at least made some step toward transferring it 
in 1957 after our hearing? 

Mr. Adlerman. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. They took a step in that direction in 1957 ? 

Mr. Adlerman. They did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And there they specifically mentioned the 4 plots 
of land, 35, 36, 41, and 42 ? 

Mr. Adlerman. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. But even at that, even in 1957, it would appear that 
possibly still the Teamsters do not own these four lots of property ? 

Mr. Adlerman. Well, we have requested every deed that the trust 
company has. They do not have any deed beyond the one conveying 
the property to the secretary, to the attorney, Mr. Bulger. Pardon 
me, that refers to tract B. I believe that there must be another deed, 



13582 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

but the trust company does not have it. They think that it may be in 
the hands of the Teamsters. 

Mr. Kennedy. But at least, Mr. Adlerman, what we can definitely 
establish, is that only a portion of the property was transferred in 
1956? 

Mr. Adlerman. Between 1956 and 1957, Mr. De Lucia owned 
tract A, and the Teamsters only owned tract B. 

Mr . Kennedy. And it was not until after our hearings took 
place 

Mr. Adlerman. Yes. As a matter of fact, I spoke to the trust officer 
this morning, and he told me it was only after an investigator went 
down to see him that he got word from the Teamsters that they wanted 
to transfer that. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was after we sent an investigator in there to look 
at it? 

Mr. Adlerman. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to have Mr. Salinger tell us what the 
minutes of the union show as far as the purchase of this property. 

The Chairman. Mr. Salinger, have you examined the minutes of 
the local that purchased the property ? 

TESTIMONY OF PIERRE SALINGER— Resumed 

Mr. Salinger. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you have copies of those minutes ? 

My. Salinger. I have, sir. 

The Chairman. The minutes may be made exhibit No. 15. Now you 
may refer to the pertinent parts thereof. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 15" for ref- 
erence and may be found in tlie files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Salinger. With reference to the minute book of 337, which 
issued these two checks on July 27, 1956, and August 8, 1956, there is 
no specific mention of the Nancette estate at any point in those minutes 
with these exceptions: At the meeting in August 1956, the general 
authorization was given as follows : 

Investments, piirchase of bonds, real estate, etc., discussed by the Chair. 
Motion made by Marshall Du Bach, supported by James Langley, passed unani- 
mously by the board that the president of the local be given full authority to 
make any investments or purchases he thought beneficial to local union. 

Mr. Kennedy. So there was no mention at all of the purchase of 
this estate ? 

Mr. Salinger. No specific reference to it, until January 4, 1957, 
which is some 3 or 4 months after they had issued the checks for 
$150,000. 

In those minutes, it is mentioned that President Brennan of the 
local gave a report. 

In his report he mentioned the local union, in the year 19.56, had made various 
investments, also had advanced and secured a note from joint council 43 for 
$75,000 for a real estate purchase made in behalf of joint council 43. 

Although it does not mention the Nancette estate, we believe that 
that refers to the Nancette estate. 

Mr. Kennedy. Still there was not mention, specific mention, of the 
property ? 

Mr. Salinger. That is correct. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13583 

Mr. Kennedy. And there was no mention of the fact that the 
property had belonged to Mr. De Lucia, also known as Paul "The 
Waiter" Ricca? 

Mr. Salinger. That is correct. The only specific mention of the 
Nancette estate in any of the minutes we examined are in the minutes 
of joint council 43 at a special meeting on August 14, 1957. 

At that meeting Mr. HofFa gave a report to the joint council and 
stated that through an oversight minutes of the meeting of October 
19, 1956, failed to mention the Nancette estate. A motion was made 
by Joseph Prebenda that the Nancette estate, now owned jointly by 
local 299 and 337, be purchased by joint council 43 from those unions 
for the purpose of establishing a training center for health and wel- 
fare, pension, and contract negotiations, and for the general welfare 
of local unions affiliated with joint council 43, Locals 299 and 337 
were to be repaid no more than the original purchase price for this 
property, the property to be held in trust by the Lake County Trust 
Co. for joint council 43 and to be paid for by joint council 43 from any 
available resources during any given year. 

This is a meeting of August 14, 1957, and discusses the purchase of 
the Nancette estate. But even through Mr. Adlerman's testimony it 
shows that even on that date they did not own the entire estate. 

TESTIMONY OF PAUL DE LUCIA— Resumed 

The Chairman. Mr. De Lucia, you have heard the testimony with 
respect to the transfer of this property. Is there any inaccuracy in 
the testimony or anything incorrect that the two witnesses, staff mem- 
bers, have just testified to that you would wish to correct? 

Mr. De Lucia. Under the fifth amendment of the Constitution of the 
United States, I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Is it a fact that you only transferred four lots the 
first time, and substantially as indicated on this picture of the map ? 

Mr. Allder. Mr. Chairman, I did not hear anything about him 
transferring any property. 

The Chairman. He can say he did not. 

Mr. Allder. I listened very attentively. I understood him to say 
that there was a trust and Mr. Bulger transferred some lots. There 
is no testimony there that this witness transferred anything. 

The Chairman. I would be most happy to have you explain it, Mr. 
De Lucia — just what the situation was. 

Mr. De Lucl^. I respectfully decline to answer, Senator. 

The Chairman. I don't want to make anything inaccurate. I un- 
derstood this property was owned by you, although you may have 
placed it in a trust for your own benefit. That may be true. Of 
course, the trust, after you had placed it in the trust, would be the 
proper one to convey it. 

May I ask you. Did you place this property in a trust ? 

Mr. De Lucia. I decline to answer. Senator. 

The Chairman. You don't want to be helpful ? 

Mr. De Lucia. I decline to answer. Senator. 

The Chairman. Did the trust handle the property according to your 
directions ? 

Mr. De Lucia. I respectfully decline to answer. Senator. 



13584 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Allder. May the record show that each time he declines it is 
because he fears that his answer might tend to incriminate him ? 

The Chairman. I wouldn't press him on that. I am sure you still 
mean that you are afraid that if you answered the question the answer 
might tend to incriminate me ? 

Mr. De Lucia. Incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Is that correct. 

Mr. De Ltjcia. That is right. 

The Chairman. All right. Is it a fact that you did not make the 
second conveyance or have the trust make the second conveyance until 
after this committee began looking into the transaction'^ Is that a 
fact? 

Mr. De Lucia. I decline to answer, Senator, on the ground that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairjsian. Well, I don't want this committee to be either cred- 
ited or blamed where neither is due. If the committee is entitled to no 
credit for discovering this situation, you may very well, if you will, 
correct the record for us and let us know that we had nothing in the 
world to do with it. 

Mr. De Lucia. I respectfully decline to answer. Senator. 

The Chairman. If we are altogether in error, I would be glad for 
you to point it out. 

Mr. De Lucia. I decline to answer, Senator. 

Senator Curtis. INIr. Chairman, to clear it up in my mind, does 
the committee have information as to the size of tract B, and the size 
of tract A, and also do they have an estimate of some qualified per- 
son as to the value of each ? 

Mr. Adlerman. The tract consists of 41^ acres. 

Senator Curtis. Which tract? 

Mr. Adlerman. Tracts A and B. 

Senator Curtis. The two of them together ? 

Mr. Adlerman. That is right. I have no idea how large each of 
them is, but you can see the proportions from the plat. 

Senator Curtis. Has the committee obtained an estimate as to the 
value ? 

Mr. Adlerman. I don't know exactly what the value is, but respon- 
sible real estate people have indicated that it would be very hard to 
resell that property, because it can be only used for a private resi- 
dence, and the cost maintenance on it is very very high. It is prob- 
ably much less than $150,000 that was paid for it. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

The Chairman. Well, we will be glad. Senator Curtis, to know 
that and we are trying to interrogate the people who know about it 
and let them be helpful and give us accurate information as to its 
value and why the transactions were handled this way. It may be per- 
fectly all right. Would you like to reconsider and help us get the 
facts just as they are? 

Mr. De Lucia. I decline to answer, sir. 

The Chairman. You decline to be helpful ? 

Mr. De Lucia. To answer, and not to be helpful. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, is it a fact that you are a friend of Owen Bert 
Brennan, and that was the reason that this sale was made? 

Mr. De Lucia. Who is that? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13585 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Owen Bert Brennan. 

Mr. De Lucia. Under the fifth amendment of the Constitution of 
the United States, I decline to answer on the ground that my an- 
swer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it a fact that you needed money at that time, 
as you were under investigation by the Internal Revenue Department, 
and you prevailed upon the Teamsters to purchase this property for 
the $150,000? 

Mr. De Lucia. I decline to answer. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't that the reason that this was handled in this 
fashion ? 

Mr. De Lucia. I decline to answer. 

The Chairman. I have been pretty indulgent, but you had better 
decline for reasons here. 

All right, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, I would like to read the testimony of Mr. 
Hoffa, on page 5043. 

The Chairman. Read the testimony and ask the witness if that 
testimony is correct, and if he knows about it. 

Mr. Kennedy (reading) : 

The Chairman. The total investment was around $150,000, and not $300,000? 

Mr. HoFFA. That is right. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is going to be a sort of a school for the business agents and 
the officers? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right, and if it works out properly we will have the key 
stewards also attend classes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is it a home and some land? 

Mr. HoFFA. It is a home and some land, with sufficient sleeping quarters, I 
believe we can have about 30 or 40 people at a time in classes, and we don't 
think it is advisable to have more than that at a time to try and get people to 
listen properly to explanations. 

Now, did you understand, Mr. De Lucia, that the property was to 
be used as a school for business agents? 

Mr. De Lucia. I decline to answer that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Chairman 

The Chairman. Now, you decline to answ^er for what reason ? 

Mr. De Lucia. Under the fifth amendment of the Constitution of 
the United States, I decline to answer on the ground that my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. How in the world could you say that you under- 
stood that the folks who purchased your home intended to use it for 
training schools sites facilities or how in the world do you think that 
could possibly tend to incriminate you in the slightest degree any- 
where anyhow ? Do you want to answer that question ? 

Mr. De Lucia. LTnder the fifth amendment of the Constitution of 
the United States, I decline to answer on the ground that my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, the reason I read that testimony is 
because we have here the Long Beach zoning ordinance in connection 
with the area on which this property is situated, and there are certain 
restrictions and I read from section 5 called, "Residence Districts." 

The Chairjman. Let me ask the witness, do you know if this is in 
zoning district of the city ? 

Mr. De Lucia. I decline to answer. Senator, on the ground that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 



13586 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. The fact that you might have had knowledge about 
the zoning status of the property might tend to incriminate you ? 

Mr. De Lucia. I decline to answer on the ground that my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Don't you know that that is just plain silly, and it 
couldn't possibly incriminate you, there is a public record. If you 
knew what the public record is, it couldn't possibly incriminate you to 
know it. 

O. K., proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Section 5 reads : 

Hereafter no building, structure, or land shall be used nor shall any building 
or structure be erected, altered, or enlarged except for the following uses : 

(1) Single family dwelling; (2) home occupation, professional office, or other 
incidental use conducted in connection with any single family dwelling in a 
manner clearly incidental and not detrimental to said dwelling or other premises ; 
and, (8) church, grammar or high school, public park or playground, golf or 
tennis club incorporated, and operated not for profit, community center or 
publicly owned recreation building; (4) signs of not more than 6 square feet of 
area advertising the premise for sale or rent. 

I will read this again. 

The Chairman. May I ask you if that is the public record or the 
ordinance of the city, is that correct ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Well, if it isn't certified to, there wall be some 
question about its admissibility, but I will let it go in as a statement. 

Mr. Kennedy. We can have someone introduce it. 

The Chairman. I think that it should be introduced. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, has it been established that it covers 
the area where this property in question is located ? 

Mr. Kennedy. It does. Mr, Adlerman can introduce it. 

The Chairman. Mr. Adlerman, did you procure a copy of the zoning 
ordinance that would affect the property ? 

Mr. Adlerman. I did. 

The Chairman. Is that a copy of it which you have in your 
hand ? 

Mr. Adlerman. I obtained this copy from Mr. Vale, Robert Vale^ 
the president of the Town Board of Long Beach. 

The Chairman. It may be made exhibit No. 16, for reference. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 16," for reference- 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, could you tell the committee, as this was going 
to be used for a school for business agents, including 30 or 40 people, 
how under the zoning law it could possibly be used for that purpose ? 
Could you tell us that ? 

Mr. De Lucia. I decline to answer on the ground that my answer 
would tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Could you tell us if that is the reason that it hasn't 
been used for that j^urpose for approximately a year ? 

Mr. De Lucia. I decline to answer on the ground that my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Adlerman. do we find that the Teamsters have 
made any request to the zoning board for the permission to change 
the zoning ordinances in connection with this matter? 

Mr. Adlerman. I have inquired from the president of the town 
board, and he has advised me that there has been no application made 
for any change in the zoning regulations. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13587 

Mr. Kennedy. Certainly the exceptions here wouldn't permit the 
Teamsters to use the property. The Teamsters organization is certainly 
not a church or a grammar or a high school and it is not a public park 
or a playgromid, or golf or tennis club, incorporated, and it is not a 
home occupation. Thirty or forty people going to be there. It is not a 
single family dwelling. 

Can you tell us how they are going to use it then ? 

Mr. Allder. I object to this, Mr. Chairman. He is calling for a legal 
conclusion or opinion of this witness and I don't think he is entitled 
to ask him for a legal conclusion concerning what an ordinance means 
or does not mean. 

The Chairman. If the witness is not going to answer anyway, I sup- 
pose it is not an important matter. The witness may not know the legal 
conclusion of an ordinance, and he may not be able to interpret tech- 
nicalities involved. We might ask the witness. Are j'ou familiar with 
this ordinance and its provisions? And we may ask you that. 

(Witness consulted with counsel.) 

Mr. De Lucl\. I decline to answer on the ground that my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Mr. Counsel, I don't believe objections are neces- 
sary, and I believe he will give us no information anyway. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. I tliink to find out the purpose of the purchase by the 
Teamsters of this property, and in view of the ordinance, certainly 
there must have been some discussion about it at the time tliat they were 
purchasing the property, and I am trying to find out from the witness 
any information that he can give to us on that matter. 

The Chairman. Did you have any discussions about the ordinance, 
and the restrictions on this property, at the time if it ? 

Mr. De Lucia. I decline to answer on the ground that my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Well, was this a sale made primarily for your con- 
venience, so you could have some ready cash ? 

Mr. De Lucia. I decline to answer on the ground that my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Had you ever offered the property for sale to any- 
one else ? 

Mr. De Lucia. I decline to answer, sir. 

The Chairman. What is the ground ? 

Mr. De Lucia. That my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. What was the largest offer you had had for the 
property prior to the time of this sale ? 

Mr. De Lucia. I decline to answer on the gi'ound that my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Had you ever placed it on the market with any 
agency to sell or instructed the trustees to sell it? 

Mr. De Lucia. I decline to answer on the ground that my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, was this also arranged not only by Mr. Bren- 
nan, but was it also arranged by Mr. Joey Glimco in Chicago ? 

Mr. De Lucia. I decline to answer on the ground that my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are an associate of Mr. Joe Glimco, of the Team- 
sters Local 777, are you not ? 



13588 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. De Lucia. I decline to answer on the ground that my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us w^hat other Teamsters officials you 
know in Chicago ? 

Mr. De Lucia. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that 
my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further? Are there any ques- 
tions ? 

Mr. De Lucia, you will remain under your present subpena, subject 
to being recalled at such time as the committee may desire to interro- 
gate your further. If you acknowledge that recognizance, reasonable 
notice will be given to you and your attorney of the time and place 
where the committee desires to hear you. 

