(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"

^ qasuia^ais 




ft.2«->k 



Given By 

U. S. SUPT. OF DOCUMENTS 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

SELECT COMMITTEE 

ON IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 

LABOR OR MANAGEMENT HELD 

EIGHTY-FIFTH CONGKESS 

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



SEPTEMBER 2, 3, 4, 9, AND 10, 1958 



PART 39 



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 



SEPTEMBER 2, 3, 4, 9, AND 10, 1958 



PART 39 



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




UNITED STATES 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1959 



Boston Public Library- 
Superintendent of Documents 

FEB 16 1959 
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. Jr., North Carolina BARRY GOLDWATER, Arizona 

FRANK CHURCH, Idaho CARL T. CURTIS, Nebraska 

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



CONTENTS 



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

Page 

Appendix 14895 

Testimony of — 

Bellino, Carmine S 14823 

Bryant, Frank 14879 

Eickmeyer, Thomas 14601, 14637 

Fitzgerald, George S 14729, 14762, 14811, 14854 

Gibbons, Harold J 14555, 14607, 14639, 14649 

Hannan, James P 14864 

Henson, Walter H 14703 

Reniker, Amos E 14783 

Rogers, John E 14763, 14767 

Salinger, Pierre E. G 14891 

Schultz, William J 14711 

Tiernev, Paul J 14766 

Walters, Virgil L 14803 

Wainwright, Branch 14779 

Webb, Floyd C 14805 

EXHIBITS 

105A. Teamsters Local 688 strike voucher dated December 8, Introduced Appears 
1953, "Strike, Yellow Cab, gas, oil, and cruising patrol," on page on page 
in the amount of $15 14576 14895 

105B. Teamsters Local 688 strike expenditure dated December 
14, 1953, "Strike, Yellow Cab, expenses, 5 men cruising," 
in the amount of $125 14576 14895 

105C. Teamsters Local 688 strike expenditure dated December 
14, 1953, "Strike, Yellow Cab, lost time patrol duty," 
in the amount of $125 14576 14896 

106A. Statement from Ace Cab Co. to Teamsters Local 405 for 

taxicab service in the amount of $2,925 14602 14897 

106B. Check No. 2626 dated August 23, 1956, payable to Ace 
Cab Co. in the amount of $2,925, drawn by Taxicab 
Drivers Local Union No. 405 14602 14898 

107. Police record of the 13 men taking part in the wildcat strike 

August 1956 for the hoodlum squad, St. Louis Police 
Department 14602 (*) 

108. Document from Rosenblum, Goldenhersh & Merle L. 

Silverstein: Memorandum — Grand Jury Testimony 14618 (*) 

109. Document sealed at the direction of the chairman and in 

the custody of the committee 14636 (**) 

110. Bills from Joseph Cutter for bail bonds purchased by the 

Teamsters in St. Louis 14638 (*) 

111. Brief for Louis Berra, petitioner, in the Supreme Court of 

the United States, October term 1955, No. 60, filed by 
Stanley M. Rosenblum and Mark M. Hennelly, counsel 
for petitioner 14640 (*) 

112. Document sealed at the direction of the chairman and in 

the custody of the committee 14651 (**) 

*May be fo'ind in the files of the select committee. 
**Is filed with the select committee. 

ni 



IV CONTENTS 

113. Check No. 2691 dated August 12, 1955, payable to Ducker 

& Seldman in the amount of $3,000, drawn, by Central IntroducecTAppears 
States Conference of Teamsters and signed by James R. on page on page 
Hoffa and H. J. Gibbons 14686 14899 

114. Check No. 2696 dated August 15, 1955, payable to Samuel 

Seldman in the amount of $3,000, drawn by Central 
States Conference of Teamsters and signed by James R. 
Hoffa and H. J. Gibbons 14687 14900 

115. Check No. 4139 dated August 15, 1956, payable to Team- 

sters Local Union No. 247 in the amount of $1,000, 
drawn by Central Conference of Teamsters and signed 
by James R. Hoffa and H. J. Gibbons 14693 14901 

116. Ten checks, Nos. 1602 through 1611, all dated June 14, 

1954, and each in the amount of $700, payable to Pete 
Saffo, drawn by Central States Conference of Teamsters 
and signed by James R. Hoffa and H. J. Gibbons 14696 (*) 

117. Check No. 1633 dated June 29, 1954, payable to Richard 

Kavner in the amount of $10,000, drawn by Central 
States Conference of Teamsters and signed by James R. 
Hoffa and H. J. Gibbons 14697 14902 

118. Eight checks of different amounts and dates in 1956 which 

total $19,500, payable to William Carl Schneider, drawn 
by Central Conference of Teamsters and signed by James 
R. Hoffa and H. J. Gibbons 14699 (*) 

119. Cash receipt book maintained in St. Louis and compilation 

in alphabetical order of cash receipts, James Hoffa dinner 

committee 14701 (*) 

120. Minutes of a trustee meeting dated October 1, 1955 14706 (*) 

121. Escrow agreement dated October 12, 1955, between Win- 

chester Village Land Co. and Michigan Conference of 

Teamsters Welfare Fund of the City of Detroit 14711 (*) 

122. Letter dated November 11, 1955 addressed to Abstract & 

Title Guaranty Co. Re: Escrow agreement governing 
the disbursement of the proceeds of Mortgage Loan on 

Winchester Village, signed by George S. Fitzgerald 14713 14903 

122 A. Letter dated December 9, 195*5, addressed to Abstract & 
Title Guaranty Co., re Winchester Village Land Co., 
signed by George S. Fitzgerald__ 14713 14904 

123. Letter dated March 19, 1956, addressed to Jack I. Winshall 

and signed by Norman J. Monnig 14722 14905 

124. Document "Offer to Purchase Real Estate" Northerly 10 

acres of the Northeast % Section 3, T6N, R5E. Gaines 

Township, Genesee County, Mich 14722 (*) 

125. Statement to Winchester Village Land Co. on the letter- 

head of Aero Realty, dated June 29, 1956, services 
rendered through May 3, 1956, in the amount of 
$51,020.83 14723 14906 

126. Check No. 99 dated July 5, 1956, payable to Aero Realty 

in the amount of $51,020.83, drawn by the Abstract & 

Title Guaranty Co., escrow fund 14724 14907 

126A. Check stub from Aero Realty records recording a deposit 
of $51,020.83 and the issuance of a check for the same 
amount, payable to A. S. Green for "exchange of 
checks" 14726 14908 

127A. Check dated July 5, 1956, payable to Manufacturers 
National Bank "for cashier's check to A. S. Green" in 
the amount of $51,020.83 14726 14909 

127B. Cashier's check No. S320333 dated July 5, 1956, payable 

to A. S. Green in the amount of $51,020.83 14726 14910 

128A. Cashier's check No. C107974 dated July 6, 1956, payable 
to Lamiel Le Vine doing business as F. & L. D. Co. in 
the amount of $25,010.42 14726 14911 

128B. Cashier's check No. C 107973 dated July 6, 1956, payable 
to Blanche Pearl and William Pearl in the amount of 
$6,252.61 14726 14712 

128C. Cashier's check No. C107972 dated Julv 6, 1956, payable 

to Jerome Kirschbaum in the amount of $6,252.60 14726 14913 

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



CONTENTS V 

Introduced Appears 
128D. Cashier's check No. C107971 dated July 6, 1956, payable on page on page 

to Harold N. Rosemont in the amount of $6,252.60 14726 14914 

128E. Cashier's check No. C 107970 dated July 6, 1956, payable 

to Ira E. Falk and Bell R. Falk in the amount of 

$6,252.60 14726 14915 

128F. Cashier's check No. C107979 dated July 6, 1956, payable 

to A. S. Green in the amount of $1,000 14726 14916 

129. Letter dated August 17, 1956, addressed to Manny Harris, 

Detroit, Mich., and signed "North American Develop- 
ment Co., by Jack I. Winshall" 14727 14917 

130. Affidavit of Lawrence L. Cook as to appraisal ofWinchester 

Village Land Co., together with foreclosure report from 

Abstract & Title Guaranty Co 14761 (*) 

131. Audit report of the books of local 245 as of February 1950_. 14765 (*) 

132. Letter dated September 24, 1954, addressed to Harold 

Gibbons from Einar O. Mohn, appointing Mr. Gibbons 

trustee of local 245 14767 (*) 

133. Criminal record of Branch Wainwright 14769 (*) 

134. Criminal record of Carl Cates, together with photographs.. 14778 (*) 

135. Letter dated August 11, 1954, addressed to Mr. Amos Reni- 

ker, care of local union 823, Joplin, Mo., and signed by 
James R. Hoffa, together with record of payment of dues 
in local 823 14791 (*) 

136. Letters from James R. Hoffa to various members of local 

823, in Joplin, together with lists of people declared elig- 
ible and ineligible as nominees for office in the local 14791 (*) 

137. Minutes of special nomination meeting of local 823, dated 

August 1, 1954, conducted by James R. Hoffa 14792 (*) 

138. Document of action filed with National Labor Relations 

Board by Buxton & Cawthorn charging unfair labor 
practices on the part of Roadway Express and local 
union 823 14794 (*) 

139. Minutes of regular meeting of local 823, dated May 5, 

1957 14803 (*) 

140. FBI report on findings of examination of above-mentioned 

minutes 14805 (*) 

141A. Check No. 7594 dated April 1, 1954, payable to George S. 
Fitzgerald in the amount of $3,600, drawn by joint coun- 
cil No. 43, Detroit, Mich 14839 14918 

141B. Check No. 1548 dated April 5, 1954, payable to Philip 
Gillis in the amount of $3,500 and drawn on account 
of George Fitzgerald and signed by George Fitzgerald.. 14839 14919 

142A. Check No. 3507 dated October 23, 1957, payable to "Cash" 
in the amount of $25,000, drawn by Truck Drivers Local 
299 and signed by Frank Collins 14845 14920 

142B. Check No. 1704 dated October 23, 1957, payable to "Cash" 
in the amount of $25,000, drawn by Food and Beverage 
Drivers Local 337 and signed bv Bert Brennan 14845 14921 

143. Check No. 1961 dated August 8, 1956, payable to Benjamin 

Dranow in the amount of $5,000 and signed by George 

Fitzgerald 14848 14922 

144. Check No. 1525 dated February 13, 1954, payable to 

Lawrence Burns in the amount of $2,400 and signed by 

George Fitzgerald 14851 14923 

144A. Check No. 49 dated February 12, 1954, payable to George 
S. Fitzgerald in the amount of $2,400, drawn by joint 
council 43, good and welfare fund, and signed by James 
R. Hoffa 14852 14924 

145. Check No. 397 dated January 3, 1955, payable to Joe 

Louisell in the amount of $5,000, drawn bv joint council 

43, defense fund, and signed bv Frank Collins 14853 14925 

146. Check No. 6799 dated February 15, 1955, payable to 

Hubbard Associates in the amount of $1,000, drawn by 
Food and Beverage Drivers Local 337 and signed by 

Bert Brennan 14869 14926 

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



VI CONTENTS 

147. Agreement dated March 14, 1955, for the sale of May bury Introduced Appear 
Grand property bv the UAW Education Association to 0D page on page 
local 337 for $36,500 and signed by Bert Brennan 14869 (*) 

148A. Check No. 7694 dated July 6, 1955, payable to Hubbard 
Associates in the amount of $17,247, drawn by Food and 
Beverage Drivers Local 337 and signed by Bert Brennan. 14869 14927 

148B. Check No. 9847 dated July 5, 1955, payable to Hubbard 
Associates in the amount of $18,247.91, drawn on Truck 

Drivers Local 299 and signed by Frank Collins 14869 14928 

149. Building agreement between Detroit Teamsters Temple 
Association, Inc., and the A. N. Hickson, Inc., for work 
on the Maybury property 14869 14929 

150A. Check No. 11030 dated October 25, 1955, payable to James 
R. Hoffa in the amount of $2,976.30, drawn by Truck 
Drivers Union 299 and signed by Frank Collins 14870 14930 

150B. Check No. 8323 dated October 25, 1955, payable to Bert 
Brennan in the amount of $2,976.30, drawn on Food and 
Beverage Drivers Local 337 and signed by Bert Brennan. 14870 14931 
151. Check No. 3 dated January 4, 1956, payable to Herbert 
Grosberg in the amount of $15,000 and signed by Charles 
Grosberg 14870 14932 

152A. Check No. 3710 dated January 9, 1956, payable to James 
R. Hoffa in the amount of $7,500, drawn by Herbert 
Grosberg 14871 14933 

152B. Check No. 3711 dated January 9, 1956, payable to Owen 
B. Brennan in the amount of $7,500 and drawn by 
Herbert Grosberg 14871 14934 

153. Appraisal dated January 16, 1956, prepared by Fred E. 

Bigelow, addressed to Maybury Grand Medical Building, 
to the attention of James P. Hannan, secretary-treas- 
urer, and furnished to Michigan Conference of Teamsters 
welfare fund trustees in connection with a request for a 
loan in the amount of $250 14873 (*) 

154. Check No. 1753 dated March 16, 1956, payable to A. N. 

Hickson, Inc., in the amount of $184,719.84, drawn by 

Michigan Conference of Teamsters Welfare Fund 14876 14935 

155A. Check No. 7 (voucher No. 53) dated March 27, 1956, pay- 
able to Teamsters Local 299 in the amount of $20,000, 
drawn by Maybury Grand Medical, Inc 14877 14936 

155B. Check No. 8 (voucher No. 54) dated March 27, 1956, 
payable to Teamsters Local 337 in the amount of 
$20,000, drawn by Maybury Grand Medical, Inc 14877 14937 

156. Check No. 195 (voucher No. 155) dated July 19, 1956, 

payable to Bert Brennan and James R. Hoffa in the 
amount of $15,000, drawn by Maybury Grand Medical, 
Inc . .. 14877 14938 

157. Check No. 242 (voucher No. 305) dated August 17, 1956, 

payable to Bert Brennan and James R. Hoffa in the 
amount of $16,000 and drawn by Maybury Grand 
Medical, Inc 14877 14939 

158. Check No. 11 (voucher No. 52) dated January 27, 1957, 

payable to Charles Hannan, architect, in the amount of 

$1,027, drawn by Maybury Grand Medic? 1, Inc 14877 14940 

159. Certificate of election of officers for local 614 dated May 17, 

1958, at the time the ballots were counted 14887 (*) 

160. Letter dated April 28, 1958, addressed to Raleigh Fetherlyn 

and signed by Robert Holmes, vice president, joint 

council No. 43 14888 (*) 

Proceedings of — 

September 2, 1958 14555 

September 3, 1958 14607 

September 4, 1958 14703 

September 9, 1958 14729 

September 10, 1958 14811 

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



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 1958 

United States Senate, 
Select Committee on Improper Activities 

in the Labor or Management Field, 

Washington, D. G. 

The select committee met at 2 p. m., pursuant to Senate Resolution 
221, agreed to January 29, 1958, in the caucus room, Senate Office 
Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select com- 
mittee) presiding. 

Present : Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas ; Senator 
Irving M. Ives, Republican, New York. 

Also present : Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel ; Jerome S. Adler- 
man, assistant 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 ; Walter J. Sheridan, investigator ; James Mun- 
die, investigator, Treasury Department ; John Flanagan, investigator, 
GAO ; Alfred Vitarelli, investigator, GAO ; Ruth Young Watt, chief 
clerk. 

(At the reconvening of the committee, the following members are 
present : Senators McClellan and Ives.) 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. The first wit- 
ness is Mr. Gibbons? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is right. 

The Chairman. Mr. Gibbons, be sworn, please, sir. You do solemn- 
ly swear the evidence you shall give before this Senate select commit- 
tee shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so 
help you God ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF HAROLD J. GIBBONS, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
DAVID PREVIANT AND STANLEY ROSENBLUM 

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

Mr. Gibbons. My name is Harold J. Gibbons. The address is 508 
Altus Place, Kirkwood, Mo. The business is union representative. 

The Chairman. Mr. Gibbons, you have counsel present ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I do, sir. 

The Chairman. Counsel, identify yourself, please. 

Mr. Previant. My name is David Previant. I am a member of the 
Wisconsin Bar. My office is located in Milwaukee, Wis. Associated 

14555 



14556 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

with me, if the chairman please, is Stanley Rosenblum, an attorney 
from St. Louis. With the chairman's leave, there is another gentle- 
man here with Mr. Rosenblum, who is a member of Mr. Gibbons' staff, 
and who is familiar with the various documents we have with us. 
May he sit next to Mr. Rosenblum during the period of the ques- 
tioning? 

The Chairman. He may. Identify him, please. 

Mr. Previant. Charles P. Chuckray. He is an accountant. 

The Chairman. Mr. Gibbons, will you elaborate upon your present 
position as representative of organized labor by stating the various 
positions you now hold ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Could I get some relief from the cameras so I can bet- 
ter concentrate on questions, Senator, if you don't mind ? 

The Chairman. You may. The cameras here? 

Mr. Gibbons. These here in front of me. 

The Chairman. All right. Respect the orders of the Chair. 

Give us, I think, right in the beginning, the various official posi- 
tions you hold with the union. 

Mr. Gibbons. I am an international vice president of the Interna- 
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters. I am the executive assistant to the 
general president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. I 
am the secretary-treasurer of the Central Conference of Teamsters. 
I am the national director of the warehouse division of the Interna- 
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters. I am the president of the Missouri- 
Kansas Conference of Teamsters. 

The Chairman. Missouri-Kansas 

Mr. Gibbons. Conference of Teamsters. I am the trustee and presi- 
dent of the St. Louis Joint Council, No. 13, of the International Broth- 
erhood of Teamsters. I am the secretary-treasurer of local union 688 
of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. 

The Chairman. Local 688 ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. I am president of the Labor Health Institute, 
a corporation. And I am president of the Unity Welfare Association. 

The Chairman. Unity Welfare ? 

Mr. Gibbons. A pro forma corporation also. Unity Welfare Asso- 
ciation. 

I have some other capacities of a more minor nature. I don't think 
they would constitute jobs. Such as I am a trustee representing the 
union on a trust fund in St. Louis. I am the secretary of the commit- 
tee, the joint committee, between the Butcher Workmen's Union and 
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. 

The Chairman. What is that last one ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I am secretary of the joint committee of the Inter- 
national Brotherhood of Teamsters and the — I don't know the exact 
title of the other union, but it is the Butchers' Union, the National 
Butchers Union. I am also secretary of the joint committee of the 
International .Brotherhood of Teamsters and the Upholsters Inter- 
national Union. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Gibbons. And from time to time I may serve in other capacities 
on a temporary basis. 

The Chairman. Are you also trustee of a number of locals? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14557 

The Chairman. Will you identify the locals ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. Currently I am the trustee of local 405, in the 
city of St. Louis. I am the trustee of, I believe the number is 833, 
in Jefferson City, Mo., I am the trustee of one local union still in 
trustee in Kansas City. 

The Chairman. Do you remember the number of it ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Local 955 ? 

Mr. Gibbons. 955, 1 believe it is. 

The Chairman. That is Kansas City ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, Missouri. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Gibbons. And I believe that is all. I mentioned the fact I was 
trustee and president of the joint council. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Gibbons. I believe that is all, unless you can bring something 
else to my attention. 

The Chairman. Senator Ives ? 

Senator Ives. I would like to ask Mr. Gibbons a question. 

Have you a college degree ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, sir. 

Senator Ives. Did you ever attend college ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ives. How far did you get ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I think I finished 1 year at the University of Chicago. 
I have spent a couple of summers at the University of Chicago. I 
spent 1 summer at Wisconsin. 

Senator Ives. What were you specializing in ? 

Mr. Gibbons. During the summers I was taking courses in teaching 
techniques, teachers' education, and in the 1 year that I spent at the 
university I just took the regular freshman's course. Actually, I 
didn't even have the qualifications for entry, but through the good 
offices of Paul Douglas, one of your associates, he managed to get me 
in there on the basis of my background, experience, and previous 
readings. 

Senator Ives. What were you aiming to be when you got through, 
a teacher, a professor ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. At that time I suspect teaching was my great 
interest. 

Senator Ives. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Mr. Gibbons, can you give us the approximate 
membership of these three separate locals that you are trustee of? 

Mr. Gibbons. If I can stick to approximates, all right, Senator. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Gibbons. In the cab local in St. Louis, I think you will find 
approximately 1,200 members. In the one over in Kansas City, you 
will probably find 1,800 to 2,000 members. 

The Chairman. And Jefferson City ? 

Mr. Gibbons. In Jefferson City you will probably find less than 
1,000 members. 

The Chairman. What is the membership of local 688 ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, that fluctuates. It has been as high as 11,000. 
In the last few years it has probably dropped to approximately 9,000. 
But it has at one point reached as high as 11,000. It is about the 



14558 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

fourth or fifth biggest local in the international. It is always re- 
ferred to as a local of 10,000 members, but I think it would be closer 
to nine at this date. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions at this point? 

All right, Mr. Kennedy, you may proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about local 21 ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I think if my memory serves me right that has been 
taken out of trusteeship, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is Hannibal, Mo. ? 

Mr. Gibbons. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And local 245, in Springfield, Mo. ? 

Mr. Gibbons. 245? Is Mr. Hoffa or myself trustee of that? I 
could very well be the trustee of that. In fact, I am certain I am. It 
is one that I missed. 

The Chairman. What was the number ? 

Mr. Kennedy. 245, Springfield. 

Mr. Gibbons. Incidentally, it is in the process, as you know, of 
coming out of trusteeship, and at the moment a stop order was put 
out by the monitors. It would have been out by now. 

Mr. Kennedy. 245 is Springfield, Mo. How many members does 
that have, approximately? 

Mr. Gibbons. 1,500 to 1,800, 1 would think. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did local 21 come out, do you know ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No; I would have to check the records at the inter- 
national office. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you also the designee of other locals that are 
under trusteeship, such as the situation in 447 ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I believe that is the only one where I take an active 
part in administering its affairs. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just 447 ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I believe that is the only one where you would find 
such a designation. 

The Chairman. Is that in trusteeship ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes ; that is in trusteeship, but under President Hoffa. 

The Chairman. But you are active ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I am more or less his agent in administering the 
affairs of that local, Senator. 

The Chairman. What is that local ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Local 447. That is the Carnival and Allied Workers 
of the United States of America. 

The Chairman. Where is it located ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the one in question. 

The Chairman. What is the approximate membership of that, Mr. 
Gibbons? 

Mr. Gibbons. I would say it averages out to about 900 members. 
Maybe that is a little high, even, but no more than 900 members. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you give us a little of your background, Mr. 
Gibbons? Where were you born? Where were you educated? 

Mr. Gibbons. I was born in Taylorborough, Pa. I was educated 
in the schools of Taylorborough. I went to night school in Scranton, 
Pa. I went to night school in Chicago, 111. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where is that? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14559 

Mr. Gibbons. Chicago, 111. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were 1 of 23 children, is that right ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. I was the youngest of 23. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did you leave Pennsylvania, and how old 
were you ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I left Pennsylvania in 1929. I left Taylorborough 
after 1 year in high school after finishing my freshman year in high 
school. That ended my formal education as such for a long period. 
I went to Scranton, Pa., where I lived until 1929. I continuously 
went to night school. I took courses in the high school of Scranton, 
Pa. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you working there at all ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I did restaurant work, with the exception of a short 
period when I was doing common laborer's work on a construction 
project. I went to Chicago in 1929 and again took up construction 
work, common labor. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were born in 1910 ? 

Mr. Gibbons. 1910. In 1931, approximately, I got a job in a 
warehouse in Chicago, and I worked there until some time in 1932 
when the depression was at its height and was laid off. I was un- 
employed. I went to Wisconsin for the summer for a 6-week course 
there on a scholarship arrangement, and returned to St. Louis un- 
employed and worked on various Government projects of the WPA 
and the educational setup. I did some teaching in that period for the 
next few years. 

Mr. Kennedy. When would that be? 

Mr. Gibbons. I would say in 1933 and 1934. I did teaching first, 
and later was on a textbook writing project. I was one of the writers 
writing textbooks. 

Mr. Kennedy. What were the textbooks on ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Generally the field of economics, on things like 
unemployment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Under whose name were they published ? 

Mr. Gibbons. They were published under the — I forget the initials 
of the agency which published them — but it was a Federal educational 
project. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you the only author ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No; there were a series, about a half dozen, who 
were writing. It was under a fellow who you happen to know, Milt 
Disney, who headed that project, 

Mr. Kennedy. When did you first meet him ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I guess it was in those days. 

Mr. Kennedy. Early 1930's? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, probably later than that, 1933 and 1934. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us then what you did ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I was active then in the American Federation of 
Teachers. I became an international and national vice president of 
the American Federation of Teachers. I spent about 3 months 
organizing for them around the eastern part of the country. I guess 
that brings me up to 1935 or 1936. I was active in the teachers union. 
I think in the spring of 1937 I put out a strike bulletin for the taxi- 
cab workers strike in the city of Chicago. It ran 22 days. After 
that at Frank Rosenblum's request, of the Amalgamated Clothing 



14560 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Workers Union, I went over and worked generally as his assistant. 
He was CIO director of the city of Chicago. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question there ? 

The Chairman. Senator Ives. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Gibbons, did you say you have taught? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, on Goverment projects. 

Senator Ives. Just in what kind of a project were you teaching? 

Mr. Gibbons. We had educational classes. 

Senator Ives. Who were in your class ? 

Mr. Gibbons. For instance, I had one of the classes that I taught 
in a building in Chicago, it was a group of businessmen who wanted 
to learn public speaking. 

Senator Ives. You taught public speaking ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I taught public speaking. 

Senator Ives. Where did you get your instruction in public 
speaking ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I studied textbooks on it, Senator, and sort of just 
picked it up. 

Senator Ives. I imagine you are a pretty good speaker, but I won- 
der if you had any formal instruction in it. 

Mr. Gibbons. No; I had no formal instruction. I had teacher's 
training, techniques of teaching, things that you should watch out 
for, things that you should avoid, the approaches you might make, 
and that sort of things. 

Senator Ives. Who appointed you to this position of instructor in 
these courses ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I would not know the individual names of the people 
now. It was in this period of 1932-33 when the WPA educational 
classes with recruiting staff and conducting sessions. 

Senator Ives. In other words, there is no particular requirement 
that must be met by those doing the instructing? 

Mr. Gibbons. I would assume that they had to have some element 
of competence. Otherwise, they were not going to put you in front of 
a bunch of businessmen and expect them to hang around very long. 
There was no formal educational requirement in that sense. I did 
not have those. 

Senator Ives. Just what businessmen did you have, may I ask, who 
were trying to learn public speaking from you, who had never had 
any experience in public speaking. 

Mr. Gibbons. They did not particularly ask for Mr. Gibbons. 
They requested from the WPA a teacher to be assigned to their 
group. They formed their own group. They requested a teacher. 
I was assigned to that particular group by whoever was in charge at 
that moment of the operation. 

Senator Ives. You mean that you, who never had any experience 
or training in that field of public speaking, were assigned to teach 
public speaking ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't know whether you can say that I did not 
have any experience. I did not have any training. I had training 
in teaching, No. 1. 

Senator Ives. Just a minute. Let us start on that. What train- 
ing had you had in teaching ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I spent two summers at the University of Chicago. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14561 

Senator Ives. Teaching what ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Not teaching; learning. 

Senator Ives. You said you had experience in teaching, though, 
before you started teaching public speaking. 

Mr. Gibbons. No; I had experience in public speaking, No. 1. 

Senator Ives. What kind of experience, making speeches yourself ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. 

Senator Ives. That is all you ever had in that field ? 

Mr. Gibbons. That is right. 

Senator Ives. You never had a textbook ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Oh, yes, yes, yes. I studied textbooks. 

Senator Ives. What textbook did you study ? 

Mr. Gibbons. As of right now, Senator, this is a couple of years 
ago, and I am hardly in a position to name the particular textbooks 
which we looked at and studied. It has been a long time since I did 
any teaching in public speaking. 

Senator Ives. How many years ago did you say that was ? 

Mr. Gibbons. 1933 or 1934. 

Senator Ives. 25 years. I can understand how you would forget 
the authors by this time. 

Mr. Gibbons. Or even the name of the book. 

Senator Ives. The reason I am inquiring in that particular 
field 

Mr. Gibbons. This is all a matter of public record. One of your 
colleagues in the Senate, Senator Douglas, was aware. Lillian 
Herstein, who was active in that project who taught me, she was one 
of the instructors at the University of Chicago when I was a student. 

Senator Ives. She taught you how to teach ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. She was one of the instructors at the school 
where I received my teachers training at the University of Chicago. 

Senator Ives. How long did you teach ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I suspect I taught from maybe 3 years — 1933-36 
or 1935. 

Senator Ives. That was the end of your teaching ? 

Mr. Gibbons. That is all. 

Senator Ives. Then you became an organizer of the Teachers Union. 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes; the American Federation of Teachers. 

Senator Ives. The American Federation of Teachers ? 

Mr. Gibbons. That is a teachers union. 

Senator Ives. Wait a minute. The Teachers Union in New York 
City is a little bit different. 

Mr. Gibbons. I am aware of the situation on the Guild. 

Senator Ives. You better not get into that. 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes ; I am talking now about the American Federa- 
tion of Teachers. 

Senator Ives. And you never had but 3 years experience in teaching, 
and yet you became an organizer for the Teachers Union or American 
Federation of Teachers ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I was well steeped in the philosophy of the labor 
movement at that time and this was the big thing that one had to 
know to be an effective organizer. 

Senator Ives. Where did you learn the philosophy of the labor 
movement ? Chicago ? 



14562 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Gibbons. No ; I got most of it at a combination of the Univer- 
sity of Wisconsin 

Senator Ives. Did you go to a school for workers at the University 
of Wisconsin ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. 

Senator Ives. Who was your instructor ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Ernest Schwartzkreiber was the director, a very fine 
person. 

Senator Ives. Yes ; he is. 

Mr. Gibbons. A woman whose name escapes me at the moment was 
also there. After the experience at the university, I did extensive 
reading in the field of economics and labor. 

Senator Ives. Would you say, knowing your colleagues in the labor 
movement as you undoubtedly do, that you are the best informed in 
the labor movement itself ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No; I would not. Far from me to say anything of 
that nature because you don't get all of your knowledge in the labor 
movement out of books. You get it from real experience. 

Senator Ives. I understand that. I have studied the labor move- 
ment for a number of years. 

Mr. Gibbons. There are a lot of scholars in the labor movement that 
are occupying active positions. 

Senator Ives. I know there are. I want to get your background 
because of what may be developed where you are concerned and I am 
wondering how it happened. Go ahead. I am through. Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Will you go on from 1934 to 1935 ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I got in the taxicab strike in 1937. In 1935 and 1936 
I was either teaching, because I went organizing for the American 
Federation of Teachers, I quit whatever I was doing and worked for 
a period of some 3 months, traveling the eastern part of the United 
States, winding up at a statewide meeting at Indianapolis of teachers. 

Mr. Kennedy. When were you involved in the taxicab strike ? 

Mr. Gibbons. This was, I think, in the spring of 1937 in Chicago. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is Teamsters. 

Mr. Gibbons. That is right. I first edited the strike bulletin. 
Then when Doug Anderson went to Minneapolis to work with the 
Textile — he was the organizer — I took over as the organizer of that 
situation. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was Joey Glinko involved in that? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't believe so. It doesn't ring a bell, and I don't 
recall having met him in those days. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did you first meet him ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I would not be able to tell you, but it is a relatively 
recent date. 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't work with him during the 1930's? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, I don't recall knowing of him being involved 
in that particular strike. 

Mr. Kennedy. Go ahead, please. 

Mr. Gibbons. I went over and worked with Frank Rosenblum at 
the Amalgamated Clothing Workers until 1938 when we had a reces- 
sion and we had to cut staff in the Chicago area. I went out to act 
as a subregional director for the Textile Workers Organizing Com- 
mittee in those days, I believe, at Louisville, Ky. That was in 1938. 



IMPROPER ACTWITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14563 

I stayed there in 1938 and 1940. In 1940 I extended my opera- 
tions into Kansas and St. Louis for the Textile Workers. Then in 
1941, around June of 1941, I accepted an offer of the United Retail, 
Wholesale, and Department Store Workers Union to become their St. 
Louis director. I worked as director in St. Louis of the Retail, 
Wholesale and Department Store Employees Union, CIO, until the 
end of 1947. 

Toward the end of 1947, 1 believe it was, and then in an intraunion 
dispute the St. Louis organization withdrew from the Retail, Whole- 
sale, and for 1 year we were independent. I think that was mostly 
for the year 1948 and the beginning of 1949 we affiliated with the 
International Brotherhood of Teamsters. In that period from 1949 
to the present time I have been the chief administrative officer in 
local 688. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. What was the date that you were president of the 
United — what was the union in 1948 ? 

Mr. Gibbons. When it was independent ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Gibbons. United Distribution Workers Union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did that have a local number ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No local number. It was independent. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you independent at the time ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. Until we merged with local 688 of the Team- 
sters. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have had testimony regarding the payments of 
some $78,000 to Mr. Camie, Mr. Church, and Mr. Karsh. 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. It appears that your merger amounted to what 
would appear to be, at least, a sale or purchase of the union by you. 
Would you like to make some comment on that? 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, I would say to you that there was no aspect of 
a sale or purchase involved in the merger of 688 and the United Dis- 
tribution Workers. The merger — the initial talks took place in the 
city of Chicago, with Mr. Beck. We spent many an hour going over 
the constitution of the international union, and the constitution and 
operations of the United Distribution Workers, to see whether or 
not we were eligible to come and to function under his constitution 
and what changes would be necessary. That is No. 1. No. 2, we had 
some problems which we were concerned about whether or not we 
could live with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. We did 
not know the Teamsters at that time. We were concerned, for in- 
stance, because we had a very strong position on the matter of no 
discrimination. And we were concerned about that. We were as- 
sured by Mr. Beck that there was no problem in terms of living under 
the international union. 

The whole thing was worked on by Beck and some of his associates, 
myself, and then we adjourned the meetings and when we brought 
in Larry Camie in Chicago, then we were asked, when the basic, over- 
all considerations were in order, we were asked to go ahead down to 
St. Louis and effect the merger. 



14564 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

We got into St. Louis and arrangements were made that the execu- 
tive board of local 688 should resign, and I also should appoint the— 
or we appoint the new executive board of the local union on merger. 

Secondly, all of the bank accounts were transferred over to my 
control. Larry, himself, agreed that he would be out of the picture 
entirely, he was going to retire from the labor movement, and he was 
going to become a businessman. It was at that stage — going back 
before we go any further on the details of the actual merger, on the 
part of my organization we had had a meeting of some 6,000 members. 
I can give you the exact date. It was 4,000 members at a citywide 
mass meeting held at Keihl Auditorium on January 16, 1948. By 
motion there, unanimously passed, that the officers be given a mandate 
to seek and arrange for an affiliation with the international union. 

We were conscious of the fact that as an independent union we did 
not have the strength to cope with the national change we had to deal 
with, and the combination of employers we had to face in the city of 
St. Louis. Secondly, we were good union men and we wanted to be 
part of the main stream of the American labor movement. This is 
part of the background of our seeking it. Incidentally, I met to try 
to work out affiliations with the Textile Workers and several other 
unions in the CIO. 

Secondly, in our union we have every 23 members having a shop 
steward, and they function every month in a shop stewards' council. 
They were authorized to approve any arrangements that we would 
make. At the time that we completed the arrangements with Camie, 
in which the executive board, by majority, became United Distribu- 
tion Worker people, and the finances were turned over to the United 
Distribution Workers, the merged union, the new officers, I spoke to 
the entire executive board, the staff, and the office girls. 

I recognized that this was a considerable change from their old 
operation, and in many instances some may feel they could not func- 
tion or certainly did not want to function under the new setup, and I 
voluntarily proposed to them that those who were 3 years still to go, 
who did not want to work under the new setup, could resign with 
severance pay, and those who wanted to work or felt they could 
work under the new setup, could continue and have jobs. 

It turned out that we took all of the office girls over, we took all of 
the staff, with the exception of Camie, and we paid the severance pay 
for the balance of the term for the members of the executive board, the 
rank and file members of the executive board. 

Immediately upon completing this, including the payment of sever- 
ance pay, I reported it back to a meeting of my steering committee, 
my executive board, and to my stewards' council. My stewards 
committee has about 40 rank-and-filers on it. My executive board 
in those days had about 60 rank-and-filers on it. 

And my stewards' council had about 250 to 300 rank-and-filers in it. 

Every detail that I was authorized to make, every arrangement I 
was authorized to make, was made known to my entire membership 
and was approved by the proper and appropriate bodies within our 
local union. 

, I at no point had the feeling, the concept, or the intent of purchasing 
anything like a local union in this particular respect. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14565 

Mr. Kennedy. Of course, they had no contract to receive that 
money, Mr. Gibbons. They had no legal right to receive the money 
that you paid to them. 

Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Kennedy, you are a lawyer. An election has 
the same standing in a court as a contract. There are cases decided on 
this. They actually had a legal right to it. 

But that was not the basis on which I gave it to them. I have 
fought for severance pay for our membership and I have in every 
one of our contracts and I receive it every time a shop shuts down or 
moves away. 

That is the basis on which I offered it, out of a sense of decency. We 
don't run a business. We run a movement. We are part of a movement. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you could have kept them on the payroll and 
used their services for another 2 or 3 years. 

Mr. Gibbons. We did offer that. But we also knew that our opera- 
tion was so entirely different from the operation of the old 688 that it 
may have been an impossibility for those men to be able to function. 

As it turned out, one of them, anyway, just could not take it, and 
said "I don't understand this operation. I want out." 

At that point, we paid him. 

The Chairman. Which one was that? 

Mr. Gibbons. That was Mr. Church. 

The Chairman. Where is the provision in your international con- 
constitution that gives you the authority to pay severance pay for 3 
years' time ? 

Mr. Gibbons. There is nothing in our international constitution 
which prohibits it. That is No. 1. At that particular moment I was 
not necessarily operating under an international constitution when I 
made that arrangement. As I pointed out to Mr. Kennedy, they had a 
legal right to it, and I had a strong feeling that I had a moral respon- 
sibility to give it. 

The Chairman. I know you say they had a legal right to it. Is 
there anything in the provisions of the union, the local, the independent 
union 

Mr. Gibbons. The provisions in the independent union is the will of 
the membership, Mr. Senator. 

The Chairman. You have no constitution or bylaws ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, sir, we had a constitution and bylaws. 

The Chairman. Was there any provision in your constitution or 
bylaws of the independent local authorizing severance pay for a 
3-year period of time ? 

Mr. Gibbons. The entire constitution, Senator, is designed to fa- 
cilitate the expression of the will of the people, and the will of the 
people in that instance was to grant this severance pay. 

It was approved by them. 

The Chairman. Must I take the answer to be no, that there was no 
provision in it ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, I would not testify to the fact that there is no 
provision in it, because there is more than just the written word in 
the constitution. 

The Chairman. There is more than the written word ? 

Mr. Gibbons. In the constitution. There is an intent and a purpose. 

21243—59 — pt. 39 2 



14566 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. At least there was no specific provision that au- 
thorized such tremendous amount of severance pay ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Certainly not in a constitution would you find any 
provision including the words $78,000. This is a permanent kind of 
document. It is not transient. It does not apply for a day. It is a 
permanent deal for a long time. It was not in there. But, likewise, 
there is nothing in our constitution which prohibited it, and I was 
acting in full concert with the provisions of our constitution and by- 
laws when I made those arrangements. 

The Chairman. Do you think there should be some provision in a 
constitution, either authorizing it and stipulating the amount, or 
should it remain without authority and leave it to the discretion of 
the officers at the time ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Is that a question, Senator ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Gibbons. The answer to it, in my opinion, Senator, is that there 
should be in every constitution responsibility of officers for each and 
every one of their acts to report back to their membership and be sub- 
ject to the approval of that membership each and every act of their 
conduct. This was in our constitution, and this was exactly what was 
followed in the case of my paying out $78,000 for the purposes of 
severance pay in the case of the merger. And this, I think, is the only 
provision 

The Chairman. Do you have a copy of the constitution of that 
local ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't have one with me, but I am pretty certain if 
there is one in existence, I will be able to find it. _ It goes back, as you 
know, now, some 10*years, but I am pretty certain that one would be 
in existence. 

The Chairman. If you have a copy of it, will you file it for the 
committee's information ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I will certainly see that it is here, probably in the next 
24 hours. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Air. Kennedy. Who had selected you to head up the combined 
unions ? 

You say you were consulting the membership. 

Mr. Gibbons. Initially, for the purpose of the merger, the executive 
board designated that I should sit as the president. As soon as the 
combined operations could be integrated, then we had our elections. 
In those days, I was elected every year. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did you get elected ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, within a year after that, because in those days 
I was elected each and every year. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who decided that you were going to stay on and 
they were going to leave ? 

Mr. Gibbons. In this particular instance, it was agreed by their 
executive board that they would resign as part of the merger. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is reasonably good operation for them because 
they were going to resign and receive $78,000 and turn the union over 
to you. If that is not a sale of the union, Mr. Gibbons, I don't know 
what it is. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14567 

Mr. Gibbons. No, the decision to resign did not come after there 
was any discussion of $78,000, necessarily, Mr. Kennedy. As I recol- 
lect it, it was no part of any discussion that, in return for $78,000, "We 
will resign and turn the local over to you." 

Mr. Kennedy. There had to be a selection of a leader. You said 
they decided they would resign and you would head up the operation. 

Mr. Gibbons. That is correct, because I headed up the operation 
which had three times as many members as they had. 

Mr. Kennedy. What they did for $78,000 was turn the operation 
over to you. 

Mr. Gibbons. No, they did not for any $78,000 turn anything over. 
They said, decided and agreed, perfectly logical, that "This man that 
heads up an organization three times as big as ours is obviously the 
person who is entitled to become the president of it." 

It had nothing to do with any consideration of $78,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would think that would be up to the membership 
to make that decision, Mr. Gibbons, not the executive board that is 
going to receive the $78,000. 

Mr. Gibbons. I agree with you 100 percent that conceivably the 
membership should have been consulted. But it was a temporary 
arrangement pending an opportunity for the first election. There was 
no question as to what the results would be because I was already 
elected by a vast majority of even the combined organization. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was the membership consulted about the payment of 
the $78,000 ? 