Do you acknowledge it ? 

Mr. De Lucia. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right, you may stand aside. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr, Kennedy. I would like to interrupt our schedule and call Mr. 
Fitzsimmons at this time. 

The Chairman. Mr. Fitzsimmons. 

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, so help you God ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF FEANK E. FITZSIMMONS, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
COUNSEL, GEORGE FITZGERALD 

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

Mr. Fitzsimmons. My name is Frank E. Fitzsimmons, and I live 
in Dearborn, Mich., and am vice president of local union 299, and 
business representative. 

The Chairman. Do you have counsel? Let the record show that 
Mr. Fitzgerald appears as counsel for Mr, Fitzsimmons. 

All right ; proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you say your position was ? 

Mr, Fitzsimmons. Vice president and business representative of 
local 299. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have any other position with the Teamsters 
Union ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. I am with the Michigan Conference of Teamsters. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is your position with them ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Secretary-treasurer. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have any other position with the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. In what capacity do you mean ? 

Mr. Kennedy. The welfare fund, 

Mr, Fitzsimmons, I am a trustee of the welfare fund. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Mr. Herman Kierdorf ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Yes ; I do. 

Mr. Kennedy. When was the last time that you saw him ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Last Saturday. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you see him any time on Sunday ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. No ; I didn't. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13589 

Mr. Kennedy. Where were you on Sunday ? 

Mr. FiTZsiMMONS. Sunday ? With my family at home. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were there all Sunday afternoon ? 

Mr. FiTZSiMMONS. No ; I think my wife and my children went out 
to the lake. 

Mr. Kennedy. Monday morning ; where were you then ? 

Mr. FiTzsiMMONS. In my office. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you out at the lake with your family Sunday 
afternoon ? 

Mr. FiTzsiMMONs. Yes ; I was. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Monday morning ? 

Mr. FiTzsiMMONs. At the office. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, the last time that you saw Mr. Kierdorf was 
Saturday ; is that right ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you heard from him since Saturday ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. No ; I haven't. 

Mr. Kennedy. You weren't in touch with him on Monday ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. No, sir, 

Mr. Kennedy. When did you first hear of Mr. Frank Kierdorf's 
accident ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. I think in the Monday morning papers. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was the first time you heard about it ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have anything to do with the automobiles 
of the Teamsters local ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Have anything to do with the automobiles ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have anything to do with the ownership of 
the automobiles, or the management of the automobiles, that belong 
to the Teamsters Union ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. No ; I do not. 

Mr. Kennedy. You do not ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the general policy with the automobiles of 
the union? Do they belong to, or are they in the names of, the 
individuals or in the name of the Teamsters Union ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. In the name of the Teamsters Union. 

Mr. Kennedy. None of them are in the names of the individuals? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. I am speaking now of local 299, and I can't 
answer for the other local unions. 

Mr. Kennedy. Does any individual of the Teamsters Union, of local 
299, have authority to transfer title of the automobiles ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Well, the secretary-treasurer would handle that, 
fix affairs of the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have any authority ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Certainly; I have authority as an executive 
board member. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have any authority to transfer the owner- 
ship of automobiles ? 

(Witness consulted with counsel.) 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. In the absence of the president, I naturally take 
over the duties of the administration of the local union. 

21243 — 58— pt. 36 21 



13590 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you taken upon yourself tliat responsibility 
of transferring the title of any of tlie automobiles of the union ? 

Mr. FiTzsiMMONS. In a particular case. I can clear this up without 
any more delay. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you explain ? 

Mr. FiTZSiMMONS. He came in the office Saturday morning. 

Mr. Kennedy. AVhoisthat? 

Mr. FrrzsiMMONS. Mr. Herman Kierdorf, and he resigned previous 
to that, as I understand it, and he wanted to buy the automobile, and 
arrangements were made, and I cleared that matter up. 

Mr. Kennedy. What arrangements do you mean ? 

Mr. FiTzsiMMONS. I arranged for him to purchase the automobile. 

Mr. Kennedy. Will you tell us what it is ? 

Mr. FiTzsiMMONS. He signed a demand note. 

Mr. Kennedy. He came in Saturday morning and said he wanted 
to buy the automobile, and you just transferred it over to him ? 

Mr. FiTzsiMMONS. I said he signed a demand note. 

Mr. Kennedy. For how much ? 

Mr. FITZSIMMONS. Exactly I can't say at the moment, and I think 
it was $1,400 or $1,500. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who has the demand note at the present time ? 

Mr. FiTzsiMMONS. Mr. Collins, our secretary-treasurer. 

Mr. Kennedy. What authority, under the union, do you have to 
transfer an automobile such as that to the ownership of Mr. Kierdorf? 

Mr. FITZSIMMONS It was a sale. 

Mr. Kennedy. What authority do you have to sell the property of 
the Teamsters Union ? 

Mr. FiTzsiMMONs. As far as the Teamsters I^nion is concerned, on 
the basis of the automobile, it was transferred on that basis, on a sale. 

Mr. Kennedy. What authority do you have, Mr. Fitzsimmons ? 

(Witness consulted with counsel.) 

Mr. FiTZSiMMONS. In the absence of the president, I am in charge of 
the responsibility of the local union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did it have to be transferred? What resolu- 
tion is there of the Teamsters Union giving you authority to transfer 
title of its property ? 

(Witness consulted with counsel.) 

Mr. FiTZsiMMONs. As far as the bylaws are concerned. I think our 
minutes reflect the president has tlie authority to carry on the business 
of the local union, and according to bylaws, as far as the vice president 
is concerned, he carries on in the president's absence, and those duties 
are allocated to him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Has this been taken up with the executive board or 
anyone else? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. The bylaws and the authority, you mean ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I am asking you whether this matter of transfer of 
the automobile had been taken up with the executive board of the 
union ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. This particular incident? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. No; it will reflect in our next executive board 
meeting. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, the first time that you heard Mr. Kierdorf was 
interested in buying this car was Saturday morning ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13591 

(Witness consulted with counsel.) 

Mr. FiTZsiMMONS. There was a conversation previous to this about 
Herman buying one of our cars. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Hoffa instmct you to transfer the title of 
the automobile ? 

Mr. FiTZsiMMONs. Mr. Hoffa instructs me to take care of the business 
of the local union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he instruct you to transfer the title of the 
automobile? 

Mr. FiTzsiMMONs. I didn't have an opportunity to discuss it with 
Mr. Hoffa. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss it at all with Mr. Hoffa ? 

(Witness consulted with counsel.) 

The Chairman. Let us move along. 

Mr. FiTzsiMMONS. I think that I did. Yes ; I mentioned it to Mr. 
Hoffa later on that day. 

The Chairman. Before or after you had sold it? 

Mr. FrrzsiMMONs. Sir? 

The Chairman. Before or after you sold the car ? 

Mr. FiTZSiMMONS, Well 

The Chairman. It was just last Saturday ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. I understand, Mr. McClellan- 



The Chairman. Well, all right, did you mention it to him before 
you sold the car or after you sold the car ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. I think it was discussed with him before I sold 
it and I don't know whether we had gone ahead and transferred it or 
made arrangements for Mr. Kierdorf to buy the automobile. 

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

The Chairman. When did you discuss it with him Saturday ? 

Mr, Fitzsimmons. Saturday morning. 

The Chairman. Where ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. In my office. 

The Chairman. Was Mr. Hoti'a in your office Saturday morning? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Yes ; he was. 

The Chairman. Was he there when Mr. Kierdorf came in and said 
he wanted to buy the car ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Just a moment, please. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. I beg your pardon. JMr. Hoffa was not there 
before he came in. He came in afterward. 

The Chairman. Mr. Hoffa came in after you had sold the car I 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. So you did not discuss it with him before? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You are pretty positive now. A minute ago you 
said you had discussed it with him both before and after. Which is 
correct ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. After I arranged to have Herman sign for the 
car. 

The Chairman. You never heard of him wanting to buy the car 
until he walked in there that morning, had you ? 

He came in there and told you he wanted that car; is that correct? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. There was conversation previous to that time. 



13592 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Wliere and when ? 

Mr. FiTzsiMMONS. I don't remember it. 

The Chairman. How long ago ? 

Mr. FiTZSiMMONS. I wouldn't say. I wouldn't know, Mr. Mc- 
Clellan. 

The Chairman. Who had the conversation ? 

Mr. FiTzsiMMONS. Mr. Collins, I am sure, came to me 

The Chairman. Wlio? 

Mr. FiTZSiMMONS. Mr. Collins. 

The Chairman. Who is Mr. Collins ? 

Mr. FiTzsi:\rM0NS. Our secretary-treasurer. 

The Chairman. He came to you when ? 

Mr. FiTzsiMMONS. He came to me the previous week. 

The Chairman. When? 

Mr. FiTzsiMMONS. The previous week. 

The Chairman. The previous week. "\Yliere were you when he 
came to you ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. I was either in his office or in my office. 

The Chairman. And said what ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. He said in respect to the car that Herman wants 
to buy from local 299. 

The Chairman. Which car was it ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. The car 

The Chairman. You have several cars. "WHiich one was it? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. The car that he bought, Mr. McClellan. 

The Chairman. A-VHiat kind was it ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. A Cadillac car. 

The Chairman. How old was it ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. A 1956. 

The Chairman. Did you get any money for it at all ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. We have a demand note, as I say. 

The Chairman. I know, you got a demand note. Do you have 
authority to sell these cars on credit ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. I have the authority given to me as far as our 
bylaws and the president is concerned. 

The Chairman. Wliere was the president of your local ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. The president of our local ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. The moment this transaction took j^lace ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. I couldn't answer that. I don't know exactly 
where he was at. 

The Chairman. Well, was he in town ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. I presume he was. 

The Chairman. Well, he wasn't gone? He was there somewhere 
available for the transaction of business ; was he not? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. No, he wasn't. 

The ChairMxVN. He wasn't right there immediately at the moment, 
that is what you are saying, but he was there running the local, at- 
tending to all of the business the president should attend to. He 
wasn't gone away on a vacation or business or something, was he? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. No, he wasn't. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you contact him about it ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13593 

Mr. FiTzsiMMONS. I said I contacted him after the transaction. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Well, before the transaction ? Before the trans- 
action ? 

Mr. FiTzsiMMONS. That morning, no. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. The day before, Friday ? 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Fitzsimmons, you would know whether you 
talked to Mr. Hoffa about it or not. 

Mr. Fitzgerald can't help you. 

This is just last week. 

You know whether you talked to Mr. Hoffa or not. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Chairman, I am not trymg to help the witness 
at all. 

The Chairman. The witness has a right to consult with counsel as 
to his legal rights. I don't know whether he is gettinng close to 
where he wants to exercise the legal right or not. 

He has a right to interrogate you about it. But as to the facts, 
the knowledge, they are within his information, I am sure, and it only 
happened last Saturday. It seems to me that the witness could speak 
up about it. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss it with Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. No ; I did not discuss it with Mr. Hoffa. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat took you so long to figure that out? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Well, I was asking Mr. Fitzgerald as far as the 
designation of the duties and bylaws and as far as discussion was con- 
cerned. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any discussions directly or indirectly 
with Mr. Hoffa, about the transfer of this automobile before you 
transfered it? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. After I transferred it. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Did you have any discussions with Mr. Hoffa di- 
rectly or indirectly before you transfered it ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. No, I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlio did you discuss it with, then, Mr. Fitzsimmons? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Mr. Collins. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Did he tell you he discussed it with Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. No, I don't think he mentioned it. 

Mr. Kennedy. He did not mention that he discussed the matter 
with Mr. Hoffa? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. He did not mention it to me. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Wliat conversations did you have with Mr. Collins ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Mr. Kierdorf came in. 

Mr. Kennedy. This was — when did he come in ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Saturday morning. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the first time you had heard about it ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. As I said before, Mr. Kennedy, there was some 
discussions about Herman wanting to buy a car. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlio were those discussions with ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. With Herman. 

Mr. Kennedy. He spoke to you ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. No ; I think he talked to Collins. Collins came 
to me and asked me if it would be all right if he bought the auto- 
mobile. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlien was that ? 



13594 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. FiTzsiMMONS. That was some time previous to Saturday. 

Mr. Kennedy. What day was it ? 

Mr. FiTzsiMMONS. I couldn't say exactly what day. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had he also discussed it with Mr. Holi'a? 

Mr. FiTzsiMMONS. I wouldn't know whether he had or not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Collins tell you he had discussed it with 
Mr. Hoffa? 

Mr. FiTzsiMMONS He did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did he tell you ? What did Mr. Collins tell 
you? 

Mr. FiTzsiiNEMONS. Exactly what I told you a moment ago. 

Mr. Kennedy. That Mr. Kierdorf was interested in buying an 
automobile ? 

Mr. FiTzsiMMONS. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he tell you that you should transfer the auto- 
mobile to him ? 

Mr. FiTzsiMMONS. He didn't tell me that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he tell you you should sell the automobile to 
him? 

Mr. FiTzsiMMONs. He didn't tell me that at all. 

Mr. Kennedy. A^^lat did he say ? 

Mr. FiTzsiMMONS. He said Herman wants to buy the automobile. 
1 said if he wants to buy the automobile, we will sell him the auto- 
mobile. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was this just after his appearance before the com- 
mittee when he took the fifth amendment ? 

Mr. FiTzsiMMONS. Saturday? 

Mr. Kennedy. When you had the discussion about the automobile? 

Mr. FiTzsiMMONs. I think it was before. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then he came in on Saturday ? 

Mr. FiTzsiMMONS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. At what time ? 

Mr. FiTzsiMMONS. I would say around 9 o'clock. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you say to him at that time ? 

Mr. FiTzsiMMONS. I went in to see Mr. Collins, and Mr. Collins 
came in and said "As far as the car is concerned, Mr. Kierdorf wants 
to buy the automobile." 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have the automobile appraised then ? 

Mr. FiTzsiMMONS. Well, Mr. Collins checked the wanting price of 
the automobile and we would sell him the automobile at the going 
price. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did you find out what the going price was ? 

Mr. FiTzsiMMONS. Mr. Collins took care of that matter. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did he find out ? 

Mr. FiTzsiMMONS. I presumed he called a dealer. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know how much the automobile cost 
originally ? 

Mr. FiTzsiMMONS. No, I don't. 

Mr. Kennedy. It cost some $4,800. How much did you sell it for? 

Mr. FiTzsiMMONs. I think it was $1,400 or $1,500, if I am not 
mistaken. 

The Chairman. You said you received a demand note for it ? 

Mr. FrrzsiMMONS. Mr. Collins received the demand note, Senator. 

The Chairman. Do you know that he received a demand note for it ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13595 

Mr. FiTzsiMMONS. Yes, he told me tliat he did. 

The Chairman. Did you see the note ? 

Mr. FiTzsiMMONS. No, I did not. 

The Chairman. He is supposed to have it now, is he not ? 

Mr. FiTzsiMMONS. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. It properly would be there in your headquarters? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Yes, it would. 

The Chairman. Mr. Fitzgerald, do you represent the local? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. The Chair will advise that a subpena is on its way 
there now, a subpena duces tecum to secure that note. Will you im- 
mediately wire or call Mr. Collins and direct him to deliver that note ? 
We have had the experience in the past that any time we seek records, 
they wish to confer with you about it first. 

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

Mr. Fitzgerald. You can have all the union records, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. I want this particular note. I want to see if it has 
Frank Kierdorf 's signature on it. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Herman Kierdorf ? I had this suggestion to make, 
because it is a note. If one of your people can examine the original, 
would you accept a photostat of the note? 

Mr. Kennedy. No 

Mr. Fitzgerald. We are not going to — I'm sorry. 

The Chairman. Just a moment. You may be present. If you will 
present the original note this afternoon in response to this subpena, 
we will photostat it and return the note to you. 

I just want to see if such a note was given. I would like to find 
out today. Is that agreeable ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is agreeable, yes. 

The Chairman. Will you send the wire or telephone them imme- 
diately ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes. We will call. Can I call at the Govern- 
ment expense this time ? 

The Chairman. Yes, sir. I will pay for it myself You don't 
have to worry about the Government. Go right ahead. Ascertain 
the amount of the charges and I will pay for them. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. We will be happy to pay for it. I just said that. 

The Chairman. I knew you did. I said that in the same spirit. 
All right. Let's pi'oceed. Are there any further questions of this 
witness ? 

Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. Is this note a bankable note ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Senator, you ask me a question but it is some- 
thing I am not familiar with, bankable notes. 

Senator Curtis. Do you think you can take it to the bank and get 
the money on it '( 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Well, it is a demand note, such as I understood 
it. Senator. 

Senator Curtis. A lot of demands are made, but do you think you 
could take this note to the bank and get the money, less a reasonable 
discount ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr, Fitzsimmons. Senator, I just don't know. I can't answer the 
question as far as the note is concerned, it is a demand note. 



13596 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. Who made out the note ? 

Mr. FiTzsiMMONS. Mr. Collins, I presume. 

Senator Curtis. You don't know ? 

Mr. FiTzsiMMONS. Xo, sir ; I do not. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Fitzsimmons, why would you do this favor for 
Mr. Heiman Kierdorf wlien Mr. Hoffa testified that he requested he 
resiijn from the union ? 

]VIr. Fitzsimmons. Well, Mr. Kennedy, as far as the favor is con- 
cerned, a man come in and asked to buy an automobile. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can anybody 20 into the Teamsters building today 
and ask to buy an automobile and you will sell them a 1956 Cadillac 
for $1,400 on a demand note without puttino- up a penny? 

Mr Fitzsimmons. No, this man had used this car, and as far as the 
car was concerned, we had no further use for the car. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Certainly the Teamsters Union could give it to the 
business agent that replaced Mr. Kierdorf. 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. There is a possibility that as far as replacing Mr. 
Kierdorf is concerned, he would not be replaced. 

Mr. Kennedy. What? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. I say there is a possibility that Mr. Kierdorf 
will not be replaced. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is he irreplaceable, Mr. Herman Kierdorf? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. I didn't say that, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who made up the note for the $1,400 ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Mr. Collins, I presume. 

Mr. Kennedy. He wrote it up ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. I presume. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. I presume Mr. Collins. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't know that ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. No; I wasn't present when the note was made 

Mr. Kennedy. Did anybody endorse the note ? Did anybody sign 
the note other than Mr. Herman Kierdorf ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. I would not know that, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. A^Hien did you assign title of the automobile? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. I did not assign title to the automobile. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who did? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. I presume Mr. Collins. I wouldn't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not do it yourself ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. No ; I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. You just knew it was being done ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Yes; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is amazing to me that somebody comes in on a 
Saturday morning and wants an automobile and you transfer an 
automobile on a note to this individual, without taking it up with the 
executive board. You transfer Teamster property to this individual 
after Mr. Hoffa testified that he asked him to resign from the union. 
I just don't understand it. 

The Chairman. Did you make any inquiry as to the value of the 
car? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Myself, Mr. McClell an? No. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13597 

The Chairman. Did you ascertain whether it could be traded in for 
much more vahie, be sold on the market for a higher price ? 

Mr. FiTzsiMMONS. I left that transaction entirely to Mr, Collins, 
our secretary-treasurer. 

The Chairman. Do you mean now to say you had nothing to do 
with the transaction ? 

Mr. FiTzsiMMONS. I say as far as the transactions are concerned, 
we discussed the transaction about him taking the automobile and 
signing a demand note. 

The Chairman. Does the note bear interest? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Sir? 

The Chairman. Does the note bear interest ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Again, as I say, Mr. McClellan, I didn't see the 
note after the transaction was made. 

The Chairman. Do you know actually of your own knowledge 
whether there is a note or not? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. I know of my knowledge as far as Mr. Collins 
is concerned that he did and told me that he had signed a note, a 
demand note for this money. 

The Chairman. Did you see the note ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. No, I didn't see it ; no, sir. 

The Chairman. You have never seen it up until now ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. AVho came with Mr. Kierdorf ? 

Mr. FiTzsiM]\roNs. He came by himself, as I remember it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there anybody else in on this transaction ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. No. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Nobody else. 

The Chairman. All right, you may stand aside, subject to being 
recalled. You will remain here. Mr. Fitzgerald, the Chair's will 
is that you immediately proceed to carry out our agreement. 

There is one other question, I believe. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any discussions with anyone re- 
garding the organization of cleaners, the organization of any dry 
cleaners or other kind of cleaners, with Mr. Herman Kierdorf ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss that matter with Mr. Frank Kier- 
dorf? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss the LaTrielle Cleaners with Mr. 
Kierdorf ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever heard of the LaTrielle Cleaners ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. Only what I read in the newspapers. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not discuss that at all, the organization of 
the LaTrielle Cleaners ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if Mr. Herman Kierdorf or Frank 
Kierdorf were workins: on that matter ? 



13598 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. FiTzsiMMONS. No, sir, I do not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell the committee Avho else was doing 
organizational work with Frank Kierdorf ? 

Mr. FiTzsiMMONS. No. He worked for local union 332 in Flint. 
I have no reason to know anything- about that local union outside of 
the State conference. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't know who else would be working with 
Frank Kierdorf? 

Mr. FITZSIMMONS. No, sir, I do not. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you say you first heard of Mr. Frank Kierdorf 's 
accident from reading it in the paper ? 

Mr. FiTzsiMMONS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Monday morning? 

Mr. FiTzsiMMONS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. You may stand aside for the present, subject to 
being recalled. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Chairman, may I ask him a question ? I have 
a question in my mind that I read about with this transaction. 

The Chairman. You may direct the question to the Chair, under 
the rules. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I merely wanted to ask him to refresh his recollec- 
tion on this. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. I thought you wanted a question. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, I did not want him to leave the stand with a 
piece of wrong testimony. 

The Chairman. All right. Thank you. As soon as you have placed 
the call, will you report to us, please, sir ? 

Thank you. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman we are just going to have two short 
witnesses on another entirely separate matter. I would like to call 
them. I would first like to call Mr. George Francis Heid. 

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. Heid. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE HEID 

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

Mr. Heid. George Heid, Fifty Lakes, Minn. 

The Chairman. George Heid ? 

Mr. Heid. Heid. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Heid. I cut timber up north. I cut timber and grow it. 

The Chairman. You are a laborer ? 

Mr. Heid. No. I cut timber. 

The Chairman. You cut timber ? 

Mr. Held. Yes. 

The Chairman. That is your present occupation ? 

]SIr. Heid. Yes. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13599 

The Chairman. Do you waive counsel, could you, Mr. Held ? 

Mr. Heid. Yes. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I might say before we interrogate 
this witness that last year we discovered that some $54,000 in legal 
fees had been paid in connection with Gerald Connelly and, I believe, 
3 other union officials, involved in 2 extortions and a dynamiting up 
in Minneapolis, Minn. ; that the bulk of the money had been paid on 
behalf of Mr. Gerald Connelly who was then a union official. We 
also had testimony regarding Mr. Connelly's misuse of his union 
position and his disregard of the rights of the union members. There 
was some question raised at that time, and in our report, regarding 
the expenditure of these funds. We have called Mr. Heid to give 
what information he has of the background of Mr. Gerald Connelly, 
and the kind of an operation he ran in Minneapolis, the local union 
that he operates. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Heid, in the winter of 1955 and 1956, did you do 
some work for a local union in Minneapolis ? 

Mr. Heid. Yes. I worked for local 548 as an organizer. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were hired as an organizer ? 

Mr. Heid. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that was a union run by Mr. Gerald Connelly ? 

Mr. Heid. It was. 

Mr. Kennedy. What experience had you had iii organizing prior 
to that time ? 

Mr. Heid. Well, none until that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had not had any experience ? 

Mr. Heid. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. For what reason did Mr. Connelly hire you ? 

Mr. Heid. Well, he said he needed some man that would go out and 
get some customers, and a friend of mine, Mr. Flick 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Flick ? 

Mr. Heid. Yes, sir. So then we went to work for local 548, 
organizing. 

Mr. Kennedy. Both of you became organizers ? 

Mr. Heid. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had Mr. Flick had any experience organizing ? 

Mr. Heid. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. He had. Who did he work for ? 

Mr. Heid. He used to work for the Teamsters when they organized 
the breweries, the Minneapolis breweries. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tell me, what specifically did Mr. Connelly want 
you to work on. 

Mr. Heid. He specifically wanted us to work on the liquor stores 
in Minneapolis and St. Paul. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were most of these one-man stores ? 

Mr. Heid. Quite a few of them was ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were run by the people themselves ? 

Mr, Heid. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was trying to organize these stores run by the 
people themselves ; is that right ? 

Mr. Heid. Organize them all. 



13600 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you go around and attempt to organize tkem? 

Mr. Heid. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the initiation fee for these individuals? 

Mr. Heid. Well, it was supposed to be $50. 

Mr. Kennedy. In order to join the union, you had to pay $50? 

Mr. Heid. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And most of the shops were owned by the people 
themselves. 

Mr. Heid. Yes. 

Mr. Kjennedy. What arrangements did Mr. Connelly make with 
3^ou, financially? 

Mr. Heid. Well, we were supposed to organize them, and we would 
get two-thirds of the initiation fee and the other third was to go to 
the home office in Kansas City. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you could keep two-thirds of anything you 
could collect? 

Mr. Heid. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you get a salary in addition to that? 

Mr. Heid. No ; we got expenses and two-thirds of the initiation fee. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlien you collected the money, would you give it to 
Connelly and then he would pay you some money ? 

Mr. Heid. Most of the time when you give him the money you would 
never see any money back. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much money did you get, usually, a week? 

Mr. Heid. Well, it all depends on what we needed. We got expenses 
for the car, and a lot of times we would have to take it ourselves with- 
out turning it back in ; otherwise, we would not get nothing. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much did you get, about? 

Mr. Heid. $35 or $40 a week. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is how much you would make ? 

Mr. Heid. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you had a good deal of experience handling 
explosives? 

Mr. Heid. Yes ; I have. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have handled dynamite? 

Mr. Heid. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And mines and bombs while you were in the service ; 
is that correct? 

Mr. Heid. Yes, sir. I have handled composition X, composition B, 
nitrostarch, nitroputty, all of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. All types of explosives ? 

Mr. Heid. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Connelly speak to you at all about dynamit- 
ing any of the employers ? 

Mr. Heid. Yes ; he did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell us the conversations you had with 
him? 

Mr. Heid. He asked me what experience I had in using dynamite 
and explosives, and I told him quite a bit. I knew quite a bit. He 
asked me how I would go about setting a stick of dynamite on a car, 
and I told him you would get an electric cap and hook the dynamite 
up to either the spark plug or your switch or your starter. Then, when 
they turn on the switch or step on the starter, they have had it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he think that was a ffood idea? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13601 

Mr. Heid. Well, I don't know. He mentioned quite a bit about 
dynamiting-, but he never said, one way or the other, whether it was 
a good idea or not. 

Mr. Kexxedy. Did you also discuss dynamiting any of the stores 
or the homes of any ? 

Mr. Heid. Yes. Tony Felicetto was talking about giving him some 
heat because he had let some people go across the picket line where 
we were trying to organize. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tony what ? 

Mr. Heid. Felicetto. 

Mr. Kennedy. Giving him a little what ? 

Mr. Heid. Heat. Giving him a little trouble. The Five Point 
Liquor Store. There was somebody else he mentioned, but I don't 
remember his name. 

Mr. Kennedy. Giving somebody a little heat; is that dynamiting 
him? 

Mr. Heid. Well, giving them a little trouble ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you, in fact, make any plans to use the 
dynamite ? 

Mr. Heid. Well, he asked me if I would do it, and he said he would 
promise me a lifetime job with the union and a good-paying job. 

Mr. Kennedy. So, did you explain to him about the use of the 
dynamite? 

Mr. Heid. I explained about the use of dynamite. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell what happened then ? 

Mr. Heid. Well, he was talking about setting dynamite on the back 
of a house, and I told him, "No; if there is any women or kids in 
there, they will get it, and that is murder. I don't want no part 
of it." 

Mr. Kennedy. So, what happened? Would you tell us? 

Mr. Heid. Well, I went to Wisconsin. I went to my sister's place 
in Wisconsin. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he say he was going ahead and using the 
dynamite ? 

Mr. Heid. Well, he said he did not think I had enough guts to do it, 
and I told him not when it come to making it on kids and women. 

Mr, Kennedy. Did he, in fact, use the dynamite ? 

Mr. Heid. Yes; he did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Whom did he dynamite up there ? 

Mr. Heid. Well, it wasn't him. It was Reddin, Lattin, and Flick. 
He was in Florida at the time. 

Mr. Kennedy. But he gave the instructions on it ? 

Mr. Heid. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe, Mr. Chairman, we established that he was 
in Florida, and he was staying, at that time, v.ith Mr. Ben Dranow, 
of the Thomas department stores, and they were in under different 
names in a Florida hottel in adjoining rooms, and that their hotel 
bill at that time was paid by the Thomas department store, and, 
further, we established that the Thomas department store and Ben 
Dranow had been the recipients of loans totaling $1,200,000 from 
Mr. Hoffa's Teamsters Union. I might add, also, that the Thomas 
department store is now in bankruptcy. 

Mr. Heid, you went out of town, and the dynamite was used; is 
that correct ? 



13602 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Heid. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Is that the same place that they had asked you to 
dynamite ? 

Mr. Heid. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. In other words, you did not do the dynamiting, 
but tlie place was dynamited, but they had tried to get you to dynamite 
it yourself ? 

Mr. Heid. Yes, sir. The two officials' house was dynamited. The 
liquor store was never dynamited. 

The Chairman. ^Yliat was dynamited ? 

Mr. Heid. The two officials, union officials, that had went across 
the picket line; one of their cars was dynamited and the house was 
dynamited. 

The Chairman. But the car of one of the officials who had crossed 
the picket line and the house of the other was dynamited ? 

Mr. Heid. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How long was that after he had asked you to do 
these jobs? 

Mr. Heid. That was approximately 2i/^ weeks, as near as I can re- 
member right now. 

The Chairman. Some 2i/^ weeks after he had tried to get you to 
do it, and you did not do it, then they were dynamited ? 

Mr. Heid. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. These are the same identical places or people that 
he had asked you to perform that operation on ? 

Mr. Heid. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And these were Teamsters officials, were they not? 

Mr. Heid. They were. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, in connection with that case where 
Mr. Connelly dynamited the automobile and the home of two Team- 
sters officials, some $17,000 of union funds were used to defend them. 

The Chairman. Is that the time that they were charged with this 
dynamiting ? 

Mr. Heid. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. "WHiat were you told, as far as your testimony ? You 
had information indicating that they were guilty. Did you have any 
conversations with Mr. Connelly about it ? 

Mr. Heid. Yes, sir. He would see that I was taken care of, if he 
had to do it himself. 

Mr. Kennedy. If you testified ? 

Mr. Heid. If I turned state's evidence, he would have me taken care 
of. Otherwise, he would do it himself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you testify at the trial ? 

Mr. Heid. I testified for the defense. 

Mr. Kennedy. You testified for the defense ? 

Mr. Heid. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not testify truthfully ? 