Mr. Gd3bons. The membership of the United Distribution Workers 
has authorized their representatives to make the arrangements. This 
was part of the arrangement. It was immediately reported back to 
the rank and file and each and every member of our organization knew 
about it and approved it, the reports which were submitted back to 
the shop meetings in those days by their shop stewards. 

Mr. Kennedy. Each and every member was told that $78,000 had 
been paid out ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I would not testify that each and every one of them 
did, but certainly it was widespread knowledge in our local union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were they specifically told at a membership meeting 
that $78,000 had been paid out ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I suspect they were at the second membership meeting, 
the next membership meeting. But we never did hold in those days 
any single membership meeting as such, unless it was a special city- 
wide mass meeting. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you give us some notes that show the fact that 
you paid out $78,000 and that it was reported to the membership ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't have any notes here that say 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you any minutes there? 

Mr. Gibbons. I have no minutes here either. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have Mr. Camie testifying that the membership 
was never informed, at least of local 688. 

Mr. Gibbons. Which membership are you talking about? 

Mr. Kennedy. Local 688. 

Mr. Gibbons. I am not speaking for the membership of 688. I am 
speaking for the United Distribution Workers. 



14568 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. As I understood your testimony, you were then 
going to be the head of both groups, both organizations. The money 
that was used, at least in part, came from the treasury of local 688. 
You certainly had an obligation to them to inform them that this 
money was being used for this purpose. 

Mr. Gibbons. I had no contact with the membership of 688. I had 
no responsibility in that organization. If I was an officer and had 
responsibility in that organization I am sure I would have done as I 
did in my own organization. I just had to assume that this organiza- 
tion was informed. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about when Mr. Karsh and Mr. Church were 
paid off a year later? 

Did you inform the membership at that time? 

Mr. Gibbons. I certainly informed — I operated in that particular 
instance thoroughly within the framework of my responsibilities, my 
authority, and it was adequately reported back to the people. 

Mr. Kennedy. When you say adequately reported back to the 
people, we have had examples of that before, Mr. Gibbons. My 
question was, Did you inform the membership that you were paying 
this $36,000 to Karsh and Church? 

The fact is you did not. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, just a minute before you come to any fast 
conclusions, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. All right. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Gibbons. All I can tell you in terms of the authority in the 
case of Karsh and others is that it was reported to the proper bodies ; 
namely, the executive board and the steward's council. The expendi- 
tures are in the financial reports. The financial reports were 
adequately approved by the rank and file members of our union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could I see those financial reports? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't have those financial reports, but if there are 
any expenditures made in our union, they are included in a financial 
report. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it specifically shown that they were receiving 
this money and what it was for ; that these people were receiving money 
and were doing no work for it? 

(Witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Gibbons. Unfortunately, I am informed that we don't have 
financial reports that far back so I am not in a position to state how 
they showed up on the financial reports. 

The Chairman. Did you say fortunately, no, unfortunately? 

Mr. Kennedy. You never made any announcement at any general 
membership meeting? 

Mr. Gibbons. We didn't hold general membership meetings, to my 
knowledge, in those days. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never took a vote or poll amongst the members 
as to whether they wished this money to be paid to these individuals? 

Mr. Gibbons. We followed whatever constitutional procedure was 
in effect at that time, the constitution which the membership approved. 
If they didn't call for polling the membership then we didn't. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14569 

Mr. Kennedy. You stated about 5 minutes ago that all these things 
should be approved by the membership, that your operation of the 
union should be approved by the membership. Here was the payment 
of a great sum of money, and I am asking you whether the membership 
was informed specifically and whether they approved of it. That is all 
I am asking you. 

What is the answer ? 

Mr. Gibbons. The membership was informed through the regular 
channels of our organization and the entire transaction was approved 
by the proper bodies. 

Mr. Kennedy. In the Teamsters organization that could be Jimmy 
Hoffa? 

Mr. Gibbons. To inform each member of the union this was a physi- 
cal impossibility. It was mentioned at the various units and division 
meetings of the union and in reports of the staff. 

Mr. Kennedy. How was it mentioned ? 

Mr. Gibbons.; It was a matter of great public notice in the St. 
Louis press. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have not found that either. 

Mr. Gibbons. It was published, I am sure, in both the two news- 
papers plus the labor paper. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have not found that either. The first time we 
hear any mention of it is when your union and yourself was under 
investigation by a grand jury some years later and at that time the 
only mention made is the money to Lawrence Camie for $36,000. 
Then it says on page 6 of this booklet that you put out, "Defense of 
St. Louis Teamsters Local 688," but on the question of whether the 
new combined organization paid Lawrence Camie, the sum of $36,000 
as severance pay, the imion is prepared to plead guilty. 

This particular transaction has never been a deep hidden secret of 
the organization. It was the source of a great deal of discussion at 
the time. But the decision was made and approved by the member- 
ship in 1949 ? 

Mr. Gibbons. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it ? I am asking you that. 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. When you speak of approved by the member- 
ship, when the membership say to an officer, "we are herewith and 
now delegating you to make a decision on a certain matter," whether 
it be any kind of organization position, a church, a businessman, and 
I suspect in the United States Senate, you find that this constitutes 
membership approval. I am not even certain that this was intended 
there. 

As I say I don't have it. It has been brought to my attention 
here, a question. Maybe this will help. On Tuesday, January 25, 
the question of merger was presented to stewards council. The pro- 
posal was accepted with only 3 opposing votes out of approximately 
300 cast. That was at 8 o'clock after 2 hours of debate at the Jeffer- 
son Hotel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Read in there where it says about the payment to 
these individuals. 

Mr. Gibbons. This is part of the details reported to our shop 
stewards. 



14570 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to find out if you ever informed the mem- 
bership about the payment of the money. I am sure they knew 
there was going to be a merger. I am sure that was in the news- 
papers. I am talking about the payoff. 

Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Kennedy, I have, in anticipation of these hearings, 
recommended to our rank and file that they elect a person to come up 
here and hear the facts, every question asked me, so that the member- 
ship would get a firsthand report in addition to copies of the tran- 
script. One of our members is sitting in the room. You can ask him 
whether or not he ever heard about the money that was being paid. 
This is as close as I can come to it. 

There are no secrets. Every member of our union knew about it, 
to our knowledge, that was interested knowing about it. It was dis- 
cussed before 300 shop stewards. Their only obligation is to go back 
and talk to the rank and file about what took place. They were advised 
that this would be a question of discussion before they came to the 
meeting. They discussed it with the membership as they always do 
on important issues. 

They came and voted after 2 hours' debate with 3 people dissenting. 

Mr. Kennedy. Specifically can you say that they were all informed 
of the amount of money that was being paid and the fact that these 
individuals were receiving this money ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I cannot specifically say that because it would be a 
little ridiculous for me to say that 5,000, 6,000, or 7,000 men were 
specifically told that the issue was 68,000 or 18,000 in the case of 
Church. I only know they were told at that time. The figures were 
no secret. They were published figures. Our rank and file knew 
about it. They know about it as of today. 

Mr. Kennedy. If you could give me some evidence that they knew 
that they were published, I would like to receive it. I have not seen 
anyplace where it was published. 

Mr. Gibbons. I cannot take responsibility for the inadequacies of 
your Staff. 

Mr. Kennedy. No ; all I am asking you is for some evidence of it. 
That is all. You say it was published. Give me some evidence of it. 

Mr. Gibbons. When we handled this matter I had no anticipation 
in 1958 I would be here explaining this situation or I certainly would 
have made arrangements to see that I had adequate proof. I have all 
kinds of documents. I have a thesis that discusses it in great length. 
It is the case history of the labor union. It is a Doctor of Philosophy 
thesis at Washington University. It gives you in great detail the 
things that took place. He had access to all our records when he did 
this study on our union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Has he got the money in there ? 

Mr. Gibbons. He hasn't got the money. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all I am interested in. 

Mr. Gibbons. He has a lot of interesting information about what a 
decent, clean, and democratic union 688 is. It was a very objective 
treatment of the subject, too. 

Senator Ives. If I may interrupt there, who was this student? 

Mr. Gibbons. This happened to be a Mr. Ball. He is now a teacher. 

Senator Ives. Where ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14571 

Mr. Gibbons. Pomona College. This is a dissertation presented to 
the department of sociology-anthropology of Washington University 
in partial fulfillment of a master's degree in the arts school by Harvey 
Ball, Jr. I understand he is now at Pomona College, California, 
teaching. 

Senator Ives. He now has a master's degree ? 

Mr. Gibbons. He may have gone on since this. This was published 
in 1950. 

Senator Ives. Do you know whether he received the master's degree 
as a result of that work ? 

Mr. Gibbons. This was in partial fulfillment, yes. This is from the 
library in question. 

Senator Ives. That is supposed to be a thorough analysis of what 
occurred ? 

Mr. Gibbons. It goes very thoroughly into the step-by -step details. 

Senator Ives. How did he happen to omit this very question our 
counsel is asking? 

Mr. Gibbons. How did he happen to omit it ? 

Senator Ives. Yes. Usually when undertaking a thesis like that you 
really go into the general research of the whole business. You go after 
it. It is a funny thing he did not dig that out. 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't know why he missed it, Senator. I am not a 
bit surprised that he would happen to miss it. It may be of inconse- 
quential moment. 

Senator Ives. He received a master's degree. 

Mr. Gibbons. Washington University happens to be one of the finest 
schools in the country, and I am certain that their standards are the 
highest. 

Senator Ives. There is one thing about it. Apparently the one who 
is doing this kind of work does not understand labor relations. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was Dave Beck with Washington University at that 
time? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't know. I don't know whether Dave Beck was 
ever connected with Washington University. I think you are talking 
about the University of Washington. This is Washington University 
in the city of St. Louis. It is a different school. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. Was there anything in connection with the 
violence involving your union? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, it isn't. I have not read it, actually. So I am no 
authority. There may be stuff on the violence in connection with my 
union's activities. At the moment I have not read it. 

Mr. Kennedy. We had a good deal of testimony before the commit- 
tee regarding your activities and the activities of some of the unions 
under your control in connection with violence. We had the testimony 
regarding, first from some police officers, that unions under your direc- 
tion and control have been continuously involved in violence in St. 
Louis, and then we had some specific testimony from some witnesses, 
for instance, in connection with the strike in 1953, December. 

Mr. Gibbon. They just tell me this thesis does have some of the 
violence in there. It has the strike where some violence was reputed to 
have taken place. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you set up a goon squad to operate in St. Louis 
in December 1953? 



14572 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Kennedy, at no time in all of my activities in the 
labor movement have I ever set up anything or any group which in any 
way could be construed as being a goon squad. 

Mr. Kennedy. What were these people that were meeting in De- 
cember of 1953, Sparks, Mitchell, Ferrara, Bommarito, and Licavoli ? 

Mr. Gibbons. These are rank-and-file members of our unions partici- 
pating in the winning of a strike. They are grouped only because 
they were involved in the strike and they were handling it at that time. 
They either voluntarily grouped themselves or were assigned to certain 
groups. 

Mr. Kennedy. They met about every morning at the headquarters 
and they testified before the committee that you gave them instruc- 
tions that they were to keep the cabs off the street. 

Mr. Gibbons. I probably gave them instructions to keep the cabs 
off the street at various times during the strike. That is my job, to 
get the cabs off the street when there is a strike against taxicabs, but 
to do it peacefully. 

Mr. Kennedy. How do you expect, for instance, Mr. Sparks, who at 
the age of 30 spent 19 years in prison, and Mr. Ferrara, who has a long 
criminal record, Mr. Mitchell, who spent a number of terms in the 
penitentiary, to do it peacefully ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Well 

Mr. Kennedy. There was not one of those people who did not have 
a criminal record. You told them to keep the cabs off the street. 

Mr. Gibbons. They were active in the strike. There were probably 
hundreds and hundreds of other rank and file who had no criminal 
records who were also active. 

Mr. Kennedy. I agree. How did you expect this group that was 
meeting at the headquarters to keep the cabs off the street without 
having violence in connection with it? 

Mr. Gibbons. Here is the testimony of Sparks. He says, "Talk to 
them." These are instructions from Mr. Gibbons. "Talk to them. 
Show them where they are wrong." This is the kind of conversation 
I give my people to keep the cabs off the street. 

Mr. Kennedy. He gave a little bit different impression in the 
affidavit. What about the testimony of Mr. Mitchell, and the fact 
that there was such a great deal of violence during December 1953. 
Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Sparks testified as to who was responsible for 
it and from whom they had received their instructions ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Let me just preface to some extent by saying to you 
that I am opposed to any kind of violence in labor disputes. It is my 
conviction that if labor's cause can be brought to the public, it has 
enough merit in and of itself to win their support, and their support 
is vital to the success of any strike. 

In addition to this, when violence occurs, the best you can do is to 
alienate that kind of support. Just from a very practical reason, 
aside from any moral considerations which are important in these 
things, I oppose any kind of violence in strike situations. 

Senator Ives. May I interrupt there ? Are you opposed to any kind 
of violence under any conditions ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I wanted to add one qualification I have. 

Senator Ives. Go ahead I want to hear that answer. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14573 

Mr. Gibbons. However, I am 100 percent in support of workers' 
rights to defend their union and their picket lines. If violence hap- 
pens there, I have no quarrel with it. I hate to see it. I am very 
sorry for it. But I would support those workers in that effort. 

Senator Ives. Then you are not opposed to violence under ordinary 
conditions. 

Mr. Gibbons. No, I would not say I am opposed to violence under 
certain circumstances. For instance, the war. 

Senator Ives. You knew very well that in the strike you were talk- 
ing about, that taxicab strike, your instructions invited violence. 

Mr. Gibbons. No. My instructions did not invite, Mr. Senator. 
You cannot win a strike, you cannot win a strike with the cabs on the 
streets. 

Senator Ives. No, but you told them to get the cabs off the street. 

Mr. Gibbons. That is right. 

Senator Ives. How are you going to get them off the street by peace- 
ful means if the drivers don't want to get off the street? 

Mr. Gibbons. Here is the sworn testimony of his witness, not mine. 

Senator Ives. I do not care about that I want the facts. 

Mr. Gibbons. I will tell you how. By reasoning with those people, 
by talking to them, by pointing out the error of their ways. 

Senator Ives. That did not work. You had violence. 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, it did. We had violence. 

Senator Ives. Certainly. You are bound to. You can't help it. 
I haven't anything further to ask you. I just wanted to clear that up. 
You are in favor of violence. You cannot avoid violence, you say. 

Mr. Gibbons. I did not say I am in favor of violence. I think the 
American people hate violence that takes place in war, for instance. 

Senator Ives. I am not talking about the American people. I am 
talking about you. 

Mr. Gibbons. This is very comparable to my attitude, Senator. I 
am opposed to initiating any kind of violence in a strike situation. 
I don't think it serves our ends. 

Senator Ives. The difference between what you are after and what 
happens in time of war when the United States is concerned are as 
different as night and day. 

Mr. Gibbons. In that you and I would have to tend to disagree, 
because I think there is a parallel there. 

Senator Ives. I think we would definitely disagree. 

Mr. Gibbons. There is a parallel there inasmuch as it relates to my 
relation with my membership. 

Senator Ives. It is awfully difficult to find it. 

(At this point, the following members were present; Senators 
McClellan and Ives.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Gibbons, for instance, in telling Harold Sparks 
to keep the cabs off the street, when he has a record that, at the age 
of 30, he had spent 19 years in prisons and reformatory. Has a repu- 
tation as a stickup man, a muscle man, a burglar, a gun carrier, and 
disposer of stolen furs. He was sentenced for 12 cases of burglary and 
larceny and 1 case of robbery. He was arrested for housebreaking 
and two cases of burglary and larceny. Numerous arrests for in- 
vestigation and suspicion of robbery. He was transferred from the 
State penitentiary to the State hospital for the insane at one time. 



14574 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

You are telling Harold Sparks to keep the cabs off the street. What 
do you expect is going to happen ? 

Mr. Gibbons. First, so there is no doubt in the exchange between 
Senator Ives and myself, I say unequivocally I am opposed to any 
initiation of any violence in any strike situation, and I regret on those 
occasions when it does occur. 

This is just so that the record is clear and there is no confusion on 
that issue. 

Senator Ives. Wait a minute. That is not according to the record. 
What you do is to invite violence. 

Mr. Gibbons. You have to quarrel with that, Senator. 

You certainly have every right to make that point. 

Senator Ives. I have every right to reason it out that way, and I 
cannot reason it out any other way. 

Mr. Gibbons. That is correct. But I want it clear, my own philos- 
ophy on this question. Now in regards to Mr. Sparks 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me summarize some of these people that you 
were telling these things to. For instance, Joe Bommarito was an 
associate of known hoodlums in St. Louis, he threatened to kill Norman 
Fortner, drive over his wife, and kill his child. He has been arrested 
for assault to do great bodily harm, malicious destruction of property, 
and numerous other arrests for gambling. He runs a crap game con- 
tinuously, even as a union official at the present time. Joseph Bona 
is a known associate of prostitutes, assaults, arrested for prostitution, 
assault to kill, and numerous arrests for investigation. 

Do you want to give him a list of these people ? I will give you a list 
of the people, and I will not read their names out. 

I wouldn't read their names into the record. But I want you to 
look at some of the people who were working out of the union head- 
quarters, and to whom you gave these instructions. 

The Chairman. About the list, I want to know first how many of 
them were members of his union. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were all, of course, members of the union, but 
just some of them were officials. 

Here is a copy. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Gibbons. Let's talk about Sparks and Bommarito, and who 
else did you mention? 

You are not putting them in? 

Mr. Kennedy. They are all in there. The third man down there 
is for stabbing, drugstore holdup, arrested for assault to kill, rob- 
bery, placed on probation for robbery. The third one down on the 
first page, do you see it? 

The fourth one down is known to be a procurer of women, fined 
for beating a news photographer; fined for prostitution, placed his 
wife in a bawdy house, arrested for rape and peace disturbance ; two 
cases of carrying concealed weapons, plus numerous arrests for pros- 
titution, sentenced to 2 years on one occasion and 90 days on another 
occasion for auto theft. 

The next one is vagrancy, nonsupport, internal revenue, white 
slavery, grand larceny, armed robbery, and carrying concealed 
weapons. 

The next one, on the second page, nonsupport, prostitution, peace 
disturbance, and bogus checks. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14575 

Another one was arrested for shooting his mother, peace disturb- 
ance, assault with intent to kill, and 2 years for burglary. 

The next one, malicious destruction of property, assault to do great 
bodily harm, peace disturbance, and petit larceny. 

Mr. Previant. Excuse me, counsel, is it the charge here that these 
people are officers of this union ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No. But these are the people that meet at the 
union hall, been identified as meeting at the union hall, and were 
the ones that were told to go out and keep the cabs off the street. 

My only point is that when you tell these people to keep the cabs 
off the street, that you have these acts of violence that we have had 
testimony to. 

Mr. Gibbons. Let's discuss it, Mr. Kennedy. You raised the ques- 
tion. 

Mr. Kennedy. I want an answer. 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. I want to discuss it with you. I want to give 
whatever answer I am capable of giving. In the first place, if em- 
ployers hire these people, I am stuck with them in the union. I have 
to have them in the union. So I initiated nothing toward bringing 
these people into the labor situation we are discussing. 

Mr. Kennedy. I have to raise a question about that. 

Mr. Gibbons. Go ahead and raise it. 

Mr. Kennedy. For instance, Joe Bommarito, do you have any 
evidence that Joe Bommarito ever drove a cab ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I not only have evidence that he drove a cab; he 
probably drove one for 20 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is not doing very well on his income-tax returns, 
then. 

Mr. Gibbons. I am sure he has driven a cab in the city of St. Louis. 
I don't know Joe over a few years, but I am certain that he was a 
cabdriver. 

Mr. Kennedy. He doesn't state that, you know, when he lists his 
income, 

Mr. Gibbons. You are asking me if I have any evidence. I have a 
conviction that he has been a cabdriver for many years. I don't know 
whether or not I am in error on it, but I will bet that 

Mr. Kennedy. What about Phil Keichardt? 

Mr. Gibbons. Phil Reichardt? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. Who heads his union ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Phil Reichardt is acting secretary- treasurer by ap- 
pointment under a trusteeship arrangement. It is perfectly legal. 
The only qualification is that he be a member in good standing from a 
local union and he was that, from 688. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had he ever driven a cab, for instance ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, because his job is not there because he happens to 
drive a cab. His job is there because he is a person of integrity. That 
is why he is there. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is the one that appeared before the committee ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And took the fifth amendment ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. O.K. 



14576 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Gibbons. Now, getting back to these people that you raise that 
I am giving instructions to and why should I have these kind of peo- 
ple around? No. 1, I did not bring them around. The employers 
brought them around, Mr. Kennedy, and I am stuck with them. I 
have to give them membership. 

No. 2, 1 don't have the facilities of this committee to investigate the 
background of each and every member of my local union. I think it 
would be stupid on my part to go and investigate the background of 
every member that I have in my union. I certainly did not do it in 
the case of the cabs. I had no knowledge that these men were with 
the background that you have been able to at this date show up. When 
the situation developed in which a strike had to take place, these men 
came out on strike. They came to meetings. We sat down and we 
organized them into crews. We did not know who was in the crew, 
who was not in the crew. 

The crew is not all the same kind of crew. The crews got all the 
same kind of instructions. Get the cabs off the street, those few that 
would run. Whenever they stop, wherever you can discuss it with 
them, talk to them, try and convince them their place is back in the 
garage with the cabs and on the streets with our men showing their 
solidarity to win a decent contract. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were making payments to them for patrolling 
the streets, were you ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, I was not making any payments for them to pa- 
trol the streets. They were getting the same strike benefits anyone 
else was getting, to the best of my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. But they were patrolling the streets, were they_ ? 

Mr. Gibbons. They were like every other member of the union, either 
on a picket line, doing patrol duty, or both. Some of them were an- 
swering the phone in the office, some of them were working with the 
strike committee to dispense the moneys. But everybody had a job 
and a function during that strike. 

Mr. Kennedy. I have some documents here. 

The Chairman. I hand you here a voucher for strike expenditures, 
Teamster Local 688, dated December 14, 1953, "Strike, Yellow Cab, 
expense committee, 5 men cruising patrol, 1 week, $125." 

I ask you to examine it and state if you identify it. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

The Chairman. I will also hand you two others, one dated Decem- 
ber 8, 1953, and the other dated December 14, 1953. One is in the 
amount of $15 for patrol, and the other is $125 for lost time, patrol 
duty, week ending December 15, 1953. I ask you to examine these 
and state if you identify them as vouchers out of the files of the union. 

(The documents were handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Gibbons. Do you want me just to identify them, Senator? 

The Chairman. First you may identify them. 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes; they appear to be regular strike expenditure 
forms used by our strike committee in that strike. 

The Chairman. Those three may be made exhibit 105, A, B, and C 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits 105, A, B, and 
C" for reference and will be found in the appendix on pp. 14895- 
14896.) 

The Chapman. All right, Mr. Kennedy, you may proceed. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14577 

Mr. Kennedy. That was the practice that you were discussing 

Mr.GiBBONS. No; it is not the practice I was discussing. This, I 
don't believe, could constitute pay for 5 men for a week, $125. This, 
I believe, in addition to their strike benefits, which each of them 
received — the patrol cars were given certain expenses in connection 
with staying out all night — eating three meals a day, having gas and 
oil, maybe taking care of a tire, whatever the expense might be. 
Mr. Kennedy. But these were the patrols that were going out? 
Mr. Gibbons. I suspect these were the patrol cars. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they were getting their 

Mr. Gibbons. That is right, in addition to the $35-a-week strike 
expenses, which I believe was in effect. But you can't hold me to that. 
Mr. Kennedy. Of course, a number of these individuals whose 
records I mentioned here have been identified as the ones who were 
responsible for going out and beating the various cabdrivers and for 
the destruction or the damage that was done to the automobiles. 
Included, of course, was Mr. Bommarito. Does Mr. Bommarito have 
a position with the union at the present time ? 
Mr. Gibbons. Yes ; Mr. Bommarito is a staff member of our union. 
Mr. Kennedy. Specifically we had him identified as going out and 
beating one of the cab drivers. Then we also had the specific testi- 
mony that he was involved in the waylaying of the cab, and that he 
injured and hurt has back when he was trying to turn the cab over. 
Were you familiar with that, Mr. Gibbons ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I can only say this to you, that on the witness who 
identified Mr. Bommarito, did anyone have a chance to cross-examine 
or examine his testimony ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I think you were here. 

Mr. Gibbons. Was his testimony ever submitted to the ordinary 
rules of evidence? 

The Chairman. Mr. Gibbons 

Mr. Gibbons. The point I am making 

The Chairman. This committee is not strictly bound by court 
rules of evidence. We are trying to get information. The witness 
testified and Mr. Bommarito was given an opportunity also to testify. 
My recollection is he took the fifth amendment. So this man who is 
charged by the witness certainly was given an opportunity to answer 
the charges against him and to comment upon them and to relate, if 
he cared to, the circumstances incident to the wrecking of the cab 
and his getting his back hurt. 
Mr. Gibbons. Yes, Senator. 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe in connection with that we had three wit- 
nesses that identified Mr. Bommarito. We had Miss Bledsoe, Mr. 
Sparks, and Mr. Mitchell, three different witness. 

The Chairman. Whoever the witnesses were. On Mr. Bommar- 
ito, whatever charges were made against him, or whatever derogatory 
testimony the committee heard, he was given an opportunity to refute. 
Proceed. 

Mr. Gibbons. My only comment on the business of Mr. Bommarito 
being identified by three people, Mr. Kennedy, is that I have a re- 
sponsibility to evalute these individuals who work on my staff. I 
have had considerable association over the last few years, pretty inti- 
mate association, with Joe Bommarito. He strikes me as being a 



14578 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

pretty responsible person. He strikes me as being a person who is 
dedicated to the interest of our membership. I know of his work, 
day and night, on the streets, trying to see to it that contracts are 
enforced. 

The people who have come here and testified against him, I think 
you characterized one of them with a 5-minute dissertation on his 
record, Mr. Sparks, is hardly a credible witness. This is the problem 
I face, trying to evaluate whether or not the testimony of those 3 
people has merit against what I personally know about this man and 
his character. 

Now, I have got a lot to say later on about your other witness, Miss 
Bledsoe. 

Mr. Kennedy. I will ask you in a moment about that. 

The Chairman. Well, at this point, you recognize that if anything 
was testified falsely against Mr. Bommarito, whether by a person in 
disrepute or bad character or whether by people who were truthful, 
Mr. Bommarito was given the opportunity to refute it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. I recognize that, Senator, and for his own 
reasons and in his own good conscience, he chooses to take the fifth. 

I don't know if that has anything to do with the business of his 
being identified in that particular fracas that was discussed here 
before the committee. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. These other individuals testified and he refused to 
testify on the grounds that a truthful answer might tend to incrimi- 
nate him. Then, according to the testimony we had before the com- 
mittee, it was that while this cab was waylayed, and, while trying 
to turn the cab over, he hurt his back. You are familiar with that ? 

Mr. Gibbons. You have testimony also there to the effect that that 
did not happen, from one of your witnesses, not ours, Mr. Cortor. 

Mr. Kennedy. Don Cortor? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. He testified before this committee that he did 
not believe Bommarito hurt his back turning over a taxicab. 

Mr. Kennedy. Because he did not think he had the guts to try. 

Mr. Gibbons. That is right. This throws grave doubts in my mind 
on Mr. Bommarito, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. He appeared before the committee and said he could 
not answer any questions about that because a truthful answer might 
tend to incriminate him. Afterward, he did go to the hospital, he 
did have trouble with his back, did he not, Mr. Gibbons ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes ; he did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who paid the bills ? 

Mr. Gibbons. The union paid for his back injuries as it does with 
every injury involving any person involved in a strike in our union 
or any person involved in any work involving our union that is 
related. 

The Chairman. Did you ascertain whether he actually did hurt 
his back working in the strike or overturning a car ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I can't recall specifically what it was, but if we ap- 
proved his payment, Senator. I am sure it had to do with getting 
out of a car, or getting into a car, or some such thing as that. As 
you know, back injuries are very simple. They can get it by merely 
standing up, you can get a back injury, a slipped disk, and so on. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14579 

So at the time, I am certain if we O. K.'d it as a union payment, 
it was related to legitimate union activities. 

The Chairman. Well, our testimony indicates a particular char- 
acter of activity. 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. 

The Chairman. Did you ascertain at the time the particular char- 
acter of activity that warranted you paying his hospital bills ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I am sure I did, at the particular time, if I personally 
O. K.'d it. 

The Chairman. Have you talked to Mr. Bommarito about this to 
refresh your memory ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Since? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Gibbons. No ; I have not. But I would be very happy to dis- 
cuss it with Mr. Bommarito, because Mr. Bommarito also on my 
recommendation will appear before a committee of membership of 
my union of local 688, which is already set up, already elected by 
secret ballot, to inquire into the activities of every person who takes 
the fifth amendment before this committee, Senator. 

Mr. Kennedy. Under oath? 

Mr. Gibbons. Under oath. Well, I don't know under oath. I 
don't know about under oath. 

I am sorry. My reaction was he would be telling the truth. 

Mr. Kennedy. Maybe he is a little bit like Barney Baker, another 
Teamster official. As long as you are not under oath, you don't have 
to tell the truth. 

Mr. Gibbons. You have some of your witnesses here, Mr. Kennedy, 
who are pretty bad in telling the truth, from the records we have on 
him, in addition to Mr. Baker, if this is true about Mr. Baker. 

Mr. Kennedy. The hospital reports show it is not just a slipped 
disk. It says a fracture of the 12th vertebra. 

Mr. Gibbons. I used slipped disk to show how simply a back can 
be hurt. It may be a fractured vertebra clowning around with 
someone. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you don't have any information that he did 
not hurt it, as the testimony indicates he hurt it, trying to turn the 
car over. 

Mr. Gibbons. I have two things. I have, one, the credibility of 
the witnesses that you bring here in this hearing in this particular 
instance, Mr. Kennedy, and secondly, I have the fact that if anything 
is O.K.'d in our union, generally it is strictly related to union activ- 
ities. Joe Bommarito was treated no differently than anyone else, 
to my knowledge. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you this question: If he in fact did 
hurt his back, trying to wreck a car in that strike, would the union 
have paid his hospital bills? 

Mr. Gibbons. I think we would have raised a serious question 
about it, Senator. 

The Chairman. You reckon so ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I think we would. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Gibbons. I think we would. 

Mr. Kennedy. Miss Bledsoe testified that the arrangements, Mr. 
Gibbons 



14580 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Gibbons. Senator, you understood I meant it would raise seri- 
ous questions about paying it, and it is very doubtful if then we 
would. I wanted to give you a complete answer. 

The Chairman. I don't know the history of it, but so far, on the 
people that commit crimes, you pay for all their defense and all their 
living expenses and so forth, while they are in the penitentiary. I 
don't know why you would make an exception in this case. Do you ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I know how I operate, Senator, and that is my basis 
for making the statement. 

The Chairman. Well ? we are learning. 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, sir. And I hope to fill in a few gaps or 
straighten out the record in this hearing today, if I possibly can. 

Mr. Kennedy. Miss Bledsoe testified, which would give some 
credence to the position that the other witnesses took, the fact that 
his injuries were paid for by the union, she testified that you were 
present at the time the instructions and the arrangements were made 
to waylay this cab. 

Mr. Gibbons. This is, I think, about the fourth time or the fifth 
time — the fourth time under oath and possibly the fifth time — that 
Miss Bledsoe has been called upon to describe that particular meeting. 
I would like to advise you that in 1954, 1953, right after that meeting 
took place, in fact, the night that it took place, I was arrested in the 
city of St. Louis, and I was walked through a room, devoid of furni- 
ture, excepting 1 chair and 1 girl sitting on it. I did not recognize 
the girl. I was following a police officer through. I was taken 
through for the purpose of identification. This is a matter of hours 
after the meeting took place. Miss Bledsoe failed to identify me, 
and she told the police that "I never saw this man in my life before." 

This was hours afterward. Later on, on February 25, 1954, she 
gave a deposition, and I have the deposition here, and it is under 
oath, and it happens to be in terms of a suit against the police of 
the city of St. Louis, and she again described this particular meeting 
where she now says I was present. 

Again she does not find Mr. Gibbons in there. She describes at 
great length who was there. But never mentioned the fact that 
Mr. Gibbons was present. 

Mr. Kennedy. I asked her a question about that. 

Mr. Gibbons. Right. 

This is the second occasion now, where there seems to be a dis- 
crepancy in her ability to remember. 

Mr. Kennedy. She did not state you were not there, did she? 

Mr. Gibbons. She described every one that was there. 

Mr. Kennedy. She gave the reason that she did not mention you. 

Mr. Gibbons. She did not give any reasons in this particular depo- 
sition. Later on, I will come to her fears. On August 11, 1954, she 
gave another sworn statement. Here they kept asking her, "Was 
anybody else present at that meeting? Was anybody else present 
at that meeting?" And Miss Bledsoe could not recall seeing Mr. 
Gibbons present at that meeting. 

Again on November 8, 1954 

The Chairman. Mr. Gibbons, did she name Bommarito as one 
who was present? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't believe so, Senator. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14581 

The Chairman. Whom did she name of your lieutenants who were 
present ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Gibbons. John E. York was there, Joe Bommarito. She gives 
it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Anybody else ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Sparks and Licavoli. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about Kavner ? 

Mr. Gibbons. And Pasterick. 

( The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. Gibbons. She states here, after having been reminded that she 
had lunch with Mr. Kavner, she had seen pictures of Mr. Kavner, they 
asked her "Was that man, Richard Kavner, was he present in the room 
that Saturday morning?" She said "Yes, I believe he was." 

Going back, however, to her February deposition, it says : 

On these previous occasions at the union hall, did you see Mr. Kavner there? 

She says : 

No, sir. 

Did you see Richard Kavner before all of this happened at the union hall ? 

Answer. No. At one time I mistakenly identified him as being there. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think she testified to all of this on the grounds that 
she had been threatened. 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could I see those ? 

Mr. Gibbons. A third name in a sworn deposition where she was 
again under oath describing again this Very same meeting — before the 
grand jury, rather 

(Witness consulted with counsel.) 

Mr. Gibbons. This statement is unsworn but her signature is on it. 
She says she has read the above 21/2 pages and they are true and correct 
to the best of my knowledge. "This statement is given by me without 
any promises or threats." Nobody was threatening her at all "on the 
part of anyone, and is made of my own free will." Again she fails to 
identify Mr. Gibbons there. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the date of that ? I understand it is Novem- 
ber 8, 1954? 

The Chairman. May I ask the witness or his counsel, do you wish 
to have these made exhibits, these depositions, or do you wish to retain 
them ? 

Mr. Previant. If the Chair please, they were put in merely to em- 
phasize or verify Mr. Gibbons' statements with respect to prior testi- 
mony. If the Chair believes there is an issue we would be glad to 
submit them. If there is no issue we would as soon retain them. 

The Chairman. I would ascertain your wishes about them. Ordi- 
narily, unless the parties wish to retain the document, where they offer 
something that they feel is testimony the committee should receive, 
such as this, we make it an exhibit for reference, unless you prefer 
to retain it. 

Mr. Previant. You understand that this is being offered for the 
limited purpose of prior testimony of this particular witness. There 
may be many other things in those statements that we would not want 
to offer on our part as it applies to other persons as part of the com- 

21243— 59— pt. 39 3 



14582 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

mittee's records. For that reason we prefer not to do so except these 
specific parts that relate to prior testimony by the witness Bledsoe. 

The Chairman. All right, you may testify to it. The staff may 
examine the document and interrogate you about it. 

Mr. Gibbons. In connection further with Miss Bledsoe, if I may 
proceed, she testified in the grand jury investigation of my activities 
in 1954 in the city of St. Louis. I do not know the nature of her 
testimony. One of the things she discussed was this meeting. My 
attorneys turned recently to the assistant prosecutor there, Assistant 
Thomas Goldshein, and my attorney told me if she testified that 
Harold Gibbons was in that office at that meeting I am sure Max Gold- 
shine would have indicted him in 30 minutes. 

The reaction of this assistant was, "not 30 minutes, Mr. Kosenbloom, 
in 30 seconds." I don't know the testimony before the grand jury but 
I know I was not indicted and if Max Goldshine had an opportunity 
to indict me in those days he would have loved it. It is obvious in 
that case she had not. In your own committee record she gives this 
testimony to my being present in this meeting. She says : 

Mr. Kennedy. Who did you meet at the hall at that time? 
Miss Bledsoe. Who did I meet at the hall? 
Mr. Kennedy. Yes. Whom did you have the discussion with? 
Miss Bledscoe. I was not formally introduced to them but I did learn later 
that Mr. Kavner was there and also Mr. Gibbons. 

Apparently it is hearsay. It is no.t. Her direct testimony she saw 
me there. Later on under questioning again by Mr. Kennedy 

The Chairman. May I ask you at that point, did you have a per- 
sonal acquaintance with the lady ? 

Mr. Gibbons- I don't believe to the best of my recollection as of this 
day that I have ever had the honor except when she walked in here to 
take the oath, Senator. At the police station I saw her but I never 
recognized her and never gave her a second glance. To my knowledge 
I never talked to her or spoke to her. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Gibbons. Further in Mr. Kennedy's discussion with her, he 
says, referring to her testimony before the police in giving the police 
report of the clay that it happened, Mr. Kennedy asked her, "Did you 
include all of the facts to the police?" She said, "Yes, I did." 

Then she adds as an afterthought, "I did not include the fact that 
Mr. Gibbons was there." A straight admission that all the facts does 
not include my presence at that meeting. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did she say was the reason ? 

Mr. Gibbons. She doesn't say. I haven't got to that point. I have 
only grabbed the testimony to that point. When Miss Bledsoe testi- 
fied about Joe Bommarito, when Sparks testifies about Bommarito, I 
think it is reasonable that I should have some questions in my mind 
as to the reliability of this type of testimony when I back it with what 
I know to be true about Joe Bommarito, his wife, and his family and 
his whole background. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Gibbons, after this, did you inform any of these 
individuals who participated in these meetings, these daily meetings, 
that if they got into difficulty that they would have their legal fees paid 
by the Teamsters Union ? 

(Witness consulted with counsel.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14583 

Mr. Gibbons. In conducting any strike, Mr. Kennedy, I always 
assure the people that if they are arrested by the police we will be there 
to bond them out and if they have litigation as a result of it, we will 
pay the bills on it. This is a policy of our union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell them you would pay the legal bills if 
they got into difficulty? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell them you would pay their bonds if they 
got into difficulty? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes ; I am sure I did because it is standard operating 
procedure in our organization. 

Mr. Kennedy. If they got sentenced to jail did you tell them that 
you would continue their salaries? 

Mr. Gibbons. I probably didn't put it in terms of continuing their 
salaries. I in all probability told them that I would see to it that 
their families did not want for anything. That their families would 
not be evicted. That they would have consideration. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would agree with you completely about the caliber 
of the witnesses, Mr. Gibbons. Certainly the people that testified 
before the committee on these acts of violence were not the most 
forthright witnesses or had the best backgrounds. 

Mr. Gibbons. Some had mental cases. One had a silver plate in 
his head % 

Mr. Kennedy. The only problem is that these were the ones that 
were selected, these are the ones that admitted they did these acts of 
violence and identified the other individuals. Those are the only 
people that are going to know. You say the employer selected them 
and you had to put up with them? 

Mr. Gibbons. I accepted them. 

Mr. Kennedy. You in turn selected them and we are stuck with 
them? 

Mr. Gibbons. Volunteered, Mr. Kennedy. When they are active 
in the union, and want to help win a strike, far be it for me to try to 
stop them, unless I happen to know they are dangerous persons and I 
would not want any part of them. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were dangerous. There were great acts of 
violence of 1953. The acts of violence were committed according to 
the testimony before the committee, by some of these individuals. 
You stated you did not personally tell them to go out and do it. 

The facts are from your own admission is that you told them that 
their legal fees would be paid, their bonds would be paid, and if 
they went to jail their family would be taken care of. If that is not 
condoning this violence, I don't know what is. 

Mr. Gibbons. I didn't say I didn't send them out there. I en- 
couraged them. I asked for volunteers. I asked for every single 
member to participate. When I have a strike I am out to win. The 
only way to win is with the mobilized strength of the rank and file. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you put them in the position where you were 
inviting them to commit these acts of violence? 

Mr. Gibbons. No. This is an interpretation which you will have to 
take responsibility for. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are not doing it yourself. But you are having 
somebody to do it for you, which is far worse. 



14584 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Gibbons. I had no knowledge that Sparks had this record 
which you dug up. I had no means of finding out about that. I 
don't live with the 1,000 or 1,200 men in that union. 

Senator Ives. I want to ask Mr. Gibbons a question. Am I cor- 
rect in gathering from what you are now saying that again you are 
emphasizing the fact that you believe in employing violence in order 
to win ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Senator, I have tried to make clear that I am op- 
posed to any kind of violence in any kind of a labor dispute, but that 
I will defend the right of the workers to protect themselves against 
police, strikebreakers and thugs employed by the employers. 

Senator Ives. That is something else you are talking about now. 

Mr. Gibbons. Eight. 

Senator Ives. I gather from what you said when they are in the 
midst of a strike in order to win 

Mr. Gibbons. No. 

Senator Ives. In order to win, if necessary, violence is in order? 

Mr. Gibbons. I do not condone and subscribe to that kind of 
philosophy. 

Senator Ives. I was going to ask you if you learned that philoso- 
phy in the school for workers in Wisconsin. 

Mr. Gibbons. No. 

Senator Ives. I know you did not. 

Mr. Gibbons. No, I think this is self-defeating. 

Mr. Kennedy. Starting on December 4, 1953, and going all through 
December of 1953, we have these acts of violence, the cabdrivers being 
beaten. We have, for instance, on December 4, 1953, the automobile 
identified as having been driven by those who participated in the 
beating. It was traced to one of the Teamster locals, local 600, and 
one of those participating in the beating was identified as William 
Rudolph, acting secretary-treasurer of local 405. 

Mr. Gibbons. You know that Mr. Rudolph was arrested for that, 
that Mr. Rudolph went before a body of his peers, a jury. 

(Witness consulted his counsel.) 

Mr. Gibbons. I am sorry. This is a different instance. 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe so. 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Another one on the same day where a car was 
identified. Perhaps it is not enough proof to convict these indi- 
viduals, but again it is an accumulation. 

December 4, 1953, Buford Barnes, a Yellow Cab driver, assaulted 
by men driving the same car, and William Rudolph admitted driving 
the car. 

Mr. Gibbons. This is a compilation of violence, Mr. Kennedy, that 
I certainly regret ever took place. 

Mr. Kennedy. What steps did you take to stop these acts of vio- 
lence ? Would you enumerate those for the committee ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No. 1, I tried to assign staff people to watch the 
situation. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Who were they ? 

Mr. Gibbons. People like Dick 

Mr. Kennedy. Dick Kavner ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14585 

Mr. Kennedy. Every place he goes in the United States he is in- 
volved in violence. 

Mr. Gibbons. This is a statement you cannot substantiate, Mr. 
Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wichita, Ivans. 

Mr. Gibbons. Wichita, Kans., that is one situation and Dick Kav- 
ner goes all over this country. 

Mr. Kennedy. Des Moines, Iowa. 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't know of any violence in Des Moines, Iowa. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was a considerable amount. 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't know any that took place and that comes 
under the territory I am responsible for. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who else did you assign to keep peace ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I assigned John Nabor. I have probably the largest 
staff of any union in the city of St. Louis, and when a strike takes 

Elace, they are on duty 24 hours a day. Their instructions are to 
eep down violence and to avoid any violence. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell them that anybody found involved in 
violence would be punished ? 

Mr. Gibbons. They would certainly be removed from activity in 
the strike if we could be convinced of this sort of thing. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you announce that ? 

Mr. Gebbons. I probably discussed it at great length at our staff 
meetings. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell any of these people ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I am certain I told these people. It is very difficult 
to go back and repeat word for word things that I said. I know my 
philosophy towards violence. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have any statement that you have written 
showing that you were against violence at that time? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. It is instructions to pickets. Where are the 
instructions to pickets? I did not write this. It happens that it 
was drafted at my request by our attorney. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the date of this ? 

Mr. Gibbons. This is undated. It is a series of strikes which we 
had. 

Mr. Kennedy. I want just the instructions you gave. 

Mr. Gibbons. These are the instructions we gave. Among all the 
others here is an example. One further word — this is addressed to the 
pickets — at. no time will any improper pressure or unlawful restraint, 
coercion, or interference— no, this is not it. This may be the wrong 
one. Here. Remember, I am reading now from the document which is 
handed out to pickets. Remember, we want this line to be peaceful. 
We believe we can gain our purposes only — it is capitalized and under- 
lined — only by winning public support and respect. Intimidation, 
threats, musclemen tactics, and disorder will not gain this public sup- 
port and respect, but rather will cause us to lose it. Therefore, at all 
times conduct yourself quietly, orderly, and as a gentleman. I don't 
know how strong, how specific, how correct I can be beyond those 
words. 

Senator Ives. May I ask a question there, Mr. Chairman ? 

TheCiiAiKMAN. Senator Ives. 



14586 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Ives. I would like to inquire what you do when they do not 
follow those instructions. Do you penalize them in any shape or 
manner? 

Mr. Gibbons. I will discuss this thing with you. It so happens in 
social conflict it seems that violence is an inevitable part of it all down 
through history. It is just as true today as it was 100 years ago. 
Despite the best efforts there is bound to be violence flaring now and 
again in areas of social conflict. There is no greater area of social 
conflict than a strike situation. 

Senator Ives. Probably I know that as well as you do. I am asking 
what you do. 

Mr. Gibbon. This is very important so you understand what I do 
about it. 

Senator Ives. It is very important. 

Mr. Gibbons. To understand the area in which I have to operate. 
There are instances where violence flares and then I call persons incon- 
ceivably. I may have a discussion at the next strike meeting. I try to 
reason with the people that this is not going to help us. At the best 
this is going to alienate a lot of support and you will solidify the 
opposition of those who are at the moment working and things of that 
sort. Where I find a crackpot is just simply out there using violence 
without any sense of responsibility or without any defensive capacity, 
I completely isolate him from the strike and ask him to go home. If I 
find someone drunk, it is a standing order he cannot go near the picket 
lines. 

Senator Ives. Do you kick any of them out of the union for violence ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, we do not. 

Senator Ives. You should. 

Mr. Gibbons. This is a question, Senator, that one must approach 
very carefully when you kick people out of unions. To my knowledge 
in 15 years in local 688 as the top administrative person, I don't recall 
a single solitary member of my union who was ever kicked out, even 
under charges. 

Senator Ives. What you do actually is the exact opposite. Actually 
you reward them. 

Mr. Gibbons No. 

Senator Ives. Yes, you do. You take care of their families. You 
pay them sometimes when they are in jail. 

Mr. Gibbons. You cite me an example where I rewarded anyone 
for indulging in violence. 

Senator Ives. I heard your testimony. 

Mr. Gibbons. I was referring to the men who were unjustly ar- 
rested by the police department who hate our particular organization. 

Senator Ives. You are qualifying now. When you made that 
statement in the first instance, you did not make any such qualifica- 
tion as that. 

Mr. Gibbons. I am stating the actual facts of what I was talking 
about when I was telling our people. I just go on the assumption 
that they are not going to engage in offensive violence as such. 

Senator Ives. As I recall, you cited only one instance where they 
did not get paid. In every other instance they are given to under- 
stand that they will be paid, protected, they will be given bond and 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14587 

all those things. In other words, you are rewarding them for doing 
the very thing you claim right now you condemn. Reconcile that, 
will you ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, I will if you will give me a moment's time. I 
will be very happy to. 

Senator Ives. Go ahead. 

Mr. Gibbons. No. 1, 1 sit in my office and a telephone call comes in. 
If one of the other officers is there, he takes it. It is a call from the 
police department. Somebody is in jail. The first thing is that we 
want him out of jail. We order him out of jail. We don't know 
whether he is justly or unjustly arrested. 

Senator Ives. Your first impulse is to get him out of jail whether 
he is guilty or not. 

Mr. Gibbons. Not on the basis whether he is guilty or not. I am 
not in a position to find out whether he is guilty. 

Senator Ives. What do you do ? 

Mr. Gibbons. There is a court procedure which I have a thorough 
respect for. 

Senator Ives. When I get through with you I want to find out 
whether you learned these things in the workers school in Wisconsin. 
You did not. That is a mighty fine institution for workers. There is 
nothing you are talking about now that is in their category or cur- 
riculum. 

Mr. Gibbons. The thing which I learned at that school and what I 
said is an expression of a solidarity of men in the struggle for decent 
working conditions and wages. I got a basic understanding of that 
at that school and this is the basic application. 

Senator Ives. Not today. Not with the laws we have at the pres- 
ent time. 

Mr. Gibbons. There is nothing in the law. 

Senator Ives. You have the National Labor Relations Act at the 
present time. You have all of the procedures in the world to pro- 
tect you and help you get what you want if you deserve it. You 
should have no reason for such strikes today. 

Mr. Gibbons. You can find nothing in the Wagner Act or the 
Taft-Hartley Act which has to do with getting a pension program 
or a decent wage rate. 

Senator Ives. No, but you have collective bargaining. You have 
nothing in that act that in any way, shape, or manner exonerates any- 
body from the violation of other laws or permits violence in any way, 
shape, or manner. 

Mr. Gibbons. This is what we strike for, Senator. It is not in 
terms of the Taft-Hartley law. There are no alternatives in the Taft- 
Hartley law against violence. 

Senator Ives. Let me get this straight between you and me. I am 
not opposed to striking under certain conditions. The right to strike 
is inalienable in our whole setup in this country. But you claim you 
are opposed to violence under any circumstances except under certain 
strike conditions. The evidence you have given us here today indi- 
cates that you are in favor of violence under almost any conditions 
where strikes occur. 

Mr. Gibbons. I would like the record read back where I gave any 
evidence here that I approve of violence under any circumstances in 
strikes. 



14588 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Ives. You have to read the whole record to establish that. 
All you have said indicated that. 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't recall ever having entered any such evidence 
here. 

Senator Ives. You read it over. 

Mr. Gibbons. During this day's testimony. 

The Chairman. The committee will take a 5-minute recess. 

(Members present at the time of taking the recess: Senators Mc- 
Clellan and Ives. ) 

(At the reconvening of the session after the brief recess the fol- 
lowing members were present: Senators McClellan and Ives.) 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Gibbons, did you make any investigation to 
determine who was responsible for this violence that took place? 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, every morning we met with the people, and we 
questioned them about their activities of the night before. We received 
reports from them and we questioned them about it. In those ses- 
sions, which I did not necessarily attend, I am sure questions were 
raised about what exactly took place. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you 

Mr. Gibbons. Satisfactory answers were, in all events, given. 
Otherwise, it would have been brought to my attention. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not look into it any further ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any conferences with the police to try 
to stop the violence ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, because I am not a very popular figure with 
certain of the police in St. Louis, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Of course, they testified before the committee that 
the reason for that was that ever since you came to St. Louis, you and 
your unions have been involved in violence. 

Mr. Gibbons. Let me discuss the role of violence as a total pattern 
out there in St. Louis in regard to my activity. You had Moran in 
here, who is head of the bombing squad and the chief police officer in 
St. Louis relating to the union activities. He told you of all of this 
pattern of violence on my activity. In his whole story, he was only 
able to mention 10. 

It is bad that he could have mentioned one. The fact that he men- 
tioned 10 does not make it any better. When I checked back on the 
record, and I have it here, every strike we conducted, you will find by 
checking this record close to 250 plants were shut clown and strikes 
conducted against them in that same period in which he found violence 
only in 10. It would seem to me that it would hardly constitute a 
pattern when in less than 3 percent of the strikes which I was respon- 
sible for, activety involved in, any violence occurred. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think that is not entirely correct. 

Mr. Gibbons. Maybe it isn't. It is an opinion. 

Mr. Kennedy. It would depend on the facts surrounding the strikes. 

Mr. Gibbons. Eight. That is what I want to discuss now. 

Mr. Kennedy. It would depend on a comparison with the other 
violence that took place in St. Louis, and his statement to the com- 
mittee was that you, and the unions that you have been associated with, 
have been responsible for a pattern of violence since you came to St. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14589 

Louis. The police officers have testified to that. That is not Mr. 
Mitchell or Mr. Sparks or Mary Lou Bledsoe. 

Mr. Gibbons. All I am trying to do with Mr. Moran's testimony, on 
patterns of violence as relates to my activities, is to put it in its proper 
perspective. It is less than 3 percent of the strikes that I have been 
involved in. Right now, for instance, in the city of St. Louis, there 
is a cab strike on. About 200 cabs are involved. There has not been 
the slightest violence involved in the thing. But, in any event, aside 
from that, this is the picture. When you take some of the violence 
which was testified to here, it taxes one's imagination to really believe, 
one's credibility to really believe, these stories. 

One guy testified here in a taxicab situation 15 bullets were shot into 
a taxicab with a woman and 2 children or 2 women and a child in it. 

Suddenly, none of these people even got scared or hurt. 

Secondly, there was no question about even finding the women after 
the thing occurred. One of the favorite devices in a taxicab strike, 
which is typical of employers trying to put the blame on trade unions 
for violence, is to take a taxicab in an alley, shoot it up with bullets, 
and call the police and say, "Look what they are doing." 

That is the only way I can imagine a taxicab would ever get 15 
bullets in it, with 3 people in it, and not kill anybody, especially if 
there are 3 people in it as he testified. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have a number of people, if you want to go 
into it, where they had to go to the hospital, that they were very 
badly beaten. 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes ; secondly, because most of this violence occurred 
in terms of taxicabs 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you want their names? 

Mr. Gibbons. I got it in the testimony, I believe, Mr. Kennedy, 
and I have read it pretty thoroughly. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have not the names of the people who were 
beaten ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No. I say I have it in the testimony, and I have read 
it pretty thoroughly, and I am acquainted with each of the individual 
cases. In the taxicab disputes which took place in St. Louis, especially 
in the early days which he dealt with, an awful lot of it, there was 
severe resistance on the part of management, and whenever a strike 
would take place there were shootings on the street, and there were 
shootings both from those who were participating in the strike and 
those who were not. 

How I can be responsible for that kind of violence, I will never 
know. I have tried to keep our people from engaging in any violence, 
but the people who refuse to come out, the people whom the campanies 
put in the cabs to run the cabs in the face of a strike, those people 
carried guns and shot at our members who were on strike also. 

The Chairman. May I ask you, Mr. Gibbons, at that point, is it 
your theory that if there is a strike and someone desires to work, 
that that should subject him to violence? 

Mr. Gibbons. No; it is not my theory. 

The Chairman. Is it your theory that the man who wants to work, 
even though there is a strike, should have protection against violence? 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, it isn't a theory of mine that he should have 
protection. He has adequate protection in the police forces of the 
various communities. But I certainly am not going to 



14590 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Is that the only protection that you think he is 
entitled to ; whatever they can give him ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I am so fundamentally in disagreement with anyone 
working during a strike that I would not be the author of a proposal 
to protect him in his right to scab. 

The Chairman. I understand you are. But the other citizens in 
this country, and many of them, do have the theory, and honestly 
believe, that they have just as much right to work as you do to go 
on strike. 

Mr. Gibbons. I can believe that. 

The Chairman. Sir? 

Mr. Gibbons. I believe that. 

The Chairman. You agree with that? 

Mr. Gibbons. I believe it, that this is true. I don't agree with it, 
necessarily, but I believe it. 

The Chairman. But as a matter of equal protection of the law, 
if a man desires to work and his employer wants to employ him, 
then you say that he is entitled to protection ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Senator, I would say to you that there is more 

The Chairman. I say, Is he entitled to protection from violence? 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, I assume that society would protect that in- 
dividual. 

The Chairman. You assume ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. And I would have no objection to protecting 
him against any kind of violence. But I would say to you there is 
more involved than a legalistic right of an individual to work during 
a strike. There is a tremendous moral question there, Senator, worthy 
of a long discussion, when it comes to people working during strikes. 

The Chairman. I think I know the arguments on both sides. 

The position I am taking is: If a man desires to work, do you 
take the position, if there is a strike on, that he is not entitled to work 
and not even entitled to protection from violence? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, sir. I say immoral as the conduct may be, I 
think the man is entitled to protection from violence. I certainly do. 

The Chairman. All right. When you sent out men to keep the 
taxicabs off the street, you do not mean for them to engage in violence? 

Mr. Gibbons. I certainly do not. I always add the word "peace- 
fully," when I discuss getting them off the street. 

The Chairman. I know, the words you use depend sometimes upon 
the inflection you give them. 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. 

The Chairman. You can say peacefully and at the same time im- 
ply keep them off the street. 

Mr. Gibbons. The wink and the nod, as it were. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Gibbons. But this does not apply in my particular case. Let 
me add something in terms of the taxicab strikes that were testified 
to here. There are courts in this country, and there are things known 
as injunctions. In labor disputes in the State of Missouri, the city of 
St. Louis, they are very easy to get. One of the worst cases of vio- 
lence occurred in the Allen Cab strike. 

If it is true that we were the ones that were responsible for it, and 
some poor employer was defenseless in the face of our violence, one 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14591 

would imagine that he would send his attorney down 5 minutes after 
it happened and get an injunction against violence. 

I don't believe Ave have ever opposed an injunction in our union 
against restraint of violence. But in this case where we are sup- 
posed to be so bad, he never even came down and tried to make a case 
for violence and get an injunction. 

The Chairman. In that strike, did you know of the violence that 
was taking place ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, I did not know specifically of it. It isn't printed. 

The Chairman. Did they come in and make reports the following 
morning on the events that had transpired the night before ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, they did that, my pickets did. 

The Chairman. In those reports, did they tell you about the 
violence ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No. Many of the incidents I learned here from Mr. 
Foster's testimony. I was not aware of those instances of violence. 
They were not reported to me. 

The Chairman. Did they report any instances of violence to you ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, it is, again, going back 10 years, Senator, and 
I think I would be in error to attempt there to reconstruct that to the 
point where I could definitely testify about it. I am sure if any vio- 
lence took place, which was brought to the attention of our pickets or 
our staff guys, they would have reported it in the regular reports the 
next day. 

The Chairman. Was the report made to you that a taxicab, was 
run off into the river ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Was it reported to you that a taxicab was turned 
over and Mr. Bommarito hurt his back ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Incidentally, I was aware of the fact that a taxicab 
went into the river, as did a million other people in the city of St. Louis, 
because it was a published fact, and around the strike itself there was 
some 

The Chairman. It is your theory that it was done by the employer, 
that he would have someone drive his cab into the river? 

Mr. Gibbons. No. But in the light of what has already happened 
in the history of labor in this country, deliberate acts of violence on the 
part of employers to put a union in bad standing in the community, I 
would not be a bit surprised that an employer would go to that extent. 

The Chairman. You would say that is your theory ? 

Mr. Gibbons. But I would not say in this instance that I was under 
the impression that the employer put it in. But it certainly would be 
possible. 

The Chairman. In the instance where the cab had several bullet 
holes in it, and I believe a picture of that has been made an exhibit, is 
it your theory in that instance that the owner or the employer had a 
cab shot up like that, simply to make an exhibit of it, and to cast upon 
the union the suspicion of guilt? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, but this is the only explanation I would have of 
that cab, in the light of the fact I can't conceivably believe the first 
story in which 15 bullet holes, including into the glass, could possibly 
be put into a taxicab with three people in it without someone being 
hurt. 



14592 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman - . There have been greater miracles than that. 

Mr. Gibbons. Right after a strike took place, let's read the testi- 
mony in a court case given by the attorney for the particular cab com- 
pany we are discussing now, the Yellow Cab. Look what he says 
about the union. He says : 

The evidence will be that there were some acts of violence, not condoned 
either by the cab company or by the union, never sanctioned. 

He says: 

And I think the evidence will be here that we are dealing with some hotheaded 
individuals. Let's put it that way, we are dealing with some of these cab 
drivers, and with some of these hotheaded individuals that performed this 
assault on Mr. Herzwurm, much to the dismay of the cab company and of the 
union as well. 

This is not a union man. This is the attorney for the Yellow Cab 
Co. in one of the instances. 

The Chairman. How bad was that man hurt? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't know how bad that man was hurt, Senator. 
I read in the testimony as to what 

The Chairman. What was the nature of the case? You said it 
was a case in court. What was the nature of the case ? 

Mr. Gibbons. This was a suit by Mr. Herzwurm against the cab 
company. 

The Chairman. Against the cab company ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, and certain individual defendants, including 
Mr. Gibbons. 

The Chairman. He was defending a suit? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, he was pursuing a suit or pushing a suit. Do 
you mean the attorney ? 

Yes, the attorney was. 

The Chairman. The attorney was defending the case? 

Mr. Gibbons. The attorney was. 

The Chairman. And he was trying to blame it on hotheads? 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, he is a member of the bar and I assume a re- 
sponsible person. He was appearing before a court of which he was 
a member, and I assume he was telling the truth. 

The Chairman. In presenting lawsuits, you present a theory, often 
in the face of facts, so if the jury wants to go on theory, they may 
have the opportunity to do so. 

Proceed. 

Senator Ives? 

Senator Ives. I would like to ask the witness a question. 

How long is it that you say you have been the head of that local 
in St. Louis ? 

Mr. Gibbons. In various forms that the local took from one form 
to the other, I was the chief administrative officer since 1941. 

Senator Ives. That is a period of 17 years, approximately? 

Mr. Gibbons. I believe so. 

Senator Ives. During that period of time, how many strikes have 
there been ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I have a complete list of each and every strike. 

Senator Ives. I did not ask you what they are. I don't care any- 
thing about seeing what they are. I want to know how many you 
have had. Can you tell me that ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14593 

Mr. Gibbons. My estimate on this is a total of close to 250. 

Senator Ives. In which you were engaged ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Shops were shut down in which I was engaged. 

Senator Ives. 250 ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Right. 

Senator Ives. That is considerable over 10 years; isn't it? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, 10 years, almost 1 a month. 

Senator Ives. It is more than that. It is about one a month. 

Mr. Gibbons. That is right. 

Senator Ives. Let me ask you a question in that connection. There 
is a period of 17 years. You are a gentleman with a considerable 
background in labor relations. 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. 

Senator Ives. I mean, I recognize that. 

Mr. Gibbons. Thank you. 

Senator Ives. I don't quite understand how you have had this record 
of strikes. Do you mean to tell me you don't know how to get along 
with management, or there is something wrong with management ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I think I do a fairly good job of renewing agreements. 

Senator Ives. But your record of strikes does not show that. 

Mr. Gibbons. The record of strikes includes things like renewing 
of agreements. 

Senator Ives. I understand. 

Mr. Gibbons. But it also includes a tremendous number of recogni- 
tion strikes, strikes when you get a majority, you walk in and you talk 
to the company, and they refuse to recognize you. It even includes 
instances, Senator, where we struck for 6 solid months just to get an 
election under the NLRB. We ran full page ads in the Washington 
papers here to bring to the attention of Congress what was happening, 
and full page ads in the St. Louis press. 

Senator Ives. Do you mean the management of St. Louis is so much 
opposed to recognizing unions that you have had a strike on the av- 
erage of once a month for IT years ? 

Mr. Gibbons. That is correct. You have to understand also that we 
are operating in a very low-wage sweat industry, the warehousing field. 

Senator Ives. I know that. 

Mr. Gibbons. And we had a long way to go to get up to decent 
conditions, which we have arrived at today. 

Senator Ives. But here you are an individual, with above average 
intelligence, with this considerable background in labor relations and 
formal study in that field. I would think you ought to be*able to avoid 
that. I have a little experience and theory on that myself, over a 

Eeriod of 25 years. I have never been where I could conduct a strike, 
ut I think I have been where we know how to avoid them if possible. 
Mr. Gibbons. I would say to you that I have 300 companies under 
contract in the city of St. Louis. For 15 years we have renewed agree- 
ments, and if you put the record of strikes against the record of suc- 
cessful negotiations, you will come down with, again, a very, very 
small percentage of that. So while the record is bad that there should 
have to be any strikes, necessarily, I would have preferred to have 
avoided them, nevertheless, again putting into perspective, 688 does 
an excellent job, Senator, of renewing its agreements. 



14594 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Ives. Bear in mind, please, that I am bitterly opposed to 
sweetheart contracts, and it is a violation of our whole concept in that 
field. But are you on friendly terms with management in St. Louis, 
yourself ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Am I on friendly terms ? 

Senator Ives. Yes ; or do you occupy a position where you are trying 
to find differences and trying to stir up conflicts ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Let me say this: With the management that I have 
to deal with, I think, basically, I am in pretty good terms with them. 
But in terms of the business community of St. Louis, I am not on 
good terms with them. 

Senator Ives. By business community, you don't mean the taxicab 
business. 

Mr. Gibbons. I am talking about the total community, including 
what we call civic progress. Incidentally, my local union in 1942, 
probably, went on record for the adoption in the city of St. Louis 
for the Toledo plan, which is an effort to work out your problems in 
the field of labor relations without strife and conflict. 

Senator Ives. I am acquainted with that plan. 

Mr. Gibbons. I have tried time and again, uninvited, with the top 
people in St. Louis, to try to build some bridges between the labor 
movement and the business community, in order that we can join 
together in building a better St. Louis and avoid these strikes, because 
they don't help the community, they don't help the business, and they 
don't help the workingman. A strike that is necessary is a shame, 
any strike. 

Senator Ives. Most strikes, you recognize, can be avoided. 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes ; but once in a while something happens. 

Senator Ives. Once in a long while there is provocation for a strike, 
but most of them can be avoided. I am curious why you had so many. 
Is it because you could not get any response from management out 
there, or is it because you were trying to stir up trouble yourself ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I would attribute it to two factors : One, a very low- 
paid industry, which had successfully resisted organization up to this 
time, and they did not want to change their way of life. No. 2, we had 
such a long way to go that perhaps our demands were a little bit stiffer 
than the next one. You can throw in another factor ; during many of 
those years, I was in the CIO, and that automatically, in those days, 
at least, put two strikes on you, when you went into talk to manage- 
ment. 

Senator Ives. You recognize, don't you, early in their days the CIO 
used to have a lot of Commies. 

Mr. Gibbons. Not associated with Harold Gibbons, because my 
record is clear on that. 

Senator Ives. But you know that that may be one reason why there 
may have been prejudice against the CIO. 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes; that may be true. We were a pretty militant 
crowd. 

Senator Ives. I think you have cleaned them out now. But I am 
curious to know why you, with your background, get involved with 
these things, because you, of all people, should be able to avoid them. 

Mr. Gibbons. There is another factor, or it is a factor in it, I don't 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14595 

know excepting in terms of a low-paid industry, a fight to bring it up 
to decent standards. This is about the only explanation I can give you. 

Senator Ives. You say the people of St. Louis, in business, generally 
are not in sympathy with youl 

Mr. Gibbons. That is right. 

Senator Ives. Whose fault is that, yours or business ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I will take the blame for it, let me put it that way, be- 
cause I have been fighting for issues which are pioneering in many 
respects. We have in our operation the finest medical care program in 
existence in the United States. It is not cheap. 

No good medical care is cheap. It is expensive. 

Senator Ives. I know something about that. 

Mr. Gibbons. The rest of the business community does not want 
this thing to sit there. To them it is a time bomb. Their own em- 
ployees or their own unions might get the idea they want a labor health 
institute. We have a pension program. We have a big camp for our 
people, with a baseball diamond, swimming pool, everything else. 
These things are a little unique, and the business community does not 
want it to spread too far. Maybe this is why I am a little too 
unpopular. 

Senator Ives. Are you too oppressive for the business community ? 

Mr. Gibbons. There may be an element of that, too. 

Senator Ives. I am not talking now about what the committee is 
investigating, but I am talking about Mr. Gibbons. I am talking 
about you. Can't you, yourself, be a little more reasonable? 

Mr. Gibbons. My aggressiveness is related to the needs and welfare 
of my rank and file members. 

Senator Ives. I understand that, but you have to bear in mind the 
community in which you live. You can't travel faster than the traffic 
will allow you to go. 

Mr. Gibbons. 1 agree with you that the temper of the business com- 
munity and the times are important factors which a labor organizer 
should give consideration to. Otherwise, he is going to involve himself 
in conflict 100 percent of the time. I think the point you make is very 
well. 

Senator Ives. I take it you agree, then, that perhaps you have tried 
to go too fast. 

Mr. Gibbons. There is perhaps that possibility. I wouldn't neces- 
sarily agree. 

Senator Ives. And you would also agree that you possibly have not 
made the friends among the people in St. Louis that you should have ? 

Mr. Gibbons. In these days, it is a little dangerous to make friends 
among the business people, with sweetheart contracts. 

Senator Ives. I am not advocating anything like that. I am bit- 
terly opposed to that. But that does not mean that labor and man- 
agement should not be in agreement. 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, sir, I can say that. 

Senator Ives. You can get together and work together without hav- 
ing sweetheart contracts. 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, sir. And I think that the very business of col- 
lective bargaining is the very essence of democracy, in that men with 
divergent ideas and interests can sit around the table and settle those. 
I think it epitomizes the idea of democracy. 



14596 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Ives. You have the ability and you have to bear that in 
mind. You have to be a missionary in this business in St. Louis. If 
management is what you say it is in St. Louis, you have a job on your 
hands, without stirring up a lot of trouble. Keep the peace. You can 
do it. 

Mr. Gibbons. I have a few very good friends out there in the busi- 
ness world, too, that I am proud of. 

Senator Ives. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, for taking the time, but 
I wanted to find out what it was all about. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just a question I asked you originally. Did you 
have any conferences with the police in order to attempt to find out 
who was responsible for the violence or stop the violence in 1953 ? 

Mr. Gibbons. The police in the city of St. Louis, especially the ones 
related to the labor problem, would be the last ones I would ever ap- 
proach with relation to the problem of our union, so I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not discuss it with them at all ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you offer any kind of rewards to try to find out 
who was responsible for the violence ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, we never offered any rewards for finding out who 
was the perpetrator of any violence, We offered a reward to get the 
Greenlease money, the kidnappers. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did you learn of the cab going into the river ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I wouldn't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. You said you read it in the newspapers shortly after. 

Mr. Gibbons. I am not sure it was in the newspapers shortly after 
but I suspected it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is what interested me. It was not in the news- 
papers shortly after it went into the river. 

Mr. Gibbons. I was mistaken about it. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did you find out about it ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Among other things I read it in the newspapers when 
your committee pulled it out of the river, and I had no knowledge of 
my own that there was a cab in the river. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had not known before then ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. I thought you indicated to Senator Ives that you 
learned immediately after that? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, I don't believe I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Mitchell testified regarding the conversation 
with you in which you told him to go on his own. 

Mr. Gibbons. May I consult with my attorney for a moment ? 

(Witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Gibbons. The question, Mr. Kennedy, will you repeat it so I 
will be absolutely certain of it? 

Mr. Kennedy. I am talking about Mr. Mitchell's testimony re- 
garding the conversation that he had with you prior to the time that 
he testified he drove the taxicab into the river. Did you have any con- 
versation with him wherein he told you that he was going to go off 
and do things on his own ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I never had any conversation with him to my recol- 
lection in which he said he was going to go off on his own and do 
things on his own. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14597 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he make any arrangements with you that you 
would send someone to the Missouri Athletic Club and that he would 
pick up the taxi there? 

Mr. Gibbons. I have absolutely no recollection of the meeting he 
spoke of being on the street one day. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you send anyone to the Missouri Athletic Club ? 

(Witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Gibbons. I have no recollection of ever having sent anyone to 
the Missouri Athletic Club for purposes of meeting Mitchell and 
having him destroy a cab and if I did I am pretty certain I would recall 
it. 

Mr. Kennedy. That would be the point. I would think that would 
be one thing you could remember, if you had done something like that ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, I think I should be able to remember that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you deny that you did? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't deny it because I am. fearful of my memory 
letting me down. I am very conscious the tricks the mind can play on 
you. The things you are most certain of you of ttimes are all wrong on. 
This is one of the instances where I don't want to fly in the face of 
testimony even though the testimony was pretty bad because I cannot 
recollect any such conversation. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you think it is possible that you did do this thing ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Not on the basis of how I know myself to be I am cer- 
tain it could not be possible. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you are not prepared to deny it ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, again I say to you it is only because I am fearful 
that I can't remember it and I am fearful to go and say it. I would 
like to be able to say that I didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, I think it would be helpful if you could. 

Mr. Gibbons. I am very conscious how helpful it would be, also. But 
I don't propose to say something which I am not certain about, Mr. 
Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. We will let the record rest like that. 

On this exhibit that you were discussing, before, I thought we would 
clear that up, too. This is the individual who was beaten versus the 
cab company, isn't that right ? 

Mr. Gibbons. This Hertzworm's testimony. I was the defendant 
in that suit. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is versus the cab company ? 

Mr. Gibbons. That is right. Including Harold Gibbons. 

Mr. Kennedy. The cab company and the union. It says just versus 
the cab company ? 

Mr. Gibbons. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. So the attorney that you quoted from, was defending 
the cab company in this matter? 

Mr. Gibbons. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Against the man who was beaten? 

Mr. Gibbons. In that legal proceeding because I was a defendant 
in it, in that legal proceeding the court found I had no place in there 
and they dismissed my end of it. It would seem logical that if Mr. 
Herzwurm was suing me for money he would try to establish to the 
satisfaction of the court that somewhere I was involved. Apparently 

21243— 59— pt. 39 4 



14598 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

he did not say I was at that meeting because under those circumstances 
I question whether the court would dismiss me as a defendant. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think he didn't sue the union. The cab company 
joined the union. That is what happened. My only point was on the 
question that the lawyer at that time was 

Mr. Gibbons. That is right. That is what I was quoting from. 
I think I pointed that out to Senator McClellan. I think he recognized 
that, too. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Gibbons, we also had the testimony on the 
incident where a man by the name of Ford was beaten attempting 
to go into a union hall and the testimony from Mr. Walla that he 
called you and you sent over certain individuals to act as doormen. 

Mr. Gibbons. This brings me back to that same realm that we were 
previously discussing as to my approach to violence. I happen to 
have attended the meeting at which Ford along with about 15 others, 
headed by Pete Higgins, the guy who formerly headed that local, was 
at, and where a worker got up and tried to approve the minutes of the 
previous meeting he was threatened and when the meeting adjourned 
there simply was no business of any kind transacted. 

We were told at that time at that meeting that this would be the 
procedure in future meetings. 

On the second meeting, the following week, and Gene had some calls 
that this same crowd was mobilizing, he called me for some help. I 
had already had the experience of a group of guys strong-arming their 
way or trying to strong-arm their way back into power in that local 
union and so I did the only thing I could do, was try to see to it that 
that meeting operated. I was the trustee of the local and that was my 
responsibility. I immediately called for membership support to de- 
fend the rights of that local union to function against the strong-arm 
tactics of those who would seek to regain power. 

I called in, not just cabdrivers, I called in workers from a series of 
local unions to be there, members of a series of local unions to be at 
the meeting hall to see to it that peace was maintained and that the 
orderly functioning of that union was not interfered with. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why was it that once again, Mr. Gibbons, for 
somebody who doesn't condone violence, you would send over indi- 
viduals who have these long criminal records, records involved in 
extensive violence ? Tony and Joe Cottero ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't know about the once again? This is the 
first time. 

Mr. Kennedy, Again arrested for stabbing, drugstore holdup, 
attempted murder, and you got a fellow here, the other man is a pimp, 
who put his wife in a bawdy house. These are the people you sent 
over there to keep order. 

Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Kennedy, again I remind you of my previous 
testimony here, that these men were members of the union, employed 
by the employers, and they were active in the union. When I called 
for volunteers, these people volunteered. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Gibbons, you can't keep dismissing this. You 
were the one that sent them over "there. 

Mr. Gibbons. Let us not dismiss anything. I am not trying to 
dismiss anything. I am prepared to stand by every single act I 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14599 

have ever performed in my life. I authorized their going over there. 
I don't recall that I specifically sent out the invitation to anyone of 
them. But I will take responsibility as trustee for their having 
been there. 

But I point out to you, No. 1, I knew nothing about any record 
that anyone of them had. To me they were just a bunch of active 
trade unionists in their union, and when they were asked to go to the 
defense of their union against the strong-arm tactics of the ex-officers, 
they volunteered, and that was good enough for me, and it was on that 
basis they were sent over there. They were not sent over there with 
instruction to slug anybody. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have at least eight people that are listed here. 
Each one has a criminal record, that ranges from putting their wives 
in houses of prostitution, to stabbing, to attempted murder, to armed 
robbery, burglary, white slavery, carrying concealed weapons, every 
conceivable crime. You happened just by chance to send them over 
to guard over the union meeting. 

Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Kennedy, this you have knowledge of in 1958. 
I did not have knowledge of this at the time that any of those in- 
stances took place. If you have a quarrel with people in the cab 
union with criminal records, you should take it up with employers. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am taking it up now. I say they got in there 
first. You used them, Mr. Gibbons. 

Mr. Gibbons. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. You used them on the streets to keep the cabs off 
the street. They were involved in violence. You used them when 
you wanted somebody to keep people out of union headquarters. 

Mr. Gibbons. Not as men with criminal records. I used them as 
members in good standing in my union who were active in a strike 
and volunteering to preserve order. 

The Chairman. How many men did you send ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't recall the exact number, Senator. I suggest 
there must have been 15 to 30 people over there. It was not to take 
care of any Mr. Ford. 

Mr. Kennedy., We have a list of 10 and every one of them has a 
criminal record — an extensive criminal record. 

Mr. Gibbons. Is this the complete record of the people there? 

Mr. Kennedy. These are the men we know of. 

Mr. Gibbons. There were more there. 

Mr. Kennedy. You give us the names of those and we will check 
their criminal records. 

The Chairman. Let us say there were 30. At least one third 
were people of that character. 

Mr. Gd3bons. I am not denying that these people have criminal 
records. I am quite conscious of it. I was not aware of it at the 
time they were sent over. I sent them not as men with criminal 
records. I sent them as active workers in a strike situation. 

The Chairman. Here is the implication. When you anticipate 
violence, or when you want violence committed, you use this character 
of people to do it. You cannot escape that. 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't accept the responsibility, Senator. 

The Chairman. You are the one that directed them to go and 
you take no responsibility for the kind of characters they are? That 
is what you say. 



14600 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Gibbons. I take responsibility for sending them over as trade 
unionists. I had no access to their records. I had no means to get 
their police records. I had no occasion to even suspect them of 
having police records. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me ask you about another situation, then. I 
think all of these incidents add up in my estimation to a pattern. 
Let me ask you about your relationship with Mr. Joe Costello. 

Mr. Gibbons. Eight, 

Mr. Kennedy. Of the Ace Cab Co. We had some testimony here 
that in 1956, at the time of the wildcat strike, you made certain 
arrangements with the Ace Cab Co. to get people to patrol the streets. 
Is that correct ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, it is not correct, 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any arrangement with the Ace Cab Co. 
at all? 

Mr. Gibbons. Now let me tell you about the arrangements with the 
Ace Cab Co. at the time of the strike. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Mr. Joe Costello ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. He is under contract with our union. He is an 
employer. 

Mr.* Kennedy. How long have you known Joe Costello? 

Mr. Gibbons. Only since the time I had occasion to take over the 
taxicab local as trustee, to the best of my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss with him the situation involving the 
wildcat strike in 1956? 

Mr. Gibbons. Let me tell you about the wildcat strike. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you just answer the question? 

Mr. Gibbons. Did I discuss with him the wildcat strike? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. I certainly did because he was one of the employers 
who was on strike. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he make arrangements for you to have any 
assistance of his drivers? 

Mr. Gibbons. He never made any arrangements for me to have as- 
sistance and he certainly never made any arrangements with me to 
give me any assistance. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you make any payments subsequent to the Ace 
Cab Co.? 

Mr. Gibbons. I would like to develop why. 

Mr. Kennedy. Go ahead. 

Mr. Gibbons. I was in New York City when that strike took place. 
The background is that the employers could not not operate their 
cabs because they could not hire white drivers. They turned to the 
union and asked if the union had any objection to their employment 
of Negro drivers. My only question raised at that time was that we 
had absolutely no objection, but I would like to see all of the cab 
companies do' it because if one did it, there would be discrimination 
against that cab company, through rumors and appeals to prejudice. 
We had a meeting with the four cab company heads including from 
the Mayor's Commission on Human Relations, a representative of the 
Urban League, NAACP, and a professor from Washington Uni- 
versity. We discussed the thing and we set a date for it, I was in New 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14601 

York the night that the thing was to take place, the integration was 
to take place, and the next day I got telephone calls that the entire 
industry was shut down. I proceeded to come back to the city of St. 
Louis and tried to effect a resumption of service and get our workers 
back to work. I sent out a letter to every one of our workers instruct- 
ing them to go back to work because we had a responsibility to perform 
under a collective bargaining agreement we had with those four com- 
panies. This was not successful, and then I went on the basis of 
putting on some crews to protect the people. It did not work. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where did you get the crews from ? 

Mr. Gibbons. From my rank-and-file membership. Let me go to 
the heart of your question now. In the first few days in which the 
strike took place, the union was incapable of supplying men to operate 
the taxicabs. Mr. Costello saw fit to place a series of his drivers who 
were not driving or he took them off driving and put them in cars and 
they patrolled the streets to protect his drivers who were functioning. 
It was the only way to get them off the streets by putting them in 
the hospital. Three of our people were injured severely. When I 
got my crews operating — and incidentally from the minute my crews 
hit the street there was no violence of any kind, and less than 10 days 
later, that about the fourth day and about 6 days the industry was 
back to normal operation. When it was over, Joe Costello pointed out 
he had spent a lot of money — or during the strike — bringing about 
something which the union had total responsibility for, namely, the 
operation of his cabs. He explained what he did. He put men in 
cars in order to protect the drivers so that they could function without 
fear of being injured. He told me that. I said fine. If you put men 
on the streets, if you have expended money on a responsibility which 
is clearly our union's, and which we are subject to suit for, I says I 
will reimburse your company. This I did. I was not consulted when 
they were put on the street. I had no knowledge of who was in the 
cabs when they were put on the street. It was only after the thing was 
going that Joe Costello asked me to reimburse him for the money. I 
talked even to my attorneys, do they have a legal claim on our union 
for not performing under the contracts. , 

Mr. Kennedy. How much did you reimburse him ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I think something like 25 or 23 hundred dollars, if 
I am not mistaken. You have the records. 

Mr. Kennedy. We will put them in. 

Mr. Gibbons. $2,900, I believe it was. My attorney tells me. 

The Chairman. Come around, Mr. Eickmeyer. 

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS EICKMEYER 

Mr. Kennedy. What do the records show the payments by the 
union were to the Ace Cab Co., Joe Costello's cab company ? 

The Chairman. Let the record show this witness has been previously 
sworn. 

Mr. Kennedy. For these individuals. 

Mr. Eickmeyer. Ace Cab Co. billed Teamster Local 405 for taxicab 
service, $2,925. This was paid to Ace Cab Co. on the same date with 
a check from local 405. 

The Chairman. The statement and the check may be made exhibit 
106, A and B. 



14602 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibit 106 A and B, 
for reference and will be found in the appendix on pp. 14897-14898.) 

Mr. Kennedy. How many individuals were there that were in- 
volved ; that received payments ? 

Mr. Eickmeyer. Thirteen individuals. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many of the 13 have criminal records? 

Mr. Eickmeyer. We checked and found all 13 had criminal records. 

Mr. Kennedy. All the 13 who received money in connection with 
this matter have criminal records? 

Mr. Eickmeyer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, once again these criminal records 
are extensive criminal records. These are not those who just got 
arrested for going through a stop sign. 

The Chairman. Do you have a list of them and their records? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, we do. 

The Chairman. Perhaps someone can verify it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Langenbacher can do it. 

The Chairman. You have been previously sworn ? 

Mr. Langenbacher. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you have the record of the 13 men referred to ? 

Mr. Langenbacher. Yes, we have a record of the hoodlum squad. 
They do not have all the convictions, but the hoodlum squad saw fit 
to keep records on all of them. I have those records before me now. 