Mr. Heid. No, I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. And your testimony was prepared by Mr. Connelly 
and by some of the other union officials ? 

Mr. Heid. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever raise a question as to whether you 
would always have a job ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13603 

Mr, Heid. Well, he told me if I played along with him and was a 
witness for the defense, he would see that I had a job if it was nothing 
more than driving over the road. 

Mr. Kennedy. If it was what ? 

Mr. Heid. If it was nothing more than driving over the road. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did yon ever ask for any assurances to have a job ? 

Mr. Heid. Well, yes. Before this deal went through, there was a 
phone call that he w^as supposed to have received from Jimmy Hoffa. 
He told him about organizing the liquor stores, and he asked him, 
"What if we have to get rough?" And he said, "If you have to get 
rough, get rough, but get them organized." 

Mr. Kennedy. Who said that ? 

Mr. Heid. The man on the other end of the wire. He said it was 
Jimmy Hoffa. 

Mr. Kennedy. "If you have to get rough, get rough" ? 

Mr. Heid. "But get them organized." 

Mr. Kennedy. And he identified this man as Jimmy Hoffa ? 

Mr. Heid. He did. 

Mr. Kennedy. After the trial w.as over, did you receive any money 
from the Teamsters Union ? 

Mr. Heid. Yes. $12. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you supposed to get more than that ? Did you 
expect more ? 

Mr. Heid. Yes, I did. What was left over from the court trial we 
were supposed to split three ways. 

The Chairman. What was left over from the court trial ? 

Mr. Heid. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How much was involved in the court trial ? 

Mr. Heid. Jerry told us there was $55,000 coming through for our 
defense. 

The Chairman. Who told you that ? 

Mr. Heid. Jerry Connelly. 

The Chairman. He told you there was $55,000 available for the 
defense ? 

Mr. Heid. Yes. 

The Chairman. And whatever was left you w^ould split it three 
ways? 

Mr. Heid. It was supposed to be a three-way split. 

The Chairman. According to what you got, there is $36 left; is 
that right ? 

Mr. Heid. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that for Mr. Connelly — • 
he w^as involved, as I said, in 2 extortions and this dynamiting, and 
convicted in all 3, he had some other defendants, as well, but for his 
defense and these other people, some $54,381.55 of union funds were 
used for his defense. 

The Chairman. According to what they told him, they did not 
shortchange him very much, did they ? 

Mr, Kennedy. No. 

The Chairman. Is this the same Connelly that we are talking about 
that I sent that subpena to to get the note ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No. 



13604 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Gerald Connelly is now in the penitentiary. That was Mr. Collins. 

The Chairman. Collins. I am sorry. All right. I didn't want 
the record to reflect on someone wrongfully. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. Where were these court proceedings held, when 
you testified for the defense ? 

Mr. Heid. It was held in Minneapolis and St. Paul. 

Senator Curtis. Do you happen to know whether it was a State or 
Federal court? 

Mr. Heid. It was in a State court. 

Senator Curtis. It was in a State court. 

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

Senator Curtis. Wliat information did you have that would have 
been helpful to the prosecution other than the talk of the plans for 
dynamiting ? 

Did you see any of the work done ? 

Mr. Heid. No; I did not. But they wanted to know who, in the 
court trial in Ramsey County they wanted to know who had knowledge 
of the use of dynamite. Flick and myself at that time had the 
business of Allied Sanitary Construction and I used dynamite for 
breaking into hardpan and things like that, w^hen we had to go 
through rock for getting down to sand. 

Senator Curtis. But you appeared as a witness for the defense? 

Mr. Heid. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Wliat, in substance, did you say ? 

Mr. Heid. Well, I told them that I did not know anything about it ; 
that there was no talk of dynamiting — to that effect. 

Senator Curtis. To whom did you talk about the testimony that you 
were to give prior to the trial ? 

Mr. Heid. Well, I talked to the county attorney, and detectives. 
That is about all. 

Senator Curtis. Did you tell them that you were going to testifv 
falsely ? 

Mr. Heid. No; I did not. 

Senator Curtis. But you say now that you did testify falsely. 

Mr. Heid. Yes; I did. 

Senator Curtis. With whom did you talk about testifying falsely ? 

Mr. Heid. With Jerry Connelly and Flick. 

Senator Curtis. With Jerry Connelly ? 

Mr. Heid. Jerry Connelly. 

Senator Curtis. He was the man that was arrested and tried ? 

Mr. Heid. Jerry Connelly, Bryant Flick, Diane Harvey, and my- 
self were all indicted. 

Senator Curtis. You talked to him, to Flick, and who was the 
third person? 

Mr. Heid. Diane Harvey. 

Senator Curtis. Did you talk to anybody else ? 

Mr. Heid. No, sir ; that is all. 

Senator Curtis. Did anybody interview you concerning your testi- 
mony, other than these people? 

Mr. Heid. Not that I can remember ; no, sir. 

Senator Curtis. These people that you have mentioned are the only 
ones for the defense that you talked to before you took the witness 
stand ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13605 

Mr. Heid. No. I talked to Jerry's lawyer and I talked to Flick's 
lawyer. 

Senator Cuetis. Who were they ? 

Mr. Heid. Gordon C. Peterson, in Minneapolis, and Sid Goff, at 
St. Paul. 

Senator Curtis. What conversation did you have with them? 

Mr. Heid. Well, about getting a stoi*y, and what I was going to say. 

And that is about all. 

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

Senator Curtis. Did you reveal to them that you were going to 
testify falsely ? 

Mr. Heid. Well, they knew it. 

Senator Curtis. Did you reveal it to them ? 

Mr. Heid. No, I don't 

Senator Curtis. How do you know that they knew it ? 

Mr. Heid. Because we was all up in the union hall together when 
they was talking about dynamiting, and they used some of the fuse 
that we had in the cesspool business. It was a slow-burning fuse and 
they used the wrong kind of fuse when they set the dynamite. But 
they tested the dynamite with a slow-burning fuse and they bought 
a different type fuse when they used the dynamite. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. They almost got blown up, did they ? 

Mr. Heid. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. That is when they were demonstrating something 
in the union hall ? 

Mr. Heid. That was after I left. 

Senator Curtis. You weren't there ? 

Mr. Heid. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. But my question is : How do you know that these 
two lawyers for the defense knew that you were going to testify 
falsely ? 

Mr. Heid. Well, Jerry said he told them the whole story, about all 
of it, and he said he told them Flick had jumped the gun. That was 
all there was to it. 

Senator Curtis. Was there any conversation when you were present 
and these two lawyers that you mentioned were present, that would 
give them information that you were going to testify falsely? 

Mr. Heid. Not through the lawyers ; no. 

Senator Curtis. And you base your statement that they knew you 
were to testify falsely on Connelly's statement that he had told them 
the whole story ? 

Mr. Heid. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. And by that you believe that he had told them the 
entire truthful story ? 

Mr. PIeid. Well, I figured he probably would. 

Senator Curtis. I beg your pardon ? 

Mr. Heid. I figured he would, yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. But was there any discussion between you and 
the lawyers to the effect that you were going to testify falsely? 

Mr. Heid. Not between me and the lawyer, no, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Was there any discussion by you and any other per- 
son when these two lawyers, or either one of them were present, that 
revealed the fact that you were going to testify falsely ? 

21243— 58— pt. 36— — 22 



13606 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

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

Mr, Heid. Well, when we was over at Gordon Peterson's, I stayed 
over at Gordon Peterson's there at night. 

Senator Curtis. He was one of the attorneys ? 

Mr. Heid. Yes. And Jerry was talking about what happened to 
people that turned state's evidence. If he was not talking to that 
effect, and if a lawyer did not know the whole case, then he sure knew 
then that I had to testify falsely to keep from getting a life sentence, 
because Flick used to brag about the noise and stuff like that that went 
on when the bombing took place. 

Senator Curtis. Did you learn who did do the bombing ? 

Mr. Heid. I did. 

Senator Curtis. How did you learn that ? 

Mr. Heid. In the court trial. 

Senator Curtis. In the court trial. 

Mr. Heid. There was a confession from Lattin and Eeddin. 

Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Connelly speak often during this period of 
time about his relationship with Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. Heid. Yes. That is all he ever talks about. He is a buddy of 
Jimmie's. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was a buddy of Jimmie's ? 

Mr. Heid. And they talked about how they had been in the labor 
movement so long together. 

Mr. Kennedy. You left after the trial and tried to get jobs else- 
where, did you not ? 

Mr. Heid. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever contact the Teamsters Union again? 

Mr. Heid. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who did you contact ? 

Mr. Heid. Well, the first call I made I made it to Kansas City, into 
the head office of the Teamsters, and I tried to get ahold of Jimmie 
Hoffa. They said he would not be back for an hour or an hour and a 
half. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you call him again then ? 

Mr. Heid. Later on that afternoon I called back. I started talking 
to Gene Williams, or to Mr. Williams, and he said that Jimmie was not 
in yet. 

Then he says "Well, he come in just now." 

So they put what I presumed to be Jimmie on, and I asked him, I 
said "Where is the job I am supposed to have?" I told him "This is 
George Heid, the one that was indicted with Flick and Connelly." 

He said "Oh, meet me in a hotel up in Chicago. He told me the 
name of the hotel, which I don't recall. I told him I did not have the 
money and that w^as the end of the conversation. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever go to the hotel ? 

Mr. Heid. No, I never. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never saw him. You don't know whether you 
were in fact talking to Hoffa at the time ? 

Mr. Heid. No ; I don't. 

Mr. Kennedy. The man just stated that this man was Hoffa ? 

Mr. Heid. That this man was Hoffa. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Heid was kind enough to submit 
to a lie detector test prior to the time that he testified before the com- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13607 

mittee on the matters that he testified about, and that confirmed he is 
telling the truth on the lie detector test on all of these matters. 

The Chairman. Where did he submit to it ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Here in Washington. 

The Chairman. Who gave it ? 

Mr. Kennedy. The Washington, D. C, Police Department. 

The Chairman. When did you submit to a lie detector test? 

Mr. Kennedy. The beginning of the week, sir. 

The Chairman. This week ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. All of the testimony, or material testimony, that he 
has given here he was asked in the polygi'aphic test, and he was telling 
the truth on all of these matters. 

The Chairman. That is just a statement, and if we want that proof, 
or anybody challenges the testimony, we can bring that in later for the 
record. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell the committee the reason that you are 
testifying as you are testifying today ? 

Mr. Heid. Well, I was in the workhouse at Minneapolis there for 
being drunk, for coming in town drunk, and Flick came out to see me, 
and I got in there about 2, and he was out there at 3 : 30, and he was 
talking about, he said, "They have never done anything for us, let us 
go turn state's evidence, and they never gave us a job or did anything 
for us." 

And he said, 'Wlien they were having trouble we were in, and now 
they won't give us a job." 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the reason ? 

Mr. Heid. That is the reason. 

The Chairman. When did you have that conversation with Flick? 

Mr. Heid. I had it Friday af ternon. 

The Chairman. Last Friday afternoon? 

Mr. Heid. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have talked to him, and I will explain the situa- 
tion regarding that later. 

Senator Church. Mr. Heid, when you testified at Connelly's trial, 
and testified falsely, you committed perjury. You realize that the 
giving of perjured testimony is a criminal offense, do you not? 

Mr. Heid. Yes, sir ; I realize that. 

Senator Church. You have here testified today that you did perjure 
yourself ? 

Mr. Heid. Yes, sir. 

Senator Church. You are under oath again today, and if you were 
to testify falsely before this committee it would also constitute 
perjury ; you understand that ? 

Mr. Heid. I realize that ; yes, sir. 

Senator Church. Understanding those things, you want the record 
to stand that you testified falsely in the Connelly trial ? 

Mr. Heid. Yes, sir ; I do. 

Senator Church. Despite your testimony in his defense, Connelly 
was convicted ; is that right ? 

Mr. Heid. He was convicted over in Minneapolis ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. There were two trials ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Heid. Yes, sir. 



13608 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Church. He was convicted in the course of a different 
trial? 

Mr. Heid. He was convicted in Minneapolis on the bombing, and 
in St. Paul he wasn't. 

Senator Cm Rcir. Did you testify in the Minneapolis trial ? 

Mr. Heid. Yes, sir ; I did. 

The Chairman. Are thei-e any f ui'ther questions ? 

Senator Curtis. When was that trial ? 

Mr. Heid. I think it was in April of 1956. 

The Chairman. Do you have a family ? 

Mr. Heid. I have a mother to take care of and two nieces. 

The Chairman. You have a motlier and two other dependents to 
take care of ? 

Mr. Heid. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You will remain under the jurisdiction of this 
committee, and you will be under a continuing subpena to reappear 
at such time as the committee may desire to hear your testimony or 
further testimony from you. 

You acknowledge that, do you, and agree that you will return to the 
committee at such time as the committee may indicate it wants to hear 
you further? 

Mr. Heid. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Upon our giving you reasonable notice. 

Mr. Heid. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Without being resubpenaed. 

Mr. Heid. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. In the meantime, the Chair will advise you that a 
measure of protection is going to be afforded to you, and if anyone 
in any way attempts to threaten or intimidate or coerce or frighten 
you or liarm you or any of your dependents, I ask that you report it to 
this committee immediately. 

Mr. Heid. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. We are determined to give you all of the protection 
within our power. If you have told the truth here today, and if what 
you have said here is true under your oath, then you are to be highly 
commended and you have rendered a distinct service to your country. 

It is most gratifying that men will finally come to their senses and 
break with the underworld element and come out in court or in other 
tribunals and give the information that they have that will help us 
preserve law and order in this country and preserve the liberties and 
freedom that this Government assures its citizens. You are to be 
highly commended, and I am assuming you are telling the truth. If 
you are not, then you ought to be in the penitentiary, and there is no 
doubt about that. 

But I am assuming that you have. I don't give full credence to 
these lie detector tests, but the fact that you were willing to do it and 
submitted to it, carries some weight with me at this time, at least, 
until I find, or the committee finds, that you have imposed on it by 
serious falsehoods here that would injure the character and reputation 
of others. 

Thank you very much. 

You may stand aside for the present. 

Mr. Counsel, see that he is taken care of. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13609 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to say that we have had the full co- 
operation of the Police Department of Mimieapolis, and the mayor of 
Minneapolis, Mayor Peterson, in this matter, and we are very ap- 
preciative. 

We have also one other witness on Minneapolis that I would like to 
call, and we have also, Mr. Chairman, obtained from the Library of 
Congress the blue book value of the cheapest model of 1956 Cadillac 
sedan, which is $2,895, for the cheapest model. 

The Chairman. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Chairman, in line with your request or sug- 
gestion or order, we have Mr. Collins on the telephone, and I allowed 
him as his counsel to read to Mr. Bellino the note, and he has, I think, 
a script of it, and I think what you asked for was complied with. 

The Chairman. Yes, I understood the subpena was complied with, 
and we wish to thank you for calling, thank you very much. 

Wlio do you want to call now ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Fitzsimmons. 

The Chairman. Until we get the note, we have of course this report 
on it, but there will be quite a number of questions to ask about it, but 
I think we ought to have the note itself present because there could 
be some error in it. We have the information as reported as to what 
the note shows, and so forth, and I believe it would be better not to 
interrogate Mr. Fitzsimmons at this time until we get the note. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, I understand from Mr. Collins that the note, 
so that the record will be clear on it, the note covered a price of $2,000 
for the automobile, from what he told me. 

The Chairman. The note is for $2,000, but there are many other 
aspects of the note that suggest some inquiry. 

Mr. Kennedy. When you transferred the automobile, why didn't 
you know how much you were getting for it ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. May I address the Chair ? 