The Chairman. That is the hoodlum squad of St. Louis ? 

Mr. Langenbacher. Of the St. Louis police ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Two of them, the two we had here before the com- 
mittee, were under indictment for murder at the time they were per- 
forming this service ? 

Mr. Langenbacher. That is correct. Lou Shoulders, Jr., and one 
of the Harvill brothers were under indictment for murder of one 
Bobby Carr in East St. Louis, and, I am informed by the police, it 
was a murder over jurisdiction in prostitution matters. 

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

The Chairman. Do you have the list there of the 13 ? 

Mr. Langenbacher. Yes, sir ; I do. 

The Chairman. Have you checked it ? Did you say you took that 
from the police records in St. Louis ? 

Mr. Langenbacher. Yes, sir. In fact, these are copies of the police 
records themselves, furnished by the police of St. Louis in response 
to my request. 

The Chairman. That record may be made exhibit No. 107. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 107" for ref- 
erence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Previant. Mr. Chairman, might we have the record clear at 
this point that these were persons who were hired by the cab company 
and not hired by the union in any capacity? 

The Chairman. Hired by the cab company for which the cab com- 
panv was reimbused by the union. 

Mr. Previant. Not hired by the union or with the knowledge of 
the union. 

The Chairman. But reimbursed. 

Mr. Gibbons. Subsequently reimbursed, but in no sense a responsi- 
bility of mine in connection with putting them on the streets. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14603 

Mr. Kennedy. Certainly the responsibility comes back to you when 
you pay for them. 

Mr. Gibbons. No ; it does not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Joe Costello has the contacts. 

Mr. Gd3bons. No ; I did not go to Mr. Costello at any point asking 
for any assistance in that strike situation, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did you pay him this money ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I paid him because he legitimately showed what he 
had expended on the problem of doing the things which the union 
was responsible for, namely the performing. 

Mr. Kennedy. You condoned the hiring of these gangsters and 
hoodlums to patrol the streets of St. Louis ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I did not condone any such things, Mr. Kennedy. 
If I had been putting them on the streets, I would have been very 
much more careful who it was. 

The Chairman. Did you just use the same care in sending them 
down to the union hall ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I did not send any Harvills down to the union hall. 
I don't believe they are even members, the Harvill boys. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about Lou Shoulders ? 

Mr. Gibbons. A union man, again hired by an employer. 

Mr. Kennedy. You used Lou Shoulders, have you not ? 

Mr. Gibbons. In what respect ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you used Lou Shoulders at all? 

Mr. Gibbons. Again, as an active member of the union, when we 
called for volunteers, he may have shown up on one of the picket lines. 

Mr. Kennedy. In the Granite City strike ? 

Mr. Gibbons. He could have been over on the Granite City picket 
line. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did you send a man like Lou Shoulders? 

Mr. Gibbons. I did not send him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who sent him ? 

Mr. Gibbons. It is a question of any time we have an opportunity 
or need to mobilize our membership, the best I do is O. K. it, and as 
I did in the Granite City situation, which was the occasion for a strike 
taking place, I asked that some of our people be sent over there to 
assist. What probably happened out of that was the staff called some 
shop stewards. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you ever sent anybody that has not an exten- 
sive criminal record? 

Mr. Gibbons. Just a minute. Here, talking about people, here is 
a whole slew of people that were in my cars. Look at the list. There 
are four pages of them. You can check them. I question whether 
you will find any of them with a police record. They are all rank 
and filers, right off the trucks, garages, and warehouses. 

They were on my 50 automobiles that we had on the street. They 
were people, again, that were picked through the process of the staff 
calling shop stewards from the various unions and officers, asking 
for volunteers to help. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let's have the background of some of these people 
that were placed on during the wildcat strike of 1956. 

Mr. Gibbons. By Mr. Costello, do you mean? 

Mr. Kennedy. Paid by the union. 



14604 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. 

Mr. Langenbacher. This is a summary of the men, according to 
the hoodlum squad records of the city police of St. Louis. 

Joseph John Cannella : Strike breaker ; muscle man ; took active 
part in assault on cab driver; associate of Barney Baker and Lou 
Shoulders, Jr.; arrested for selling firearms, nonsupport, disposing 
of mortgaged property; suspicion of seduction and peace disturb- 
ance; fined $50 for bootlegging and sentenced to 18 months for 
interstate transportation of firearms. 

Max Feldman : Arrested for alcohol tax violation ; suspicion of 
affray on two occasions; as a fugitive for investigation; suspicion 
of robbery on three occasions ; disturbing the peace on two occasions ; 
investigation on four occasions. 

Sam Salvator Guccione: Hired bodyguard for Joseph Costello; 
associate of John Vitale, Isadore Londe, Anthony Lapipero, Anthony 
Giardano, Ralph Calico, and Louis Shoulders, Jr.; arrested for 
assault with deadly weapon, assault with intent to kill, suspicion 
of murder, burglary, receiving stolen property, suspicion of homicide. 

George "Stormy" Harvill: Associate of hoodlums; acquitted of 
murder in 1952; indicted with Lou Shoulders, Jr., for murder of 
Bobby Carr in 1955; numerous other arrests for investigation. 

Wilbourne "Babe" Harvill: Known associate of many hoodlums; 
arrested for carrying weapons; larceny of auto; fugitive; peace 
disturbance; carrying concealed weapon; suspicion of larceny on 
two occasions ; suspicion of murder on two occasions. 

Charles Jefferson Hollis: Known associate of hoodlums; arrested 
for petty larceny, forgery, passing stolen checks, suspicion of bur- 
glary, suspected prostitution. 

Robert James; Arrested for peace disturbance and for receiving 
stolen property. 

William Laird: Arrested for destruction of property, suspected 
homicide, suspected robbery and suspected larceny. 

Rolland Lehman: Arrested for destruction of city property. 

William Manley : Arrested for suspicion of stealing, suspicion of 
gambling, worthless check, two cases of suspected burglary, three 
cases of suspected prostitution and suspected gambling. 

William Harold Sanders : Associate of most known local hoodlums : 
reputation as a strikebreaker and slugger; numerous arrests of as- 
sault to do great bodily harm ; arrested with Teamster muscle man 
"Barney" Baker ; arrested for carrying concealed weapons ; acquitted 
of murder. 

Louis Shoulders, Jr. : Reputation as burglar and muscle man : asso- 
ciate of hoodlums ; under indictment with "Stormy" Harvill for mur- 
der; fined $100 and placed on probation for burglary; arrested for 
peace disturbance, carrying concealed weapon, fugitive; arrested for 
common assault, suspicion of disposing of stolen property. 

Joe Troup: Arrested as fugitive; on 8 occasions for suspicion of 
robbery and on 3 occasions for destruction of property. 

The Chairman. This witness may be excused for the present, 

Mr. Fitzgerald, we are going to recess until 10 : 30 in the morning. 

Mr. Previaxt. Is this witness to return tomorrow morning? 

The Chairman. Yes, at 10 : 30 in the morning. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14605 

Mr. Fitzgerald, did you bring your records? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I have my 1957 records. Tomorrow I will have 
them over here when I get them back to the building. Then I will 
have a report on these different files that you want. I will have it 
in here by tomorrow morning. 

The Chairman. All right, in the morning at 10 : 30. 

The committee will stand in recess until 10 : 30 in the morning. 

(Whereupon, at 4:50 p. m. the hearing was recessed to reconvene 
at 10:30 a. m. Wednesday, September 3, 1958, with the following 
members present: Senators McClellan and Ives.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 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; Sen- 
ator Irving M. Ives, Republican, New York. Also present: Robert 
F. Kennedy, chief counsel; Jerome S. Adlerman, assistant chief 
counsel ; Paul Tierney, assistant counsel ; John J. McGovern, assistant 
counsel; Carmine S. Bellino, accountant; Pierre E. Salinger, investi- 
gator; Leo C. Nulty, investigator; James P. Kelly, investigator; 
Walter J. Sheridan, investigator ; James Mundie, investigator, Treas- 
ury Department; John Flanagan, investigator, GAO; Alfred Vita- 
relli, investigator, GAO; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk. 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

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

The Chairman. May I suggest to the photographers that the wit- 
ness requested that no flashes be made while he is testifying. Gentle- 
men, you will observe the orders of the Chair. 

Mr. Kennedy, proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF HAROLD J. GIBBONS, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
DAVID PEEVIANT AND STANLEY ROSENBLUM— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Gibbons, I was interested yesterday in your 
statement as to your lack of knowledge about who was responsible 
for these acts of violence, and your further statement that you were 
against violence yourself and deplored it when it was used by others 
or that it was used in connection with a strike. I would like you to 
look at some of the testimony, in volume 12, page 2298. 

Mr. Gibbons. What page is that ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Page 2298. 

Mr. Gibbons. I am sorry, I don't have that. 

Mr. Kennedy. August 26, 1958. 

Mr. Gibbons. I am sorry, I don't have that. 

14607 



14608 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. I will read it to you. The question on the bottom 
of page 2298. 

Question. Did you know a cabdriver by tbe name of Leon Smitb? 

Mr. Mitchell. Yes, sir. 

Question. He was a Yellow Cab driver? 

Mr. Mitchell. Yes, sir. 

Question. Are you aware of the fact that his cab was smashed? 

Mr. Mitchell. Yes, sir. 

Question. That was while he was carrying the passenger's bags into the 
house? 

Mr. Mitchell. Yes, sir. 

Question. The cab was smashed and the windshield was broken; is that right? 

Mr. Mitchell. That is right, sir. 

Question. Did you ever know who was responsible for that? 

Mr. Mitchell. Bommarito and Joe Ferrara. 

Question. How did you know that? 

Mr. Mitchell. Through them telling us after a patrol. 

Question. How about Alvin Mercer, who was also a Yellow Cab driver? Did 
you hear about him? 

Mr. Mitchell. Yes, sir ; more or less, hearsay. 

Question. What happened to him? 

Mr. Mitchell. His cab was wrecked and he was beat up. 

Question. Did you hear who was responsible for that? 

Mr. Mitchell. The business agent at that time and another one or two. 

Question. Do you remember who that was? 

Mr. Mitchell. Ben Saltzman I believe was the business agent at that time. 
This was more or less discussed after a patrol. 

Question. What about Paul Herzwiurm, who was a Yellow Cab driver, was 
he beaten? 

Mr. Mitchell. Yes, sir. 

Question. Who were you told was responsible for that? 

Mr. Mitchell. Mr. Saltzman was responsible for that. He was talking about 
it, expecting to be arrested. 

Now, when there acts of violence took place, evidently according 
to Mr. Mitchell's testimony, it was discussed as to who was responsible 
for them. Did you try to determine yourself who was responsible, 
and take action against those individuals? 

Mr. Gibbons. It is kind of regrettable, Mr. Kennedy, that you seem 
to place so much faith in a person like Mitchell. If your staff had done 
the most elementary kind of investigation you would have found for 
instance that he lied in terms of the placing of Saffo in the meeting, 
and at the time Pete Saffo had just come through three major opera- 
tions. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you answer the question, please? Did you 
make a study to try to find out who was responsible for this violence ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I had reports every morning from crews, and not I 
personally, but we, let me put it that way, had reports every morning 
from crews on the streets at night, 

Mr. Kennedy. When these acts of violence took place, did you go 
to the members of this group that met at your headquarters, and ask 
them if they were responsible ? 

Mr. Gibbons, I got the reports every morning or our people got the 
reports, those directly responsible for the strike and there was no 
publicity upon those and many of those acts, which are related there, 
as far as I am concerned right now, may never even have happened. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have a lot of people that were beaten up, Mr. 
Gibbons, whether your recognize it or not, or whether you care about 
it or not. 

Mr. Gibbons. I care. I am deeply concerned about it. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14609 

Mr. Kennedy. So therefore I am asking you. That is your state- 
ment. I am asking you what evidence you have. I am asking you 
whether you asked any of these individuals what they knew or 
whether they had any information as to who was responsible. 

Mr. Gibbons. Every morning after the evening's work, the night's 
work, people were questioned in discussions at the union headquar- 
ters as they gave their reports. This is the degree to which we 
have investigated these particular acts of violence, but I will refer 
you again 

The Chairman. Mr. Gibbons, the question is, did you yourself 
ask them ? 

Mr. Gibbons. This is one of the particular strikes, Senator, that I 
was not directly involved in. 

The Chairman. You can answer the question "Yes" or "No." Did 
you yourself ask them about it ? 

Mr. Gibbons. The answer at this time that I can give is that I have 
no recollection of actually investigating personally any specific acts 
of violence in that particular strike. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, going back to Mr. Bommarito, I was partic- 
ularly interested as far as he was concerned. We had the testimony 
again, of Mr. Mitchell, regarding that event, and he testified. This 
is page 2303. 

Mr. Mitchell. I pulled in front of the cab, and Farrera and the girl got out. 
They started to cross a lot. There was three carloads of us. There was three 
carloads of men around, with the exception of the drivers, around the car, and 
they were trying to turn it over. I tried to get my car out before they turned 
it over. In the meantime, we heard the police sirens. So when we heard the 
police sirens, they wasn't making very much success at turning the car over 
so Joseph Bommarito he said he hurt his back or something. 

Question. Trying to turn the car over? 

Mr. Mitchell. So after he said that, some of the boys grabbed the snow 
chains out of my car and beat out the windows and then a few of them jumped 
in my car. 

Did you make an investigation of that at all, Mr. Gibbons? 

Mr. Gibbons. In the answer to your last question, I pointed out to 
the Senator, to my knowledge at this time I did not make an inde- 
pendent investigation of any of the acts of violence which took place 
in that particular strike. 

The Chairman. I have one question here, to clear this up: Did 
you at those meetings in the morning, or the patrols who had come 
in off the street when they had their meeting, did you personally 
appear there and interrogate them about the incidents of the night 
before ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't believe I did, Senator. I have no recollec- 
tion of actually sitting in on those sessions. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, on page 2304, Mr. Mitchell goes on and he says 
about coming back to the headquarters : 

Mr. Mitchell. I was given instructions to keep my automobile away from 
there due to the fact that my car was seen at the scene of the crime. 

Question : Who told you that? 

Mr. Mitchell. Mr. Gibbons, for one, and most all of them around the office 
told me to keep away from there. 

Did you tell him that? 

Mr. Gibbons. Again, I have no independent recollection. 



14610 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you deny that you told him to keep his car away 
from the headquarters ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I haven't any recollection of discussing that matter 
with Mr. Mitchell and having given him any instructions about keep- 
ing his car away. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you deny that you told him to keep his car away 
from the headquarters, Mr. Gibbons ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I have no independent recollection of having done so. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you deny it ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Do I deny it? I don't have any independent recol- 
lection and I can't necessarily deny or affirm it. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is, of course, the problem here, Mr. Gibbons. 
You can make general statements that, "I am against violence," and 
"I am against sin" and "I love my mother," but when it comes down 
to the particular event, you haven't any of the answers. 

Mr. Gibbons. I have answers for everything, Mr. Kennedy, that I 
am in any position, reasonable position, to give answers to. No one 
is dodging any answers, and the thing that I would go back to again 
is the character of the witnesses that you are interrogating me on now. 
I would like an opportunity to discuss Mr. Mitchell. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to say I don't think that you are going 
to get a minister, or a priest, or a rabbi going out and turning over 
cars and beating people up. These are the people that testified before 
the committee that they, personally, went out and beat people up and 
wrecked automobiles. They told who was responsible and who gave 
them instructions, and you were one of them. 

Mr. Gibbons. The question is not whether they are priests or min- 
isters, and the question is whether they are competent and whether 
they are credible. 

The Chairman. Who was Mitchell? What was he doing at that 
time? 

Mr. Gibbons. Mitchell was a cabdriver. I am sure Mr. Kennedy 
checked his police record. 

The Chairman. A cabdriver? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right; proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was one of these individuals who was meeting 
at the union headquarters? 

Mr. Gibbons. He was a person who, on the stand under oath, de- 
liberately lied. 

The Chairman. Was he one of your patrol then ? 

Mr. Gibbons. He was a member of the union active in that strike, 
and as such he did, as I understand it. 

The Chairman. He was active out patrolling? 

Mr. Gibbons. He did participate in the patrolling. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, we had the testimony on page 2303 about Mr. 
Bommarito hurting his back. Then, by Mr. Sparks, on page 2362 we 
had some testimony regarding a group that went out to wreck a cab 
where Mr. Bommarito hurt his back. 

Question. Were you present at that? 
Mr. Sparks. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Didn't Bommarito take the fifth amendment on the 
question whether he had hurt his back turning over a car ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14611 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Does he still work for you ; Bommarito ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Bommarito is employed by 405, and as a trustee of 
that local I am responsible for it, and I expect that the answer to that 
could be interpreted as "Yes." 

The Chairman. I don't know how otherwise to interpret it. If he 
is in your employ, or in the employ of the union, the union over which 
have control, you have the right to hire or discharge him, do you not ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, because his is not an elected position. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. On page 2368, the question was asked by the chair- 
man: 

How did that fellow get his back hurt out there; Bommarito? 
Mr. Sparks. I guess he was trying to turn the cab over. 
The Chairman. Did you see him trying to turn it over? 
Mr. Sparks. I was there. I was helping him. 

Now, Mr. Gibbons, are you taking any action against Mr. Bom- 
marito to remove him from his job ? 

Mr. Gibbons. You already gave us the record on Mr. Sparks, who 
was at one time confined to an insane asylum, according to you. Do 
you think I am going to fire a responsible staff member on the evidence 
or on the basis of a man from an insane asylum ? 

Mr. Kennedy. These individuals, obviously, the people that you got 
to commit these acts of violence, as I said, are not going to be the fore- 
most citizens of St. Louis. These are people who have been involved 
in violence. I read their police records, and there is no question about 
that. They come in here and they say that they did it. 

There is no reason to lie and they are not being paid to say they did 
it. They come in and they confess that they took part in it. They 
tell who else was responsible for it. 

Mr. Bommarito was one of those that was identified as being respon- 
sible for it. They said he hurt his back. We go to the police or to the 
records in the hospital, and he goes to the hospital immediately — he 
has wrecked his back. Could you tell us how he hurt his back ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Kennedy, it is not a question whether they are 
priests or ministers, and the issue is not whether or not they were there 
and saw these things. The issue is whether or not these are credible 
witnesses whose testimony can be believed. You have destroyed every 
one of them by your own compilation of their police records. 

The Chairman. And Mr. Bommarito can be believed ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, sir; Mr. Bommarito, I believe, could be believed. 

The Chairman. Will you have him come here and testify? 

Mr. Gibbons Mr. Chairman, the right of a member of my staff or a 
member of the union or any American citizen to take the fifth in the 
light of his own conscience is one which I would protect and not at- 
tempt to interfere with. 

The Chairman. I understand. 

Mr. Gibbons. This is a constitutional right of every American 
citizen. 

The Chairman. The theory about the right to take the fifth has its 
proper place, but it also has its proper implication. If a man were 
working for you, personally, and embezzled your personal funds, and 
you asked him about it and he took the fifth, I don't think that you 
would keep him in your employ much longer. 



14612 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR EIELD 

Mr. Gibbons. If lie embezzled my funds and to my knowledge, I can 
assure you I wouldn't, but it would have nothing to do with his taking 
the fifth before a governmental body. 

The Chairman. I understand. A governmental body today in some 
areas has lost the respect that it deserves, and instead it is treated with 
utter contempt. 

Mr. Gibbons. Let me assure you, Senator, that I have the utmost and 
deepest respect for this body, and every other section of our American 
Government, and what your comments are do not apply in my par- 
ticular instance. I shall deal with Mr. Bommarito. 

The Chairman. Proceed. It will be about the first instance that 
there has been anybody dealt with in the Teamsters Union. 

Mr. Kennedy. The reason you are reluctant to deal with him is 
because you knew this was going on ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I thought maybe you were going to tell me I was 
afraid to deal with him. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is Mr. Hoffa. 

Mr. Gibbons. But I am not reluctant at all to deal with Mr. 
Bommarito. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tell me again about the hospital bills. What ex- 
planation did he give to you about hurting his back ? If Mr. Sparks' 
testimony was wrong, and if Mr. Mitchell's testimony is wrong, and 
Mr. Bommarito takes the fifth amendment, what explanation did he 
give to you about the back ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I believe I testified to that yesterday, Mr. Kennedy. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. I want to hear it again. 

Mr. Gibbons. My testimony was to the effect that if I paid or if our 
union paid for the hospital bills, it had to be related — it was investi- 
gated at the time, it was inquired into at the time, and it must have 
been related to legitimate trade-union activity. And in doing so, we 
treated Bommarito no different than we treat any other striker or 
member of our union who was working on behalf of the organization 
when he got injured. 

The Chairman. If the facts are that he was out there undertaking 
to wreck a car or turn it over, and you knew it at the time and paid his 
hospital bill, would you regard that as legitimate labor-union activity ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, I would not. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you say that it had something to do with trade- 
union activity? 

Mr. Gibbons. I assume as much, on the basis that we paid for it, Mr. 
Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. That makes it even more interesting, Mr. Gibbons, 
because when he reported to the hospital, he said he received this injury 
from lifting a trunk. 

Mr. Gibbons. Who did he report this to, Mr. Kennedy ? 

Mr. Kennedy. We have the hospital report. I will show it to you. 

This patient stated that he tried to lift a heavy trunk and got sudden pain in 
the lower back and could not be expected to walk as usual. 

He came to the hospital for 

The Chairman. Has that already been made an exhibit ? 
Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14613 

Mr. Gibbons. Do you believe the report that is given there, Mr. 
Kennedy ? 

Mr. Kennedy. This is what the patient said. 

Mr. Gibbons. What am I to believe, the testimony you gave me of 
the witnesses or this one ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is what I am trying to find out. You said the 
union paid his bills, the union paid his bills because it was tied up to 
trade activity. This man comes in and says it was from lifting a trunk. 
This is what Bommarito says. 

Mr. Gibbons. I did not testify directly to the fact that it was posi- 
tively tied in with trade-union activity, Mr. Kennedy. I stated to you 
that if this bill had been cleared and paid by our union, some one of our 
officials had evidently investigated it, was satisfied that it was related 
to the union work, and thus paid it. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have the testimony that it was not ; that it was 
involved in trying to turn a car over. Mr. Bommarito takes the fifth 
amendment. Certainly when he went to the hospital he was not going 
to say "I was trying to wreck an automobile, turn a cab over." 

He gave that excuse. Are you going to take action to try to get 
that money restored? 

Mr. Gibbons. No. You characterize this yourself as an excuse. 
Why should I act on an excuse? 

Mr. Kennedy. But this is Mr. Bommarito 

Mr. Gibbons. I told you it had been inquired into, if one of our 
representatives or officers had agreed to pay the bill, and I was 
satisfied that it was related, if this had occurred, it was related to 
legitimate trade-union activity. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did they report to you as the trade-union 
activity ? 

Mr. Gibbons. They didn't report to me. I said that someone must 
have checked it, and I am satisfied that if one of my officers O. K.'d 
it 

Mr. Kennedy. Who O. K.'d it, then? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't know at those dates who was the one who 
was O. K.'ing the strike expenditures. Probably it was Lou Berra. 
No, it wasn't Lou Berra. It was probably Phil Reichardt, or one 
of the other people who was active in that particular strike. 

Maybe Lou Berra was active in that strike. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, Lou Berra was active in it. It could have been 
Lou Berra, it could have been Phil Reichardt, 1 of the 2. Or it may 
have been someone else, in fact. 

Mr. Kennedy. Based on this, you will not take action against him? 

Mr. Gibbons. Based on what? 

Mr. Kennedy. Based on the testimony before the committee, based 
on the record at the hospital, where he evidently did not give the 
correct facts, because you said it must have been related to union 
activity or his bill would not have been paid. 

Mr. Gibbons. He must have given the straight facts either, Mr. 
Kennedy, or your witnesses are not to be believed. Your witnesses 
are in direct conflict with this, their testimony under oath. If I am 
going to take this, I must make up my mind which to take. 

21243— 59— pt. 39 5 



14614 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. This is the patient's, Mr. Bommarito's, report to 
the hospital. He does not say anything about union activity. 

Mr. Gibbons. Is this a true and accurate picture of what the actual 
situation was? 

Mr. Kennedy. This is Mr. Bommarito. You say you paid the 
hospital bill, Mr. Gibbons. You paid the hospital bill because it was 
involved in trade-union activity. 

According to Mr. Bommarito's statement it was not involved in 
trade-union activity. How can you explain paying the hospital 
bills, then? 

Mr. Gibbons. I am going to check on the basis of the paying of 
the bills, now that you are making a big issue out of the payment 
of the bill. 

Mr. Kennedy. Making a big issue? 

Mr. Gibbons. It is a little bit confusing when you bring this to 
me and say that this proves it was not related to trade-union activity, 
that he actually got hurt lifting a trunk, and then you bring forth 
a bunch of witnesses who claim he got it by tipping a cab. 

Mr. Kennedy. You know you can understand it better than that, 
Mr. Gibbons. 

Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Kennedy, I cannot understand it the way you 
are presenting it here. 

Mr. Kennedy. You can't ? 

Mr. Gibbons. You have to determine whether you are going to 
submit 1 of the 2 in evidence and go on that basis. 

The Chairman. On the basis of either, do you find any union 
activity connected with it? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, neither of those two items I did not, Senator, 
but I shall certainly check on it and find out to the best of my ability 
to check on it, just exactly what was the basis for it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you notify these men that you would protect 
them ? According to Mr. Mitchell, on page 2308 : 

The union said that they would protect any man who got in trouble. 

Senator Curtis asked "Who for the union said that?" 

Mr. Mitchell. Mr. Gibbons. All of those business agents said that. 

Did you tell them that? 

Mr. Gibbons. Anyone who gets in trouble in our union pursuant 
to work on behalf of our union, is going to be protected. His bills 
are going to be paid, and his family is not going to suffer if he has 
to wind up in prison. I would like to cite you an excellent case in 
that regard which proves the validity of my position. 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to ask a question. When these individuals 
were arrested, for instance, Mr. Sparks, who was arrested for trying 
to turn this automobile over, for wrecking the automobile, did you 
inquire to find out if he had in fact participated in this violence, or 
did you just pay the union money to get him out? 

Mr. Gibbons. When he was arrested, we immediately bonded him 
and everyone else out. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then did you try to find out whether he had com- 
mitted these acts of violence? 

Mr. Gibbons. I personally do not recall having done so, Mr. Ken- 
nedy. As I told you, I was not too closely identified with the actual 
operation of that particular strike. This was at a period when my 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14615 

duties had increased tremendously, and I was quite a busy person in 
and out of the city of St. Louis at that particular time. 

Mr. Kennedy. You made the statement, as I said, yesterday, that 
you were against violence, that you wanted to stamp the violence out. 
Now, when these people were arrested for violence, you paid their 
bonds immediately. I am trying to find out whether you ever inquired 
of them if they were responsible for these acts of violence, whether 
they were actually guilty of these acts of violence. 

Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Kennedy, I have a perfectly good staff. I have 
every confidence in that staff. They know the policy of the union and 
I just assumed they inquired into it. 

Mr. Kennedy. For instance, Mr. Sparks was arrested for wrecking 
this automobile, wrecking this Yellow cab. He said he ran away 
when he heard the police sirens, he ran through a field. The police 
arrested him and picked him up. 

Mr. Gibbons. He was arrested, that is right? Was he ever found 
guilty ? 

Mr. Kennedy. He was arrested, but he said he was guilty. 

Mr. Gibbons. Was he ever found guilty in a court? I think this is 
adequate proof that this man was never convicted, unless we are going 
to cast reflection on the courts that we have in this country, and the 
police system that you praised so highly when Mr. Dougherty was 
in here. 

Mr. Kennedy. This man came in and said he was arrested, and 
they were immediately bonded. 

Mr. Gibbons. I can assure you furthermore, Mr. Kennedy 

Mr. Kennedy. Wait a minute. Nobody to your knowledge ever 
inquired of them? 

Mr. Gibbons. I didn't say that, now. Don't put words in my mouth 
with regards to my testimony. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they inquire, sir? 

Mr. Gibbons. I said to you I feel certain that my staff did and I 
am sure that my attorneys did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who inquired? 

Mr. Gibbons. Whoever happened to be the staff person in charge of 
tha particular strike. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who inquired of Mr. Sparks as to whether he 
actually had committed this act? 

Mr. Gibbons. The active staff members who were in charge of that 
strike, if they O. K.'d his defenses and everything else, certainly must 
have inquired into it. 

And my attorneys, I am certain, also, who were leading his defense, 
inquired into it. 

Mr. Kennedy. All right, now. Who ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, there are court records back there, Mr. Kennedy. 
As I told you, I was not too closely identified with this strike. It is a 
little bit difficult to go back and pick out these individual names as 
you expect me to. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me ask you this, Mr. Gibbons. Did you tell 
these people when they were arrested to give their names, addresses, 
and no further information ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Exactly. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did? 



14616 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you mean if the police came along and wanted 
to know if they were responsible for an act of violence, your instruc- 
tions were they were not to tell them ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Kennedy, I have some experiences with certain 
of the police in the city of St. Louis, and I have some very excellent 
material here on the nature of the police in St. Louis, by some very 
fine and reputable people in the city of St. Louis, and I don't trust the 
police of St. Louis, in a labor dispute. It is just too bad that you 
have such confidence in them. I don't have that kind of confidence 
in a police officer because they are not above framing individuals in 
the city of St. Louis. 

Mr. Kennedy. We are glad to have your attitude on record, Mr. 
Gibbons. It shows the kind of official you are. 

With the other union officials in the city of St. Louis, there have not 
been the same complaints about them, nor have they made the com- 
plaints like that to this committee about the police in St. Louis. 

Mr. Gibbons. They have not had the background and experience 
with the police in St. Louis, Mr. Kennedy, that Mr. Gibbons has. I 
would like to cite you a few examples so that the whole story can be 
told. 

Mr. Kennedy. The facts are that Mr. Sparks and Mr. Mitchell 
went out and wrecked this automobile, that they were arrested im- 
mediately afterward, that they were told by Mr. Gibbons, to give only 
their names and addresses, no further information, that they were 
bonded then by the union, that the union put up their bond and the 
union paid their legal bills. Didn't they ultimately appear before 
the grand jury? 

Mr. Gibbons. You are a lawyer, aren't you, Mr. Kennedy? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. Would you answer the question, Mr. Gibbons ? 
Would you answer the question ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Repeat the question, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it correct that after these individuals were 
arrested, that the union then put up their bond and put up their legal 
fees, paid for their bond and for their legal fees? 

Mr. Gibbons. I already testified to the fact we do that in every 
instance in which the men are out fighting on behalf of the organiza- 
tion that I happen to represent. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you or did you not then put up the bond and 
the legal fees for these individuals? 

Mr. Gibbons. Don't expect me to say yes or no in this instance. I 
was not there. I am not certain. I cant testify to a certainty on that, 
Mr. Kennedy. You know the record. But as a general policy, this is 
the policy of our organization. 

Mr. Kennedy. And also the 

Mr. Gibbons. It seems to me to be very much in keeping with the 
best elements of American justice in which a lawyer is available to a 
prisoner as soon as he is taken into a police station. 

Mr. Kennedy. Also, Mr. Gibbons, the individuals were instructed 
to give only their names, addresses, and no further information ; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Until such time as they had an opportunity to talk 
to their lawyers. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14617 

Mr. Kennedy. Then, when they appeared before the grand jury, 
were they not also instructed at that time that they should take the 
fifth amendment? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, Mr. Kennedy ; no one instructs anyone to take the 
fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it suggested to them at that time? 

Mr. Gibbons. No ; it was not even suggested to them, to my knowl- 
edge. Certainly to my knowledge not by me or anyone else in my 
employ. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not instruct them? 

Mr. Gibbons. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. You would know. I am asking if you told any of 
these people that they better take the fifth amendment. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. The question is did you, yourself, tell them, or ad- 
vise them, or suggest to them that they take the fifth amendment ; you, 
personnally ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Senator, I have no recollection of ever telling anyone 
to take the fifth. As I understand the fifth, there is only one basis on 
which you can take the fifth, not on instructions from anyone, not on 
anyone's suggestion, but strictly on the basis of fear in your own mind 
of possible incrimination. 

The Chairman. That would probably be the correct legal inter- 
pretation. But as a matter of practice, it can be done the other 
way, too. 

Mr. Gibbons. But in my instance, this is the way I try to operate 
in connection with the fifth amendment, Senator. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever suggest to any of these people that 
they take the fifth? 

Mr. Gibbons. Never to my knowledge did I suggest by word or 
deed that they take the fifth. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you deny ? 

The Chairman. Just a moment. You say never to your knowledge. 

Mr. Gibbons. "To the best of my remembrance," I better phrase 
it. 

The Chairman. Let's pursue that a moment. You say it is against 
your policy ; you wouldn't ordinarily do a thing like that. 

I think if you did it, it would be such an exception to your general 
policy, you would remember it. 

Mr. Gibbons. I would agree with you that I should remember it if 
I made that, because it would be a very unique exception to my basic 
approach to it. 

The Chairman. All right, now. Did you or didn't you ? 

Mr. Gibbons. As I stated before, Senator, to the best of my re- 
membrance at this moment, I have no recollection of ever having 
advised or instructed anyone to take the fifth. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the best answer you can give on that one, 
too? 

Mr. Gibbons. It is the correct answer, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. You can't remember whether you did it; is that 
right? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, and I don't propose to testify unless my memory 
is clear on everything that I testify on. 



14618 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. That is fine, Mr. Gibbons. 

Mr. Gibbons. I am certainly not interested in giving the committee 
wrong information. 

The Chairman. The Chair hands you a photostatic copy of a 
document containing several pages, and it concludes "Respectfully 
submitted, Rosenblum, Goldenhersh & Merle L. Silverstein." 

Who are they ? Do you know them ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right, who are they ? 

Mr. Gibbons. They are a firm of attorneys in the city of St. Louis, 
a member which today is representing me, and which for sometime 
past has been retained and has done work for our union in St. Louis. 

The Chairman. I present to you this document and ask if you 
can identify it please, sir. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Chairman, this can be identified as a document 
out of the offices of the legal firm listed, Rosenblum, Goldenhersh 

The Chairman. It may be made exhibit 108. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 108" for 
reference, and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Previant. Might I inquire of the chairman with respect to 
the pertinency of this exhibit ? 

The Chairman. What is the title of it ? 

Mr. Previant. "Memorandum — Grand Jury Testimony." 

The Chairman, It may have some pertinency. What does it 
purport to do ? 

Mr. Previant. I can tell you what the final bit of advice is. It 
says "Do not answer any question untruthfully. The penalty for 
perjury is a severe one. If you camiot answer the question truth- 
fully without incriminating yourself, then you should consider in- 
voking your constitutional privilege against self-incrimination," 
which is sound advice, as the Chairman knows. 

Mr. Gibbons. Secondly, it is the advice of our attorneys, and I 
don't see how it has any pertinency in terms of my testimony. 

The Chairman. We will determine the pertinency of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened to this memorandum? Who re- 
quested it be prepared? 

Mr. Gibbons. I just told our attorneys I am not sure I ever saw it 
before. I thought it was another document, gotten out on a similar 
subject or on the same subject. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is on testifying before a grand jury and how 
to plead the fifth amendment, Mr. Gibbons ? 

Mr. Gibbons. What is that? 

Mr. Kennedy. This is about testifying before the grand jury and 
how to plead the fifth amendment? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't believe it has anything on how to plead the 
fifth amendment. I did not read it. I have no recollection of ever 
having read it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you request that it be prepared ? 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. GmBONS. I don't believe I did, Mr. Kennedy. I believe it 
would probably be simply a service rendered by the firm then in a 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14619 

period in which the grand jury had been convened in the city of 
St. Louis. 

Mr. Kennedy. Starting on page 2, in the middle of page 2, to the 
end of the memorandum, it is all on how to plead and when you can 
plead the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Gd3bons. You are not opposed to citizens of this country 
knowing their legal rights, are you, Mr. Kennedy ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No, Mr. Gibbons ; I am not. What did you do with 
this memorandum after you got it? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't believe I ever received it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it distributed ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't believe I ever received it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it ever distributed amongst the union officials 
in St. Louis? 

Mr. Gibbons. To the best of my knowledge, it was not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you find out what happened to it, then ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I will inquire into it. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Gibbons. In a very fast check on the subject, he tells me it was 
prepared for me — my attorney does — and that it was distributed to 
Teamster lawyers. 

Mr. Kennedy. It wasn't distributed generally amongst Teamster 
officials? 

Mr. Gibbons. Again, I have to say to you that I have no knowledge 
of it having been distributed. At least, I can recollect no knowledge 
of it ever having been distributed to anyone, including even the 
lawyers. 

Mr. Kennedy. But it was felt that such a memorandum should be 
prepared during this period of time 

Mr. Gibbons. This is a decision for lawyers to make. 

Mr. Kennedy. When the police were making investigations of your 
activities ? 

Is that correct? 

Mr. Gibbons. I would not say it was correct. I certainly could not 
testify to the correctness of that statement. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, why would the group of lawyers for the 
Teamsters prepare a 16-page memorandum on pleading the fifth 
amendment? 

Mr. Gibbons. Our Teamster lawyers, some 100 of them, have an as- 
sociation. They discuss questions like this, because they face this 
problem in representing their clients. 

Mr. Kennedy. You said they prepared it for you. 

Mr. Gibbons. He tells me that it was prepared for me. Maybe it 
was prepared at my request for them. Somebody has to authorize it. 
The Teamsters Lawyers' Association does not have any money to 
spend, so maybe they asked me to supply them with it. As a result, 
maybe I went and ordered it done. The Teamsters Lawyers' Associa- 
tion has no money. If they have, they don't spend it. I know that. 
But in any event 

Mr. Kennedy. We understand from the records that they get paid 
pretty well. 

Mr. Gibbons. Some of those who aren't Teamster lawyers get paid 
pretty good, too. 



14620 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question there ? 

The Chairman. Senator Ives. 

Senator Ives. I would like to ask the witness if this is called the 
Teamsters Lawyers' Association, is that the title of it ? 

Mr. Gibbons. That is correct, I believe. 

Senator Ives. Are these attorneys members of the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Not members of the union, no. I don't believe any of 
them hold cards in the Teamsters Union. 

Senator Ives. Some of them may ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't believe a single one, to my knowledge, 
certainly. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Gibbons. Unless some local awarded one of them an honorary 
card. But I don't believe any of them would be eligible to join a union. 

Senator Ives. I was curious. 

Mr. Kennedy. When was this memorandum prepared ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I have not any idea. I had in mind another memo- 
randum that I was sure had been prepared, and which was such a 
legal document that a layman would not even be able to understand it. 
It was nothing but a research job, citing all the cases in the field. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you inquire and find out ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Gibbons. My attorney tells me it was probably prepared in 
early 1954 at the time of the convening of the grand jury in St. Louis. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Mr. Ferrara, who did some work for 
you? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes ; I know Mr. Ferrara. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you known Mr. Ferrara ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I probably met him at the time of the cab strike. He 
was a cabdriver, to my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you use him for any purposes ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't use anyone, Mr. Kennedy. If he is a member 
of the union, if he is active in the strike, there is opportunity for him 
to function. 

Mr. Kennedy. What sort of things did you use him for? 

Mr. Gibbons. Looking back now, it would be difficult for me to de- 
termine. But judging from the testimony that was here, if the testi- 
mony is correct, he likewise was part of the patrolling of the streets. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you send any of these people to other areas? 
For instance, you talked about sending Lou Shoulders, who, as I 
understand it, was not active in that particular industry, you sent 
him to an area. Did you send these individuals out to various 

Mr. Gibbons. Again I have to correct your statements, Mr. Ken- 
nedy, and I don't like to do this. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do it, please, if it is wrong. 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, because I have no knowledge of ever having sent 
Lou Shoulders anywhere. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wasn't Mr. Lou Shoulders sent out ? 

Mr. Gibbons. This is quite a different statement than identifying 
me with sending him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then how was he sent out ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I told you yesterday the usual procedure, when we 
need membership support 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14621 

Mr. Kennedy. Who sent him out ? We will get that person. 

Mr. Gibbons. Let me tell you the procedure. 

Mr. Kennedy. Don't tell me the procedure. I want to know who 
sent Mr. Shoulders. 

Mr. Gibbons. This is the only way I can arrive at who sent him out. 

Mr. Previant. Mr. Chairman, I submit the witness can answer in 
the way he can best answer and best serve the committee. 

The Chairman. Tell us how you proceeded, and how you got him 
sent out. 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, sir. The usual procedure when we need to mo- 
bilize membership in any situaiton is that, when it is properly author- 
ized, various staff members call various shops, and they get a few 
people from each of the various shops in order not to interfere too 
much with the operation of the particular business out of which they 
come. We have in our contracts the right of taking people off the job 
during the day and during working hours for union activities. 

What happens is that when the staff guys call, they get a shop stew- 
ard on the phone, and the shop steward checks his crew and finds out 
whether or not any of them want to volunteer to go out and help the 
union in a particular situation. I would assume that this procedure 
was followed in the case of Mr. Lou Shoulders, and thus some staff 
member called the Ace Cab Co., where he was employed as a driver, to 
talk with a steward there, and as a result Mr. Shoulders was one of the 
people who happened to be handy and was available to talk to by the 
shop steward and volunteered to participate. 

The Chairman. Do you keep a bunch of thugs around you simply 
for volunteer purposes to send them out on rough jobs? 

Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Chairman, if there are any thugs in my union, it 
is because some employer saw fit to hire those thugs. I don't think 
there are any thugs. 

The Chairman. I am talking about in your official family. 

Mr. Gibbons. In my official family I don't have any thugs in my 
operations. 

Mr. Kennedy. You just go out and get them when you need them? 

Mr. Gibbons. No ; I don't go out and get them. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about Mr. Lou Shoulders ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I again bring to your attention the fact that you are 
distorting any testimony that I have given, because I have never di- 
rected Mr. Lou Shoulders to do anything. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then who sent Mr. Lou Shoulders over to Granite 
City, 111.? 

Mr. Gibbons. I explained. I just told you it was probably a shop 
steward as a result of a call from a staff member. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why would they be calling the Ace Cab Co. 

Mr. Gibbons. They were calling the Ace Cab Co. as they probably 
called and got people from other cab companies and other employers. 
It depends on who the man was that the staff member called at that 
moment. 