Mr. Fitzsimmons has testified that he didn't transfer the automobile, 
and Mr. Collins advised both Mr. Bellino and myself 

Mr. Kennedy. He can testify, Mr. Fitzgerald. 

The Chairman. Just a moment. Are we going to interrogate him 
now ? I would rather get the note here, and there will be no further 
interrogation about it until we get the note. 

At that time there will be some questions to be asked. 

You may stand aside, and keep yourself available for recall. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Morgan is the next witness. 

The Chairman. Mr. Morgan, will you come around, please. 

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

Mr. Morgan. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF ARTHUE L. MORGAN 

The Chairman. Mr. Morgan, will you state your name, your place 
of residence, and your business or occupation, please. 

Mr. Morgan. My name is Arthur L. Morgan. My address is 116 
West 32d Street, Minneapolis, Minn., and I am an independent labor 
representative. 



13610 IIVIPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Thank you, sir. Do you waive counsel, Mr. Mor- 
gan? 

Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir ; I do, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Morgan, you appeared before this com- 
mittee back in September of 1957 ? 

Mr. Morgan. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And at that time you testified on your relationship 
with Gerald Connolly ? 

Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You testified as to his organizational activities and 
you testified as to his misuse of union funds ? 

Mr. Morgan. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the abuse of the rights of the union members ? 

Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the fact that you had led an insurgent group 
against him ? 

Mr. Morgan. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the international officers of the Teamsters, in- 
cluding Mr. Hoffa, had insisted that Mr. Gerald Connelly remain in 
his position as head of this local ? 

Mr. Morgan. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And this was despite the fact that he had been con- 
victed of extortion and had been indicted on another extortion case? 

Mr. Morgan. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And subsequently he was convicted and found guilty 
of a dynamiting case ; is that right ? 

Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then you testified as to the fact that you led a 
group of insurgents out of the local union ? 

Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you became independent because you did not 
want to be under the leadership of Gerald Connelly ? 

Mr. Morgan. That's right. 

Mr, Kennedy. Xow, since your testimony before the committee, and 
your return to Minneapolis, have you been the subject of any harass- 
ment or threats ? 

Mr. Morgan. Since I returned to Minneapolis, my life has been a 
living hell. Every night practicalh' the telephone would ring all 
night long, and my wife would get calls that asked if the children were 
home from school^ and she would say that they are, and they would tell 
her, ''Maybe you are lucky toniglit, and maybe you won't be so lucky 
tomorrow night." 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they say anything to you about your stopping the 
representation of these shops? 

Mr. Morgan. I had calls both at my house and my office telling me 
to stay out of the places that I represented with certifications from 
the National Labor Relations Board, and they went into my plants 
and threatened the members and threatened management with picket- 
ing lines, and I have presently got one of my members in St. Paul under 
protection of the St. Paul Police Department. Somebody called a 
woman up and asked her if she had the afternoon off one day, if she 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13611 

did she had better tjo up and look for a new husband, "because you are 
going to tind him murdered in an alley on the way home from work." 

Mr, Kennedy. After you testified here, had the Teamsters gotten in 
touch with you and said that you could come back into the Teamsters 
Union ? 

Mr. Morgan. I have a letter here that I received from an attorney 
for Sidney Brennan, asking me to meet with him, which I did, and I 
didn't know wliat they wanted, or anything. He told me at that time 
that he could fix it up so that I could get a charter to come back, and 
I told him at the time that I didn't want anything to do with any of 
them, and that I couldn't bring my members back into anything like 
that if I wanted to. 

Mr. Kennedy. Your members were completely disgusted with the 
leadership of the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Morgan. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. They had voted almost unanimously to walk out ; is 
that correct ? 

Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir ; and they have voted since less than 2 months 
ago, for the second time in 2 years, through NLRB elections, to do the 
same thing. 

Mr. Kennedy. To stay out of the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is because of the way they had been treated 
while they were members of the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Morgan. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, this is an example of the group that 
broke away successfully from the Teamsters Union, from this leader- 
ship about which we have had the testimony. A man who had been 
convicted twice of extortion and another time of dynamiting, whom 
union funds were used to defend, and this man, Mr. Morgan, led an 
insurgent group out of the Teamsters. 

I thought it was important to have the testimony before the com- 
mittee as to what has happened to him since that time. 

The Chairman. How many are in your group that you led out of 
the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Morgan. It depends on the season. It is from 140 up to ap- 
proximately 220, or 225, and it covers 16 small shops, and I have 
another shop that I organized since then on my own, that has been 
bothered by the unions, and that came into my organization. 

The Chairman. You and your group are determined that you will 
not be subjugated to the dictatorial and vicious rule of the Teamsters 
in that area ? 

Mr. Morgan. Of the Teamsters or anyone else. 

The Chairman. Thank God for that. That is the kind of courage 
it is going to take in this countiy to break up this racket. I want 
to say at this time, in my judgment, the leadership of the Teamsters 
Union can clean house in 24: hours if it actually wants to do it. 

Mr. Morgan. There is another union in Minneapolis that has peti- 
tioned to go independent less than 2 weeks ago. 

The Chairman. I beg your pardon ? 

Mr. Morgan. There is another Teamster Union in Minneapolis that 
has petitioned to go independent 2 weeks ago. 

The Chairman. I hope it becomes contagious. ' 



13612 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy, Now, were any of the people that were convicted 
with Gerald Connelly in this extortion case, are any of them still 
officials of the Teamsters Union ? 

Mr, Morgan. Eveiy one of them are, 

Mr. Kennedy. They still hold offices with the Teamsters Union? 

Mr. Morgan. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy, What about Sidney Brennan now, who was con- 
victed of extortion ? 

Mr, Morgan, Sidney Brennan is still secretary-treasurer of 544, 
and he is a vice president of the Joint Council 32, and I understand 
he is still a vice president of the Central States Conference. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is a vice president of the joint council that con- 
trols all of these Teamsters unions in that area ? 

Mr. Morgan. That is exactly right. 

Mr, Kennedy, He still holds that position ? 

Mr, Morgan, Yes, sir, 

Mr. Kennedy, And he was convicted of extortion some 2 years 
ago? 

Mr, Morgan. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And it was appealed all of the way to the Supreme 
Court? 

Mr. Morgan. That is right. 

Mr, Kennedy, And he is still holding that position ? 

Mr, Morgan, He still holds that position, 

Mr. Kennedy, What about Mr. »Torgenson ? 

Mr, Morgan. He is president of Joint Council 32, 

Mr, Kennedy, Was he also convicted of this extortion ? 

Mr, Morgan, He was. 

Mr. Kennedy. He still holds the position ? 

Mr. Morgan, He does. 

Senator I\t:s. Mr. Chairman, in that connection I want to point 
out that if the Kennedy-Ives bill were law, that could not happen. 

The Chairman, It ought not to take a law to clean up a situation 
like this. The leadership ought to have the integrity and the will to 
do it. 

Senator Curtis. Do you Iniow the names of any of the individuals 
who performed these acts of harassment either against you or other 
members of the independent union who withdrew from the Team- 
sters, or committed acts of harassment against the employers involved ? 

Mr. Morgan. I know the names of two of them. One of them is 
president of 544, Edward Blicks, who walked into the plant and de- 
manded that the employees join his union or he would straighten out 
the place. And Sidney Brennan called the management of the Phil 
Mallen Co., and I only have three girls working there, and that is the 
shop that Eddie Blicks walked into, and told a fellow by the name of 
Francis Mallett that does personnel work there that if he continued to 
negotiate contracts or settle any grievances with me he would have 
to put the place out of business. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know the names of any others ? 

Mr. Morgan. No ; I don't know the names of any of the others. 

Senator Curtis. Did you ever find out who was harassing you by 
ringing your telephone at night and disturbing your family ? 

Mr. Morgan, I couldn't say ; no, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13613 

Senator Curtis. We spent a number of weeks taking similar testi- 
mony in another case, and we couldn't find out either. 

Mr. Morgan. I tried to have the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
even check my telephone line at night. I have had my telephone 
changed three times since I appeared before this committee, with un- 
listed numbers, and some way in a short period of time, it continues. 

Senator Curtis. They would find out the new number ? 

Mr. Morgan. Wliat is that ? 

Senator Curtis. Whoever was harassing you would you find out the 
new numbers ? 

Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir, in a short period of time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you had any help from the National Labor Re- 
lations Board ? 

Mr. Morgan. As to the National Labor Relations Board, I wrote a 
letter to this conunittee a couple of months ago, and received a letter 
from the National Labor Relations Board in Washington here, to 
take things up with the National Labor Relations Board in Minne- 
apolis. At the time the Teamsters had gone into one of my shops, the 
Merrill Co., and threatened employees and forced them to sign cards so 
they could petition for an election with the Board. I immediately con- 
sented to an election, and I defeated the Teamsters in seven companies. 
The Teamsters filed charges of employer interference in the election, 
and I have a copy right here of the decision by the National Labor Re- 
lations Board, and they upheld interference as far as the election was 
concerned. 

If this committee would read this report, the committee itself would 
be disgusted with the report. 

As to the charges filed by the Teamsters Union, none of them are 
found true in this report, and still they think there should be a new 
election. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is the Board out there ? 

The Chairman. AVill you submit a copy of it ? 

Mr. Morgan. I will submit this one here ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. It may be submitted as an exhibit and made ex- 
hibit No. 17. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 17" for refer- 
ence and may be fou.nd in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. That is submitted for reference, and also will you 
submit a copy of the letter that you referred to that you received from 
the attorneys. 

Mr. Morgan, I will submit the original, and I have no use for it 
myself. 

The Chairman. We will return it to you and we will make a copy 
of it and return it to you. 

That may be made exhibit No. 18 for reference. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 18" for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 13719.) 

Senator Curtis. Do I understand that the National Labor Relations 
Board did not approve of the election ? 

Mr. Morgan. No ; they didn't. 

Senator Curtis. On what grounds didn't they, if you know? 

Mr. Morgan. Well, a charge filed by the Teamsters said a high 
company official of Industrial Steel in St. Paul had interfered by 



13614 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

stating to one of the employees that if I won the election the employees 
would receive a 15-cent wage increase. 

I had been in negotiation for over 3 months prior to the time that 
they filed for an election. This letter from the National Labor Kela- 
tions Board doesn't find that this Simmons has done a thing, and the 
only thing they find is that I told the people myself that I had com- 
pleted negotiations and that they w^ould receive a 15-cent wage in- 
crease. 

Senator Curtis. That is a recitation of what had already taken 
place, and not given out as an inducement to win the election? 

Mr. Morgan. Absolutely not, and the shop had been on a 4-hour day 
for approximately 6 months, and in January they received a small 
wage increase with the understanding that as soon as the shop went 
back on full 8 hours a day that the employees w^ould receive the balance 
of their increase, which they would have gotten. 

Now^ that the Teamsters have filed these charges, it has kept the 
employees from receiving their 15-cent wage increase, and also their 
retroactive pay which would amount to practically $200. 

The Chairman. You mean per employee i 

Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ives. I would like to point out one thing in this connection. 
I think the witness has hit upon a rather important matter when it 
comes to the critics of the Kennedy-Ives bill. Some of these critics 
have been maintaining that a heavier burden would be placed on 
management if the bill were enacted than has been placed in the 
past under the Taft-Hartley Act. What you just told us about the 
National Labor Relations Board throwing out this case demonstrates 
beyond question that the very thing that they are talking about as 
being new under the Kennedy-Ives bill is already in force under the 
National Labor Relations Act, or the Taft-Hartley Act. 

Mr. Morgan. That is right. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Mr. Kennedy. So the local board had supported the union that 
was led by some of these individuals that we have been discussing, 
against your group which had walked out of the Teamsters Union 
because it w^as corrupt ; isn't that right ? 

Mr. Morgan. In my opinion, sir, yes. They have made no inves- 
tigation whatsoever of any of the charges in any of the shops as covered 
by this election or anything, and the only thing they did outside of the 
evidence the teamsters supported was talk to my steward for about 10 
minutes. 

The Chairman. They made no investigation of your side of the 
case ? 

Mr. Morgan. To my knowledge ; no, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do these individuals that you have discussed have 
any positions within the city ? 

Mr. Morgan. To my knowledge. Jack Jorgenson was a former 
alderman in the city of Minneapolis, and he w^as appointed, but never 
■elected by the people. After he was convicted and brought up in this 
Archie Daniels case he declined to run when it was brought up, because 
he knew he w^as defeated. 

But since then he has been appointed to the Oral Review Board of 
the Minneapolis Police Department. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 13615 

Mr. Kennedy. "What is that again ? 

Mr. Morgan. The oral review board. They have written examina- 
tions for police promotion, and an oral examination. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is on the board to decide on police promotions? 

Mr, Morgan. That is right. 

Mr, Kennedy. This is Mr. Jorgenson who was convicted as a Team- 
ster official of extortion ? 

Mr. Morgan. That is right. 

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

The Chairman. How long has he been out of the pen ? 

JNIr. Morgan. On this board ? 

The Chairman. How long has he been out of the pen, before he was 
uppointed on this board ? 

Mr. Morgan. He never served time. He was fined and placed on 
probation. 

The Chairman, He was fined how much ? 

Mr. Morgan. $3,000, 1 believe. 

The Chairman.' Fined $3,000. They didn't send him to the pen? 

Mr. Morgan. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is there anybody else on this police board ? 

Mr. Morgan. Well, on the civil service commission the chairman of 
the civil service commission is a fellow by the name of Thomas Coch- 
lemacher, that is the Teamster attorney for Joint Council 32, and I 
understand he is on an $18,000 a year retainer by the Teamsters. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is the Teamster attorney. What is his position ? 

Mr. Morgan. He is chairman of the civil service commission. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is he the one that made arrangements for the ap- 
pointment of Mr. Jorgensen ? 

Mr. Morgan. I wouldn't know that. 

Mr. Kennedy. But Mr. Jorgensen is in a position on the board that 
decides police promotions ? 

Mr. Morgan. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. From the information we have, the mayor of Minne- 
apolis, Mayor Peterson, was not aware of this fact. 

The Chairman. He is aware of it now. 

I am sure he will give it proper attention. Are there any other 
questions ? 

Mr. Morgan, you heard the statement I made to the witness, Mr. 
Hyde, who just left the witness stand ? 

Mr. Morgan. I did, sir. 

The Chairman, The Chair will make the same announcement with 
reference to you. We are going to give you all the protection within 
our power. If you can give us a report of any further developments, 
do so. I assure you, sir, that even though there may be some scoundrels 
who are trying to get you and trying to intimidate you, trying to take 
away your rights of an American citizen, I know at this hour that the 
great mass of American citizens not only sympathize with you, but 
they want to reach out to help you, and this Government and your 
local government will be strong enough to give you and the family the 
protection to which you are entitled. 

Mr. Morgan. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 



13616 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Report to us anything that occurs. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Ernest Belles. 

The Chairman. You do solemnly swear the evidence you shall o-ive 
before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth 
and nothmg but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Belles. Yes, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF ERNEST G. BELLES, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
BENEDICT F. FitzGERALD 

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

Mr. Belles. Ernest G. Belles, 480 Sesame Street, Opa-locka, Fla. 
At the present time I am renting a tavern. 

The Chairman. Running a tavern ? 

Mr. Belles. Renting one, leasing one. 

The Chairman. Renting a tavern ? 

Mr. Belles. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Counsel, you may identify yourself for the 
record. 

Mr. FitzGerald. My name is Benedict F. FitzGerald, Jr., attorney 
at law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the District of 
Columbia, with offices at suite 983, National Press Building, Washino-- 
ton,D.C. to' »* t, 

The Chairman. All riglit, Mr. Kennedy, you may proceed. 