Mr. Kennedy. You can hand these things down to some ghost of a 
third party that we can't see and say they must have done it. 

Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Kennedy, you should try running a union of 
10,000 members and do it as a 1-man job. The only way I can operate 
that union is through an organization, through a staff, and through a 
set of stewards. 



14622 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. You assume responsibility, sir? 

Mr. Gibbons. Of course, I do. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then Mr. Lou Shoulders was sent over by you or 
your union to participate in the Granite City strike ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Not by "you." 

Mr. Kennedy. You are assuming responsibility, aren't you? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, but I am not saying that I sent him over. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tell us who sent him over. 

Mr. Gibbons. No, I did not. I assume the responsibility for the acts 
of my subordinates. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tell me who sent him over. 

Mr. Gibbons. I have explained to you, and you cannot expect me to 
recall exactly who was a shop steward at that particular moment at the 
Ace Cab Co. and what particular staff member was talked to, and so 
on. This is just impossible. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you send Mr. Ferrara to any place? 

Mr. Gibbons. Again I would have to give you the same answer. 
I have no recollection of ever having sent Mr. Ferrara, and as a matter 
of fact, I don't have any knowledge of Mr. Ferrara ever going any 
place. If you have some knowledge on it, I would be very happy to 
have you bring it forth, and I will discuss it with you. 

Senator Ives. While they are hunting that up, may I ask a question ? 
I would like to ask the witness a question or two. 

What kind of an arrangement do you have by which you could pull 
employees off the job for union activity? 

Mr. Gibbons. We have a clause in our contract. 

Senator Ives. What does it say? Do you have the contract here? 
I would like to see that clause. 

Mr. Gibbons. No ; but I will get you a copy of it. 

Senator Ives. I would like to see it, because it is a new approach to 
me. I did not know there was such an arrangement. 

Mr. Gibbons. We have had it for 15 years, and that is how we built 
our union, by mobilizing our membership. I will call today for a copy. 

Senator Ives. What is the idea of having it ? 

Mr. Gibbons. What is the idea? 

Senator Ives. Yes. 

Mr. Gibbons. Because I don't know how you win strikes unless you 
can mobilize the membership. 

Senator Ives. In other words, that clause is in there for the purpose 
of pulling people off the job in connection with strikes? 

Mr. Gibbons. Or maybe in politics, or maybe in connection with 
politics. 

Senator Ives. Do you mean to tell me you indulge in politics? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, sir; we indulge in politics very heavily in local 
688, Mr. Ives. Senator Ives, I am sorry. 

Senator Ives. "Mister" is all right. I am not fussy. 

Mr. Gibbons. There is no significance to it, I want to assure you. 
We also pull them off the job to go to the University of Wisconsin 
summer school for workers. 

Senator Ives. That is something that I think you can find in other 
contracts, and I don't think that that is anything unusual. 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't know of any other contracts that have that. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14623 

Senator Ives. I don't know about the contracts, but that is under- 
stood, because I know about institutes of one kind or anothr that have 
been held at Cornell, where workers attend. That is agreed to by the 
employers themselves. Now, whether it is in the contract or not, I 
don't know, but I can't understand how you would have an arrange- 
ment in a contract by which you would pull employees off the job for 
the purpose of conducting a strike. 

Mr. Gibbons. It is with the approval of the employers. 

Senator Ives. Apparently it is, and I don't quite understand that. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long had you known Mr. Ferrara ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I believe I met him during the course of the strike. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you present during any conversation where 
it was decided or planned that he and Mary Lou Bledsoe would pick 
up this automobile at Union Station ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I think I have testified on that meeting. 

Mr. Kennedy. You testified about her, and I wanted to get it. 

Mr. Gibbons. I testified about the meeting. I am not sure if I 
did. If I did not, I would be happy to tell you, but I have no 
recollection. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have no recollection ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Of ever sitting in such a meeting. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you deny that you were there ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Again I say to you that I have no recollection of 
having sat in that meeting. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't deny it ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No; because my memory is not such that I can recall. 
I sit in an average, when I am in St. Louis, of maybe 15 or 20 or 30 
meetings a day, and especially this is true in terms of a strike, I am in 
and out of meetings constantly. 

Mr. Kennedy. I thought after your long speech about Mary Lou 
Bledsoe yesterday that you probably would be able to deny that you 
had anything to do with it. That is why I wanted to give you the 
opportunity today. 

Mr. Gibbons. On her testimony, I would not say that I was in 
there. That is for certain. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you don't deny that you were there or present 
at the meeting ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No; I don't deny it. But I raise a serious ques- 
tion as to whether I was there. 

Mr. Kennedy. I see. Now, did you use Mr. Ferrara or send him 
to any other State to do anything or perform any jobs for you ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I have no recollection of having sent him to any 
other State. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he sent over to Wichita, Kans., for instance? 

Mr. Gibbons. Well I certainly never sent him over to Wichita, 
Kans., No. 1, to my knowledge, and No. 2, I don't even know that he 
was in Wichita, Kans. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know what reason he would be over there, 
if he was there, during June 8, 1954 ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Not being at all close to sending him over there, I 
hardly know why he was sent there. I could make guesses. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was over there with Richard Kavner, and his 
bill was paid for by the Missouri-Kansas Conference of Teamsters, 
which I believe you stated you were president of ? 



14624 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Gibbons. I am president of that. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was Mr. Ferrara doing over there? 

Mr. Gibbons. Not having sent him over, and not having any 
knowledge of sending him over there, and not having any knowledge 
of his even being there, I am hardly in a position to testify as to what 
his function was. He may have driven the car that took Dick over 
there, and he may have used him for a chauffeur, and he is an expert 
chauffeur in the sense of being a cabdriver. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, he has a considerable record, a police record, 
and a former professional fighter, and there was a good deal of vio- 
lence in Wichita, Kans., at the same time he was over there. 

Mr. Gibbons. How long was he there, Mr. Kennedy ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, I think just a day or so. 

Mr. Gibbons. What violence took place on that day ? 

Mr. Kennedy. There were some cabs wrecked. 

Mr. Gibbons. That day ? 

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

Mr. Gibbons. You believe so, but are you prepared to testify it 
was that day ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not prepared to testify at all. I am asking 
you the questions. 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't think that you should be so free to tie a per- 
son up with violence. 

Mr. Kennedy. All I am saying is that he has a police record, and 
he went over to Wichita, Kans., and the Missouri-Kansas Conference 
paid his bill over there. You were president of the Missouri-Kansas 
Conference. I am asking you about his activities. 

Mr. Gibbons. In the entire resume there is no identification of Mr. 
Ferrara with violence. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was violence in Wichita, Kans. 

Mr. Gibbons. There is violence maybe in Washington today and 
you sit here but it does not mean you are involved. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am trying to find out from you about his activi- 
ties over there. That is why I am asking you. You paid his hotel 
bill, and nobody should know better than you. 

Mr. Gibbons. Oh, yes; there could be people who would know 
better than me. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is why I am asking you, Mr. Gibbons, then we 
will try to get somebody who does know if you can suggest someone. 
Go ahead. 

Mr. Gibbons. I have advised you, No. 1, as of now I don't even 
remember the fact that he had been there, and certainly I have no 
recollection of having sent him there, and therefore I can hardly 
testify as to what his purpose of being there was. 

The Chairman. Do you know what his purpose was ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, I don't, Senator. 

The Chairman. Do you know what activity he engaged in while he 
was there? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, I can hazard a guess. He drove Dick Kavner 
over there. 

The Chairman. Do you know why you paid his bill, your union? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, but it was approved by one of my subordinates, 
and I assume it was again for legitimate trade-union activities, Senator. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14625 

Mr. Kennedy. You have a number of individuals, Mr. Gibbons, 
who are union officials — for instance, Herman Hendricks. He is a 
business agent for your local? 

Mr. Gibbons. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long has he worked for you? 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, offhand I would not give you anything definite, 
but I imagine around 4 years, 4 or 5 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you aware of the fact of his conviction for 
violation of the Narcotics Act ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I learned that within the last 10 days, Mr. Kennedy, 
and I immediately wired, and I was in Washington, and I immediately 
wired my attorneys to conduct an investigation and find out the situa- 
tions surrounding Mr. Hendricks' conviction and violation of the 
Narcotics Act. As I pointed out earlier, there is a committee which 
has been set up to investigate anyone in the 688 setup who takes the 
fifth. That committee will have the task of investigating the question 
of his conviction for narcotics, and will take appropriate action. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, what about Mr. Ben Saltzman ? I understand 
he is no longer with the union, but he was on the union payroll and 
was identified as responsible for a considerable amount of the violence. 
He was a business agent of local 405. 

Mr. Gibbons. Who was he identified by, Mr. Kennedy? 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe he has been identified before the committee. 

Mr. Gibbons. By one of your witnesses? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. Some of the people who partici- 
pated in the violence themselves. He has been identified as 
participating in the violence, and he was a business agent of local 405. 

Mr. Gibbons. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he doing work during this whole period of time 
for local 405, while he was on the payroll ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, I assume he was, if he was on the payroll, with 
the possible exception of one period when he was indicted for viola- 
tion of the Hobbs Act, which consisted of extortion in the form of 
demanding a wage increase for the workers on strike. That is the 
kind of an indictment which workers are subject to by prejudicial 
governmental bodies in this case, a Federal United States Assistant 
Attorney General. When we went in to defend the suit and throw 
it out, they were not even there to defend it. But he was prosecuted 
and he was indicted for extortion and plainly set forth in the indict- 
ment that the extortion consisted of demanding a wage increase from 
an employer. During that period in which he was under indict- 
ment, I believe, we kept him on a payroll because the man wanted to 
go to California and in any event for some reason he was around town 
and we maintained him and supported him during that period. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he doing any work for the union ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I think he was, and I think we gave him a series of 
odd jobs around the place. 

Mr. Kennedy. And lie was being paid out of local 405? 

Mr. Gibbons. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long did that last ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I haven't any idea of the time, and I imagine it may 
have lasted 6 or 8 months. 



14626 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Why was he treated so favorably, that he was de- 
serving money for doing no job ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Because he was a worker active in a strike for im- 
provement of conditions and he was illegally indicted. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was also indicted, or arrested in connection with 
certain 

Mr. Gibbons. What arrests? 

Mr. Kennedy. In connection with some of the violence. 

Mr. Gibbons. What violence was he arrested in connection with, 
Mr. Kennedy ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Hartzman and Rosa. 

Mr. Gibbons. Now, you know the story on the Kurtzworm inci- 
dent. He was arrested and he was brought before a jury, and the 
jury found him not guilty, which emphasizes the importance of the 
policy we have in defending workers when they are involved in strike 
violence and strike activities. 

Mr. Kennedy. But he was also identified before the committee as 
one of those who was the leader and giving the instructions for the 
violence that took place. 

Mr. Gibbons. Again I have to refer you back to the kind of wit- 
nesses that you bring before this committee, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. These are the kind again, and I will refer back to 
you, these are the kind of people that participate in violence. 

Mr. Gibbons. Which does not make them good witnesses necessarily. 

Mr. Kennedy. The point is, why was he on the payroll for 6 or 8 
months or whatever the period of time was, without doing any work? 

Mr. Gibbons. He worked I believe you have testimony to the fact 
or you have affidavits to the fact that he worked for one place in a 
hiring hall down at Produce Road. 

Mr. Kennedy. He received $12,000 charged to staff expense, and 
staff salary, from February 1954 through March of 1956, and he re- 
ceived his severance pay at the beginning of that, in December of 
1953. We had Mr. Hartzman who testified he was on the board and 
tried to get information about what work he was doing, and he was 
never given any information. 

Mr. Gibbons. Where did he make his inquiries? 

Mr. Kennedy. He said he made inquiry of the local office, and the 
local officials. 

Mr. Gibbons. Did you question him and find out who he spoke to, 
Mr. Kennedy ? 

Mr. Kennedy. He said he made an inquiry at the local office. 

Mr. Gibbons. He may have asked the janitor, and obviously he 
would not know what work Mr. Saltzman was doing, and had he 
asked me, and there was no secret about it, and it was public knowl- 
edge, we just don't have people sitting around our office not doing 
any work. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you tell us exactly what Mr. Saltzman was 
working on ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I think you have testimony either in affidavit form or 
from witnesses here, that he did work in Produce Road among other 
things, and he may have answered the telephone in the headquarters 
or run errands or may have done any of a thousand jobs, or he may 
have walked picket lines or done political work. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14627 

Mr. Kennedy. What was he doing in Indianapolis in December 
of 1954? 

Mr. Gibbons. You will have to ask him. 

Mr. Kennedy. I have asked him, Mr. Gibbons, and he takes the 
fifth amendment. 

Mr. Gibbons. You can ask anybody in the room and they will be 
able to tell you just as much as I know about his being there. He 
did not consult with me, and I did not send him. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not have anything to do with it ? 
Mr. Gibbons. I did not even know he was there. 
Mr. Kennedy. Did you go to Indianapolis in connection with the 
State Cab matter yourself ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have anything to do with the State Cab? 
Mr. Gibbons. Never to my knowledge have I ever had anything 
to do with the State Cab Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. Never to your knowledge? 
Mr. Gibbons. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. You would know, would you not ? 
Mr. Gibbons. I think that I would. 
Mr. Kennedy. Well, did you ever have anything ? 
Mr. Gibbons. I never knew there was such a thing as a State 
Cab Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know of any interest Mr. Hoffa had in the 
State Cab Co.? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, I don't believe Mr. Hoffa ever consulted with me 
on any interest he might have had. 
Mr. Kennedy. Did you know ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't know of any interest he had, to my knowl- 
edge, to my specific knowledge, firsthand knowledge; no- Some- 
where along the line maybe somebody or I sat in the room where 
some conversation took place, and this could conceivably have hap- 
pened, but I had no knowledge of Mr. Hoffa having any interest in 
any cab company in the State of Indiana. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you were not responsible for Mr. Saltzman 
going up there in December of 1954 ? 
Mr. Gibbons. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about Mr. George Reinhart ? 
Mr. Gibbons. Who is Mr. George Reinhart ? 

Mr. Kennedy. He is in local 405? Isn't he trustee of local 405? 
Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Kennedy, I am afraid I don't recognize the 
name. I may even have appointed the gentleman, but I don't know 
his name. 

Mr. Kennedy. Aren't you the trustee ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I am the trustee, but I am trustee of a lot of things. 
Mr. Kennedy. He is working under you ? 
Mr. Gibbons. He isn't working directly under me. 
Mr. Kennedy. You are the trustees. 

Mr. Gibbons. I am responsible for him, and he does not work 
directly under me, and I have a subordinate in there. 
Mr. Kennedy. What is his name ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Reickert, who is the acting secretary-treasurer 
of that setup, and by appointment of me, and he is the one who would 



14628 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

be acquainted with the actiivties of Mr. Hartman, or whatever his 
name is, Reinhart. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is a trustee and a member of the executive board, 
and once again he has a considerable criminal record. 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, what is your position on the matter of a person 
with a criminal record ? 

Mr. Kennedy. This man was sentenced to 4 months on plea of 
guilty to first degree robbery, and he is a trustee. 

Mr. Gibbons. That is the only thing on his record ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, he has been arrested a number of different 
times. He has been found guilty and pleaded guilty to first degree 
robbery. 

Mr. Gibbons. I would join you in your sentiments, and it happens 
in this particular case, Mr. Kennedy, that as I pointed out to you 
earlier, I don't have the facilities and the staff to run any checks on 
police records of members of our union. I know them only on their 
trade-union activities, their interest and their devotion, and their 
activities on behalf of the union, and their loyalties to the union. 
This is the base on which I appointed Hartman, if he was appointed, 
and it was on the recommendation from somebody else. 

Senator Ives. I would like to ask the witness one question which 
is rather far reaching. How does it happen that in the Teamsters 
you seem to have so many members who either have had criminal 
records or who have skirted on the edge of it or fallen under the 
gangster class or racketeer class or something of that nature? I 
do not understand it. I am not through with my question. I just 
want to point this out. I know of no union, or any other union 
where anything like that is true. Do you ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, I have not investigated any other unions. 

Senator Ives. We have investigated a few of them. 

Mr. Gibbons. You could probably determine if you investigated 
them whether there are or are not, and if you made this a point of 
your investigation you would probably find proportionately there 
is just as many in any other union with the exception of the higher 
skilled unions. There is no mystery about why Ave happen to have 
a lot of people among our members who in some time during their 
life made a mistake and went to jail for it, and are now out trying 
to rehabilitate themselves and earn a living. For instance, in the 
city of St. Louis, there is a little priest named Father Clark, and he 
is easily available, and he can be checked by a telephone call, and this 
priest constantly works at the city jail trying to rehabilitate young 
offenders and old offenders, and people who have made mistakes, 
and tries to get them jobs. He is in our office almost invariably 
once a week, at least. I get papers up here, and sign them for 
Father Clark in order to get someone out of jail to assure him a job 
in order that he can get out of jail. Now we happen to be in a 
heavily or largely unskilled area. One does not have to have too 
many talents to drive a truck, necessarily. It is a responsible job, 
but most of us in our lifetime have learned to drive an automobile, 
and we can drive a truck. 

Senator Ives. There are some other kinds of work, where that is 
true too, you know ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14629 

Mr. Gibbons. I am saying to you in terms of our union, and the 
only one I can speak about, warehouse workers have unskilled work, 
and gasoline attendant and station attendants is a very unskilled work. 
So it is easy to place them, and we have probably an undue amount of 
calls, not only in St. Louis, but all over the country from parole 
agents, from priests, from ministers, who are working with people 
trying to rehabilitate them. Maybe this is the explanation of why 
there are so many of them among the rank and file in our union. 

Now, I am sure if you checked any other unskilled grouping, in any 
union with unskilled jurisdiction, you will find exactly the same thing 
to be true. I am very happy that unions are cooperating in this kind 
of work, Senator, and otherwise we would be turning loose on society 
an awful lot of people who could only make their living by a gun. 

This would not be beneficial to America, and I think this is con- 
structive activity on the part of the unions who cooperate in this kind 
of work. 

Senator Ives. May I ask a question there? 

Mr. Gibbons. You certainly may. 

Senator Ives. Are these persons that you find jobs for, people who 
have had their citizenship restored ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't believe so. We take them right out of the jail 
cell. 

Senator Ives. I don't know about that. Of course, I can't criti- 
cize your desire to rehabilitate people, and that is a very natural de- 
sire, to help people, but on the other hand I am intrigued by the 
preponderance of criminals in your outfit. 

Mr. Gibbons. I would like to see the facts and figures on the pre- 
ponderance of criminals in our organization as compared with any 
other organization which has an unskilled jurisdiction. 

Senator Ives. All I can tell you is that I can only judge your sit- 
uation by the record of those unions that appeared before us. Now 
wait a minute, and the records of those unions that have come before 
us, would indicate that you are far above the others in the number 
of criminals or gangsters or racketeers or whatever you want to call 
them in your midst. 

Mr. Gibbons. 
right? 

Senator Ives. I am. 

Mr. Gibbons. You have access to the records of the Senate com- 
mittee, is that correct? 

Senator Ives. Yes. 

Mr. Gibbons. If you will examine the records of man-hours of work 
that has been put in on the Teamsters Union by this committee, you 
will find it far in excess not of any other union in America, but prob- 
ably of any three unions in America. I don't want to say that this is 
a vendetta that your chief counsel is conducting, and maybe there are 
legitimate reasons, and I have no quarrel with legitimate investiga- 
tions, but nevertheless it is true that we happen to be the one union in 
this country which seemingly the select committee is devoting the bulk 
of their efforts to investigate. 

Senator Ives. A That is not accurate at all, because we have investi- 
gated a number of other unions. 

21243— 59— pt. 39 6 



14630 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Gibbons. You check your records, Senator, and I believe you 
will find it is true. 

Senator Ives. We may have spent time on the Teamsters because 
we found a good deal more at fault with the Teamsters than we have 
with any others. 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't know the reason, and I have my own ideas. 

Senator Ives. I have no vendetta, and I don't have anything against 
you personally, and I haven't anything against Mr. Hoffa over there. 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't believe any Senator on this committee neces- 
sarily has. 

Senator Ives. You can bet your life on that. We are trying to find 
out the facts and the truth. 

Mr. Gibbons. That is why I am here. 

Senator Ives. That is what I am pointing out, we found out that 
this condition exists, and I am trying to find out why, and you say it 
is because you try to take in these people. Now let me ask you an- 
other question in that connection : Are you responsible for these em- 
ployers hiring these people, or are the employers? You are always 
talking about being the goats, you are always the ones who get stuck 
with these criminals, because some employer gets them. 

Mr. Gibbons. I am sure you are familiar with the provisions of the 
Taft-Hartley law, Senator? 

Senator Ives. I am somewhat acquainted with them. 

Mr. Gibbons. And it strictly outlaws any forced hiring on any em- 
ployer. 

Senator Ives. All right. 

Mr. Gibbons. The hiring hall, and the closed shop, and they are all 
outlawed. 

Senator Ives. Then what happens? You say that these criminals 
or these gangsters get to you. How do they get there ? Does some- 
one persuade the employers to take them on ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I think that they get there in large measure and it is 
to the credit of the employers, and they too are cooperating with the 
rehabilitation program which I think is fine, good, and in the interests 
of America. 

They are cooperating with those same priests that I am cooperating 
with, and they are cooperating with the same Government officials that 
we are cooperating with. 

Senator Ives. I am not criticizing anybody that cooperates with a 
priest. But it just doesn't make sense, that your setup above all others 
is that way. 

Mr. Gibbons. I have no feeling that our union is any worse in this 
respect, 

Senator Ives. Well, I can't argue with you, of course, with respect 
to rehabilitating them, and I am all in favor of that myself. But now 
here is another question that I would like to ask you, and then I will 
be through with this questioning : Why is it that you put these persons 
of ill-repute, with bad and unsavory backgrounds, in positions of 
responsibility as officials in your organization and as business agents 
and positions of that kind? 

Mr. Gibbons. I have been studying the record on the testimony on 
St. Louis, Senator, and I have been listening to the questions that have 
been asked me. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14631 

Senator Ives. I am not just confiining my questions to St. Louis. 
I think that you yourself are acquainted with the Teamsters generally, 
and I just don't understand this. 

Mr. Gibbons. If you will check with me 

Senator Ives. You seem to go out of your way to get these gangsters 
and racketeers into these official positions. 

Why do you do it? 

Mr. Gibbons. No. 1, we don't go out of our way. 

Senator Ives. You seem to. Why do you have such preponderance 
of them, in those positions? 

Mr. Gibbons. No. 2, we run a very democratic organization. 

Senator Ives. That doesn't sound democratic to me. 

Mr. Gibbons. And when men are elected to positions, it is through 
no acts on the part of myself or anyone else in the Teamsters, except 
the membership. If they have paid their penality, and if they are in 
the process of rehabilitation, and if they have become a loyal and 
devoted member of the union, and they rise to the position of officer, 
I think this is right and proper also. 

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

Senator Ives. I do, if their citizenship has been restored. I think 
that is all right. But you want to make sure they are citizens again 
before you put them in any position of responsibility and authority 
like that. 

Mr. Gibbons. We are talking largely in terms of rank and file 
members of the union, No. 1. 

Senator Ives. I am talking about your business agents and your 
officials. 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. 

Senator Ives. That is what I am referring to now. I can't under- 
stand why the Teamsters has such a preponderance of people in the 
gangster class occupying those roles. 

Mr. Gibbons. I would quarrel with your statement, because I don't 
think we have a preponderance of them. 

Senator Ives. Perhaps you do not have a preponderance with re- 
spect to the rest of your officials, but as far as other unions are con- 
cerned, you certainly have a larger percentage. Can you cite one 
union, aside from yourself, that has the number of ex-criminals or 
criminals, or gangsters or racketeers, occupying positions of authority 
as officials such as you have in yours ? 

I am not talking about your St. Louis situation. I am talking about 
the Teamsters generally. That is what is causing so much unrest and 
disturbance where you are concerned in the country, because of the 
people you have guiding you. 

You seem to go out of your way after that kind of person. 

Mr. Gibbons. All I can again repeat to you, Senator Ives, is that 
to my knowledge, there is no preponderance. To my knowledge, no 
one has ever brought to my attention where we have more or less than 
any other union. I say to you again that if the same application of 
investigation is applied to any other union in America, as has been 
applied to the Teamsters, then maybe we can arrive at those figures 
objectively and not on the basis of supposition. 



14632 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Ives. I will cite one union that may have a bigger percent- 
age than you have. That is the operating engineers. 

Mr. Gibbons. That is Mr. Meaney's union, I believe. 

Senator Ives. Well, never mind, you can leave Mr. Meaney out of 
this. The thing is disturbing to me. I don't care whose union it is. 
You belonged to Mr. Meaney's union at one time, didn't you ? 

Weren't you part of Mr. Meaney's setup at one time? 

Mr. Gibbons. No ; I was referring to the Plumbers' Union. I have 
never been a member of the Plumbers' Union. 

Senator Ives. I know you have never been a plumber. But I was 
referring to the overall setup. You were a member of that at one 
time, weren't you ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. 

Senator Ives. Why did you get kicked out ? One of the reasons you 
people got kicked out is the reason I am stating right now. You ab- 
solutely refused to get rid of this element I am talking about. 

Why? Why? 

Mr. Gibbons. I have here a document which deals with the estab- 
lishment of an antiracketeering committee. 

Senator Ives. Is that the one that we just heard about? 

Mr. Gibbons. This is the one which has been set up by our organi- 
zation. 

Senator Ives. Yes, and you are paying for it, aren't you ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ives. You expect that to be objective in its approach? 

Mr. Gibbons. We are paying for the monitors also, and I assume 
that they are objective. 

Senator Ives. You assume, yes. 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. 

Senator Ives. They are appointed by the court, as a matter of fact, 
not by you. 

Mr. Gibbons. But we pay for them. We pay for them. They are 
very expensive people, too. 

Senator Ives. You may pay for them, but the court appoints them. 

Mr. Gibbons. In this case, we appointed them. We appointed to 
the best of our knowledge, three men of integrity. 

Senator Ives. I am not reflecting upon the members that you ap- 
pointed in any way, shape or manner. But I do point this out : How 
are people appointed and paid by you going to do the objective job 
when they may have to turn on you and prosecute you, one way or 
another, when in doing so, in doing their jobs, they are subservient to 
you, dependent upon you for pay, indebted to you for everything that 
they have as a result of your selecting them ? 

How are they going to do it ? 

That just doesn't make sense. 

Mr. Gibbons. I have no doubts in my mind, Senator, that if there 
be racketeers, practicing racketeers, full time lawbreakers in any eche- 
lon of our union, that the racketeering committee will put those peo- 
ple out, the antiracketeering commission. 

Senator Ives. You have the confidence ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I have that confidence. 

Senator Ives. I don't say that I don't have that confidence, but I 
can tell you right now it would be most amazing if anything like that 
happened in a wholesale manner. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14633 

Mr. Gibbons. When you are speaking about the Teamsters Union, 
I want to assure you of one thing. We know that we run a good 
union because a Federal court gives us a blue ribbon every 6 months. 
I am not sure of the other unions, when you want to compare unions. 
We are certain. We have three monitors appointed by the Federal 
court who look over our shoulder and examine each and every act that 
we perform. This gives us, at least, an absolute gilt-edge assurance 
that we are running a good, clean, decent union. 

Senator Ives. Did you see the report that came from that setup? 

Mr. Gibbons. The monitors ? 

Senator Ives. Yes. 

Mr. Gibbons. A very fine report. 

Senator Ives. The monitors are all right. I'm talking about the 
court. 

Mr. Gibbons. There was no report issued by the court to my knowl- 
edge. 

Senator Ives. There is a great deal of question about what is being 
done there. Furthermore, there is a great question in the minds of 
the public as to what is being done. If you and Mr. Hoffa — and you 
are a very able citizen, too — would take it upon yourselves to clean 
house of these people about whom I am talking you could do a job 
that would really put the Teamsters where they should be, and the 
Teamsters should be, because of your size, the leading union in the 
United States. 

Mr. Gibbons. We happen to be the leading union, and this 

Senator Ives. No ; you are not, not in the eyes of the public. You 
may be the largest. 

Mr. Gibbons. The last month we had the greatest growth we ever 
had. 

Senator Ives. I know, I understand all of that. But you are not 
the leading union in the minds of the public. You are under 
suspicion. 

Mr. Gibbons. I am no authority on exactly what the mind of the 
public is. I am concerned about it. 

Senator Ives. I get mail from the public. I know what the public 
is thinking, too. 

Mr. Gibbons. I get reports from the field. 

Senator Ives. I don't see any point in going into a dissertation, but 
I think you can see what I am driving at. I am not in any way 
criticizing you personally or anyone else personally, except this 
gang of gangsters and racketeers and so forth I have talked about. 

Mr. Gibbons. I can appreciate your concern. I just wish it had 
a more factual basis, Senator. 

Senator Ives. It has a factual basis. We have had them one right 
after another before us. 

We have had the evidence here. 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, I have read your evidence. 

Senator Ives. I have been here and heard it, too. 

The Chairman. Let's proceed. The record speaks louder than 
any of us here can shout. We all know what it reflects. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about Mr. Barney Baker, Mr. Gibbons ? Do 
you know Barney Baker? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes ; I know Barney Baker. 



14634 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. He came to St. Louis, did he ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes ; he did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you responsible for bringing him to St. 
Louis? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes ; I am. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did you bring him to St. Louis? How did 
you have to bring him to St. Louis ? 

Mr. Gibbons. The story of Barney Baker is a relatively simple one 
in terms of his being brought to St. Louis. Barney Baker, when I 
met him, was an officer of a local union in this city. 

He had come up through the ranks as a rank and filer, a volunteer 
organizer, a part-time organizer, and he was elected by his associates 
as president of the local. 

He is today, and he was at that time, one of the great speakers in 
the American labor movement. Everything I could learn about his 
activities in the city of Washington was that of a dedicated person, 
concerned and interested in the union. 

He knew all about my union, which evidenced the fact that he was 
interested in a good union. He checked on the St. Louis operation, 
and said he admired it greatly. At the point where he was unem- 
ployed because his local union could not afford to have two fulltime 
officers, I invited him to come to the city of St. Louis. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know of his background, his criminal rec- 
ord at that time ? 

Mr. Gibbons. At the time I don't believe I knew about his back- 
ground, but immediately right after Mr. Baker came to St. Louis, he 
sat down with me. He told me about his police record, he told me 
about his associations, and I had a full knowledge of it. I don't be- 
lieve the guy ever held back anything in connection with that. As a 
result of that conversation with Mr. "Baker, I immediately conferred 
with our general president. I told him everything I knew about 
Baker, and I asked him whether or not, in his opinion, I should keep 
Baker or whether I should release him. 

President Beck has a background of parole work. He sat on the 
parole board of the State of Washington. He was concerned about 
this person, if he was trying to rehabilitate himself. He came into 
Washington here unemployed, slept in a Negro church, got himself 
a job and came up and became quite a citizen here. At the time I 
hired him, he came directly from the National Democratic Com- 
mittee's employment. When I appointed the man, he came to me with 
nothing but the finest in the way of a background, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. And were you pleased with the way he operated out 
there? 

Mr. Gibbons. In the city of St. Louis, I was pleased with his work 
and his activities. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you approved of his relationships with Mr. 
Costello, for instance? 

Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Costello ? He had, of a necessity, had a relation- 
ship with Mr. Costello. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about your relationship with Mr. Costello? 

Mr. Gibbons. My relationship with Costello is a little bit less than 
my relationship — it is a little bit more than my relationship with you, 
as an example, because he happens to be an employer, and I do busi- 
ness with him. But this is the extent of it. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14635 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever go out socially ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Never went out socially with him. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never did ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't go to the fights with him this year ? 

Mr. Ghjbons. No, sir ; I never did go to the fights with him. 

Mr. Kennedy. In March 1958? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, he was, I understand, at a charity fight which I 
promoted in the city of St. Louis. He attended the dinner as one of 
our employers to whom I sold tickets. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you did not go directly with him ? 

Mr. Gd3bons. No ; I don't believe I did. 1 am pretty positive. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you sit with him ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No ; I did not. I sat with some Hollywood people. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not sit with him ? 

Mr. Gibbons. If we are talking about the same fights, I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. March 1958. 

Mr. Gibbons. Secondly, if I happened at any fight to sit with Joe 
Costello, it was only because at the box office they sold me a ticket 
which designated a certain seat, and I had no choice. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about Mr. Baker's relationship with Mr. Vi- 
tale ? Do you know Mr. Vitale yourself ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes; I know Mr. Vitale. My relationship again is 
nothing but a speaking relationship. There is no socializing, no dis- 
cussions about the union, no business relationships, or no other conceiv- 
able relationships, excepting the question of when I see him at a fight 
or something, he will say hello to me, and I will say hello to him. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about Mr. Baker's relationship ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, now, judging from the testimony that was re- 
ceived here, he or his wife invested some money in a concern that Vi- 
tale was interested in. I had no knowledge of that until just now. I 
had no knowledge of Mr. Baker ever having any kind of a relation- 
ship with Mr. Vitale, excepting the matter of a speaking acquaintance. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Piggy Mack Marchesi ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Piggy Mack Marchesi is a businessman who operates 
a bar. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know of Mr. Baker's relationship with him ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No ; I know nothing about his relationship, excepting 
that he frequented his bar occasionally, entertained in the bar, and so 
on. 

Mr. Kennedy, Do you know Mr. Marchesi ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes ; I know Mr. Marchesi. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about Jack Joseph ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Jack Joseph I happen to know also. I happen to 
know him because he was an employee in a restaurant on the East 
Side, Busch's Steak House. I knew him very well there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Does it concern you at all about Mr. Baker having 
this relationship with these people who are notorious gangsters in the 
St. Louis area ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes; it concerns me. I don't think he should have a 
relationship with gangsters, if they be gangsters. 



14636 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Ives. May I interrupt there to tell you that he testified to 
the effect that nowadays there is no such thing as a gangster, or words 
to that effect. 

Mr. Gibbons. I read that testimony, Senator. 

Senator Ives. What did you think of that ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, when you come to terms like "gangsters" and 
"racketeers," they are hard of definition. But I am not saying that 
they don't exist. I am not joining Mr. Baker in his sentiments at all. 

Senator Ives. It would seem to me that was a rather novel sentiment 
for anybody to express, when we know that that is one of the chief 
troubles with the labor situation today. 

Mr. Gibbons. I would not say this was the chief trouble. 

Senator Ives. I say it is one of the chief troubles. I did not say it 
was chief. 

Mr. Gibbons. I would join you in your sentiments that it is a novel 
theory. 

Senator Ives. It certainly is. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have here another individual I wanted to ask 
you about, on whom we have no derogatory information, but who has 
a criminal record. I would like to ask you about him. I don't have 
any additional information about him. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Kennedy. I would not make his name public at this time. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Gibbons. Is this a correct record ? 

Mr. Kennedy. We understand it is. Did you know about that ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No ; and I just checked his attorney here, and it comes 
to him with a tremendous surprise. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then let's not make it public. 

Mr. Gibbons. All right. He is currently in my employ, by the way. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not know about that ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I certainly did not know about it. 

He rose through the ranks after about 15 years as a member, a 
very active, dedicated member of the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. As I say, we have no derogatory information. All 
we know is that criminal record. 

Mr. Gibbons. No. I know his family and I know his activities of 
the last 10 years. They are very good. 

The Chairman. This slip, with the name which was submitted to 
the witness, will be placed in an envelope and sealed and retained 
as exhibit 109. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 109" and is in the 
custody of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. That will not be made public at this time. 

Mr. Gibbons. Senator, I wonder if I may — I did not record the 
information. I wonder if I may, in order to check it when I get back 
to St. Louis. Do you mind ? 

The Chairman. Yes. I just didn't want to make it public. 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. I think that is correct, proper, and fine. 

The Chairman. Whatever we do here, there should be a record of 
it. Therefore, I made it an exhibit. 

Mr. Gibbons. This comes as a complete surprise. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14637 

The Chairman. I made it a sealed exhibit. You may have the 
information for your guidance. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you plan to look into the other individual we 
mentioned, Mr. Keinhart ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I didn't — did I say I was going to look into Kein- 
hart? 

Mr. Kennedy. I am asking you now. Are you going to ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, I will, at your request. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, do you think it is worth w T hile looking into? 

Mr. Gibbons. What is it 

Mr. Kennedy. The conviction for armed robbery. I want to find 
out whether you think that is worthwhile looking into. 

Mi*. Gibbons. I will certainly check. Incidentally, when it comes 
to a person with a police record, whose conduct is exemplary at the 
moment, Mr. Kennedy, I would join you in your sentiments on this 
which you gave under testimony, the mere fact that an applicant for 
a job has a criminal record or such would not disqualify him for work 
on your committee. You state openly "No, I would not. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is why I did not put the name of the other 
individual into the record. 

Mr. Gibbons. I will check with Mr. Reinhart and I will be guided 
largely by that. I don't want to condemn people because they made 
a mistake, paid their debt to society, and then became good citizens. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have never condemned someone who has a 
police record, on who we also have derogatory information, without 
allowing him to testify. 

We have had testimony from the witness, Mr. Chairman, on pay- 
ment of the legal bills, payment of the bonds on some of these indi- 
viduals. I would like to get those figures into the record, if I may. 

The Chairman. Call your witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Eickmeyer. 

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS EICKMEYER— Resumed 

The Chairman. This witness has been previously sworn. 

Mr. Kennedy. What do the records show? Have you got the 
bonds there ? 

Mr. Eickmeyer. These are the bonds. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you tell the committee what the records show ? 

Mr. Eickmeyer. There are several bonds here. The first one was 
4-20-53, for Robert Baker. The next one is 8-15-53, $22. 10- 
31-53 

The Chairman. For whom ? 

Mr. Eickmeyer. The $22 one ? It is for several people. 

Ursul Winston, Joe Bommarito, Herbert Smith, Leroy Eldridge. 

The Chairman. What was the charge ? 

Mr. Eickmeyer. It was charged to 

The Chairman. No, what was the charge against them? Do you 
know? 

Mr. Eickmeyer. No, sir, I don't. Two of them were appeal bonds. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Eickmeyer. Then on 10-31-53, $20. _ This one was for Larry 
Heinbach, common-law bond. Then on 11- ~ 



14638 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

8 bonds released 15, "spent entire night on a job," of Joseph Webbe. 
That was for $300. 

Then on 6-3-54, Joseph Webbe also sent a bill for $2,250, and that 
is for a total of 9 bonds, $2,000 of this was 405 and $250 was local 688. 

Then on July 6, 1954, a total of $140 for 4 police court bonds and 
4 common-law bonds for Alfred Giodona, Tony Coprara, Lou 
Shoulders, Jr., and Frank Stern. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was that for? Do you have any informa- 
tion ? 

Mr. Eickmeyer. Four police court bonds and four common bonds. 

Then on September 17, 1954, a bill for $10, police court bond for 
Barney Dandridge. 

This is a total of $2,792. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about the legal bills ? 

Mr. Eickmeyer. Legal fees charged to the 1953 cab strike ? 

There were several of them. Do you want me to give you each one 
or just the total? 

Mr. Kennedy. The total would be all right. 

Mr. Eickmeyer. The total legal fees in connection with the cab 
strike was $3,936.68. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that in connection with these cases ? 

Mr. Eickmeyer. Several of them were, such as Morris Shenker. 
He had some. 

Mr. Gibbons. Are those for traffic offenses of cab drivers, may I 
ask ? We pay some of those, too. 

Mr. Eickmeyer. Some of them were. 

Mr. Gibbons. It might be well that you break them down, if you 
are going to put them into the record. If you can't break them down, 
I don't think they belong into the record. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you mean legal bills for traffic offenses of cab 
drivers ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You pay those ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. These were court of criminal correction bills. I 
don't think those are 

Mr. Gibbons. You don't know the charges, but you know the court 
they appeared in. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Gibbons, you can supply it, if you have the 
information. Do you have it? 

The Chairman. Just a moment. Proceed with the witness. These 
documents, if you have documents, will be made exhibits. Then they 
will show on their face whatever they reflect. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the total ? 

Mr. Eickmeyer. $3,936.63. 

The Chairman. Those documents from which the witness has testi- 
fied, will be made exhibit 110. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 110" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14639 

TESTIMONY OF HAROLD GIBBONS— Resumed 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me ask you this, Mr. Gibbons. 

Your local participated in the payment of the bills for Mr. Lou 
Berra ? 

Mr. Gibbons. We certainly did. 

It was on instructions of that particular mass meeting of our rank 
and file membership meeting, Mr. Kennedy. You can count close 
to 9,000 members present. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was suggested by you or suggested by whom ? 

Mr. Gibbons. It was suggested by a rank and file committee known 
as our steering committee, indorsed by our executive board, recom- 
mended to our membership and unanimously indorsed by our mem- 
bership. It came in the form of an instruction to the officers. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they have the full information about the fact 
that he was receiving kickbacks in connection with the construction 
of the building, the construction of the labor health 

Mr. Gibbons. There are grave doubts about the facts in that case, 
Mr. Kennedy. That is why we had a court case. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, he was found guilty. 

Mr. Gibbons. And we have to live with that decision, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then it was appealed to the Supreme Court, was it 
not? 

Mr. Gibbons. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. The appeal to the Supreme Court was on the basis 
that the receipt of money in this fashion does not constitute income? 

Mr. Gibbons. You are a lawyer, and you know that this is not the 
right interpretation of that appeal to the Supreme Court. 

Mr. Kennedy. I beg to differ with you. 

Mr. Gibbons. I am a layman, and I am not in any position to 
discuss the intricacies of that particular law. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then don't make that statement. I have examined 
it carefully. 

Mr. Gibbons. I have discussed it with very competent lawyers who 
have appeared in similar tax cases. I have one of them here. He 
would be very happy to discuss with you the nature of that appeal, 
Mr. Kennedy, and it will result in removing the distortions which 
you have placed on that appeal. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have the appeal here and the brief. We have 
also consulted with Mr. Goldshine. 

Mr. Gibbons. Max Goldshine. 

Mr. Kennedy. He carried the appeal ; did he not ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't know whether he handled the appeal or not, 
but the person who took the appeal up is right here with us. I would 
like to have him have an opportunity to discuss that appeal and the 
nature of that appeal. 

The Chairman. Do you have the brief, Mr. Kennedy? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Gibbons. He can put the true interpretation on it. 

Mr. Kennedy. I don't think there is any question from an exami- 
nation of the brief. Have you got a copy of the brief ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. 



14640 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Rosenblum. The point was never made. 

Mr. Gibbons. The point was never made that you keep repeating 
here, repeating for the benefit of the American people. 

Mr. Kennedy. I disagree with you completely. I have studied it 
completely. 

Mr. Gibbons. Here is the brief, here is the person who wrote the 
brief, who handled the case. He says you are in error on it. 

Mr. Kennedy. I say I have read the brief. 

The Chairman. There may be a difference of opinion. File the 
brief and make it exhibit No. 111. 

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

The Chairman. My understanding is that the issue was raised and 
the court passed on it. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. 

The Chairman. The court decision and the brief — have you got a 
copy of the court decision ? 

Mr. Gibbons. In answer to your question 

The Chairman. We can take judicial notice of the court decision. 
That is a matter of record. 

Mr. Gibbons. To answer your question, Mr. Kennedy, our member- 
ship has a feeling, and I think it is shared with by most members of 
the bar, the judiciary, and the American people, that no man is guilty 
until such time as his appeal rights have been exhausted. Money was 
spent on behalf of Lou Berra all the way up to the Supreme Court. 

Senator Ives. I would like to ask the witness a question. 

I seem to be doing a lot of philosophizing with you here this morn- 
ing. I am now off in another area of philosophy. I would like to 
ask the witness why he feels that unskilled workers are the criminal 
type, whereas skilled workers are not. 

Mr. Gibbons. No, I did not 

Senator Ives. That is what you said, or words to that effect. 

Mr. Gibbons. No, you check the record, Senator Ives, and you will 
find that I never said that. It is the farthest thought from my mind. 
I merely said that in an area where unskilled jobs are available, you 
will probably find priests and penal authorities obtaining jobs for 
people they want to rehabilitate. It is much easier to place a person 
in an unskilled category or capacity than it is to try to get him a job 
as a machinist, as an example. Obviously, you can't take a person 
with no training out of a jail cell and put him on as a machinist. 
But I do it every day, literally, putting him on warehouse jobs. 

Senator Ives. You don't have the feeling, then, that there is more 
crime among the unskilled than there is among the skilled, proportion- 
ately speaking ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, sir, I certainly have no idea. 

Senator Ives. I am glad to get that straightened out. I was labor- 
ing under a delusion. I thought you were looking down on the 
unskilled. 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, it was a little problem of communications. As 
a matter of fact, Senator, I believe one of our officers in St. Louis has 
a very fine letter of commendation from the United States Prison 
Administration, I think, for his cooperation in working with them 
very closely to place them on trucks and give them opportunities to 
rehabilitate themselves. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14641 

Senator Ives. It has been my observation over a period of quite some 
time that crime is found in all categories. 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. I don't think anyone has a monopoly. 

Senator Ives. I don't know about the percentage, but I certainly 
don't feel there is a preponderance among the unskilled. 

Mr. Gibbons. That is correct. I would join you in that statement, 
though I have no facts on it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have the appeal to the Supreme Court? 

Mr. Rosenblum. The petition for certiorari I have. 

Mr. Kennedy. This one to the Supreme Court of the United States, 
do you have that ? 

That is the one we are talking about. 

Mr. Rosenblum. That was a reply brief filed after the decision of 
the Commissioner v. Dix, which opened up the docket of Commis- 
sioner v. Wilcox, illicit funds. The argument was never made that 
money illicitly received was not income. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the argument ? 

Mr. Rosenblum. It was simply this. At the trial 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the argument made to the Supreme Court ? 

Mr. Rosenblum. The argument was made that if you give due 
credence to every possible favorable inference from the prosecution 
case, that, if anything, this was embezzled funds, not loan funds, as 
Berra said, and it was, therefore, not properly income under the 
Supreme Court decision of Commissioners. Wilcox. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would consider embezzled funds illegal income. 
You were arguing that embezzled funds do not constitute income. If 
you want me to trace it in that manner from here on, I will be glad to 
do that. 

Mr. Rosenblum. Let's understand this. This was not a novel argu- 
ment. 

Mr. Kennedy. I say that union funds were used for the purpose of 
the Teamsters arguing that embezzled funds do not constitute income. 

Mr. Rosenblum. The Teamsters did not argue anything. 

Counsel for Mr. Berra argued. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the Teamsters paid the bill. 

Well, that is all. 

Mr. Rosenblum. And the obligation of attorney to client was owed 
to Mr. Berra, not the Teamsters. 

The Chairman. The court actually passed on the question. This 
is out of 221st Federal Reporter, 2d series. On page 594 the court 
passed upon this question as to whether these moneys were taxable. 
I will quote from the court decision. 

From the record as a whole, we are convinced that the moneys received by 
appellant from Smith constituted taxable income under the test laid down in 
the Rutkin case, and followed by this court in Marin field v. United States, (8th 
circuit, 214 F. 2d 632, 636) : "An unlawful gain as well as a lawful one constitute 
taxable income when its recipient has such control over it that, as a practical 
matter, he derives readily realizable economic value from it." 

That appellant had such control over the funds received from Smith cannot 
be doubted on this record. The trial court was not in error, therefore, in 
overruling appellant's motion for judgment of acquittal or in refusing to give 
his requested instructions pertaining to the embezzlement theory. 

So the issue was before the court and decided. All right. It is a 
question of using illegal money or using the term money that was 
embezzled. 



14642 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. You also used union funds, Mr. Gibbons, in connec- 
tion with the defense of Mr. Gerald Connelly up in Minneapolis ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I believe the record will show that we did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you explain to the committee why the Team- 
sters Union funds were used to defend an individual such as Mr. 
Gerald Connelly ? 

Mr. Gibbons. On exactly the same theory, Mr. Kennedy, that we 
believe people to be innocent until such time as they have exhausted 
their appeal rights. 

Mr. Kennedy. And particularly with somebody who had such a 
bad record as Mr. Connelly had ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I am not one to rush in and pass quick judgments on 
people, Mr. Kennedy. They have enough burdens if they have erred, 
if they have sinned, without me heaping on top of it. I want to do 
the opposite, if I can, and help them. I have spent a whole life 
doing it, and I am not going to change now. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Connelly had been involved in a very question- 
able affair in Florida. He came up to the Minneapolis local. He was 
involved in two extortions. You helped pay some of the bills for 
the two extortions. Then the third case involved the dynamiting case. 
By the time you were paying the legal fees for that, Mr. Gibbons, he 
had already been convicted of the extortions. And the appeal had 
been sustained. 

Mr. Gibbons. Assuming he had been convicted of the extortion, 
and was about to be sentenced or under sentence, there is no reason 
automatically to feel that he was then guilty of another charge. I 
have seen too many of our members hit with charges which had no 
content, no merit, and were later released. 

When it came to the second charge, there was a grave doubt in any- 
ones mind that he had done this, and he was entitled to the fullest 
possible support as a union officer, or as a union member would be. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then your philosophy and Mr. Hoffa's are the same ? 

Mr. Gibbons. My philosophy is the philosophy which I think I am 
joined in by the vast majority of the people in this country that no 
man is guilty until such time as he has exhausted his appeal rights, 
Mr. Kennedy. I think that is fundamental. 

The Chairman. The real question is taking union dues, money that 
you take from people who work, and defending crooks and criminals 
without their consent. 

Mr. Gibbons. This is a job for the court to determine whether they 
are crooks and criminals. 

The Chairman. It is not a job for the court to determine whether 
you take that money and spend it. 

Mr. Gibbons. But it is a job to determine whether they are crooks 
and criminals. 

The Chairman. But you take the money to defend them, money 
you collect as dues from working people. I dont think working people 
want their money used that way. Maybe you do. But I think there 
ought to be a law against it, if you are going to persist in it. Somebody 
ought to protect these people who work. 

Mr. Gibbons. It seems to me, and here is an example of it, where 
the working people instruct us to go ahead and spend their money in 
this respect. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14643 

If you want to pass a law which would deny to them the right to 
determine their own or make their own decision, this is something else. 

The Chairman. That picture does not prove that they voted that 
way. 

Mr. Gibbons. What? 

The Chairman. That picture does not necessarily prove they voted 
that way. 

Mr. Gibbons. I have the resolution here. 

The Chairman. You may have a resolution in this particular case. 
But the fundamental principle of it is wrong. In my judgment it is 
wrong, and I think it ought to be prohibited. I don't think such money 
should be spent for that purpose. 

Mr. Gibbons. Not even when the workers authorize it ? 

The Chairman. Well, there is a question about that, too. 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Gibbons. I think this is part of the rights of a voluntary asso- 
ciation of people. 

The Chairman. Where are your minutes showing they authorized it ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I have a resolution here. 

The Chairman. That isn't minutes. 

Mr. Gibbons. It constitutes the minutes of that particular meeting. 
It was the only piece of business transacted. 

Mr. Kennedy. For Gerald Connelly ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No. I was talking about the mass meeting. 

The Chairman. Where are the ones for Gerald Connelly ? 

Mr. Gibbons. For Gerald Connelly we were authorized to make the 
expenditures by the proper bodies in the Central Conference of Team- 
sters and having made the expenditure it was approved by the proper 
bodies in the Central Conference of Teamsters. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about the membership ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, Mr. Kennedy, when you are dealing in terms of 
a half million members spread out over 12 States, you don't discuss 
with each of these members specific acts that you perform as an officer, 
no more than the United States Senate consults with me when they 
spend money for purposes which I don't necessarily agree with. I 
have authorized certain representatives to speak on my behalf in the 
United States Senate, and this is adequate authority for them to move. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could we have the minutes ? 

Mr. Gibbons. The same thing applies in the Central Conference of 
Teamsters. I would be glad to give you this resolution. 

Mr. Kennedy. Give it to me for the Central Conference of Team- 
sters for Mr. Connelly. 

Mr. Gibbons. I will be very glad to attempt to supply you with the 
necessary minutes in which the Central Conference of Teamsters au- 
thorizes the officers to proceed to defend representatives, members, in 
case of legal difficulties. 

Mr. Kennedy. I want the minutes where it shows that you were 
authorized to spend from the Central Conference of Teamsters alone, 
$44,881.55. 

Mr. Gibbons. I will read it to you. 

Motion was passed giving the chairman and secretary-treasurer authority 
which is hereby confirmed, verified, and extended, to make such expenditures 
and the use of the conference's funds and facilities to whatever extent they 



14644 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

believe proper, for whatever purpose they believe related to the interest and 
benefit of the conference without prior approval. 

This is one. Do you want another one? I have a whole slew of 
the authorizations here. 

The Chairman. Let that be filed. 

Mr. Gibbons. They are similar to resolutions passed in the Senate. 

The Chairman. Are those the character of resolutions you are 
referring to ? 

Do you have &ny one resolution there that refers to Mr. Connelly ? 

Mr. Gibbons. These are the resolutions under which moneys was 
expended on behalf of Mr. Connelly. 

The Chairman. They are all in general terms like that? 

Mr. Gibbons. No. I have some that are even more specific. Take 
this one 

The Chairman. When was this other one adopted ? 

Mr. Gibbons. They go all the way back. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the one you just read ? 

Mr. Gibbons. 1954. 

The Chairman. At what meeting ? A meeting of what ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Central Conference of Teamsters, a general meeting. 
That is the annual meeting where some 500 delegates representing the 
rank-and-file members of our union participated. 

The Chairman. They gave you blanket authority there? 

Mr. Gibbons. That is correct. They extended a previous blanket 
authority which they had given us. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Gibbons. Are there any other questions on this line, Senator? 

The Chairman. Are they all general ? Do you have one that men- 
tions Mr. Connelly ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No. Under these resolutions, cases such as Mr. 
Connelly's was acted upon, and I am sure in the discussion Mr. 
Connelly's case was one of those mentioned. 

The Chairman. All right. You say, then, you derive your 
authority from these resolutions to make that expenditure? 

Mr. Gibbons. That is correct. 

The Chairman. That is the substance of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you in the Central States Drivers Council also ? 
Are you an officer of that ? 

Mr. Gdjbons. No, I am not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, $44,881.55 came out of the Central Conference 
of Teamsters ; $15,000 came out of the Central States Drivers Council ; 
$3,000 out of Joint Council 43, which you don't have anything to do 
with? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't have anything to do with that one either. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is a total of $62,881.55. 

The Chairman. May I inquire, to get the record straight? So 
that the witness can answer, if he knows, is this the money that was 
spent after the man was already convicted for extortion ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No. This was for the three trials. The first trial in 
which he was a defendant with a number of other union officials, 
Brennan, Jorgensen, and one other. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14645 

The Chairman. What about the $44,000 you mentioned ? Was that 
spent for Connelly alone ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No. I believe out of the $62,881 — we have it in the 
record — I believe approximately $45,000 or $47,000 was for Gerald 
Connelly. 

The Chairman. Is it already in the record ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I don't know. Well, we can get that exactly, Mr. 
Chairman. 

The Chairman. All right. When you are ready for it, we will put 
it into the record. 

Mr. Kennedy. Those were the total figures, the $62,000. I just 
want to summarize on the violence, Mr. Chairman. 

Regarding your statement that you were not aware of the violence, 
that you abhor violence, and that you would not have anything to do 
with labor-management relations, except where they take action 
against you, we have one, the testimony of the police officers ; two, the 
testimony of Mitchell, Sparks, and Miss Bledsoe; three, on occasion the 
tracing of automobiles, union automobiles, used at the time of violence ; 
four, the admission by you of the payment of bonds and the testimony 
that we have on that; five, the payment of the legal bills for these 
individuals; six, the Jimmy Ford incident; seven, the instructions 
that you gave to these individuals if they were arrested; eight, the 
amount of Bommarito's bills ; nine, the payment to the Ace Cab Co. 
of some $2,900; ten, the payment of Joe Ferrara's bill, including his 
bill in Wichita, Kans. ; eleven, the criminal records of some of the 
union officials ; twelve, the criminal records of these individuals that 
were used ; thirteen, the condoning of dishonesty by the payments for 
Lou Berra and Gerald Connelly of these legal bills. 

There is one other last thing I want to ask you. We had some 
testimony 

Mr. Gibbons. Before you pass on from your summary, may I enter 
either a — well, first, I would like to have you add a few things which 
came out in the testimony. Such as my testimony to the effect that 
we, too, are victims of violence by employers and police, No. 1. That 
should be in any summary. 

Mr. Kennedy. I haven't any information that you are victims of 
violence by police. 

Mr. Gibbons. I will be very happy to testify to it on great length, 
and I will read to you a case of an absolute frameup. 

The Chairman. This witness says they are sometimes the victims 
of violence. 

Mr. Gibbons. Right. That should be included in a summary. Sec- 
ondly, that we are victims of police persecution. 

The Chairman. That is just your statement, now. There is no 
testimony in the record. 

Mr. Gibbons. I will be very happy to enter it, if I have the oppor- 
tunity. 

The Chairman. There is no other testimony in the record at this 
point, but you may make the statement. 

Mr. Gibbons. Third, you might include in that summary, the in- 
structions which our union gives to its pickets on the picket line. 

Mr. Kennedy. We had some testimony that there were some pur- 
chases of guns. Did you purchase any guns ? 

21243— 59— pt. 39 7 



14646 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Gibbons. No ; I did not purchase any guns. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the union purchase any guns ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. There weren't any guns purchased ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, you would know. I expect you would, would 
you not? 

Mr. Gibbons. I would not know. Although actually there were 
some holsters purchased, which I did not know about. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did they purchase holsters ? 

Mr. Gibbons. The purchase of holsters? You can hazard your own 
guess on that, Mr. Kennedy. I assume it is to carry guns with. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was purchased out of union funds ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I understand it was. At least, there was a receipt 
found in the books of the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was charged to office supplies, was it not? 

Mr. Gibbons. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know of the purchase of any guns or the 
arming of any of the 

Mr. Gibbons. If you want to know the story of the guns, in relation 
to 688, I will be very happy to tell you the whole story, so that the 
public will know. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am asking you about the guns. That is what I am 
trying to find out, 

Mr. Gibbons. I think you should be very anxious to know the whole 
story, as long as this is a legislative inquiry into trade-union activities. 

Mr. Kennedy. There were guns, then ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, I assume there were. I don't know of any guns 
necessarily. I assume there were, because of the events I want to re- 
late to you. 

The Chairman. Did you buy the holsters on the basis of that 
assumption ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I didn't buy any holsters, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Did the union buy them on the basis of that as- 
sumption ? 

Mr. Gibbons. This I did not know. I did not approve the bill, and 
I did not pay the money out. I learned about it long after it was 
done. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Gibbons. It so happened in the city of St. Louis, when we af- 
filiated with the Teamsters, a bad situation existed. 

This is all, of course, in your hands, Mr. Kennedy. You are as 
well acquainted as I am with the facts. There were people on the 
payroll of the joint council who were known as racketeers, gangsters, 
et cetera. My local had a particularly rough time to go in the city 
of St. Louis, because we were not associating with them, we were not 
putting any of them on our payroll, we were not cooperating with 
them. At my request, I went to President Beck and I asked him to 
do something about cleaning up the situation in St. Louis. President 
Beck assigned personnel to the city of St. Louis. President Beck ap- 
proved of the cleanup, approved of putting the joint council into 
trusteeship. The task had to be performed by my staff members. 

The Chairman. Were these holsters bought in connection with that 
cleanup ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14647 

Mr. Gibbons. I assume they were. They were bought at that same 
time, Senator. These staff members had no objection to participating 
in throwing hoodlums out of the union. 

They came to me and said "Look, we are 100 percent with you, we 
want to help on this thing. We have no reluctance in it. But there 
may be some shooting. 

'Tn the event there is some shooting, we feel that we are entitled 
to carry a pistol during this particular period." 

No staff member of mine ever carried a pistol before, and to my 
knowledge has never carried one since. But in this particular period 
when we were cleaning up St. Louis, when they asked that, I agreed 
with them. I did not want it to be a deep, dark secret, however. I 
called in the editor of the Post Dispatch and Fitzpatrick, the cartoon- 
ist, and we had lunch. 

i talked about the thing and gave it to them as background news. 
I also called in a member of the St. Louis Police Board and told 
him the problem we were facing in fighting gangsters and some of 
our people would be armed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was that? 

Mr. Gibbons. A guy named Willard, I think. 

The Chairman. What was his position ? 

Mr. Gibbons. A member of the St. Louis Police Board. For the 
record, Mr. Willard said he could not condone this thing. I told 
him I did not expect him to, but I wanted him to know what was 
taking place. 

The Chairman. You gave the police notice you were going to arm 
your men ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. And Mr. Willard, I believe it was him, sent 
over no one less than Captain Dougherty, the fellow you had up here 
testifying. Captain Dougherty assured me we did not have to carry 
guns, that all we had to do was "pick up the phone and call us." I told 
Captain Dougherty if he had been doing his job for 20 years, we 
would not be faced with this problem, and we could not depend upon 
the police to take care of the situation in the event it started. Then 
I went to my membership. 

The Chairman. Did you get a permit for anybody to carry guns? 

Mr. Gibbons. No ; we did not. But as I pointed out to you, Sen- 
ator, we did not attempt to do this surreptitiously, underhandedly, 
in the darkness of night or anything else. 

The Chairman. You just went to the police ? 

Mr. Gibbons. We told the police, and we told the newspapers. 
Then I went to the rank and file and I said, "We are throwing these 
people out of the union, and there may be some shooting. If there 
is going to be some shooting done, we would like to focus the attention 
of the entire Nation on the city of St. Louis and this particular fight 
so that the FBI and other law-enforcing agencies could be brought 
in." 

The Chairman. What year was that? 

Mr. Gibbons. What year was this? Late 1952 or early 1953. 
And we passed a resolution that the first time anyone was shot at in 
this cleanup, we would shut every single warehouse in the city of St. 
Louis. I then went to the big truck local, and we passed a resolution 
there that in the event anyone was shot at in this cleanup period, 



14648 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

we would shut down every single truck in St. Louis and thus focus 
national attention on this situation. This is a situation in which I 
participated in cleaning out gangsters in the trade union in which I 
was affiliated. I am very proud about that, very happy about it, 
and I would do the same thing over again, faced with the same situa- 
tion, such as we faced in the city of St. Louis. 

The Chairman. I believe the American people would be happy if 
the Teamsters would clean out the gangsters they have now. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who will clean out the ones you brought in ? 

Mr. Gibbons. What ones did we bring in, or did I bring in ? 

Mr. Kennedy. These gangsters we have had testimony about ? 

Mr. Gibbons. You did not have any testimony on gangsters that 
Mr. Gibbons brought in or that any officer, to my knowledge, brought 
into the Teamsters. You have testimony of people hired by em- 
ployers, and we wound up within our union, Mr. Kennedy. 

Let's keep to the facts. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were using them and paying them for purposes ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No ; I was not using them. 

Mr. Kennedy. $2,900, for one. 

Mr. Gibbons. No, this is not any use of mine ; this is a responsibility 
I met for failure to perform under a collective-bargaining agreement 
under which I was obligated to perform, and on which I was liable 
to suit because of my failure to perform. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long did they carry the guns ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I would imagine for a period of probably 3 months. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you carry one ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No ; I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you ever carried a gun ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, I once belonged to a skeet club, I guess you 
would call it, and for a very short period, maybe on 3 or 4 Sundays, I 
was out there carrying a gun, shooting at the skeet club. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you ever carrying a gun other than shooting 
skeet? 

Mr. Gibbons. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. Not to your knowledge ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I would be able to tell you "No," is what I am saying, 
that I never carried the gun, period. Is this the way you want it put? 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever carry a gun other than on four Sundays 
when you were shooting skeet ? 

Mr. Gibbons. You are asking me 

The Chairman. The question is with respect to illegally carrying 
a gun. 

Mr. Previant. Can we have a time or place established ? Are you 
talking about the man's entire lifetime or a particular period in his 
life? 

Mr. Gibbons. I may have have picked up a gun in a store or some- 
thing 

The Chairman. Well, starting with any time since you have been 
in St. Louis. 

Mr. Gibbons. No, I have not carried any guns in St. Louis, with 
the exception of the skeet club. 

Mr. Kennedy. In any other city have you carried guns ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Again the answer is "No," Mr. Kennedy. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14649 

Mr. Kennedy. You have not ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Other than the skeet ? 

Mr. Gibbons. That is right. 

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

(Whereupon, at 12:35 p. m. the hearing recessed, to reconvene at 
2 p. m. of the same day, with the following members present : Sena- 
tors McClellan and Ives.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

(At the reconvening of the committee, the following members were 
present : Senators McClellan and Ives.) 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

TESTIMONY OF HAROLD J. GIBBONS, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
DAVID PREVIANT AND STANLEY ROSENBLUM— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we do not have the final figures on 
this question of the Connelly situation. He was convicted and pleaded 
guilty on March 18, 1955. There was a $5,000 legal fee at that time 
for him and this other group. 

He was found guilty. He was indicted in the second case, the 
Archer-Daniels-Midland case, which is a Federal prosecution for ex- 
tortion on February 2, 1955, and convicted on November 22, 1955. 

On the dynamiting case, he was indicted on February 17, 1956, and 
convicted and sentenced on March 19, 1956. Then there was the St. 
Paul dynamiting case. That case was dismissed on April 9, 1956. In 
summary, the total fees paid I put into the record this morning. We 
can show that the fees paid after the first conviction under the Taft- 
Hartley Act amounted to at least $49,381.55. The fees paid after the 
second conviction amounted to at least $28,645.55. 

The Chairman. What do those two total ? 

Mr. Kennedy. You would not total them. There was $49,000 after 
the first one and $28,000 after the second case, some 10 months later. 

The Chairman. All right. When you get someone to check it 
accurately, it can be put into the record under oath. You may use 
your statement as a premise to a question. 

Mr. Kennedy. The question was raised this morning, and that is 
the situation. 

The Chairman. All right- 
Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Gibbons, you knew Johnny Dioguardi ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. If we are going to proceed, I think today you 
summarized the questions of violence, Mr. Kennedy, in the morning 
session. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes ; and your participation. 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. As long as you are summarizing, and we are 
moving, apparently, from that area for the moment, at least, I would 
like the record to show also, despite the fact that you were not too 
impressed with my efforts to avoid violence 

Mr. Kennedy. Not at all. 

Mr. Gibbons. Right — not at all — that your witness, Mr. Dougherty, 
of the St. Louis Police Department, came here and testified that in 



14650 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

the last 2 years there has practically been no violence in connection 
with my operations. 

Now, I can draw from that a conclusion. I would not agree with 
this, either. That the things that I did to alleviate violence, to avoid 
violence, to get rid of any violence, apparently is bearing fruit, be- 
cause I have had many serious strikes in the last 2 years, and there has 
been no violence at all. 

The record may include that, too, Mr. Kennedy. Now go ahead 
with your question. 

Mr. Kennedy. I congratulate you on not having to resort to vio- 
lence in the last 2 years. I asked you if you knew Johnny Dio. 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes ; I knew Johnny Dio. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you known him ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't know how long. 

( The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Gibbons. I can place the circumstance under which I met him 
better than I can the date, but it is not over 3 or 4 years ago, Mr. 
Kennedy, and I think it had to do with the matter of getting jurisdic- 
tion over the cabs in the city of New York at the point when George 
Meaney advised the UAW that they had no jurisdiction in taxicabs. 

I was one of the people assigned by my international union into that 
situation. I think it was about 1953, maybe. 

Mr. Kennedy. You saw him several times after that ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes ; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you used to go out with him in New York, 
socially, occasionally ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No; I don't think I went out socially with him. I 
was there performing a function for my organization, and, as, such, 
I probably had dinner with him on a few occasions. I think one time 
I was at a charitable affair or scheduled to go to a charitable affair 
with him. I don't know whether I went or not. I think that is the 
extent of my socializing with him. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about in 1953? Was the A. F. of L. conven- 
tion in St. Louis in 1953 '. 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. He came to that ; did he ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes ; he did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you meet with him at that time ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I had some discussions with him, I am sure. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have some discussions at that time about 
hiring a public-relations man, trying to get him clearance in the 
A.F.of L.8 

Mr. Gibbons. Me hiring a public relations ? 

Mr. Kennedy. You were giving him suggestions and ideas as to 
who he might hire ? Do you remember those conversations ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't think I know anybody I can recommend to 
him or anybody else who has influence in the A. F. of L. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wasn't there an individual out there at that time 
with Mr. Dio, and you discussed with Mr. Dio and with him, the 
fact that he might do some public-relations work ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Who is the person you are referring to ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I will write the name out once again, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Gibbons. That will be adequate. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14651 

Mr. Kennedy. Let's not question whether it is adequate for you. 
I am thinking of the record. 

Mr. Gibbons. It will be adequate for me, though, for your informa- 
tion, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. All right. 

The Chairman. Here is the name of the party, for your informa- 
tion. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember any conversations along those 
lines? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Let the name be inserted in an envelope and marked 
"Exhibit 112." 

(The document referred to was market "Exhibit 112" and is in the 
custody of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Gibbons. I have no recollections of any such conversations, Mr. 
Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember discussing with Mr. Dio the fact 
that it was necessary to obtain a clean bill of health, and that you and 
this individual discussed with him the idea of this individual doing 
some work along those lines, work with newspapers, getting them a 
clean bill of health with newspapers ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember meeting with this man out there ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I saw him dozens of times. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you meet with him and Johnny Dio ? 

Mr. Gibbons. With this person ? 

I was probably in the company of them, plus a lot of other people. 
But I don't recall any separate conference with this gentleman and 
Mr. Dio. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you recall any conference or conversations that 
you had along the lines of this individual doing some public rela- 
tions work for Mr. Dio ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, I don't; very honestly, I don't recall any such 
conversations. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't remember anything like that ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know if Mr. Kavner, of your staff, was 
getting some information together on Mr. Hickey's assistant in New 
York City? 

Mr. Gibbons. Do I know of this ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Gibbons. I recall something of that, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he consulting with you on that ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't think so, because information he was getting 
I was in no position to really help him on. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did you happen to learn about it ? 

Mr. Gibbons. He probably mentioned it to me at some point along 
the way, if he were getting this information. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were not assisting him in any way to get the 
information ? 

Mr. Gibbons. The source of his information, I am certain, I could 
not assist him on. 



14652 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you assisting him on it ? 

Mr. Gibbons. The only assistance I could conceivably have given 
him was my own personal knowledge of the assistant that you are 
referring to. 

Mr. Kennedy. Excuse me ? 

Mr. Gibbons. The only assistance I could have given him would 
be from my own personal knowledge of the individual you are re- 
ferring to, the assistant to Mr. Hickey. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you give him some assistance? That is what 
I am, asking you about. 

Mr. Gibbons. I probably told him my impressions after having 
some meetings with this assistant. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you were working on this matter also ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, I was not working with him on this matter also. 

Mr. Kennedy. You gave this information. Did you know he was 
furnishing it to Johnny Dio ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I gave it to everybody. I was quite incensed about 
the existence of this assistant. I gave it to the international president 
and anybody who would listen to me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know he was furnishing it to Johnny Dio ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I think I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You knew at that time, of course, that Johnny Dio 
was not an official of the Teamsters Union, that he was outside of 
the Teamsters Union ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, I knew he was not an official of the Teamsters 
Union. He never has been an official of the Teamsters. 

Mr. Kennedy. What other purpose, other than to blackmail Tom 
Hickey, was this information being gathered together on his assistant ? 

Mr. Gibbons. The reason is very simple. I don't know what the 
reasons why he gathered information. I will tell you why I con- 
tributed mine. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not asking about that. I think the important 
point is the fact 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't think 

Mr. Kennedy. The important point was that the information was 
being furnished to Johnny Dioguardi, information on a Teamster offi- 
cial in New York City. If you had some questions about him, I could 
see you going to the international president. What I am questioning 
is the turning over of this information to a man like Johnny Dio- 
guardi, what the point of that was, if it was not for blackmail pur- 
poses. 

Mr. Gibbons. In the first place, I understood you were talking about 
the assistant, not Tom Hickey. 

Mr. Kennedy. The assistant to Tom Hickey. That is who I am 
talking about. 

Mr. Gibbons. My information came in terms of the assistant, not 
Tom Hickey. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. That is what I am talking about. 

Mr. Gibbons. Anyone that would have asked me or would have 
listened to me in those days, I would have been very happy to tell 
him about the assistant. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14653 

Mr. Kennedy. Now we are talking about turning over this informa- 
tion Mr. Kavner Avas obtaining— — 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't know what Mr. Kavner turned over. I do 
not subscribe to the idea that he was blackmailing anyone. When 
you blackmail a person, it seems to me that you blackmail them for 
the purpose of obtaining money. I don't think this was the purpose 
of Mr. Kavner or the intention of Mr. Kavner. I don't think he was 
blackmailing to obtain money. 

Mr. Kennedy. It could have been for purposes other than obtaining 
money. What I am trying to find out is why, in your conservations 
with Mr. Kavner, they thought it was necessary or important to get 
this information on an assistant of Tom Hickey. 

Mr. Gibbons. I think for the purpose of exposing the existence of 
such a person in the active ranks of the trade union. 

Mr. Kennedy. And it was felt that that should be done through 
Johnny Dioguardi in New York City ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, I am telling you what I think was the purpose. 
This is why I was very happy to explain to anybody my opinion of 
the person. 

Mr. Kennedy. At the time Mr. Kavner was getting the informa- 
tion, it was for the purpose of having Johnny Dioguardi do that ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I think you should ask Mr. Kavner, personally, not 
me. I was not involved in it to my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were turning over this information. 

Mr. Gibbons. No, I was not turning over any information speci- 
fically to Mr. Kavner. I was saying what I felt and believed to be 
true, not to Mr. Kavner, but anyone, as I pointed out, that would 
listen to me, including the general president. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to ask Mr. Kavner, but, as I under- 
stand it, he has just had a heart attack and can't come. 

Mr. Gibbons He has had a heart attack for some time, Mr. Kavner. 

Mr. Kennedy. We are trying to get you and Mr. Saffo of your 
staff, to ask them both questions, but he is sick now and can't come, 
I understand. 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, you have medical testimony, I assume, on that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Mr. Lou Farrell, Mr. Gibbons ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I know who you are talking about. If he walked in 
I would recognize him. That I know him is a very doubtful question. 
I have tried to search my mind when I met him. I don't know. I 
think I talked to him once when he was chairman of an employers' 
negotiating committee in the beer industry, if I am not mistaken. I 
think that was just a telephone call. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Ives. 

Senator Ives. I would like to ask the witness a question before the 
subject is dropped completely. 

Mr. Gibbons, I take it from what you said that you are acquainted 
with Johnny Dioguardi ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, Senator, I am. 

Senator Ives. Do you know him very well ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I would say I have spent quite a few hours in his 
company. 

Senator Ives. What do you think of him ? 



14654 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't want to be sitting here passing judgment on 
people necessarily, not only Johnny Dio, but no one that I can help 
pass judgment on. Johnny Dio I had no firsthand knowledge of his 
operations. I read about his operations in the newspapers. I have 
heard testimony here. I would just as soon avoid 

Senator Ives. Is he a close friend of yours at all ? 

M. Gibbons. Oh, no, never was and isn't today. 

Senator Ives. Of course 

Mr. Gibbons. My relationships with Johnny Dio stemmed entirely 
out of the assignment I had from my general president. 

Senator Ives. I am trying to clear that up because the questions 
that have been asked of you would give the impression that you and 
Johnny Dio were in very close. 

Mr. Gibbons. No. 

Senator Ives. You are sure you were not ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No. I am friendly at the point that Dulles and Eisen- 
hower might be friendly with Ibn Saud. 

Senator Ives. At what point ? 

Mr. Gibbons. To the point that I could complete successfully the 
assignment given to me by my international president. 

Senator Ives. Just that far ? 

Mr. Gibbons. That is all. 

Senator Ives. You did not learn anything further about Johnny 
Dio? 

Mr. Gibbons. Actually I did not, 

Senator Ives. You are not able to pass judgment on him at all ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I have the same knowledge that most people have on 
him. 

Senator Ives. How do } T ou regard him ? 

Mr. Gibbons. If you want me to pass judgment, if you insist 

Senator Ives. I certainly do. I want to know what you think of him. 
We have had him before us. 

Mr. Gibbons. I would have to go on the assumption that certain 
things I have heard were true about the man. 

Senator Ives. I think they are true. For instance, he is in jail at 
the present time. That is true, isn't it ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes ; he is in jail. 

Senator Ives. He got convicted ? 

Mr. Gibbons. That is right. 

Senator Ives. What do you think of him ? 

Mr. Previant. Mr. Chairman, I would question the pertinency 01 a 
question of a man going into his personal opinion with respect to 
others. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman, I would like to challenge that for the 
very simple reason that I think it has a great deal to do with this par- 
ticular matter before us. One of the great difficulties which organized 
labor is now confronted with is having characters of the type of Johnny 
Dio in their midst, presumably leaders. Unless we can get rid of them, 
organized labor as such is going to have a great deal of hard going in 
this country. Laws will be enacted which will be very tough on or- 
ganized labor. I would like to know from Mr. Gibbons, as a highly 
respected member of the Teamsters, who holds a very high position in 
the Teamsters, what he thinks of a fellow like Johnny Dio. He knows 
the record as well as we do. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14655 

Mr. Previant. I don't know whether Mr. Gibbons cares to answer 
that question. I raised the question, Senator. 

Senator Ives. I know you raised it. 

Mr. Previant. I think a man's personal opinion cannot be perti- 
nent to a legislative inquiry. 

The Chairman. The Chair will rule. Mr. Dio has been a character 
before this committee. My recollection is that he took the fifth amend- 
ment on everything, did he not? 

Senator Ives. Yes. 

The Chairman. He would not talk. But other testimony devel- 
oped before this committee shows that he was instrumental in securing 
what has been termed paper locals, charters for paper locals in New 
York in connection with an organizational drive up there, I believe to 
organize the taxicab industry. Even prior to the time he testified, Mr. 
Dio had, I believe, a prison record, and was under indictment maybe 
at the time he testified, and subsequently has been convicted and is now 
in prison. Mr. Gibbons has had association and contacts with him. If 
he states — I am not going to make him or order him to give a personal 
opinion as to what he thinks of Mr. Dio — but the association and the 
relationship is such that it could be pertinent to this extent, as to 
whether Mr. Gibbons knowingly associates with characters of that kind 
and has confidences and relations with them regarding the labor-union 
movement. 

Mr. Gibbons. Maybe I can say this to Senator Ives. Maybe this 
will clear it up. I would be very happy to talk to you about this and 
even talk to you under oath and for the record, but Johnny Dio has a 
wife and a couple of children, I understand. If I start telling my 
opinions of Johnny Dio, it is bound to be published, and it is just 
another hurt to people who I think are pretty innocent victims of the 
total situation. I have no reluctance necessarily to tell you my opin- 
ion of him, to put it in the record, to swear to it under oath, but I 
would just as soon out of sheer consideration for his wife and kids 
avoid raising this again to be a new public issue in the press of Amer- 
ica. On that basis I would appeal to you not to insist on an answer. 
If you insist, I will give it to you. This is my thinking. 

Senator Ives. I will not, then. I assume you view him as some of 
the rest of us do. I take it your nod indicates that you do. 

The Chairman. All right, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know what the relationship of Mr. Kavner 
which we have been just discussing has been with Mr. Lou Farrell? 

Mr. Gibbons. No; I don't. I certainly have no firsthand knowl- 
edge of it. I am not prepared to testify on it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't have any information along those lines? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't believe I have any that I can speak of with 
any degree of certainty. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know why they would be continuously in 
touch with one another just as Mr. Baker was with Mr. Farrell? 

Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Farrell is involved in some negotiations with 
Dick. If he represents employers, if he represents employers either 
under contract or whose plants we can organize, I can assume that Mr. 
Kavner for those purposes would be in touch with him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know of any that he represents? That 
would be a matter of some interest to us. 

Mr. Gibbons. Plants, companies? 



14656 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Gibbons. It seems to me that at the time I spoke to him on the 
phone, it had to do with him being the chairman of an employers' 
negotiating committee in the beer industry. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that in Iowa ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I think it would be, wherever the town he functions in, 
Des Moines, or whether it is that or Nebraska. 

Mr. Kennedy. He told us originally before he testified here that he 
had not done any of that kind of work. 

Mr. Gibbons. Isn't he a businessman ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. He has an interest in a drive-in restaurant, I 
believe, but beyond that he would not give us any information regard- 
ing any labor activities. 

Mr. Gibbons. My problem is that I don't know enough about the 
man to talk about him. I was under the impression he owned a beer 
business. But I am no authority on the subject. 

Mr. Kennedy. For instance, from March 1956, to February 1957, we 
have Farrell contacting Kavner 58 times. He called him at Kansas 
City, Mo., Blackstone Hotel, Omaha, Nebr., United Air Lines, Omaha, 
St. Louis, Mo., New York City, Minneapolis, Minn., Chicago, 111., 
Dallas, Tex., Miami, Fla., Oklahoma City, Okla., Lincoln, Nebr., 
Atlantic City, N. J., and Denver, Colo. 

Mr. Gibbons. He reached him in all those places ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. They were keeping in fairly close touch with 
one another. 

Mr. Gibbons. You will have to discuss that with Mr. Kavner. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Farrell is of particular interest to us and ap- 
peared before the committee, as you know, Mr. Chairman, and took 
the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. He is a businessman ; is he not ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. 

The Chairman. We get criticized because we won't investigate busi- 
ness some times. When we find them we try to get all the information 
we can. If you can be a little helpful, if you know anything about 
him that we ought to know, tell us. 

Mr. Gibbons. If I had any knowledge I would be very happy to 
testify, Senator. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is Mr. Kavner 's official position with the 
union ? 

Mr. Gibbons. At the moment he is a representative of the interna- 
tional union. International organizer, I think is his official title. He 
was in those days I believe a representative of the Central States Con- 
ference of Teamsters. 

Mr. Kennedy. Gus Zappas was down in St. Louis for a short period 
of time, November 22-24, 1955. What was he doing down there; do 
you know ? It is 1954, excuse me. November 22-24, 1954. 

Mr. Gibbons. Is this the time he was connected with the Teamsters 
Union ? 

Mr. Kennedy. He was connected with the Teamsters Union and 
also with Mr. Probstein in the State Cab Co. at this time. 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't know his association with Probstein, or the 
cab company. I understand he was a representative of the Teamsters 
Union. He was probably there on Teamster business. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14657 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know what it would be about ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't recollect as of now. 

Mr. Kennedy. His bill was paid, $128, by the Central States Con- 
ference of Teamsters. 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't know what his particular function was on 
that particular trip. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know Dave Probstein yourself ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Never met the gentleman. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not know him. You never talked to him ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Unless I happened to have been introduced to him 
some time, but I have no recollection of it and I would say to you and 
testify to the fact that I don't. 

Mr. Kennedy. You do not know him ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No. You must understand, Mr. Kennedy, that I meet 
literally thousands of people in the course of a year. Some of them 
I don't see again. I walk through a room and I am introduced to 10 
guys and I keep on going. I have no recollection and I can testify 
that I do not know him, with that one reservation. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have a home in St. Louis ; do you ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have an apartment there also ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No ; I have a home there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the Upholsterer's Union do some work in your 
home % 

Mr. Gibbons. Did they do some work in my home ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you pay them for that ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Do you want the story on that, Mr. Kennedy ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Just answer the question. 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't think that this gives you a picture of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You can go on to explain it, Mr. Gibbons. 

Mr. Gibbons. Very well. The answer is that I did not pay for it. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much work did they do ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't know of my own knowledge how much work. 

(Witness consulted his counsel.) 

Mr. Gibbons. We heard there was $3,600. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is about what we have. We have $3,546.17. 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you want to explain that ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes ; I would like to comment on it. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was the Upholsterers Union ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, Upholsterers International Union. The ex- 
planation for it is that they walked into my home and viewed the 
home and I don't happen to be a wealthy person. I don't believe at 
that time I had a single new stick of furniture in my home. What 
furniture I had was secondhand furniture. What furniture I had 
was not in the best shape. Mr. Reimshart, the international president, 
took a look at it and decided that this might be an appropriate form 
for a gift to take in this instance. They said they were going to get 
me some furniture. It turned out that they put rugs on the floors and 
did quite an extensive job, some $3,000, but this was not at my seeking. 
This was even without my knowledge in terms of the volume of it. 