]\Ir. Kennedy. Mr. Belles, you were a president of Local 375 of 
Buffalo, N. Y., of the Teamsters? 

Mr. Belles. I respectfully decline to answer the question and exer- 
cise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Belles, the information that we have is that you 
ran for office against a man by the name of Stanley Clayton for the 
head of local 375 ; that Mr. Stanley Clayton won the election ; that 
there was some violence in connection with the election against the 
followers of Stanley Clayton. There was some dynamite uncovered 
m the bottom of his automobile. I would like to know if you have 
any information regarding the dynamite put in the bottom of his 
automobile. 

Mr. Belles. I respectfully decline to answer the question and exer- 
cise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. After he won the election, there was an investiga- 
tion made of the union funds. Mr. Stanley Clayton has a very, very 
high reputation in New York and in union circles generally. There 
was an investigation made by a trial board of the union and they 
found that you had misappropriated some $31,000. Could you tell 
us anything about that ? 

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

Mr. Belles. I respectfully decline to answer the question and exer- 
cise niy privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us if you did misappropriate $31,000 ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13617 

Mr. Belles. I respectfully decline to answer the question and exer- 
cise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. After the trial, the union reached a verdict and the 
verdict was that you were to be removed from local 375, removed 
from the Teamsters for a period of 10 years, and that you were never 
to hold union office again because you had violated your trust. 

Isn't that correct, Mr. Belles ? 

Mr. Belles. I respectfully decline to answer the question and exer- 
cise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. This was a union trial. Then, Mr. Belles, you left 
Buffalo, N. Y., and suddenly became head of a local down in Miami, 
Fla., local 390. Could you tell us how you were able to do that ? 

Mr. Belles. I respectfully decline to answer the question and exer- 
cise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a w^itness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. You became an international organizer for the 
Teamsters Local 399 — excuse me, local 390 — in Miami, Fla., and later 
became president of that local, did you ? 

Mr. Belles. I respectfully decline to answer the question and exer- 
cise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. According to the information, you first became an 
international organizer for local 390, and then you were appointed as 
trustee president of local 390 by Mr. "Dusty"' Miller, who is the 
director of the Teamsters Southern Conference. 

Mr. Belles. I respectfully decline to answer the question and exer- 
cise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. The sovithern conference at that time was under the 
direction of the Central Conference of Teamsters, Mr. James Hoffa. 

Can you tell us what Mr. Hoffa did in connection with placing you 
in this position of trust ? 

Mr. Belles. I respectfully decline to answer the question and exer- 
cise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliere your own union members had found you 
misappropriated money, said you should not hold a union position 
for 10 years, you suddenly end up as a union official and ultimately 
as president of another local in Miami, Fla. 

Can you give us any explanation for that whatsoever ? 

Mr. Belles. I respectfully decline to answer the question and exer- 
cise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

(At this time. Senator Church withdrew from the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. You are now out of that position. Could you tell us 
what the reasons were for your resignation ? 

Mr. Belles. I would like to have my attorney make a statement at 
this time. 

Mr. Kennedy. I w^ould like to hear it from you. 

Senator Ives. You make it yourself. 

Mr. Belles. I didn't hear the question. 



13618 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. The question is : I understand that you are now out 
of that union position. I would like to ask you why it was that you 
resigned, were fired, or whatever happened. 

Mr. Belles. I respectfully decline to answer that question and exer- 
cise my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. FitzGerald. Mr. Chairman — who is the chairman now? 

Senator Ives. I am acting chairman at the moment. 

Mr. FitzGeilvld. Mr. Ives, at this time I would like to interpose a 
general objection to the calling of this witness at this time. 

Senator Ives. Just a minute. 

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

Senator Ives. The chairman himself has just arrived. I will turn 
this over to him. I don't want to mix up the signals. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. FitzGerald. If the gentleman from Arkansas will permit me 
to make a few remarks at this time, the questioning started so quickly 
I was hardly able to introduce myself and interpose an objection 

The Chairman. Let me get my bearings. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is not on a question. He just has a general 
objection. 

The Chairman. Go ahead. 

Mr. FitzGerald. I just wanted to fix the same objections to this 
hearing that I have frequently done in the past with the several other 
witnesses that I have represented. I want to object to the calling of 
this witness, and for the record, indicate that I feel it is a violation 
of sections 1, 5, 6, and 8 of the Constitution of the United States, the 
amendments to the Constitution, and want to set those objections up 
to every one of these questions. 

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

The Chairman. The objections are heard. The objections are 
overruled. 

Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Mr. FitzGerald, could I ask you a question? You 
are being retained for Mr. Belles by the Teamsters, are you ? 

Mr. FitzGerald. ^Vhsit was that ? 

Mr. Kennedy. You are being retained by the Teamsters for Mr- 
Belles? 

Mr. FitzGerald. By what Teamsters ? 

Mr. Ivennedy. Any Teamsters. 

Mr. FitzGerald. No. I am here as attorney for Mr. Belles. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are getting your fee by Mr. Belles ? 

Mr. FitzGerald. I hope so. He has been terrorized so much by the 
newspapers and by the committee, I don't suppose he has very much 
money, but eventually I hope to get paid. We haven't discussed that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you expect to get your fee from the Teamsters 
or Mr. Belles? 

Mr. FitzGerald. By Mr. Belles, the man I represent on this oc- 
casion. 

The Chairman. Maybe the Chair misheard you. What did you say 
about the committee a moment ago ? 

Mr. FitzGerald. I said that the committee has been following this 
man so fast and furiously that he is no longer with the Teamsters, 
and he is down in Florida now. and he is not a man of much means. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13619 

The Chairman. I thought you said the committee has been terror- 
izing. Did I misunderstand you ? 

Mr. FitzGerald. I don't know wliether I said that or not. But my 
intention was that he had been followed by committee investigators 
and had been interrogated so frequently. 

The Chairman. Let me say I may have misunderstood you. Let 
me say this: Lawyers, Avhen they stay in their proper place before 
this committee, will be treated with all courtesy due counsel appearing 
as attorney for a client. But I may admonish you, if that is what 
3'ou had in mind, this committee will not be subjected to epithets and 
criticism of that nature. I need not say more to you. 

Mr. FitzGerald. I did not mean that to apply to you, sir. 

The Chairman. I mean to any member of the committee or the 
committee collectively. Don't let there be any misunderstanding 
about that. You are welcome here as counsel, and you will be treated 
with eveiy courtesy, but you will in turn respect this committee. 

Mr. FitzGerald. I have great respect for you, sir, and the com- 
mittee. I think a question as to who was paying you is a little bit 
out of order, particularly between counsel. 

The Chairman. No, sir ; it is not out of order. We are establishing 
a record here, and we established it before, where people are indicted 
for crimes wholly unconnected with the affairs of the union — that 
is, affairs that could not possibly be in the interest of the laboring 
people who pay the dues — that dues money, money out of the treas- 
ury of the union, is being used to defend criminals, to support them 
while they are in the penitentiary, and other improper uses. 

I think the committee is entitled to know, when an attorney appears 
here representing a witness, whether he has actually been retained 
by the witness and is expecting to be paid by the witness, or whether 
such arrangements have been made by a labor organization or a 
business interest. We will pursue that and we will ascertain about 
it. If we find this committee is being imposed upon, we will excuse 
the attorney, because the rules of the committee permit an attorney 
to be here representing the witness, an attorney of his choice. By 
''his choice" we also mean an attorney that is to be paid by him, if I 
interpret our language correctly. 

Mr. FitzGerald. For the record, if the Chair pleases, I am being 
retained by Mr. Belles. I have known him for some time. As a 
matter of fact, when I was an attorney for the National Labor Rela- 
tions Board in Buffalo in 1942 I knew of his activity in that area. 

The Chairman. Very good. 

Mr. FitzGerald, I am being paid, I hope, by him, if he has the 
money. As I say, he has been harassed quite a bit in the newspapers. 
I want to also say for the record I don't consider him a criminal. He 
has no criminal record that I know of, other than a few indiscretions 
of youth, which many Senators and Congressmen have, as far as 
I know. 

The Chairman. Just a moment. I don't need anything further 
like that. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. FitzGerald, just so we get the record straight, 
you have worked for the Teamsters since this committee began, have 
you not ? 



13620 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. FitzGerald. I have had this privilege of working for that 
great organization, but I am not doing so now. I am Mr. Belles' 
counsel. 

The Chairman. You have a perfect right to appear here, if he has 
retained you, if you are the attorney of his choice. I don't want to 
deprive anybody. Let's proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, about Mr. FitzGerald's mention 
earlier that he was here on per diem, so he did not care how long it 
lasted 

Mr. FitzGer.\ld. I always work on per diem. 

Mr. Kennedy. I thought that indicated that maybe you were being 
paid by the Teamsters. 

I think I have finished with Mr. Belles. 

The Chairman. All right. Stand aside. Are there any further 
witnesses ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Bitonti. 

The Chairman. Come forward, Mr. Bitonti. 

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. Bitonti. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN BITONTI, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
PERRY W. HOWARD 

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

Mr. Bitonti. My name is John Bitonti, Dearborn, Mich., 7865 
Oakmont Boulevard. I am in the steel business. I own Byton Steel 
Corp. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. Mr. Bitonti, do you hava 
counsel ? 

Mr. Bitonti. Yes, sir. 

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

Mr. Howard. Perry W. Howard, attorney at law, Washington, 
D. C, for a large number of years. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. All right, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Bitonti, you received a loan from the Teamsters 
Union ? 

Mr. Bitonti. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. When was that? 

Mr. Bitonti. Well, I can't recall but 1953, but I don't know exactly 
the dates. 

Mr. Kennedy. From whom did you receive the loan ? 

Mr. Bitonti. From 299 and 337. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much was the loan ? 

Mr. Bitonti. Well — do you want me to tell you the story my 
way? 

Mr. Kennedy. All right. 

Mr. Bitonti. Because I can't understand very good English and I 
don't want no $25 words. 

Mr. Kennedy. All right. 

The Chairman. Well, I will tell you, you use nickel words. 

Mr. Bitonti. Thank you. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13621 

The Chairman. You go right ahead. 

Mr. BiTONTi. I was ready to go m business and I wanted to go in 
business in the steel business. I went to Hamtramck bank, the Peo- 
ple's State Bank, to see a teller over there, and I asked him if I could 
borrow money on my property. He told me, he says, "Yes; you can, 
but it will take you 3 or 4 weeks or 5, whatever it is." 

And ''You got to bring the abstract.'' When I heard that, I said, 
"Forget it." So I heard that tlie Teamsters were lending money, and 
I went to see Mr. Hoffa. Mr. Hoffa, I told him, I said, "I need 
$50,000." He asked me, "What do you want to do with it ? " and I said, 
"I am going to go into the steel business," 

He said, "'Have you got any security f I said, "I got $300,000 
worth of security."* 

He said, "Well, your word ain't good enough for me ; you bring the 
abstract here." 

So I brought tlie abstract. He said, "Take them to Mr, Ben 
Levinson." 

Mr. Kexxedy, Ben Levinson '. 

Mr. BiTONTi. Ben Levinson. I don't know if the name is correct. 
It is Michigan Mortgage, I think. So, I took the abstract to Ben 
Levinson. Ben Levinson told me, he said, "Be back in a week or 10 
days and we will tell you." 

So, I went back and I said, "What happened?" He said, "Your 
property is free and clear. Now, go see Mr. Holf a." 

I went over there, and I said, "Well, the property is free and clear. 
Would you give it to me ?" 

He said, "You want it; you can have it." 

So, we started talking about the interest. I said, "How much you 
going to cliarge me V 

He said, "Five percent." I said, "Well, don't you think it is a little 
too much." 

He said, "Take it or leave it," and "That is the way we do business." 

(), K. So, I figure out, and I took it. So, after I took it, I said, 
"Mr. Hoffa, T hock eveiything. Why don't you take my wife and 
kids." He said, "You can keep that." 

Well, that is tlie truth. 

The Chairman. Let's have order. Go ahead and tell it your way. 

Mr. BiTONTi. So, I signed it. He said, "Go to Ben Levinson and 
sign the mortgage over." I don't know what it is. That is a term of 
an attorney. So I sign it for $50,000. So, later on I said, "I don't 
need the money right now. When I need it. I will come over and pick 
it up.'' 

He said, "Any time," after I signed the paper. So, I went over 
there one day, I couldn't recall what, 2 or 3 weeks later; T don't know, 
because T had to take care of my corporation paper first. I said, "Need 
$25,000." 

So, he said, "All right. Here is a check for 25." 

So, I thought I could do business with the 25, but it was not enough. 
So, I went about 2 or 3 weeks later and I said, "I need another 15," 
He said, "It is O. K. Take the 15." 

I didn't need no more money, so I didn't take the other 10. I figured 
why should I pay interest on 50 when I can pay interest on 40. So, I 
kept going with my business ; didn't need the other 10. So, finally, I 

21243— 58— pt. .36 23 



13622 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

forgot all about it, about the 10. Mr. Kelly come over to my house to 
investigate this 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Kelly of the staff ? 

Mr. BiTONTi. Mr. Kelly, he come over to my house to investigate 
this, and he asked me if I borrowed any money from the union. I said, 
"Yes.'] He said, "How much did you borrow?" I said, "$40,000." 
He said, "Don't you know you signed for 50?" Well, right at that 
moment, I was all excited, and I said, "I don't know." 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that when you took Mr. Hoffa's picture down from 
the wall? 

Mr. BiTONTi. That is the time when I took Mr. Hoffa's picture down. 
So, he said, Mr. Kelly said, "What that picture doing over there ?'^ 

I said, "That is Mr. Hoffa. For $40,000, 1 think I am entitled to get 
a picture." 

So, he said, "You know, if you were to die, you could have lost the 
$10,000." I said, "I don't know." 

So, he said, "Well, I will see you tomorrow. By the way," he said, 
"did you pay the loan?" And I said, "Yes." And he said, "Did you 
pay everything?" I said, "Yes." He said, "Where is your paper?" 
I said, "I didn't get it yet." The next day I went to see Mr. Brennan. 
I thought Mr. Hoffa was there, but Mr. Brennan was there. I said, 
"Mr. Brennan, I paid the loan; I paid the interest. I would like to 
have my property back." 

He said, "Mr. Bitonti," he says, "Mr. Hoffa is not here, but I will 
give you a letter right now." Just a minute. He said, "I will call 
Mr." — the secretary of 299. I have forgotten his name now — "Mr. 
Collins." 

So, Mr. Brennan called Mr. Collins and said, "See if the Bitonti 
mortgage is clear. If he is not clear, hold it." 

So, Mr. Collins called back and he said, "It is all clear." 

He said, "Why don't you give him his deeds and the mortgage 
papers?" And they said, "Well, we didn't have no time." So Mr. 
Brennan raised hell, otherwise, and he said, "Now, I want you to give 
it to him, because the man already paid, and I can't see why you didn't 
give him the mortgage yet." 

The fellow says, "Well, we didn't have the time." So, anyhow, Mr. 
Brennan wrote me a letter, which I got here, to say the property was 
free and clear and, as soon as we have a little time, he said, we will take 
it off of the county building or whatever it is. So they did. So, this 
is the story, and there is no more, no less. 

The Chairman. Any further questions ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

On some of these checks on the loan for $40,000, you paid it to local 
337. 

Mr. Bitonti. 337 and 299. 

Mr. Kennedy. You received the loan from 299. 

Mr. Bitonti. No ; I received both. 

Mr. Kennedy. From both of them ? 

Mr. Bitonti. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, you have a check for $25,000 and a check for 
$15,000? 