14658 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

But it was a gift from another trade union to me. This incidentally, 
as you probably are well aware, as soon as I received it, a full payment 
was attached to my next income-tax report, saying that I had a gift by 
the International Upholsterers Union, market value unknown, con- 
stituting redecorating and refurnishing of his home. Taxpayer has 
never been employed by the Upholsterers Union and has rendered no 
services to that international union. Taxpayer consulted an attorney, 
Stanley Rosenblum, concerning the taxability of these gifts. Based 
on Mr. Rosenblum's opinion — cuff links, but this does not have to do 
with that — based on the same written opinion by Mr, Rosenblum that 
the upholsterers' gift is not income because no services were ever in 
fact rendered to that union, taxpayer has not been so employed and 
taxpayer is not included whatever at its market value. This has been 
attached to my income tax and has been tiled and the question has 
never been raised since. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. The Central Conference of Teamsters had some 
financial transactions with the Upholsterers Union ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Some 2 years later, I understand that the interna- 
tional union entered into a national pact with the Upholsterers Union, 
and the central conference, as in the instance of every section of our 
international union, worked with the Upholsterers Union on various 
and sundry organizing projects. 

But I can assure you, Mr. Kennedy, there was no tie-in between 
the two. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they advanced some money, did they? 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, there was an exchange of money. We had a 
joint organizing campaign and both the international unions put up 
money. 

Mr. Kennedy. As I understand, they donated to an organizational 
drive and then loaned them $25,000 in November of 1056. 

Mr. Gibbons. It is still on our books as a loan, Mr. Kennedy, you 
will probably find. You have examined the books. It is still there. 
It will be repaid. It is a common, ordinary occurrence between two 
international unions. 

Mr. Kennedy. When you went to Europe in 1950, Mr. Gibbons, you 
went in the summer of 1950, was it ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I believe so, in the spring. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had a going-away party, did you, on July 24? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes ; I think so. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you take Mr. San Soucie to the doctor that 
night ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No; I never took Mr. San Soucie to any doctor that 
night to my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you take him any time to the doctor after he got 
burned ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't even identify that night with his being burnt. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, did you take him to the doctor the night he 
got burnt ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I have no recollection of taking Mr. San Soucie to a 
doctor on any occasion, including the night on which he was burned. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you take Mr. San Soucie to Dr. Richmond 
shortly after he was burned ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14659 

Mr. Gibbons. Let me consult with my counsel. 
Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Gibbons. To the best of my recollection, Mr. Kennedy, I did not 
take Mr. San Soucie to Dr. Richmond or any doctor the night he was 
burned. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, did you take him to the doctor in connection 
with his burn ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Not that I can recall. On no occasion did I ever 
take Gene San Soucie to a doctor. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever take Gene San Soucie to Dr. Richmond ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I think I answered that question before. But again 
let me repeat. I do not recall ever having taken Gene San Soucie 
to Dr. Richmond. 

Senator Ives. May I interrupt there a moment ? 

I wish the witness would be a little more explicit. After all is said 
and done, I think you would know whether you took San Soucie or 
not to this particular doctor, Dr. Richmond. 

Mr. Kennedy. The information that we have definitely is that Mr. 
Gibbons took Mr. San Soucie to Dr. Richmond in connection with 
burns that Mr. San Soucie had received during 1950. This was in 
the summer of 1950. 

Mr. Gibbons. What information have you on such an incident, Mr. 
Kennedy ? 

Mr. Kennedy. We have it from officials in St. Louis. 

Mr. Gibbons. What officials ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I am trying to get the information from you. 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, if I had contact with officials, it may be just the 
thing I need to refresh my memory. 

If you are working with some documents up there 

Mr. Kennedy. All you need to refresh your recollection is that it 
was Dr. Richmond, and it was Mr. San Soucie who was burned, and 
it was in the summer of 1950. 

Senator Ives. That either is or it isn't. Can you say so ? 

Mr. Kennedy. It was at night, and I believe it was the night of your 
farewell party. 

Mr. Previant. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that if the staff has infor- 
mation which would be helpful to the committee, they should present 
the information and let Mr. Gibbons comment on it if it restores his 
recollection in any way. But it is certainly not fair to say, "We got 
it, now you guess at it." 

Mr. Kennedy. I gave him all the facts. Now I am trying to find out 
whether he did it or not. 

The Chairman. The time is sufficiently identified. 

Mr. Previant. There has been no time identified, if the chairman 
please. 

The Chairman. The summer of 1950. 

Mr. Previant. I am sorry. I did not hear that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

The Chairman. And we think it was about the night of his going- 
away party. He also names the doctor, and also associates the burns. 

Mr. Gibbons. Was this doctor at the party ? 

The Chairman. Was what ? 



14660 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Gibbons. Was this doctor at the party ? 

The Chairman. I don't know. I sure was not there. I wouldn't 
know that. 

Senator Ives. Was he? 

Mr. Gibbons I am trying 

Senator Ives. Was he there ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I am trying to find out myself, Senator. 
Senator Ives. You don't know, then ? 
Mr. Gibbons. This is 8 years ago. 

Senator Ives. I think you would know definitely, wouldn't you, if 
you took somebody who had been burned to a doctor ? 

I think you have a better memory than not to know, or to say to 
the best of your recollection. What does that mean? It does not 
mean anything. 

Mr. Gibbons. I will say flatly to you I do not recall 

Senator Ives. Say no, if you did not do it. 

Mr. Gibbons. I do not recall ever taking Gene San Soucie to that 
doctor. Again I say to you I am not going to testify to a certainty 
about something that I cannot recollect. 

Mr. Kennedy. The reason it is of interest to us is that we have had 
testimony that there were a number of arsons in connection with some 
of the unions that you were associated with. We had testimony about 
Mr. San Soucie's watch being found at the bottom of a window at a 
time that there had been some phosphorus crystals thrown into this 
place of business, and that he had reported to the doctor that he had 
been burned. What I wanted to find out from you is whether it was, 
in fact, correct, that you took him to a doctor, and the second question 
would be where he got his burn. 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, if you can specify the doctor and everything 
you can, you specify a doctor, you may very well have something there 
which would help me refresh my memory. 

Mr. Kennedy. I have refreshed your recollection. I told you it 
was — well, I did not tell you this. 

The Chairman. Just a moment. I know the nature of the infor- 
mation that the committee has. I did not know it when the question 
first began. The nature of the information is such that it would not 
aid you in this. 
Mr. Gibbons. It would not ? 
The Chairman. It would not. 

Mr. Gibbons. Then there is no point in giving it to me then. 
All I can say, Senator, on this question is that I do not recall ever 
having taken Gene San Soucie to a doctor for burns or any other 
purpose. 

The Chairman. All right. Do you know when he got burned? 
Do you remember that ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No; I don't remember when he got burned. 
The Chairman. You don't recall the occasion when he was 
suffering with burns ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No ; I don't. 

The Chairman. You have no recollection of it ? 
Mr. Gibbons. No, sir ; I don't. 

The Chairman. And no recollection of having administered to him 
or assisted him in any way in getting to a doctor ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14661 

Mr. Gibbons. No, sir; I do not have any recollection of such. 

The Chairman. I am advised now it was June 24, about 1 a. m. in 
the morning. Will that be of any help to you ? 

What is this doctor's name ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Dr. Richmond. 

Mr. Gibbons. No ; this does not help me at all. 

The Chairman. Is that the night of your farewell party, June 24? 

Mr. Gibbons. I wouldn't know that, but it is perfectly possible 
that was the night. 

I certainly could not be expected to remember that. 

The Chairman. Do you recall any incidents that occurred that 
night with respect to arson, or bombings ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, sir; I recall no such arson or bombings on that 
particular occasion. 

The Chakman. The Adler Manufacturing Co. is where this 
occurred. 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't recall any incident where the Adler bombing 
company — or Adler Co., was burned? 

The Chairman. All right. The witness can't remember. 

Proceed. 

Senator Ives. Do you know Dr. Richmond ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, I do. 

Senator Ives. By golly, at last we got a contact. Then we could 
check with him, couldn't we ? 

Mr. Gibbons. You certainly could. 

Senator Ives. Will you do that, Mr. Counsel ? 

Mr. Gd3bons. He testified against me in the grand jury, for your 
information further. 

Senator Ives. Did he? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. He said I stole, but he couldn't figure out how. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Gibbons, do you know Mr. Harry Karsh? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, I know Harry Karsh. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have anything to do with his obtaining a 
charter from the Teamsters Union ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I believe I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you recommend him? 

Mr. Gibbons. I didn't recommend that Harry Karsh get a charter 
as such. I remembered the issuance of a charter in the field of car- 
nivals and circuses. Subsequent to the issuance of such a charter, 
Harold Karsh was employed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand that Mr. Karsh was to obtain 
that charter? 

Mr. Gibbons. No. I don't believe he ever did obtain that charter, 
as such. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, that he was to go to work and attempt to 
organize ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No. I put him on the job. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know 

Mr. Gibbons. I am pretty sure I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know of his background and difficulty that 
he had had? 

Mr. Gibbons. I knew of his background. 

Mr. Kennedy. You knew of his difficulties during the 1940's ? 

21243— 59— pt. 39 8 



14062 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Gibbons. What difficulties did he have in the 1940's? 

Mr. Kennedy. According to the information, the testimony that 
we have, of an affidavit that was placed in the record, he had had 
some difficulty back in 1942, and he was expelled from the A. F. of L., 
or he was asked to withdraw from the A. F. of L. 

Mr. Gibbons. Whose affidavit was that, Mr. Kennedy ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know anything about that, Mr. Gibbons? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, and I don't think it ever happened, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't think it ever happened ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was his experiences during the 1940*s ? What 
was he doing during the 1940's? 

Mr. Gibbons. I never knew Harry Karsh in the 1940's. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, do you know whether he had difficulty with 
the A. F. of L.? 

Mr. Gibbons. I questioned him closely on his difficulties, his work, 
and his experiences, and his relationships before I put him on the 
payroll. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he never made mention of the fact that he had 
had this difficulty? 

Mr. Gibbons. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. You knew he worked for the Jewelry Workers during 
the early 1950's? 

Mr. Gibbons. I knew that he was an organizer for the Jewelry 
Workers in this same field. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know of his experiences with the Jewelry 
Workers, or the Jewelry Workers' experience with him ? The charges 
that were made against him ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I did not know of any charges made against Harry 
Karsh. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't know to this day of the charges ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Of any charges made by the Jewelry Workers against 
Harry Karsh I 

Mr. Kennedy. Not the Jewelry Workers, but charges in connection 
with the organizational drives of Harry Karsh. 

Mr. Gibbons. Who made these charges ? 

I am not aware of any charges made against Harry Karsh. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have them here in the record. We placed them 
in the record. 

Mr. Gibbons. I asked you who made them and what they consist of. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, that he was trying to force and did force 
workers in carnivals by methods not normal. 

Mr. Gibbons. This is a matter of sheer opinion, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr- Kennedy. We had testimony before this committee that amply 
supports the situation. 

Mr. Gibbons. From a credible source, like an employer he was trying 
to organize, I suspect. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Gibbons. I am sorry, but I can't give that too much credence. 

The Chairman. In other words, you don't give too much credit to 
a businessman for having too much integrity? 

Mr. Gibbons. I respect businessmen for having every bit of integrity 
as any other section. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14663 

The Chairman. You said it was from an employer 

Mr. Gibbons. I said when it comes to an employer who is under 
organization, it is generally that he hates the guy who is organizing 
him. 

The Chairman. That is sometimes mutual ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, I would say that, too. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then, of course, Mr. Chairman, we not only have 
the employer, but we have the union officials themselves, Mr. George 
Meany. He sought a charter for a local and proceeded to organize 
by strong-arm methods, carnivals, fairs, and amusement park 
employees. 

Mr. Gibbons. Is this in the form of a sworn affidavit ? 

Mr. Kennedy. These are the charges that were made at that time, 
and it was amply supported by the testimony we had before the 
committee. You have union officials and you have the employers. 

Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Kennedy, if you have union officials, it seems to 
me 

Mr. Kennedy. And we have a lawyer, a third person. 

Mr. Gibbons. It seems to me if there is credible testimony here from 
union officials, there is no secret about it. Tell me where, when, how, 
and why. I don't know whether you got any testimony from George 
Meany on this man. If you have, identify it for me. That is all I 
am asking. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Gibbons, you were here all last week. You 
know where the testimony came from. 

Mr. Gibbons. I heard a bunch of employers here, Mr. Kennedy, who 
I can immediately dismiss on the basis of they were fighting viciously 
against organization of their employees. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't like police officers, you don't like 
employers. 

Mr. Gibbons. This isn't so. This is not so. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think you are typing yourself. 

Mr. Gibbons. I am not typing myself, and I am not going to permit 
you to type me either, Mr. Kennedy, without at least resisting. 

The Chairman. All right, we are all typing each other. 

Mr. Gibbons. I am sorry, Senator, if I am out of line on that. 

The Chairman. Here is "Exhibit 91, Minutes of a Meeting of the 
Executive Board of the American Federation of Labor," I believe. 

That is some of the proof with respect to this man Karsh. 

( The document was handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Gibbons. Was this excerpt checked with Meany as to accuracy ? 
It so happens that Harry Karsh talked with Mr. Meany about this 
situation. 

Mr. Kennedy. It so happens what ? 

Mr. Gibbons. That Harry Karsh talked with Mr. Meany about this 
situation, and Mr. Meany assured him that he never said anything 
wrong about him. 

Mr. Kennedy. I will say this, Mr. Gibbons, that we had this state- 
ment, and it was amply supported by the testimony. We have some 
affidavits from employees. Would that be sufficient for you? We 
have the employers, we have the statement that Mr. Meany made at 
the time as related, and we have affidavits from employees regarding 



14664 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Karsh's activities. Mr. Karsh comes before the committee and 
takes the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Gibbons. What is the question again, Mr. Kennedy % 

Mr. Kennedy. I am asking you if you looked in to all of this and 
were interested in it when you suggested or gave Mr. Karsh this posi- 
tion with the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Gibbons. When I gave Karsh his position with the Teamsters, 
I had some direct knowledge of the type of person he was, No. 1. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have this information ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No ; I did not have this information. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you go out and investigate to see what his 
organizational activities had been ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Kennedy, I don't have the staff you have, to go 
out and investigate people. I did check him on his background with 
the A. F. of L. He assured me that it was perfectly all right. There 
was a question raised by Mr. Meany, and that he did go and see Mr. 
Meany and Mr. Meany denied saying anything derogatory about 
Harry Karsh. These are the facts as I had them when I put the man 
on the payroll. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you check with Mr. Meany ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No ; I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you checked with Mr. Harry Karsh, and he said 
he was completely clear, and then you put him to work. Is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Gibbons. That plus the fact that I had worked with him for 
some years when he was a staff member of my own union. 

The Chairman. I have here an affidavit from one Charles Car- 
penter. I will read some of the pertinent parts of it. 

The affidavit and the union card attached to it, issued to him, in 
his name, may be printed in the record at this point. 

(The document referred to follows :) 

Affidavit 

June 11, 1958. 
State of Michigan, 

County of Wayne, ss: 

I, Charles Carpenter, voluntarily make this statement to Irwin Langenbacher, 
who has identified himself as assistant counsel, United States Senate Select 
Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Management Field. 

I am a carnival worker employed by The World of Pleasure, Box 349, York, Ala. 
My winter address is Route 1, Box 115, Ruskin, Fla. 

In June of 1952 I was employed by the W. G. Wade Shows as a ride manager 
when Harry Karsh came to Kalamazoo, Mich., in an attempt to organize the 
carnival employees into local 450 of the Jewelry Workers' Union. 

He called a meeting in the girls' show tent, attended by the carnival's em- 
ployees, about 20 or 22 in number. He stated that we would have to join the 
union or the show would not move off the lot. He said we would not be per- 
mitted to work if we did not join, and said that he would see to it that we did 
not tear down the equipment in order to move the show. Everyone present re- 
fused to join. 

W. G. Wade, Sr., since deceased, was the owner of the show and after the 
meeting he signed a contract with Karsh. Karsh then called a second meeting 
of the employees, at which meeting I was barred because I had opposed him 
at the first meeting. 

The employees also refused to join at this second meeting. At that time Mr. 
Wade paid our dues to Karsh for 1 month at $4 a month, but we told him we 
would quit the show if the $4 was taken from our pay. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14665 

Karsh turned in union cards for each of us to the office and the office distrib- 
uted them to us. The union dues were never deducted from our pay, and we 
have never heard from Karsh again. The dues were paid by the management 
for only 1 month. The contract did not provide for a welfare plan or any benefits 
for the employees. 

I have read the above statement and it is true to the best of my present 
recollection. 

Charles Carpenter. 

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 12th day of June 1958. 

William B. Ward, 

Notary Public. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is an employee. 

Mr. Gibbons. Under the Teamster contract, I assure you they do 
provide for the welfare programs. 

(At this point, members of the committee present: Senators Mc- 
Clellan and Ives.) 

The Chairman. The thing I get concerned about is this : Is that a 
legitimate method of organizing employees ? 

Mr. Gibbons. If this be true, assuming it is true, it is not a legiti- 
mate way of operating on behalf of a union. 

The Chairman. Wouldn't you condemn that sort of practice ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I have been organizing for many years, and I have 
not found it necessary to do that, and I w ould say this is not the proper 
way to do it. 

The Chairman. Wouldn't you condemn it ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes ; if it were true. I would say, yes. 

The Chairman. I am not condemning something false. I am ask- 
ing you to condemn what is true. 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't know what kind of union you build on that 
kind of a basis. 

The Chairman. I don't either. It looks to me like a racket. He 
gets the dues for 1 month from the employer and that ends it. He 
gets his payoff and is gone. That is the way it looks on the face of it. 

All right, proceed. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Gibbons about 
something else. I take it he tries to be fair in his organizing methods 
from what he stated. I don't quite agree with him, in fact I don't 
agree with him at all in his procedure when it comes to strikes. This 
is neither here nor there. What I want to point out is the fact that 
I happen to know a young man who when he was in college was a 
member of a small orchestra that started touring the country and had 
in the prior 2 or 3 years, the same group of young men, without any 
particular trouble. They toured in their own private cars. 

But in the final year they decided to get a little truck to carry their 
instruments and then just use the one car. I think there were five 
of them and they could easily do that. It so happened that in every 
community they went they were approached by representatives of 
the Teamsters and forced to join. 

Do you know anything about a situation that would require that 
in the Teamsters? Some of this occurred within your domain. 

Mr. Gibbons. What years were these ? 

Senator Ives. This is back before the war. This is a number of 
years ago. But I take it you were in the Teamsters at that time ? 

Mr. GraBONS. No ; I wasn't. 

Senator Ives. Where were you ? 



14666 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Gibbons. At the time of the war I was a regional director in 
charge of St. Louis for the United Retail Wholesale and Department 
Employees, CIO. 

Senator Ives. You would not approve of that, anything like that, 
concerning a group of college fellows who had a little truck carrying 
instruments. You would not approve of them being forced to join 
the Teamsters just to cart around their instruments? 

Mr. Gibbons. I can't visualize approving any such thing. 

Senator Ives. I can't imagine anyone with any sense approving it. 
It is a racket. 

Mr. Gibbons. The thing you have to understand about this carnival 
business is that you get an affidavit from one person who may have 
been antiunion, and it is his right, and suddenly he makes an affidavit 
that he knows everything in the minds of everybody in the tent in 
that meeting. 

It is very difficult to know whether everybody is for or against a 
union because there is always a threat of being fired if your own 
desires in relationship to a union become known to an employer. It 
is very difficult. I would question strenuously that any one individual 
who gave that affidavit would have in his possession the full knowledge 
of what the attitude of the majority of those people were. 

Senator Ives. I am not talking about that. 

Mr. Gibbons. Harry Karsh in that instance may have well have 
been saying as well as being instructed by the people there that this 
show will not move because we will not work and pull it out of it. This 
may have been the basis for it. I am not saying it is. 

Senator Ives. I am telling you about these young college people, 
something I know about myself, because my stepson happened to be 
one of them. 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't know about that. 

Senator Ives. I do and it was the Teamsters that did it. 

Mr. Gibbons. I am pretty sure it doesn't happen in the Teamsters 
today. 

Senator Ives. I wish you would check on that and find out if any- 
thing like that is happening today because I have confidence that you 
could stop it. 

Mr. Gibbons. If it came to my knowledge it would be stopped or I 
would make all the efforts possible to stop it. 

Senator Ives. Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there an election held amongst the employees 
of these carnivals after Mr. Karsh became the head of the union or 
began operating the union ? Was there an election held as to whether 
these employees wished to join the union ? 

Mr. Gibbons. There is at least three legitimate ways to gain an elec- 
tion. I think in the case of the carnivals there was no election held. 

Mr. Kennedy. I can understand that they can sign the contract. 
That was the procedure we went into, and that was the procedure he 
was using in 1952 about which we had the testimony, that he would 
just come in to the employer and tell him that he wanted to sign a 
contract. 

Mr. Gibbons. There is another reason if you are going to discuss 
elections. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wait a minute. For instance, we have the attorney 
here who testified that he came in and said that he just wanted to sign 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14667 

the contract. I asked him, at page 2627, whether or not he would not 
sit down and discuss the matter with the employees and the owner, 
and he said he couldn't waste time doing that because he had the owner 
where he wanted him and he was not going to let him off. He could 
not unload the railroad cars until Monday. 

Mr. Gibbons. Whose testimony is this ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hines. He is an attorney. Pie says, at page 
2628: 

I told Mr. Karsh that his suggestion, since he did not represent any of the 
employees, was a violation of the Taft-Hartley Act and was certainly not proper 
in any manner. His reply was that he didn't give a damn for the Taft-Hartley 
Act and that he had the employer where he wanted him and he wasn't going to 
let him go. 

They ran through those individuals or employers who were organized 
while he was with the carnival workers as well as with the Teamsters. 

Mr. Gibbons. You are aware of the fact that in terms of elections 
that Taft-Hartley will not conduct elections in this particular field. 
You know the Taft-Hartley does not apply. 

Mr. Kennedy. I know the National Labor Kelations Board does not 
apply. 

Mr. Gibbons. That is right. No. 2, Mr. Karsh or no other labor 
organizer is going to tell a company attorney how many he represents. 
If he is going to tell him anything as a matter of protection for the 
people involved he will tell them I don't represent anybody. This has 
nothing to do with the facts in the case. It so happens that the great 
obstacle to organizing in this country is the fear of discharge that is 
in the minds of every worker when you approach him to join a union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then we had the situation of the Barnum & Bailey 
up in New York. There was a court case on it, and the Teamsters there 
didn't claim to represent any of the employees, Mr. Gibbons. 

Mr. Gibbons. At that point we may not have been representing 
the majority or any member on it. We wanted to, in that particular 
instance, picketing, probably just protesting the nonunion conditions 
and the horrible conditions under which these men were living. Sleep- 
ing in cells with animals and getting maybe $20 or $25 a month wages. 

Mr. Kennedy. It just appears that the employees themselves should 
have a right to decide whether they want to belong to the Teamsters 
Union. Under the methods that were used by Mr. Karsh in 1952 and 
used by Mr. Karsh under direction in 1956, this procedure was not 
followed. 

Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Kennedy, you have no evidence of the fact that 
this was true. You have no evidence whether or not Mr. Karsh did 
represent as a matter of fact the employees. 

Mr. Kennedy. I will tell you the evidence. I have the evidence 
in the Barnum & Bailey Circus when they went before the court. 

Mr. Gibbons. Did you know at that particular moment whether we 
were seeking recognition or just advertising the fact that the con- 
ditions were so bad. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were picketing. You were anxious to sign a 
contract with Barnum & Bailey Circus because you and Mr. Hoffa met 
with Mr. North. 

Mr. Gibbons. This was a different time and place. Picketing comes 
under the matter of free speech and advertising. 



14668 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. This took place after your conversation with Mr. 
North I 

Mr. Gibbons. That is correct. When we talked with Mr. North 
we probably represented the overwhelming majority of those people. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you lost them all % 

Mr. Gibbons. This happens every time you organize a plant — or 
don't you know about this — I can organize a plant 99 percent, and 
4 days later, when the employer gets through threatening people, I 
wind up with nobody. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you testifying that is what happened ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No ; I testify to the fact that what you are saying is 
not necessarily true. I am pointing out the inadequacies of these gen- 
eralizations you are engaging in. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am telling you what the specifics are. 

Mr. Gibbons. You are not in touch with reality when you talk that 

wa y- 

Mr. Kennedy. We have the testimony of a number of different indi- 
viduals that the Teamsters came in attempting to sign a contract with- 
out any consultation with the employees, and that they never requested 
a vote. Specifically, we had the case of Mr. Christiani, and a number of 
other cases. As far as your knowledge of it is concerned, we have the 
meeting that you and Mr. Hoffa haof with Mr. North in Miami, Fla., 
and then the situation immediately following that in New York City, 
where the picketing started. 

Mr. Gibbons. I go back again to the fact that what testimony you 
have here comes from prejudiced sources not subject to cross-exami- 
nation ; there were no normal rules of evidence applied against it. The 
credibility of the witnesses is very questionable in those cases. 

The Chairman. Would you say you are from an impartial source ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, sir. I am 100 percent over on the side of the 
workers, Mr. McClellan. 

The Chairman. Shall we weigh your testimony in the same light 
you ask us to weigh the testimony of employees ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I think you certainly should. I am under cross- 
examination. I have a long reputation as far as credibility goes. 

The Chairman. But you challenge that of others without know- 
ing them. 

Mr. Gibbons. I say in this situation, Senator, with some of the peo- 
ple he has brought here to testify to the facts I would raise serious 
questions as to the credibility. 

The Chairman. Including the St. Louis police ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Including the St. Louis police officers, the particular 
ones you had here. The rest of the police force I am not casting any 
aspersions. 

The Chairman. I didn't hear you make any exceptions in your testi- 
mony. 

Mr. Gibbons. It must have been in a heated moment. I was talking 
about that section of the police force I had contact with. I and our 
union has suffered much at the hands of the police force of St. Louis. 

Incidentally, it now happens to be under some excellent and fine 
leadership with the new police board put in. The things I say about 
the police force I told Mr. Long, the chairman of the police board, 
and I told on repeated occasions to these other gentlemen who testi- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14669 

fied here. I have documentary evidence here which casts great doubts 
whether they are entitled to be called fine police officers. 

It comes not from Mr. Gibbons but from the finest citizens of the 
city of St. Louis and the document is here for the perusal of the 
committee. 

The Chairman. I don't know where we will find any witnesses 
that will please you. 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't think it is a question of the tests and pro- 
cedures that you follow here that concern me greatly. 

The Chairman. All right, let us proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have the employers, we have the union officials 
always, we have the police, and we have the employees. We have all 
of those people. 

The Chairman. It is not necessary to exhaust it any further. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about the election of 1958. You were run- 
ning for president of the joint council ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You made arrangements to appoint some individ- 
uals to be the officers of the joint council. 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't believe I had anything to do with the ap- 
pointments. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Gibbons, if this local was considered to be a 
part of the joint council, why hadn't steps been taken to see that their 
per capita dues had been paid up on time ? 

Mr. Gibbons. It was very simple, Mr. Kennedy. This local was 
chartered and from that date to this it has been literally totally sub- 
sidized by the Central Conference of Teamsters. It would be a little 
bit ridiculous in the early stages of the organizations to take money 
out of one pocket and put it in the other. Therefore, we did not take 
the money out of the carnival workers and put it in the joint council. 

That is the only reason why they were not paying per capita tax 
to the joint council. It was a totally subsidized deal and always under 
a heavy deficit. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. When the officers running against you requested the 
names of the delegates, did you give them the names of the delegates 
from local 447? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, I did not. To the best of my knowledge, I did 
not. That is until I supplied every one of the locals with a written 
list of all of the delegates to the joint council who were eligible to vote 
in that particular election. 

Mr. Kennedy. And when they requested it, you did not supply 
the names to them ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, not when they requested it. The names would 
have been of little moment to them, well, the names of the 447, you 
are right ; no, I did not. I may not have at the moment they asked 
me even have it in my possession. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about the names of the other delegates ? 

Mr. Gibbons. The other delegates? The names were supplied in 
advance of the voting, but not otherwise. 

Mr. Kennedy. The testimony that we had was that it was either the 
day before the voting or the day of the voting. 



14670 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, about 48 hours in advance. 

Mr. Kennedy. No, they said either the day of the voting or the day 
before the voting. 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, it was in advance of it. I believe it was all 
mailed out. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you send a letter to all of the delegates ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did you send your letter out ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Probably a week in advance. 

Mr. Kennedy. You got the names for your use but they could 
not get the names ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No. I got the names and I invited them to get their 
names the way I got mine, because names are no value to you when you 
mail. You have to have addresses. The addresses were not available 
in the joint council's office to me, and I had people on the telephone 
calling the various locals to get the addresses. I got the addresses. 
When they raised a question with me, I said "You do as I did. Get 
on the telephones and call these locals and if these seceretary- treasur- 
ers responsible for the organizations want to give them to you, they 
will give them to you." 

In my case, when I called, they were happy to give them to me, and 
I used them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Even the opposition? 

Mr. Gibbons. The opposition, yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You knew the delegates representing these locals 
were sending their names in. 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, but I had no addresses. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you got the names. 

Mr. Gibbons. Of course, I got the names, but they were no value in 
sending a letter out. 

Mr. Kennedy. These men running against you asked for the names 
of the delegates. 

Mr. Gibbons. A telephone call was all they needed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why didn't you give them the same information you 
had? 

Mr. Gibbons. Why didn't I ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. You were talking about what you believe in 
democracy. I am asking why you did not give them the same infor- 
mation you had. 

Mr. Gibbons. In this particular instance as far as giving the names, 
they got the names compiled in this fashion that I have in my hand 
here at the same time I got them. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had the name of the delegates, you had the 
names when the various locals sent them in. 

Mr. Gibbons. I got them in advance by the process of picking up 
the telephone and calling and I advised them to do likewise if they 
wanted the names. 

Mr. Kennedy. At whose expense were you calling these people ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I was calling on the telephone in the joint council. It 
may have been paid by 688, it may have been paid by the joint council, 
it may have been paid by the Central Conference, it may have been 
paid by the International Union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was doing the telephoning for you ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14671 

Mr. Gibbons. Probably my secretary. 

Mr. Kennedy. She was 'I 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was her name ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, I don't know exactly which one did it. It may 
have been one of the staff gnys that did it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You instructed somebody to do it for you ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who did you instruct ? 

Mr. Gibbons. At the point when I instructed them or told them, I 
don't know which one picked them up. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who did you instruct ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I didn't instruct anyone particularly. I simply said 
"Let's get together." It may not have taken place in my office. _ It may 
have been one of the guys on my slate who went and did the job, Mr. 
Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. We had the testimony that you had these names, you 
sent out a letter, the opposition requested the names of the delegates, 
and they weren't able to get them from you. 

Mr. Gibbons. That is very fine testimony, then. But I am telling 
you as I handled the situation, and the basis on which I handled it, 
and how I managed to handle it. 

The Chairman. Mr. Gibbons, if you were using the telephone and 
charging the calls to the union, don't you think they certainly were 
entitled to the information, because you were paying for the calls out 
of union money ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I think it was out of my own local union, Mr. Senator. 
Probably out of 688's money, which was actively supporting me for 
the presidency. 

The Chairman. I thought you just mentioned four different tele- 
phones. 

Mr. Gibbons. That is right. It may have been any one of them. It 
was probably 688. 

It may have been another local union, as I say, someone on my slate. 
I am not too certain. Maybe I made a mistake in holding out on it. I 
am not going to quarrel with that. But we have asked Mr. Kennedy 
for certain information from the files which he has taken from us, and 
I understand he has turned us down on that. 

The Chairman. What information ? 

Mr. Rosenblum. A request was made Saturday for the minutes of 
the joint council of June. Mr. Bellino turned us down. 

Mr. Gibbons. We wanted it so I could more competently testify. 

Mr. Kennedy. We did not have them at that time. You did not 
request them from me. 

Mr. Rosenblum. Mr. Eickmeyer; the answer was that "Mr. Bellino 
says 'No'." 

Mr. Kennedy. We did not have them at the time. I will tell you 
the reason we did not have thorn. 

The minutes of the particular day for the seating of the delegates 
from local 447 are on different kinds of paper from any of the other 
minutes. It is a different kind of typing from any of the other 
minutes. We are having it checked to determine whether they are, in 
fact, the true minutes and whether they were typed at that particular 
time. 



14672 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Gibbons. When did you seize the minutes ? 

Mr. Rosenblum. This is the following month, June. 

Mr. Kennedy. We are having it checked for comparisons. 

Mr. Rosenblum. It would have been nice to have had them. 

Mr. Kennedy. We did not have them. 

I might ask you, are all those minutes received true and accurate 
minutes ? 

Mr. Gibbons. They certainly are true and accurate minutes to the 
best of my knowledge, Mr. Kennedy. I don't make them up. But to 
say otherwise would be to cast reflections either on Charlie Grogan 
who makes up 90 percent of the minutes or some little girl that typed 
them. I am not prepared to cast reflection on any one of those people. 

Mr. Kennedy. He didn't type those. We checked that. He said 
they must have been typed by somebody else. 

Mr. Gibbons. Who said this ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Grogan. 

Mr. Gibbons. I have him here testifying to the fact — 

I don't want the record to show that I denied that those are my minutes or that 
I even denied being at the meeting when they were taken. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know that he did type them, in fact ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, I wouldn't know. 

I don't know if he ever typed a set of minutes in his life or who in his 
office typed those minutes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if these minutes that have been turned 
over to us are the true and accurate minutes ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Are those the minutes that you got from my office? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Gibbons. I will tell you this. At no time in my office was any 
minute deliberately altered for the purpose of falsification. I will 
testify flatly to that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did anyone add any minutes to the minutes we 
received ? 

Mr. Gibbons. This, I would say to you, falls under the classification 
of altering, and none of that took place in my office for illegal purposes 
or for less than honorable purposes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have any knowledge that any of the minutes 
were altered? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, I certainly have no knowledge that they were 
altered. In fact, I have never even heard that question raised in the 
years that I have been with the Joint Council. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Gibbons. As a matter of fact, when did you seize those minutes, 
Mr. Kennedy ? 

Mr. Kennedy. We don't know when the date was. 

Mr. Gibbons. If my memory serves me right, you seized those 8 
months before there was ever an election held, and long before I had 
determined in my own mind that there should be an election held. 
Maybe 3 or 4 months. It would be very difficult for me to mix up 
the minutes. I certainly could not figure 3 months in advance that I am 
going to have the tight election in St. Louis. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, we are having them checked. We will have 
a report on it. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14673 

I would like to ask you : How were these officers appointed for local 
447, Mr. Gibbons ? 

Mr. Gibbons. How were they appointed ? I believe that Mr. Karsh 
submitted a list of people who, in his estimation, would serve com- 
petently in that capacity. 

Mr. Kennedy. To whom did he submit that list ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I believe it submitted it to vice president Hoffa, at 
that time, who was a trustee of the local. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Holla appointed these individuals ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Hoffa appointed these. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know when that was done ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, it was right immediately preceding the actual 
election itself, Mr. Kennedy. I would say maybe 3 or 4 weeks before. 
Maybe 6 weeks. 

Mr. Kennedy. For at least 6 months during this period of time, 1 
believe 1955-56, the local union had become over 6 months in arrears 
for their per capita tax. 

Mr. Gibbons. Right- 
Mr. Kennedy. And they had 

Mr. Gibbons. They had never paid per capita tax up to that time, 
so they were far more than 6 months in arrears. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is the international. There is a penalty in the 
international constitution that states — 

Should a local union become 6 months in arrears for per capita tax, their charter 
shall stand revoked. 

Mr. Gibbons. What constitution are you reading from, the new or 
the old? 

Mr. Kennedy. The 1952 constitution. The same provision is in the 
1957. 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. They were not in arrears to the international 
union, to my knowledge. I am speaking now about their being in 
arrears to the joint council. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes; but they were in arrears to the international. 

Mr. Gibbons. They were, too ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. For more than 6 months. Is that correct? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't know about that. 

Mr. Kennedy. From November of 1955 to June 1956, no per capita 
dues. 

Mr. Gibbons. What are those dates ? 

Mr. Kennedy. November 1955— — 

Mr. Gibbons. Those were the dates when they are closed down. 

Mr. Kennedy. Under the constitution, that charter would have been 
automatically revoked. 

Mr. Gibbons. No; it would not, Mr. Kennedy, and I will tell you 
why it would not. This is a very unique industry, in terms of operat- 
ing a union in it. When this charter was issued, I had long conver- 
sations with President Beck about the problems that were created in 
operating in this field. 

One of the things that was discussed with him, among all of the 
things, and a number of them I will mention to you, was the business 
of what about the per capita tax arrearages. Mr. Beck is authorized 
under the international constitution, the same one you are reading 
from, to interpret the constitution to meet problems of this kind. 



14674 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

This was part of the interpretations of President Beck in connec- 
tion with the operations of this union. 

Mr. Kennedy. You can't get around this. It is a provision in the 
constitution that says — 

Should a local union become 6 months in arrears for per capita tax, their 
charter shall stand revoked. 

You are testifying that Mr. Beck could waive the constitution. 

Mr. Gibbons. In a given situation such as this, in the operation of 
this union, he made many interpretations so that this union could, in 
fact, function. 

Mr. Kennedy. I say that the constitution does not mean a great 
deal if the international president can waive it. 

Mr. Gibbons. Under your interpretation, Mr. Kennedy, it would 
be physically impossible. We would either have to violate the con- 
stitution or not mave a union in this field. It also provides, this con- 
stitution does, that you can take a withdrawal card when you are 
not working. We either have to deny this right to those people or we 
have to give up the idea of having a union in this field, because for 6 
months out of the year, they don't work, and not paying dues, you do 
not take per capita tax on them. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have found in the constitution, where you want 
to enforce the provisions of the constitution, you enforce them, and 
where you don't want to enforce them, they are waived. 

This is a perfect example. 

Mr. Gibbons. Where there are conflicts in the constitution, our 
general president, in those days, was entitled to resolve those conflicts 
by interpretation. 

Mr. Kennedy. There is no conflict in the interpretation. There 
might be a conflict or difficulty for this particular local, but this con- 
stitution is very clear. 

Mr. Gibbons. Not a difficulty for this local. The conflict between 
the two causes, the one you mentioned and the one I mentioned, in 
terms of the right of a member to take a withdrawal card when he 
is not working. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is for the tax into the international. 

Mr. Gibbons. That is right. Obviously, when we don't collect dues, 
we don't pay per capita tax. We only pay per capita tax on actual 
dues collected, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me ask you about this provision of the consti- 
tution, of the 1957 constitution, in connection with something. 

Mr. Gibbons, in connection with the statement that you just made, 
why now is the union going back and paying the international for 
these months that were missed, back in 1955 and 1956, if the did not 
have to pay them ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't believe they did go back. Well, let's see where 
they paid for those months. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Eickmeyer, what does the record show? 

Did they in fact in 1958 pay for those months that were missed ? 

Mr. Eickmeyer. In April of 1958 a payment was made to the inter- 
national for 286 members. This was a payment for 188 members for 
April of 1958, and then 7 members for May of 1955, November of 1955, 
December of 1955, January 1956, February 1956, March 1956, April 
1956, December 1956, January 1957, February 1957, March 1957, Jan- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14675 

uary 1958, February 1958, March 1958, 7 members for each one of 
those months. 

That makes a total of 

The Chairman. Were those payments made after the election? 

Mr. Eickmeyer. Yes, sir, in April of 1958. 

The Chairman. When was the election ? 

Mr. Eickmeyer. In January, January 15. 

The Chairman. How far back do they go ? 

Mr. Eickmeyer. To May 1955. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me ask you about this also, Mr. Gibbons : I turn 
to page 20 of the constitution, which says : 

The trustee shall be authorized and empowered to take full charge of the 
affairs of the local union or other subordinate body, to remove any or all officers 
and shall, within 60 days, appoint temporary officers during his trusteeship, and 
to take such other action as, in his judgment, is necessary for the preservation 
of the local union or other subordinate body and their interest. 

Then it describes temporary officers. It states in section D : 

Temporary officers and trustees must be members in good standing ot local 
unions in good standing. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Evidently, according to the constitution, for the 
trustee appointing these officers, he had to appoint officers who were 
in good standing. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Gibbons. This applies to the function of the trustee 

Mr. Kennedy. These are the two important provisions of the con- 
stitution, it seems to me, in connection with this, waiving the fact 
that there had not been any per capita dues payments, either to the 
joint council or to the international. Now we go to page 38 and it 
gives a definition of members in good standing. 

It says : 

All members paying dues to local unions must pay them on or before the first 
business day of the current month, in advance. Where membership dues are 
being checked off by the employer pursuant to properly executed checkoff au- 
thorization, it shall be the obligation of the member to make one payment of 1 
month's dues in advance to insure his good standing. 

Thereafter, he shall remain in good standing for each consecutive month for 
which the checkoff is made. 

This is it. 

Any member failing to pay his dues at such time shall not be in good standing. 

Mr. Eickmeyer, these individuals had they paid their dues at the 
time that they were appointed and took part in this election ? 

The Chairman. Identify them. Do you mean the delegates from 
local 447, the carnival local? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Eickmeyer. Harry Karsh was the only one who had paid his 
dues at the time of the election. No, he had not paid his dues either 
on that elate. His was paid in February 1958 for January. 

Mr. Kennedy. So none of these individuals under this provision 
of the constitution were members in good standing? 

None of them, had paid their dues ? 

Mr. Eickmeyer. None of the seven delegates had paid their dues. 



14676 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Gibbons. There are two things I can say to you about this con- 
stitution and this. 

Mr. Eickmeyer. I am talking about the international constitution. 

Mr. Gibbons. I am talking about that. You can go through there 
through this international constitution and find two dozen places 
where it does not apply to this organization. This is an organization 
in an utterly new field and the problems of administering this in line 
with the constitution are many and difficult. 