Mr. Bitonti. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. They are both on local 299. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13623 

Mr. BiTONTi. I don't know. They give me a check. I don't know. 
I don't think so. You people have the check, don't you ? I mean the 
original checks. We got the stubs here. 

Mr. Kennedy. Both the checks are 299 checks. 

The Chairman. You may have honestly thought you were getting 
the money from both unions. 

Mr. BiTONTi. Well, I didn't know, Mr. Senator. 

The Chairman. But the checks appear to be— the $25,000 check on 
July 17, 1953, and the $15,000 check of August 10, 1953, appear to have 
been on local 299. 

Mr. BiTONTi. That could be possible. 

Mr. Kennedy. The point, Mr. Chairman, is that he paid to both 
299 and 337. I would like to ask how that happened, where the money 
came from local 299 ; why he paid some of it back to 337. 

Mr. BiTONTi. Well, I have a record here to show 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not questioning that you paid it back, but it 
would appear that the loan all came from 299. You don't understand 
that? 

Mr. BiTONTi. I beg your pardon ? 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't understand that ? I am pointing out that 
both the checks are from 299, and you paid all the money back to local 
337. 

Mr, BrroNTi. Well, I don't know. 

Mr. Howard. I think the checks speak for themselves. 

Mr, BiTONTi. The checks speak for themselves. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not questioning this man at all. The checks 
were both from the same union, but they were repaid to local 337, one 
Mr, Brennan's union and one Mr. HofFa's union. How many times had 
you been arrested at the time you received the loan ? 

Mr. BiTONTi, The record shows for itself, Mr, Kennedy. 

Mr, Kennedy, Our records show 23 times ; is that about correct ? 

Mr. BiTONTi. Well, I don't know. When I was a young man 

Mr. Kennedy, This isn't very young. This is during the 1930's, the 
1940's, and during 1950, also, 

Mr, BiTONTi, Well, Mr, Kennedy, let's put this straight. 

I have been out of the number business for 14 years, and I try to 
go straight. 

Mr. Kennedy. What other business interest do you have other than 
the steel business ? 

Mr. BiTONTi. Real estate. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where do you have the real estate ? 

Mr. BiTONTi. Well, I collect rents and live on it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that the only interest you have ? 

Mr. BiTONTi. Yes, and the steel business. But the steel ain't been 
very good. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the real estate is where ? 

Mr. BiTONTi. In Dearborn. 

Mr. Kennedy. In Dearborn ? 

Mr, BiTONTi. And in the State of Michigan, yes, 

Mr. Kennedy, Those are the only two sources of income ? 

Mr, BiTONTi, Yes, 

Mr. Kennedy, You had gone to a bank, had you not, at this time ? 

You had been to a bank prior to getting a loan from the Team- 
sters ? 



13624 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. BiTONTi. Well, I talked to one of the tellers, you know, 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you tell the investigator that you were not 
able to get the loan from the bank becavise of your background, that 
they weren't anxious to give you a loan ? 

Mr. BiTONTi. My friend, I don't think so, because with $300,000 
worth of property, if I can't get $40,000 or $50,000, there is something 
wrong someplace. They don't look at records, they look at the 
property, the securities you got. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why didn't you get the loan from the bank, then? 

Mr. BiTONTi. Well, I didn't get the loan from the bank because 
in the first place I wanted to go in business quick. The Korea war 
was on, and I thought the steel was very hot, and I could have made 
money. But had I gone through the bank, it would have taken me 
a long time to get the money, so I took a chance to go see Mr. Hoffa, 
to see if I could get money. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't have any business interests in connection 
with Mr. Hoffa, have you ? 

Mr. BiTONTi. I never have no business, I never was hired by the 
unions. I never know nothing. The only thing I went was to bor- 
row money. 

Mv. Kennedy. But do you liave any business interests in connection 
withMr. Hoffa? 

Mr. BiTONTi. At no time. 

Mr. Kennedy. At no time ? 

Mr. BiTONTi. At no time, 

Mr. Kennedy. You never have ? 

Mr. BrroNTi. Never have. 

Mr. Kennedy, You never made any investments together with Mr, 
Hoffa? 

Mr. BiTONTi. No, sir. AVlien I made investments, I made my own. 

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

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Kennedy. 

Senator Kennedy. On this mortgage, it says May 6, 1953. I guess 
the date of the check is July or August 1953. It would indicate that 
at least 2 or 3 months did pass between the time that you signed this 
mortgage paper and the time that you had these checks. 

Mr. BrroNTi. I can't understand you. Senator Kennedy. 

Senator Kennedy. The date of the mortgage is ^May 6, 1953, to John 
Bitonti and Josephine Bitonti, his wife. The mortgage was ]VIay 6. 
The check to John Bitonti from the International Brotherhood of 
Chauffeurs and Helpers is July 17. and the other one is August 10, 1953. 
That is 3 months. 

Mr, Bitonti. Well, in the first place, I want to get my paper, my 
corporation paper from the State of Michigan, and when I was ready 
I told Mr. Hoffa, "When I am ready I will come over and pick the 
money up," l^ecause I didn't want to pay no interest. What I was 
worrying about was interest. Why should I hnve the $-1:0,000, taking it 
away, when I was doing no business. I have to pay interest. So this 
way, when I was ready to do it, I took the money. I don't see no liarm 
in that. 

Senator Kennedy. I just don't understand your story nbout tlie 
reason you didn't go to a bank because of the time factor. Tliat isn't 
the reason, is it ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13625 

Mr. BiTONTi. Well, in one way, yes. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Bitonti, I don't think that is the reason you 
didn't go to the bank, because I think the testimony of these checks con- 
flicts with that; what is the reason for the $40,000 and the $50,000? 
You are smart enough to know how much money you were getting. 
Did you think you were getting 50 or 40 ? 

Mr. Bitonti. I got $40,000. 

Senator Kennedy. But you signed for 50 ? Why ? 

Mr. Bitonti. Because I didn't need the other 10. 

Senator Ivennedy. Why did you sign for it ? 

Mr. Bitonti. Because I thought I needed the 50. 

Senator Kennedy. You just had the $10,000 that you owed? 

Mr. Bitonti. I beg your pardon ? 

Senator Kennedy. You owed $50,000, is that correct, and got 
$40,000? 

Mr. Bitonti. Because I only needed $40,000. 

Senator Kennedy. Did you pay interest on the other 10 ? 

Mr. Bitonti. No, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. You didn't pay interest ? 

Mr. Bitonti. No, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. You didn't receive the other 10 ? 

Mr. Bitonti. I didn't receive the other 10. 

Senator Kennedy. You didn't owe it, then ? 

Mr. Bitonti. I didn't owe it, and they give me the clarification of 
the deed. 

Senator Kennedy. Where did you get the money to pay the in- 
terest ? 

Mr. Bitonti. I paid it in cash. 

Senator Kennedy. Where did you get that cash ? 

Mr. Bitonti. I borrowed it. 

Senator Kennedy. From whom ? 

Mr. Bitonti. From Charlie Harrison. 

Senator Kennedy. How do you spell his name ? 

Mr. Bitonti. Well, Harrison. 

Senator Kennedy. Harrison ? 

Mr. Bitonti. Harrison, yes, I signed a note for $2,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where were you when we were looking for you, Mr. 
Bitonti ? 

Mr. Bitonti. I was out of town. 

Mr. Kennedy. Whereabouts? 

Mr. Bitonti. I was in Canada. 

Mr. Kennedy. You stayed there all that time? 

Mr. Bitonti. I had to go on business. 

Senator Kennedy. Where is Mr. Harrison located ? 

Mr. Bitonti. He has a bar. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wiere? 

Mr. Bitonti. In Detroit. 

Senator Kennedy. What is the name of it ? 

Mr. Bitonti. The Manor Bar. 

Senator Kennedy. The Manor Bar ? 

Mr. Bitonti. Yes. I borrowed $2,000 from him. 

Senator Kennedy. $2,000 in cash ? Did you give him a note ? 

Mr. Bitonti. Yes. He still has the note. I didn't pay it yet. 

Senator Kennedy. Did you pay him back ? 



13626 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. BiTONTi. Not yet. 

Senator Kennedy. How long ago was that? 

Mr. BiTONTi. Well 

Senator Kennedy. 1953 ? 

Mr. BiTONTi. No. Well, I can't recall the date. 

Senator Kennedy. This is July 1953. 

Mr. Bitonti. No, I paid 

Senator Kennedy. The check was on August 7, 1957. To pay the 
interest on this money, you borrowed it and you haven't paid him back. 
Did you pay any interest on that? 

Mr. Bitonti. To Mr. Harrison ? 

Senator Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Bitonti, I don't have to. He is a friend of mine. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Do you have any interest in the Westwood Inn ? 

Mr. Bitonti. "Wliy, no. 

Mr. Kennedy. You do not ? 

Mr. Bitonti. Why, no. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have any investment in it ? 

Mr. Bitonti. I say no. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is fine. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I don't think it is proper for or 
that this is a use to which unions dues ought to be put. I don't think 
Mr. Hoffa ought to have lent you that money, Mr. Bitonti. 

Mr. Bitonti. I don't see why Mr. HofFa should not loan me money 
when I give him $300,000 worth of security. 

Senator Kennedy. I don't think that, to be frank with you, Mr. 
Bitonti, I don't think he ought to go into business with you with 
union dues. I don't think that is the way union dues ought to be 
invested. 

Mr. Bitonti. That I don't know. But I know I give him $300,000 
worth of security. He was only interested in my $300,000 in security. 
He wasn't interested in me. If I failed, he would take the property. 

Senator Kennedy. You had to put up $300,000 to get 40? 

Mr. Bitonti. Well, he told me, he said, "Bring everything you got." 

Senator Kennedy. A bank would not insist on that. 

Mr. Bitonti. The bank would insist, too. 

Senator Kennedy. $300,000 to get 40 ? 

Mr. Bitonti. Well, they insist. 

Senator Kennedy. A^^iat ? 

Mr. Bitonti. They would insist. 

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

Senator Kennedy. I think there's a good deal more to this story 
than we have. I don't think the explanation is satisfactory. "Wliat 
is the name of the teller you talked to ? 

Mr. Bitonti. Mr. Kennedy, I want you to know there is nothing 
what you think. This is the truth and the God's truth. 

Senator Kennedy. Wliat is the name of the teller and what bank? 

Mr. Bitonti. Well, the name is George. 

Senator Kennedy. Do you know the last name ? 

Mr. Bitonti. I don't know the last name. 

Senator Kennedy. "What bank ? 

Mr, Bitonti. People's State Bank. 

Senator I^nnedy. A fellow named George ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13627 

Mr. BiTONTi. Geor<re. That is what I used to call him. I just went 
over there and asked him if I could borrow money. 

Senator Kennedy. You don't go to a teller to ask him if you can 
borrow money. 

Mr. BiTONTi. This is my way to do business. 

Senator Kennedy. I don't think that is a satisfactory explanation, 
Mr. Bitonti. I don't think when you go to borrow money from a bank, 
you go to teller, whose name you don't know, so that he will loan you 
the money. 

Mr. Bitonti. Well, this is the truth. 

Senator Kennedy. I don't think it could be the truth. 

Mr. BiTONTi. As far as me, I did it. That is the way I did it. 

Senator Kennedy. You don't know his last name ? 

Mr. BiTONTi. No. 

Senator Kennedy. Is the teller still working there ? 

Mr. Bitonti. I guess so. 

Senator Kennedy. It is a teller called George ? 

Mr. Bitonti. George. 

Senator Kenedy. \ ou went in on the main floor of the bank. Did 
you know the teller before ? 

Mr. Bitonti. I saw him over there ; yes. 

Senator Kennedy. Had you ever seen him before ? 

Mr. Bitonti. Why, sure. 

Senator Kennedy. Do you have an account at the bank ? 

Mr. Bitonti. I have, yes, the People's State Bank, in Hamtramck. 

Senator Kennedy. And you knew this teller beforehand ? 

Mr. Bitonti. Yes. 

Senator Kennedy. You did not talk to any other officer, the loan 
officer in the bank ? 

Mr. Bitonti. Never talked to anybody else. 

Senator Kennedy. The fellow who usually handles the loans? 

Mr. Bitonti. No ; I never talked to anybody. 

Senator Kennedy. Well, I don't think your story adds up. You 
said you were in a rush to get it, you signed a paper in May and you 
didn't pick up the money until July or August, and you stated you were 
going to get it from a bank but a teller named George told you you 
probably couldn't get it, and you put up $300,000 security for a $40,000 
loan, yet you signed for $50,000. 

You borrowed money for the interest, from a friend. 

Mr. Howard. I most respectfully state, Mr. Chairman, and Sen- 
ator, that it was a loan, legally made, regularly made, paid for, and 
as fine Americanism as I know of. 

He borrowed it and he paid it back. As to the procedure, the dif- 
ferent procedures, the different jurisdictions and different officials 
act in those capacities, Senator. 

Senator Kennedy. The point I made is that I don't thinlv it is par- 
ticularly fine Americanism. I think he is entitled to go to where he 
can get the money, but I don't think Mr. Hoffa should have given it to 
him. I don't think his explanation of the bank is satisfactory. He 
is not naive, he has had numerous experiences of one kind or another. 
You don't go up to a teller in a bank and ask him if he will loan you 
the money, the last name you don't recall. 

Mr. Howard. Senator, you never had to borrow money. You don't 
know what you have to go through to borrow money. 



13628 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Kennedy, I will tell you this, as long as you want to ex- 
change comments, that I know that is not the way to borrow money, 
and he knows it. I don't think Mr. Bitonti is telling the truth, if that 
is the statement he was wants to stick to. 

Mr. BiTOXTi. I am telling you the truth. 

Senator Kennedy. I don't believe 3^ou. I don't think you went up to 
a teller in a bank, a teller named George. I don't believe that. That 
isn't the reason you did not get the money from the bank. I hope the 
committee goes into it further. 

I don't think your explanation is satisfactory. 

We have heard some strange stories the last few days, but this is 
the strangest. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

The connnittee will stand in recess until 10 : 30 next Tuesday morn- 
ing. 

(At the recess, the following members were present: Senator Mc- 
Clellan and Senator Kennedy.) 

(Whereupon, at 5 : 05 p. m. the hearing was recessed, to reconvene 
at 10 : 30 a. m., Tuesday, August 12, 1958.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 1958 

United States Senate, 
Select Committee on Improper 
Activities in the Labor or Management Field, 

Washington^ D. C. 

The select committee met at 10 : 30 a. m., pursuant to Senate Reso- 
lution 221, agreed to January 29, 1958, in the caucus room, Senate 
Office Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select 
committee) presiding. 

Present : Senator John L, McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas ; Senator 
Irving M. Ives, Republican, New York; Senator John F. Kennedy, 
Democrat, Massachusetts; Senator Sam J. E.rvin, Jr., Democrat, 
North Carolina; Senator Frank Church, Democrat, Idaho; Senator 
Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; Senator Carl T. Curtis, 
Republican, Nebraska, 

Also present: Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel; Paul Tierney, 
assistant counsel; John J. McGovern, assistant counsel; Carmine S. 
Bellino, accountant; Pierre E. Salinger, investigator; Leo C. Nulty, 
investigator; James P. Kelly, investigator; James Mundie, investi- 
gator; John Flanagan, investigator, GAO; Alfred Vitarelli, investi- 
gator, GAO ; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk. 

(At the convening of tlie session, the following members were pres- 
ent : Senators McClellan, Ives, Ervin, and Curtis.) 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

Mr. Holla has been recalled to the witness stand. Proceed, Mr. 
Kennedy. 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES R. HOPFA, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
EDWAED BENNETT WILLIAMS, GEORGE FITZGERALD, AND 
DAVID PREVIANT— Resumed 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, without taking the time of the com- 
mittee to restate the objections that I have made heretofore, at the 
opening of the session on Wednesday, August 7, in the morning, and 
at the opening of the afternoon session on Thursday, August 8, I 
believe Wednesday, August 6, I would like to renew the objection 
that I have lodged in all of its particulars to the procedure that we 
are following. Also, Mr. Chairman, I want to plead guilty to having 
inadvertently misled this witness in his last testimony here. He was 
being interrogated about certain persons and the action which the 
union had taken against those persons. He was interrogated spe- 
cifically about one Glenn Smith, of Chattanooga. I said to the wit- 

13629 



13630 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

ness in the hearing of the committee that it was my recollection that 
charges had been lodged against him. Actually, I have learned since 
that I was confused and that I had in mind one Sam Smith, of 
Wichita. 

I now know that charges are being prepared against this particular 
individual, but the answer which the witness gave as his best recollec- 
tion was not accurate, and I would like for him to have a chance to 
correct that in the record here this morning. 

The Chairman. The committee will proceed. 

As the Chair has previously announced the objections interposed 
are overruled. 

The testimony of the witness, we have learned, was not accurate. 
Of course, he may have opportunity now, if he desires, to correct his 
testimony. 

Mr. Williams. Unless my statement may be construed as a cor- 
rection of it, which would shortcut going into it again. But I did 
want to call it to the committee's attention at the earliest moment that 
that was not accurate in all respects. 

The Chairman. We will leave it to the judgment of this witness 
and his counsel as to whetlier he wishes to make an}'^ comment about it. 

Mr. HoFFA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to correct the statement 
that charges were filed against Glenn Smith of the local union in Chat- 
tanooga, and I requested the advice of my counsel to handle those 
charges. 

I now find that the charges were against a different Smith and 
apparently they are charges being prepared but not filed yet against 
Smith. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is Glenn Smith who admitted taking the $20,000 
from union funds and paying it to fix the case ; is that right ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Glenn Smith you mentioned in the last hearing, which 
I assume is the one. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are familiar with the fact that he testified that 
he took $20,000 

Mr. HoFFA. I am not familiar, only from reading the question in the 
newspaper and having you tell me. 

(At this point. Senator Gold water entered the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. We went into that rather extensively. I am glad 
we have corrected the record. You have not taken any steps yourself 
toward removing Glenn Smith ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I said I had not, and I have not yet. 

Mr, Kennedy. You said last time that the local union had made 
charges and you were mistaken on that. I wanted to make sure that 
the record was completely clear on pages 588 and 190. I want to make 
sure the record is completely clear that you, yourself, have not taken 
any steps against Mr. Glenn Smith. 

Mr. HoFFA. I have not. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Wliat about Mr. "Shorty" Feldman? Have you 
taken any steps to remove "Shorty" Feldman from local 990? 

Mr. HoFFA. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you made an investigation of "Shorty" 
Feldman ? 



IJMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13631 

Mr. HoFFA. I discussed the matter with Feldman to find out the 
situation, and I understood at the time I discussed it with him he had 
no trouble since he has been with the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. He has had 18 arrests, 2 convictions, and 2 prison 
terms. 

Mr. HoFFA. I believe that was prior to his coming to the union and 
had nothing to do with the union, if what he tells me is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. We also had extensive testimony on his activities as 
a union official before the committee. He appeared before the com- 
mittee where we had some testimony that he had stated to an em- 
ployer that for $50,000 he could settle a strike, and remove the picket 
line. He appeared before the committee and took the fifth amendment. 
Have you made any investigation or have you taken any steps to re- 
move him ? 

Mr. HoFFA. No. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. None at all ? 

Mr. HoFFA. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are not interested in that ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I am interested, certainly, but I have been quite busy 
and have not had an opportunity to get into those situations. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. What conversations did you have with him about 
it? 

Mr. HoFFA. I discussed the question with Feldman as to whether 
or not he had sought from the employer any money, and he denied 
whether he had. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you let it go at that ? 

Mr. HoFFA. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. He has just been arrested on July 29, 1958, for the 
possession and interstate transportation of stolen bonds. That is just 
a couple of weeks ago. Have you taken any steps against him in con- 
nection with that ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Well, I have not had an opportunity since I have been 
preparing for this meeting, this situation here. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have not taken any steps against him ? 

Mr. HoFFA. No ; I have not. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have not taken any steps to suspend him? 

Mr. HoFFA. No. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Mr. Feldman is the one that contacted you in con- 
nection with the restaurant charter in Philadelphia ? 

JVIr. HoFFA. Mr. Feldman was in my office. We discussed the ques- 
tion as to why he was sponsoring an independent union, and he did 
discuss with me the question of getting a charter for the hotel and 
restaurant workers. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you take any steps yourself along that line ? 

Mr. HoFFA. If I remember correctly, and I think it is right, I 
called Ed Miller. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did what ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I am quite sure I called Ed Miller, in Cincinnati, and 
told him that I thought that they would be able to get the independent 
union into their union if they would sit down and discuss the matter 
with the independent officers. 

Mr. Kennedy. The people that were with "Shorty" Feldman on that 
were Mr. Abe Goldberg, who has been convicted of extortion and who 



13632 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

has been arrested and convicted on a number of other occasions, Julius 
Berg, and "Cappy"' Hoti'man, who between them have approximately 
40 arrests. Did you look into the background of any of the people 
who were sponsoring this charter ? 

Mr. HoFFA. No ; because the charter was not actually sponsored by 
anybody. It was simply stated, I believe, to Miller, that if he would 
look into the situation, they could get the independent union into their 
organization. I think they handled it from that point on through 
their own organization. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did you call Mr. Miller for a man such as 
"Shorty" Feldman? 

Mr. HoFFA. I didn't call him for Feldman. I called him to get rid 
of the independent union to get into the Hotel and Restaurant 
Workers. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can't the Philadelphia people handle their own 
problems, Mr. Hoff a ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I assume they could. It was brought to my attention. 
Knowing Miller, I called him. I am pretty sure I called Miller. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is "Shorty" Feldman, who has been arrested 
some 18 times coming out to see you in connection with this, and you 
inject yourself into it. 

Mr. HoFFA. He did not come out to see me about this. He came out 
to see me about a jurisdictional problem betw^een his local union and 
another local union concerning, I believe, the Penn Fruit Co., and this 
developed out of the conversation. 

Mr. Kennedy. You got a charter for a local that had made a col- 
lusive deal with an employer ? 

Mr. HoFFA. No ; I didn't get the charter. The charter was granted 
by the Hotel and Restaurant Workers. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were the one that made the telephone call which 
resulted in the charter being granted. 

Mr. IIoFFA. I wouldn't say that that was true. I simply alerted 
them to the fact that they wanted to sit down with the independent 
union, that they were willing to discuss the question of becoming 
affiliated. 

Mr. Kennedy. They had been trying to get a charter, Mr. Hoffa, and 
they were having difficulty in Philadelphia, because of the fact that 
there were so many criminal elements that were backing this local. 
Then Mr. Feldman has conversation with you, or you call Mr. Miller, 
and they are granted a charter in the Hotel and Restaurant Workers 
Union. Why would you ? Once again this is a case where you have 
injected yourself in a situation which involves criminals and gangsters 
and racketeers. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Can you tell us anything about that? 

INIr. HoFFA. I think I have answered your question concerning my 
interest in this particular charter. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Maxie Stern speak to you about this ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I don't believe he did. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say he did not ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I would not say he did not, because I know he knows 
Feldman. 

He may have. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you known Maxie Stern ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13633 

Mr. HoFFA, Probably — well, 10 years or so. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is a well-known gangster in Detroit, is he not? 

Mr. HoFFA. I don't know if he is a well-known gangster or not. He 
is out of jail. 

Mr. Kennedy. He has been arrested a dozen or so times ? 

Mr. Hor^FA. He has been arrested, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. He has been in jail for armed robbeiy ? He violated 
his parole, Avent back to the penitentiary a number of times. He is a 
friend of yours ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I know him. He is a friendly acquaintance, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you had any business dealings with him? 

Mr. HoFFA. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. In 1947 he was shot by one Chris Scroy. His life 
was saved by the fact he was wearing a bulletproof vest at the time. 
This is one of your friends ? 

Mr. HoFFA. He is a friendly acquaintance, yes. 

(At this point, members of the committee present were: Senators 
McClellan, Ives, Church, Ervin, Gold water, and Curtis.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, did he attend your trial in New York? 

Mr. HoFFA. I don't remember seeing him in the courtroom. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't remember him being there at all ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I don't remember him being there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever call Mr. Stern about any problems 
or did he ever call you ? 

Mr. HoFFA. What kind of problems ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Any kind of problems. 

Mr. HoFFA. I can't recall any discussion we had other than to pass 
the time of the day. 

Mr. Kennedy. You would just be discussing the time of the day ? 

Mr. HoFFA. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about Ray Cohen in local 107, Mr. Hoffa? 
Have you taken any steps against Ray Cohen ? 

Mr. HoFFA. There are charges filed against Cohen. The committee 
is set up, we are going to have hearings in local 107. I believe today 
there is a meeting of the committee who is set up to have a trial of 
Cohen and to go into those books. 

Mr. Kennedy, Have you taken steps to suspend Mr, Cohen while 
those charges are being heard ? 

Mr. HoFFA. No, I have not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell the committee why you have not taken 
steps along those lines to suspend Mr. Cohen ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I believe he is entitled to have the constitution followed 
of the international union. Charges are being filed, the charges are 
being processed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you taken steps to remove him as an interna- 
tional trustee? 

Mr. HoFFA. I have not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you tell us why you have not ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Because he has not had his trial under the constitution 
of the international union. Until he does, being duly elected by the 
convention, I have taken no action. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, we have some extensive testimony over a period 
of 3 weeks regarding the misuse of union funds, regarding the forgery 



13634 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

of checks, and that was some 3 or 4 months ago, Mr. Hoffa. You still 
have not taken any action against him. 

Mr. HoFFA. That is what the hearing is set up for with an outside 
member of the committee to hear those charges. 

Mr. Kennedy. You personally have not taken any action as you 
can understand the constitution against Raymond Cohen ? 

Mr. HoFFA. I believe the man is entitled to filing under the con- 
stitution. 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Kennedy, he testified that he had handled the 
central board in Philadelphia to have hearings on Mr. Cohen. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am asking whether he had suspended Cohen. 

Mr. Williams. You asked whether he had taken any action in your 
last question. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you suspended Mr. Cohen ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. He has some 19 officials working in local 107 as 
organizers and among them they have 104 arrests and 40. convictions. 
Can you tell us whether you have taken any steps against those people ? 

Mr. HoFFA. The investigating committee will go into all of the 
affairs of local 107. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you personally suspended any of those in- 
dividuals? 

Mr. Hoffa. I have not since there have been no charges filed against 
them by their officers other than those charges pending that the com- 
mittee will hear. 

Mr. Kennedy. Under the constitution you can take some action 
against them, Mr. Hoffa. Can you tell the committee why you have 
not? 

Mr. Hoffa. They are entitled to their file under the constitution. 
Members have a right to file their charges. When it gets to my office 
I will hear the case. 

Mr. Kennedy. Arthur Freeze, organizer for local 107. In 1936, 
he got 10 years for breaking and entering. In 1938, 3 to 21 years for 
burglary and transportation of explosives ; 1945, 5 years for aggravated 
assault while in prison. He is an organizer for local 107. 

Have you taken any action to have him removed ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I told you I had not taken action against any of them. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about Al Reger up in New York City ? 

]\Ir. Hoffa. Wliat about him ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you taken any action to remove Al Reger? 

Mr. Hoffa. I have not. There have been no charges to my knowl- 
edge placed on my desk concerning Al Reger. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you taken any action against him? He was 
convicted July 30, 1957 of extortion and sentenced to 5 to 10 years in 
Sing Sing and he is still in the union, still a union official. He is pres- 
ently secretary-treasurer of Local 522 of the Teamsters. Have you 
taken steps to remove Al Reger ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I said that I didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have had extensive testimony about Al Reger, 
his connection with Johnny Dill, his connection with Tony "Ducks" 
Corallo and even your name was mentioned in some of the discussions, 
Mr. Hoffa. Have you taken any steps to remove him ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I said I didn't. 

Mr. Ivennedy. "Why have you not ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13635 

Mr. HoFFA. Because there is a constitutional provision of our con- 
stitution which was passed by the convention outlining trials and 
procedures. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have any charges been made against Al Reger by 



you 



Mr. HoFFA. Not by myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have any charges been made by anyone ? 

Mr. HoFFA. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. I^nnedy. You are international president. Don't you want 
those kind of people removed from the Brotherhood of Teamsters, 
Mr.Hoffa? 

Mr. HoFFA. The membership of their local union have a right to 
elect their officer and right to follow the constitution under trials and 
procedures. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have testimony regarding the membership of 
some of these locals, Mr. Hoffa, where it shows that they were com- 
pletely exploited by union officials. They were getting substandard 
wages and there was collusion between the union officials and the 
employers. This man was convicted for extortion in 1957. 

Mr. Hoffa. Was he with the union at that time ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Hoffa. Wliat union ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Local 522, secretary-treasurer. 

Mr. Hoffa. Wliat union was that ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Teamsters. You have not taken any action against 
him ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I said no. 

The Chairman. Mr. Hoffa, is there anything in the constitution 
that prohibits you from taking action against these crooks ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I could have emergency powers under the constitution 
which are limited as to what I can do but wo have found out from 
experience in one particular local union that you had to be careful 
how you exercised that emergency power of the constitution. 

The Chairman. This extraordinary care that you are exercising 
perpetuates these crooks in office ; does it not ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I believe that the members are the ones who keep the 
officers in charge of the local unions because they are the ones who 
placed them there in the first place and they are the ones who contin- 
ually nominate and elect them. 

The Ghahiman. We have found many instances, Mr. Hoffa, where 
the members cannot control affairs, and whenever they do oust their 
officers I think we have instances — I am not sure whether this is team- 
sters or not at the moment — but I know that we have had testimony 
here where the members did oust them, the union was placed in trustee- 
ship, and the same people they ousted appointed the trustees to 
manage their affairs. 

We have that example before us. I am not sure, and counsel may 
recall whether that was in the Teamsters Union or other. 

Mr. Kennedy. In the teamsters. 

The Chairman. We have had that example. This has become a 
sordid story. Lord Almighty, you are the man at the head of it. You 
have the responsibility. But apparently instead of taking any action 
you are undertaking to do everything you can to perpetuate this situa- 
tion. You can make any comments you like. All of these things have 



13636 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

come to your attention and you have told this committee tliat you are 
going to clean the thing up, as I remember your testimony. 

Mr. "WiLLLVMs. May I make this observation on a legal facet of the 
question you are raising. I refer to the question as to whether an officer 
should be ousted immediately after conviction while he is pursuing his 
appeal at remedies. All of us have had opportunity to watch cases of 
this character. Some I have participated in myself. We know, so far 
at least as I have been able to determine, never in tlie history of the 
United States has the Congress ousted a Member immediately after 
conviction. 

There have been a number of convictions in the past few decades, but 
the Congress has always waited until the Member has exhausted his 
appeal at remedies before taking summary action against him. 

The CiiAiRMAx. May I say to you, Mr. Williams, that if I had a 
crook working for me, and I found out he was a crook, 1 would get rid 
of him. I would do the same thing if 1 were head of the union and 
had the power to do it. Maybe you wouldn't and maybe Mr. Hoffa 
would not. 

Mr. Williams. I agree with you. 

Mr. Ken