Mr. Eickmeyer. You have the international constitution. You 
have to follow certain 

Mr. Gibbons. This doesn't necessarily apply in case of trusteeship 
locals, No. 1. 

Mr. Eickmeyer. I have read the trusteeship locals. There are 
other provisions that don't apply to the trusteeship locals. 

The Chairman. Where is the provision, Mr. Gibbons, in your con- 
stitution that gives you or an international president a right to waive 
any part of the constitution or make an exception for a local such as 
this in any particular field ? 

Mr. Gibbons. There is this section in which the president has the 
right to interpret the constitution. 

The Chairman. The right to interpret does not mean a right to 
waive. You don't contend that ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Evidently, Senator, the right to interpret has been 
interpreted by our international office to deal with these kinds of 
problems which are unique and new to this international in the opera- 
tion of this particular local. Under Mr. Kennedy's interpretation 

Mr. Kennedy. Not interpretation. That is what the constitution 
says. 

Mr. Gibbons. Let me put the reading. If we were to follow that 
strictly to the letter it would be a literal impossibility to elect an 
officer or find anyone in the union who is in good standing for the 
purposes of qualifying under that section. Every 6 months they 
have to take a withdrawal card because they are not employed. Thus 
they break the continuity of their membership and do not qualify. 

Senator Ives. Why did you let the constitution stand like that all 
this time ? 

Mr. Gibbons. At the last convention we had a lot of things on our 
minds besides the carnival workers union. This is the first experience 
we have had and we have little experience in the administration of 
this local. We are going to run into more problems. This local 
functions on the basis of shop stewards on the particular lots. There 
is little administration except to collect the dues and pay the per 
capita tax. There is a lot of things that we will find about the 
administration of this that this constitution will have to be changed if 
we are to continue to operate in this field. It is a very difficult prob- 
lem; it is not easy. I will only add this for Mr. Kennedy's benefit. 
None of those questions were raised in the previous election. There 
were only two questions raised with this election. It asked if this was 
affiliated with the joint council and why didn't we pay the dues to 
the joint council. 

Mr. Kennedy. The appointment and the participation of these 
individuals in the election was in clear violation of the constitution. 
You and Mr. Hoffa can get together and waive the constitution, but 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 14677 

it was in violation of the constitution and there is no question about it. 

Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Gibbons and Mr. Hoffa never got together for 
the purpose of waiving the constitution. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Gibbons by himself ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Nor Mr. Gibbons by himself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hofi'a appointed these people and you used 
them in the election. 

Mr. Gibbons. Again I repeat, I never have used anybody in that 
sense of the word. 

Senator Ives. In that connection let us get a few things clear. I 
thought that the witness just said that the present constitutional 
provision as applied specifically would mean that the constitution 
itself would be inoperative. 

Mr. Gibbons. No ; the constitution would not, but the union would 
be impossible to operate. 

Senator Ives. Yes, but the union could not live. 

Mr. Gibbons That is right. 

Senator Ives. In other words, you cannot operate without violating 
the constitution. 

Mr. Gibbons. That is what it amounts to, except that we hang our 
hat on the interpretive powers of the president. 

Senator Ives. But you are really violating the constitution. You 
have to, don't you ? 

Mr. Gibbons. This becomes a question of interpreting what inter- 
preting the constitution means, Mr. — Senator Ives. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Ives is all right. I am not fussy. 

Mr. Gibbons. I honor the title and I am very happy to use it. 

Senator Ives. What I am driving at is that you probably violated 
the letter of the constitution because you really had to, didn't you ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Literally we did. At the time that it was violated 

Senator Ives. Why not admit it ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I have no objection to admitting that conceivably it 
was. 

Senator Ives. I don't see any point in quibbling about it. 

Mr. Gibbons. I bring you to the point that at no time was I con- 
scious of violating the constitution in any of these questions raised 
in the election. This should be separated. Today Mr. Kennedy makes 
a good case of violating the constitution. I am not the person to 
determine whether he has or not. 

Senator Ives. I don't think there is ever a good case for violating a 
constitution. 

Mr. Gibbons. I think he has made a pretty good case here to the 
effect that we have violated. 

Senator Ives. We have provisions in the law where the construction 
industry is concerned, the building trades, under which that industry 
cannot proceed without a violation of the Taft-Hartley law. One of 
the amendments we had in the bill passed in the Senate would take 
care of this situation. 

Mr. Gibbons. Faced with practical problems ofttimes means go 
around a few rules. The question is whether we did it maliciously 
with malice aforethought for a selfish or dishonorable purpose, and I 
say to you that none of this is involved in the questions Mr. Kennedy 
today is raising. 

21243— 59— pt. 39 9 



14678 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. The committee will take a 5-minute recess. 

(Present at the time of taking the recess: Senators McClellan and 
Ives. ) 

(Short recess.) 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Gibbons, your closing remark indicated that the 
use of these delegates was done for a noble purpose. 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't believe I said that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Something similar to that. As there has been some 
question raised out there in St. Louis, and the question was raised 
here that you felt was a good point, would you be willing now to waive 
the use of those delegates in your own election ? 

Mr. Gibbons. For a new election ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No; just waive the use of those delegates in your 
own election ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Not on the basis of the results, but I will be very 
happy to have a new election. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you be willing to waive those delegates that, 
obviously from the constitution, were appointed illegally the use of 
those delegates ? 

Mr. Gibbons. There is only one thing you missed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Don't give me a talk. Just answer the question. 

Mr. Gibbons. I have to, if I am going to answer this adequately 
and properly. 

Mr. Kennedy. He can answer, Mr. Chairman. You can just 
answer the question. 

The Chairman. The question amounts to this. Would you be will- 
ing for that election, or the results of that election on the basis of these 
delegates' votes, to be set aside and the election result declared on the 
basis of the legal votes cast at the time ? 

Mr. Gibbons. The answer, Senator, is no, and I would like to com- 
ment. 

The Chairman. Now you may comment. 

Mr. Gibbons. And that is that the interpretation you placed on it, 
Mr. Kennedy, I don't agree with, and your preliminary remarks pre- 
ceding this. You are saying it was in strict violation of the constitu- 
tion, and this does not make it so. This is your interpretation of it. 
If you go back to even a Supreme Court, there are difficulties at times 
in interpreting the constitution. They change on point to point, and 
they are always having split decisions issued. I am saying to you 
simply that you can interpret as you see fit and on those points I have 
authority to interpret, I do. Mr. Hoffa may interpret it again, and 
there are difficulties in determining which is right and proper. For 
those reasons I don't propose to give up the presidency of the joint 
council on that basis. But I will be very happy to have another elec- 
tion involving the entire slate of officers. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Gibbons, don't you remember that you just ad- 
mitted to me that it was in violation of the letter of the constitution? 

Mr. Gibbons. That I admitted to a violation of the letter. 

Senator Ives. Yes. 

Mr. Gibbons. No; I think my phraseology was to the effect that 
Mr. Kennedy made a very good case for the constitution being violated. 
But I always qualified it to the fact that this was his interpretation. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14679 

Senator Ives. That is not the admission you made to me when I 
asked whether it was actually a violation of the letter of the constitu- 
tion. You said you could not operate with the constitution the way 
it is. 

Mr. Gibbons. That is right, I said that. 

Senator Ives. You have to violate the letter of the constitution in 
order to function. That is what you admitted. 

Mr. Gibbons. I was thinking of the strict construction that Mr. 
Kennedy placed upon the various clauses of the constitution. We are 
operating and I believe under the constitution basically on the basis 
of the interpretations which have been granted us to operate. 

Senator Ives. I think that is a matter of opinion. 

Mr. Gibbons. It is. 

Senator Ives. I think you have answered it, though, when you said 
actually it violates the letter of the constitution. 

Mr. Gibbons. We are in a very difficult area. 

Senator Ives. Surely. 

Mr. Gibbons. As far as trying to arrive at any agreements. 

Senator Ives. I can understand your problem. I am not arguing 
about it. I am trying to clear it up. 

Mr. Kennedy. The only reason I raised the question is the last 
statement you made before the recess that there was not any malicious- 
ness in mind. You described I thought, in rather glowing and noble 
terms, the fact that you allowed these people to vote, and I thought 
possibly we should make sure that it was understood that these were 
the votes that won the election for you, and if you felt so noble about 
it, whether you were willing to waive that. 

Mr. Gibbons. At the time, Mr. Kennedy, those votes were cast this 
was the basis on which they were cast. There was no effort to do 
anything dishonorable, vicious, or less than proper. The facts you 
have unearthed or gathered here or spoken of are facts which you 
have first brought to my attention long after the election took place. 
I was speaking only at the time of the election. I am not prepared 
to say on the basis of our constitution that I will now give up the 
seven votes. It would alter the entire election. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think we have had other union officials testify be- 
fore the committee that do not give what you did in this election such 
a noble connotation and give it in fact quite a dishonorable connota- 
tion. Mr. Walla and Mr. Lewis' testimony. 

Mr. Gibbons. I have a decision of the general executive board which 
is the proper authority to interpret my conduct in this instance, and 
they find with me. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have had a lot of experience with that executive 
board. 

The Chairman. Is it a fact that if these seven votes were not 
counted, you would have lost ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I would have lost. You are quite right. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed. 

Senator Ives. In that connection, was your compelling reason then 
for the technical violation of the constitution to insure your election? 

Mr. Gibbons. Let me demonstrate the situation. 

Senator Ives. I am just trying to find out, that is all. 

Mr. Gibbons. The answer is "Absolutely no." 



14680 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Ives. You admitted that the letter of the constitution was 
violated. What was your purpose in violating it in this instance? 

Mr. Gibbons. Of course, at the time if it were violated, and this is 
still a question 

Senator Ives. You admitted that the letter of it was. 

Mr. Gibbons. On the basis of his interpreting of the meaning of 
the constitution. But if this were true, that these votes were cast in 
violation of the constitution, these facts were not part of the picture 
when the votes were cast. There were only two issues before us. On 
those two issues I will stand, and I can convince the committee or 
anyone else that I acted properly and in accord with my responsibili- 
ties. We have not got to those two issues which were basic at the 
time the votes were cast and which were significant in whether or not 
these men voted. 

Senator Ives. Are you going to get to them ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I certainly want to if I have the oportunity. 

The Chairman. Am I correct — I think this is the testimony and I 
am trying to recall it — that these seven votes were not voted until after 
the other votes were counted and it was found they were needed ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No. 

The Chairman. Didn't we have testimony to that effect ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. The only thing is that the person who was tes- 
tifying is testifying in a very self-serving fashion. Let me point out 
to you that I followed the procedures which are followed by the United 
States Government in every NLRB election. When an election is 
challenged in an NLRB election, it is placed in an envelope and is set 
aside, and only if it affects the outcome of the election is it cast. Let 
us assume that the situation had been reversed and Mr. Walla had lost 
by 2 votes, those ballots would have been cast in that instance as well 
as in the instance that they were cast when I lost by 2 votes. So it 
had nothing to do with casting the ballots in order for me to win. It 
turned out that they were for me and the result was that I did win. 
They would have been cast in any instance as the NLRB handles the 
problem, Senator, if it would affect the outcome of the election. 

The Chairman. If they would affect the outcome of the election 
then they became legal. 

Mr. Gibbons. Then they become pertinent and are cast. 

The Chairman. Do what? 

Mr. Gibbons. Pertinent to the election. 

The Chairman. What is the difference in pertinent and legal in 
that sense? 

Mr. Gibbons. I did not know you used the word "legal." I would 
say yes, they became legal votes. Yes. 

The Chairman. All right, proceed. 

Mr. Gibbons. At one point in the course of Mr. Walla's testimony, 
I can't find it at the moment, and I think this is important to what 
Senator Ives is saying and it points up the significance of those 7 
votes, those 7 votes were the least interest that I had in the whole elec- 
tion. The last thing I thought that this elecion would be close. In 
fact, as Walla himself testifies in a document presented to the general 
executive board in support of his position, he says up until literally 
the end of the voting Mr. Gibbons was still willing to wager me that 
he would beat me by 30 votes. This was my approach to the election. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14681 

I thought I had won hands down. The basis for my insistence on the 
seven votes was that here is an organization whose future would be 
severely affected by the personnel who run our joint council, and I 
wanted them to have the right to participate in determining who it 
would be who would run the joint council and thus affect their future. 
Maybe a guy who did not want to organize the carnival field felt they 
could be knocked out of the box. I wanted them to feel they were 
truly affiliated with our council. 

The Chairman. Mr. Gibbons, 1 observe your remark that your op- 
ponent said that you, up until right at the last, offered to bet him you 
would win by 30 votes ; is that correct? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes ; that is correct. 

The Chairman. You know, in view of the way this turned out, I am 
reminded of politics when candidates boast considerably of their 
strength and do a bit of whistling in the dark. I just wondered if 
this is a comparable incident. 

Mr. Gibbons. No ; this grew from a very careful analysis of the votes. 
It grew from conversations from individual delegates. As a matter 
of fact, I had my 30 votes at the last roundup before the election. I 
had maybe 40 or 50 votes above the majority at a dinner which I held 
the night before the election. So it was not whistling in the dark. I 
had the thing signed, sealed, and delivered. 

Senator Ives. What happened % 

Mr. Gibbons. They walked out on me. I lost. I didn't collect on 
those votes. These are people who ate the food and didn't deliver. It 
throws the seven votes in the proper perspective as far as my attitude 
in voting. It was not important to me whether they voted in terms 
of winning or not winning the election. I was utterly convinced that 
they were not important. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who paid for that party ? 

Mr. Gibbons. It has not been paid for yet. It is my responsibility. 

Mr. Kennedy. Nobody has paid the bill I 

Mr. Gibbons. It is my responsibility and I shall pay for it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Nobody paid the bill ? 

Mr. Gibbons. It is billed to me. I don't believe it lias been paid 
for, yet, 

Senator Ives. How much was it ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't believe it has been paid for yet, unless you 
have information that I don't. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. It was charged to joint council 13 ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't know what the hotel charged it to. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is the Surf and Sirloin Room ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No; I think you got the wrong party, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it the Congress Hotel? 

Mr. Gibbons. No. You got the wrong party again. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where did you have your party ? 

Mr. Gibbons. At the Kings Way Hotel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, we have not got that one, 

Mr. Gibbons. I will supply you with a copy of the bills which I 
have been receiving regularly, Mr. Kennedy, since the affair took 
place. 



14682 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. All right. I would like to have them. 

Mr. Gibbons. Would you like to have them ? Seriously ? I would 
be happy to give them to you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who had the parties at those hotels ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't believe there were any parties at the Congress, 
but there was a victory party at the Surf and Sirloin, and which, in- 
cidentally, everyone was invited to, because one of the big things that 
I am concerned about in St. Louis is unity in our ranks. We threw 
a party after the election and everyone was there. We tried to heal 
any wounds that might have occurred. 

Mr. Kennedy. Speaking of that kind of an operation, looking at 
Mr. Tom Burke, who stayed at the Bal Harbour Hotel, his bill appears 
to have been paid by the Central Conference of Teamsters. 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was a bill for $10,027.96. 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You signed that check ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I imagine I did, if it was a Central Conference check. 

Mr. Kennedy. You approved of that payment ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes ; I did. 

The Chairman. Is he the man that had retired ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the man that had retired, Mr. Chairman, and 
received his retirement. 

The Chairman. Where is the authorization in the constitution after 
a man retires and draws his severance pay to support him thereafter? 

Mr. Gibbons. As you know, this was a pension program. It was 
not severance pay in that sense. It was a legal, binding 

The Chairman. He retired and got his pension ? 

Mr. Gibbons. That is right. 

The Chairman. There is a difference between a pension and sever- 
ance pay? 

Mr. Gibbons. I think there is. I am not being technical or anything 
but I think there is quite a difference when I take money out of the 
treasury to give a person severance pay and when out of a pension 
fund, separate from the union treasury, a person draws his benefits. 
I think there is a difference there which is significant. 

The Chairman. Was this severance pay to pay his hotel bills ? 

Mr. Gibbons. What had occurred in the case of Tom Burke and the 
reason for the paying of the bill was that Tom Burke, not being in 
too good health, determined that he was going to retire and go down 
to Florida. Before he left, I don't know whether I spoke with him 
or President Hoffa spoke with him, or maybe it was Dick Kavner who 
spoke with him, but we asked him while he was down there — Florida 
is a very unorganized section of our union. There is need for a lot 
of work in the South. We asked him if he was feeling good, if he 
was up to it, if he could at least make some surveys, if he could fool 
around and see if he could not organize something for us. We were 
not prepared to put him on the payroll. He was not able to take a 
payroll job, a full-time job. But we felt his long background and 
experience in organizing, especially — Burke happens to be one of the 
most effective organizers in the country, with tremendous contacts in 
the labor movement — we felt he could justify our paying some expense 
for him. This is largely the basis on which we picked up his tabs. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14683 

The Chairman. For what period of time was he there ? $10,000 ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I think we paid it in two checks. 

Mr. Kennedy. March 29, 1955, to July 20, 1956. 

Mr. Gibbons. It was over a course of a year, wasn't it ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Gibbons. Was that one check or both checks combined ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, two checks. 

Mr. Gibbons. It was a hotel bill, as I recall it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you get reports on what he was doing in his 
organizational work? We have the testimony before the committee 
that he was drunk all the time. 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, I can't say that the man was drunk. I know 
that I discussed problems in Florida with him. Dick Kavner visited 
with him to discuss progress in organization. I am sure that he made 
phone calls to Detroit to discuss his work with President Hoffa. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know how much of the $10,027.96 was used 
for the purchase of liquor ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No ; I don't. If I knew about it, it would not have 
been approved, as far as I was concerned. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Bellino, I understand we do not have all the bills. 

Mr. Bellino. That is correct. 

The Chairman. You have been previously sworn ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Gibbons. We pay for liquor when it is used legitimately, but 
not for a staff member to sit in a hotel room and get drunk. 

Mr. Bellino. We have a breakdown on the checks amounting to 
$5,669.55. 

Mr. Kennedy. We don't have a breakdown on all the checks ? 

Mr. Bellino. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you tell us the breakdown of the $5,669 ? 

Mr. Bellino. On the $5,669.55, the breakdown is: For room, 
$1,615.02. Meals, $1,438.38. Beverage, $1,016.33. Local telephone 
calls, $282.35. 

The Chairman. How much? 

Mr. Bellino. $282.35. Long-distance telephone calls, $308.09. Tel- 
egrams, $18.26. Valet, $98.05. Beach, $43.79. 

Mr. Kennedy. Beach ? 

Mr. Bellino. Beach. Cash and advances, $368.83. 

Mr. Kennedy. What period is that? 

Mr. Bellino. That is for the period from December 

Mr. Kennedy. December 20, 1955? 

Mr. Bellino. December 20, to July 1956. 

Mr. Kennedy. December 20, 1955, to July 1, is it? 

Mr. Bellino. To July 20, 1956. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is a period of how long? 

Mr. Bellino. It is about 8 months, approximately. The beverage 
charges ran for the period from December 20, 1955, to May 1, 1956, or a 
period of 131 days. It amounted to $1,016.33, or on an average of $7.75 
a day. 

Senator Ives. May I ask a question there? What form did that 
take ? Was that bottle goods, or in glasses, or what ? 

Mr. Bellino. The charges appear to be bottled goods. In some 
cases they were around $9, $5.60, $21.30. 



14684 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Ives. That would be a great deal more liquor than if it were 
being ordered by the glass. 

Mr. Gibbons. There is no breakdown as to whether it was by the 
glass or by the bottle, is there ? 

Senator Ives. According to him there is not. 

Mr. Bellino. The charge would appear to be by the bottle. It may 
have been in some cases by the glass, by the charge of the bill. The 
charge is $1.50 or 75 cents. That would be by the glass. But where 
it is $5.79 or $5.80 the indications are that they are by the bottle. 

Senator Ives. The greater part, apparently, from what you said, are 
by the bottle. 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir; that is the way it appears from the bills. 
The bills also includes charges for newspapers and cigars. 

Mr. Kennedy. Totaling how much? 

Mr. Bellino. I don't have that amount on this. 

Senator Ives. Let me ask you another question. How much of that 
was cracked ice? 

Mr. Bellino. That would be included in that. I don't know 
that I 

Senator Ives. The reason I raise that point, is I am trying to find 
out how this fellow drank. Everybody says he was a drunkard. 
From the testimony we have had, in a little over 5 months he had a 
liquor bill of over $1,000. That of itself does not necessarily mean 
that he was a drunkard. He may have been doing a lot of entertaining. 
This is why I was trying to figure out how much cracked ice there 
was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Senator, we had the testimony last week that he 
was not doing anything. We had the testimony that he was drunk 
all the time. 

Senator Ives. Well, I was not here last week. I will take your 
word for it. 

The Chairman. Well, at any rate, it appears that he got all that 
he needed. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have any written reports that he made, Mr. 
Gibbons? 

Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Burke isn't given to writing very much, Mr. 
Kennedy, and I have no reports from him. He is a great man on the 
long-distance phone. 

The Chairman. Did he send you any surveys ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, he has discussed them with us, Senator, not with 
me specifically, but with people in our organizing setup. 

Mr. Kennedy. That money came out of the Central Conference of 
Teamsters. 

I would like to ask you about another matter. Who is Nate Stein ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Nate Stein, to the best of my knowledge, is a 
public, relations man on the west coast. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he do any work for the Central Conference of 
Teamsters ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, I believe he did. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did he do for the Central Conference of Team- 
sters ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I think he spent some time in Kansas City on one 
occasion. But beyond that, I can't be specific about the details of 
what he did. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14685 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he do any work that you know of, specific work 
for the Central Conference? 

Mr. Gibbons. I know of his doing some work, but I am trying to 
figure out did he get out some pamphlets for us, did he set up some 
radio programs. This sort of thing does not come to my mind. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was he doing for the Central Conference ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I assume it was public relations work. 

Mr. Kennedy. What kind of work? 

Mr. Gibbons. I imagine he was going around making contacts. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you make any payments to him T 

Mr. Gibbons. I believe we did. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much money did you pay him ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I would not know now, unless I would check. I don't 
have my 

Mr. Kennedy. Is he a public-relations man on the west coast ? 

Mr. Gibbons. That is what I understand. 

Mr. Kennedy. For whom does he work on the west coast ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I think he has his own service out there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why would you want a public-relations man from 
the west coast ? 

Mr. Gibbons. We would take a public-relations man wherever we 
found him, if he is competent. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was there in his background or experience that 
warranted your retaining him ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I did not specifically necessarily retain the man. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who did ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't know who did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. Gibbons. In the first instance, I don't know whether Mr. Hoffa 
did, but I know that I consulted with him on occasion about public- 
relations problems. 

Mr. Kennedy. What sort of things did you consult with him on ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, I talked with him, for instance, in St. Louis 
when we were under heavy attack with the grand jury. 

Mr. Kennedy. What experience had he had that you should go to 
him, Mr. Gibbons ? For instance, wasn't he a public-relations man for 
the Desert Inn in Las Vegas ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No ; I don't believe he was. But I am no authority 
on the guy. I am telling you right now I am not an authority on him. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about the Sans Soucci Hotel ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Where at ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Las Vegas. Did he do any work for them '( 

Mr. Gibbons. Not to my knowledge. I met him at a hotel — I did 
not meet him the first time, but on one occasion I did meet him in 
Las Vegas, but not at the Sans Soucci. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who had been his accounts before then f 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't know who had been his accounts. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you pay any money to a law firm of Ducker & 
Seldman from the Central Conference of Teamsters? 

Mr. Gibbons. You are aware, of course, I sent out very many checks, 
Mr. Kennedy, and on this one you got me stuck. I am going to have 
to go and check it. 

Mr. Kennedy. I have the checks here. 



14686 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Gibbons. I would have to check my records. 

Mr. Kennedy. Here is the check. 

Mr. Gibbons. Does it explain its purpose ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Maybe it will refresh your recollection. 

Mr. Gibbons. All right. 

The Chairman. This appears to be a photostatic copy of check No. 
2691, dated August 12, 1955, payable to Ducker & Seldman, in the 
amount of $3,000. Will you examine the check please, and state if 
you identify it? 

(Document handed to witness.) 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Kennedy, I am in no position to identify. I 
identify the check as being ours, but I am in no position to give any 
explanation of the use of the money or anything else. 

The Chairman. The check may be made exhibit 113. 

(The check referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 113" for reference 
and will be found in the appendix on p. 14899.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember making that check out ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No. I never made a check out in my life. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember this incident at all ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No ; that is why I would like to have an opportunity 
to check with my associates at that time. It was August 1955, 1 believe. 
Is that right? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes ; August of 1955. 

Senator Ives. You just said something quite pertinent. You said 
you never made a check out in your life. How do you pay bills ? All 
in currency ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No. 

Senator Ives. Don't you pay them ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. My own personal bills you are referring to, 
Senator ? 

Senator Ives. Yes. You said you never made a check out in your 
life. You are referring to everything you do ? 

Mr. Gibbons. All my checks are made out by my secretary. 

Senator Ives. Your personal checks and everything else ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. I sign them in advance, in fact. This has been 
going on for at least 5 years. 

Senator Ives. The reason I raise that question and it is rather 
pertinent, is because you are an important part of this machine known 
as the Teamsters, and nearly everybody else in your organization 
indicates that they don't do any business by check. They do it all by 
currency. 

Mr. Gibbons. I do all mine by check. 

Senator Ives. More power to you. Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just see if I can refresh your recollection about this 
matter because it is rather an unusual situation as we have found it. 
Did you go to New York with Mr. Nate Stein at any time ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I might have well, but I have no recollection of going 
to New York with him. Where from ? 

Mr. Kennedy. In August 1955, from where to New York; I don't 
know where you were coming from. 

Mr. Gibbons. I was in New York with Nate Stein, yes. But I don't 
know whether I went to New York with Nate Stein. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14687 

Mr. Kennedy. What were you doing with Mr. Stein in New York 

at that time ? 

Mr. Gibbons. What was the time ? 

Mr. Kennedy. August 1955. 

Mr. GrBBONS. Again, Mr. Kennedy, I go to New York probably 20 
times a year, 25 times a year, and it is impossible for me to sit here 
from the top of my head and explain a particular one visit. 

Mr. Kennedy. I understand that. That is why I am asking you 
specifically about when you were there with Nate Stein. According 
to the hotel record you stayed at the Warwick Hotel, did you not ? 

Mr. Gibbons. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wasn't Mr. Nate Stein staying with you at that 
hotel ? 

Mr. Gibbons. He has on occasions. This may be one of them. 

Mr. Kennedy. August 5 and 6, 1955, you stayed at the Warwick 
Hotel. Your total bill for the 2 of you was $146'.20. What were you 
doing there with Nate Stein at that time ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Again I have to say to you, Mr. Kennedy, I may 
have been there for a dozen and one reasons and Nate Stein happened 
to be in New York and stayed with me. It may not have anything 
to do with Nate Stein. 

Mr. Kennedy. You can't give us anything better than that ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, but I would be very happy to check with my 
associates, review the period of time in my own mind, and come up 
with an answer. I am not dodging the question of answering it or 
discussing it. 

Mr. Kennedy. At that time did you have a meeting or discussion 
with anybody from this law firm, Ducker & Seldman? Does that 
refresh your recollection about the $3,000 ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I recall no such conversations with that particular 
law firm. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember coming back to New York and 
staying at the Vanderbilt Hotel on August 15 and 16, 1955 ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, I wouldn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. Ten days later ? 

Mr. Gibbons. You check the Vanderbilt Hotel and you will find 
me there at least on 100 occasions. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were there with Mr. Nate Stein again occupy- 
ing room 1826 were you not ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Perfectly possible I was there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you recall any discussions with him at that time 
regarding another check for $3,000 to Samuel Seldman 2 

(Witness consulted with counsel.) 

Mr. Gd3bons. I am going to have to ask, Mr. Kennedy, for some 
time to check on those. 

The Chairman. I hand you another check dated August 15, 1955, 
No. 2696, in the amount of $3,000 made payable to Samuel Seldman, 
and ask you to examine that check and state if you can identify it. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Gibbons. I identify the check as a Central States Conference 
of Teamster's check, Senator. 

The Chairman. It may be made Exhibit No. 114. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 114" for reference 
and will be found in the appendix on p. 14900.) 



14688 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Do you know anything about that check? 

Mr. Gibbons. Not at this moment I cannot testify on that check. 
I cannot recall it. I will be very happy to discuss it with the council 
at some later point in the course of my testimony. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember any discussion with Mr. Nate 
Stein about this check to this individual ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No. The name Seldman escapes me completely. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about Feldman, either one? 

Mr. Gibbons. No ; they both escape me. 

Mr. Kennedy. May I ask Mr. Bellino what these checks are charged 
to? 

Mr. Bellino. Both of these checks were charged to legal fees. How- 
ever, there was a return of the first $3,000 check. If you notice it 
was put in a trust account of the firm and the check was returned 
and Mr. Gibbons issued another check, the second one, which went 
out as legal fees. 

Mr. Kennedy. Does that refresh your recollection? 

Mr. Gibbons. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. If it was charged to legal fees, however, it would 
be for legal purposes, is that right ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I would assume as much. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is there any false entries in the books of the Central 
Conference of Teamsters? 

Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Kennedy, I am not in the habit of making false 
entries in books. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is right. 

Mr. Gibbons. I never made an entry in a book in my life either, to 
my knowledge. So I am not the one to speak on that, although I can 
assure you that there are no false entries on the books of the Central 
Conference of Teamsters. 

Mr. Kennedy. So if it is charged to legal fees, it was for that 
purpose ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I would assume it was for that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you give any instructions as to what it is listed 
as or what used for ? 

Mr. Gibbons. What it would be charged to, not specifically. 

Mr. Kennedy. You do not ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where would they get that information ? 

Mr. Gibbons. How to charge it ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Gibbons. Our bookkeepers allocate the expenditures through 
the various accounts which we run through the books. 

Mr. Kennedy. How would they know about this one to Samuel Seld- 
man unless you told them ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I might have very well told them at that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you meet with Samuel Seldman ? 

Mr. Gibbons. If I met with him, it must have been a very casual 
meeting, because I have no recollection of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. At the airport in New York City did you meet with 
him? 

Mr. Gibbons. Did I come to the airport to meet with Mr. Seldman ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No ; did you meet at the airport in New York City ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14689 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't hold meetings at the airport to my knowledge. 
I don't recall ever meeting Mr. Seldman at the airport. 

Senator Ives. You know, Mr. Gibbons, your expressions, when you 
say I don't hold meetings at that airport. 

Mr. Gibbons. I mean any airport. 

Mr. Kennedy. To your knowledge. Why do you have to put that 
in ? You either do or you don't. 

Mr. Gibbons. I met a lot of people at airports constantly. But in 
terms of having a meeting 

Mr. Kennedy. I am talking about your expression. You act like a 
person who is on the defensive. You don't need to be on the defensive. 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't mean to be. 

Mr. Kennedy. All right, just stop this "to my knowledge." Wasn't 
this money paid to this individual for Mr. Nate Stein, Mr. Gibbons ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I will be very happy to tell you why this money was 
paid if I have an opportunity to check with my colleagues and try and 
place it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who will you check with ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, I will talk with one with president Hoffa. 

Mr. Kennedy. Will he know about this ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't know if he will know about it but I certainly 
would check with him as one of the people who worked closely with 
me. I will ask him if he knows anything about it. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is the one who had the closest relationship with 
Mr. Stein? 

Mr. Gibbons. You have all my books at the time so it makes it a 
little difficulty to check. I am sorry is there a question pending? 

Mr. Kennedy. Is he the one who had the close relationship with 
Mr. Stein? 

Mr. Gibbons. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then why would you be checking with him? 

Mr. Gibbons. He is associated with me and he and I discuss the 
affairs frequently of the Central Conference. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you had any personal financial affairs with 
Nate Stein? 

Mr. Gibbons. Personal financial affairs with Nate Stein? 

(Witness consulted with counsel.) 

Mr. Gibbons. I am under oath and I am a little bit concerned, Mr. 
Kennedy. I would like to be certain of what you mean when you 
say personal financial dealings. Did I ever pay him any money ? 

Senator Ives. If I may interrupt, we had one witness here not too 
long ago who said when he is under oath he always told the truth, 
when he was not under oath he turned to little white lies. Are you 
that kind of witness ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Am I that kind of witness ? The answer is absolutely 
not. 

Senator Ives. Aren't you a fellow whose word is good under oath 
or not ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Under oath or otherwise. 

Senator Ives. Exactly. 

Mr. Gibbons. Being under oath, Senator, unless I understand the 
question I may very well testify in error and get myself subject to 
litigation by I can't — which I am not particularly anxious. 



14690 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Ives. You are making clear that you are doing the best 
according to your recollection ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. I don't want to say that I never had any busi- 
ness transactions if one time I paid his hotel room or if one time he 
bought some drinks for me. I don't want to testify that this has not 
happened. But if he is talking in terms did I give Nate Stein or did 
I get some money from Nate Stein, my personal funds. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is right. 

Mr. Gibbons. This is what you are asking about. 

Mr. Kennedy. Either received the money, borrowed the money. 

Senator Ives. You can clear that up without referring to your 
recollection. 

Mr. Gibbons. No. I will tell you I am not a very good man on 
personal funds because I am always broke. But I have no recollec- 
tion at all of ever having given Nate Stein any of my money or ever 
having received from Nate Stein any of his money. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you borrow any money from Nate Stein? 
(Witness consulted with counsel.) 

Mr. Gibbons. Unless he caught me somewhere in New York when 
I was broke and trying to get back to St. Louis and I took a hundred 
dollars from him I have no recollection of ever borrowing any money 
from Nate Stein. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have had no other financial transactions with 
him? 

Mr. Gibbons. Not anything that I can remember, Mr. Kennedy. 
If you can be more specific as to this incidence, that incidence or 
something else, I will be glad to say yes or no. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much money do you receive from the union, 
Mr. Gibbons? 

Mr. Gibbons. In my present capacity my salary is $30,000 a year. 

Mr. Kennedy. What do you receive as far as expenses are con- 
cerned ? 

Mr. Gibbons. My expenses? I think it is $7.50 a day if I am 
not mistaken, plus out-of-pocket expenses. Not out-of-pocket ex- 
penses like my travel tickets, my hotel, et cetera. 

Mr. Kennedy. This has been since you were elected vice presi- 
dent? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes ; I think the last 7 months or so. 

Mr. Kennedy. Prior to that how much did you receive ? 

Mr. Gibbons. $15,000 from my local union. 

Mr. Kennedy. And what about expenses ? 

Mr. Gibbons. The same. No; there was no $7.50 a day. I think 
I received actually about $11,000 or $12,000 a year and $5 a day ex- 
penses. In addition if I traveled they paid my hotel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have many expenses in St. Louis? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes; I don't know what you call many. I had ex- 
penses in connection with my work in St. Louis. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do we have the totals on the expenses, Mr. Bel- 
lino? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The payments which were made directly to Mr. Gibbons from the 
various Teamster Unions he has been connected with, there are 4 
different organizations within the Teamsters, from January 1953 
through December 31, 1956, his total salary was $46,825. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14691 

Mr. Kennedy. Which amounts to approximately how much each 
year? 

Air. Bellino. Toward the end around $13,000. For 4 years it would 
be approximately $11 or $12 roughly. Various expenses that he re- 
ceived including travel expenses for which he submitted a bill initially, 
getting paid on a per diem basis and after submitting an expense ac- 
count, strike expenses that he received, organizing expenses of various 
amounts, and staff expenses, the total amount was $28,611.04, or a 
total during this period paid to Mr. Gibbons of $75,436.04. In addi- 
tion to that 

Mr. Kennedy. That is over a 4-year period ? 

Mr. Bellino. That is over a 4-year period. His expenses would be 
approximately $7,000 a year that he billed the Teamsters organizations. 
In addition to that, there were bills submitted by various hotels, res- 
taurants. 

We have the information for the 3 years only, from 1954 through 
1956, and they total $35,270.59, or an average of $11,000 a year. The 
expenses at St. Louis alone for hotel and restaurant were $12,951.75 
during this period of time. 

The Chairman. Is that in addition to the 35,000 ? 

Mr. Bellino. No , sir; that is part of the $35,000. Outside of St. 
Louis was $23,318.84 that was paid by the Teamsters directly either 
to the restaurant or the night club or the hotel. Or a total amount 
which was paid during the period that we have compiled the figures is 
$110,706.63. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. The part that is of interest, Mr. Gibbons, is why the 
hotel bills and the restaurant bills, in St. Louis were so high. 

Mr. Gibbons. It should be noted when Mr. Bellino says paid to Mr. 
Gibbons, that this is not an accurate statement. 

Mr. Bellino. These were all checks. The first group that I men- 
tioned were checks payable to Harold Gibbons. 

Mr. Gibbons. The entire amount that you mentioned ? 

Mr. Bellino. $75,000 for salary and expenses as taken off by our 
man from your records of the union. 

Mr. Gibbons. For instance, is that including hotel bills ? 

Mr. Bellino. No, sir ; just paid to you. 

Mr. Gibbons. Does it include any restaurant bills ? 

Mr. Bellino. That is in the second group, the second group. 

Mr. Gibbons. I would like to have a breakdown as to what this 
amount is for. 

Mr. Kennedy. He can give it. We have gone through it. We would 
like to get a breakdown, too. 

Can you give us the type of thing that this is, this $35,000 ? 

Mr. Bellino. The $35,000 — I don't have the sheet right in front 
of me at the moment — included meals 

Mr. Gibbons. This is averaging out, Mr. Kennedy, at $7,000 a year 
for expenses for the 4-year period, each of the 4 years ; is that right ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I don't think so. 

Mr. Gibbons. This is on the cash end of it. This is the money which 
was reimbursed to me for expenditures in connection with my work. 

Mr. Kennedy. I don't think that figures correctly. 



14692 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Ives. Are you talking about the $35,000 ? 

The Chairman. You are talking about the $75,000, is that what you 
are talking about ? 

Mr. Gibbons. You deduct the salary, and you get 28 

The Chairman. That is from the $75,000 ? 

Mr. Gibbons. That is right. You get $28,000 left for better than 
a 4-year period or an average of about $7,000 a year. 

Senator Ives. If it was $28,000 it would be 7 a year. 

The Chairman. That is just from the cash you received. That is 
what he is talking about. Just the cash he received. 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. 

The Chairman. Now we have $35,000 more. 

Mr. Bellino. That includes food and bar, approximately $12,000; 
tips, $800; room $12,000; phones $3,400; transportation, $1,800; valet, 
garage, et cetera, $1,700; miscellaneous paid out, $300; cash paid out, 
$600. 

Mr. Kennedy. It does not include where there was a hotel rented 
for the purposes of conferences ? 

Mr. Bellino. No; we did not include the meeting rooms or any 
convention or banquets or items of that nature. Those are not in- 
cluded. 

Mr. Kennedy. Or any banquets that were held ? 

Mr. Bellino. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. These are just personal meals ? 

Mr. Bellino. Those would appear to be personal 

Mr. Gibbons. It runs out per day, on the basis of my travel, to 
$30 a day. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Bellino, was a great deal of this in St. Louis, 
itself? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir ; in St. Louis it is about $12,000 altogether. 

Mr. Kennedy. In St. Louis alone ? 

Mr. Bellino. That is right, during those 3 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. During the 3-year period ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir ; in 1 year it is $4,000, $2,500, and $6,200 in 
1956. 

Mr. Gibbons. Are these cash reimbursements you are talking about ? 

Mr. Bellino. No. 

Mr. Gibbons. In St. Louis, if the Government has the top cor- 
respondents and newspapermen of the NATO countries in St. Louis, 
they send them to my office to be entertained, and I have a luncheon 
for them. 

Mr. Kennedy. We did not include those things. We left out all 
banquets. 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't know whether you did or not. That comes in 
as H. J. Gibbons, luncheon. It isn't identified as anything separately. 

Mr. Kennedy. We will ask Mr. Bellino. 

Mr. Bellino. There might be some included like that. 

Mr. Gibbons. Of course, there are. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wherever we could identify that it was something 
other than personal, we deducted it. 

Mr. Gibbons. One man can only eat so much food or drink so 
much whisky and I defy you to find anyone who ever saw me intoxi- 
cated, Mr. Kennedy. I couldn't spend that much money. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14693 

Mr. Kennedy. One thing I will say about you is you don't look like 
a heavy drinker. 

Mr. Gibbons. No ; I am not. I drink, however, but I am not a heavy 
drinker. Furthermore, in each of the years in which this money was 
paid to me, I have been checked, double-checked and triple-checked by 
your internal revenue. They keep a pretty close eye on me. Every 
bit of those expenses were approved by the Federal Government. 
Secondly, every bit of those expenses are — I don't know about every 
bit of them — are largely documented, I am certain, and it can only be 
explained that it averages out about $30 a day, and it can be explained 
on the basis that I occupy many capacities ; I am a very busy person ; 
I have many obligations, and part of this obligation involves enter- 
tainment. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was of considerable interest, such a large item in 
the city of St. Louis being charged to the Teamsters Union, particu- 
larly as we saw the Central Conference of Teamsters paying this con- 
siderably large item also for Tom Burke in Florida. 

Mr. Gibbons. This is my base, Mr. Kennedy, St. Louis. If you 
take these expenses and compare it with any person in the labor move- 
ment who travels as much as I do, who has as many expenses as I 
have, and you will find they are pretty well in line. You will prob- 
ably have to take 2 or 3 people, because I don't know anybody who has 
the responsibilities that I do or who travels as I do. But in any event, 
they are very much in line. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am speaking particularly of the ones in St. Louis, 
not the ones for travel outside of St. Louis. 

Mr. Gibbons. They are very modest by any kind of business stand- 
ards, No. 1. No. 2, 1 carry on a tremendous volume of work, and there 
just isn't any time to go out and live high, as far as spending money 
and food and drinks is concerned, by the time I get through a day's 
work. 

The Chairman. I hand you a photostatic copy of a check, No. 4139, 
dated August 15, 1956, in the amount of $1,000, payable to Teamsters 
Local Union No. 247. Will you examine that check and identify it, 
please, sir ? 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Gibbons. What was it charged to in our books, Mr. Kennedy ? 
Do you know ? 

Mr. Kennedy. What was it charged to ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I identify the check. 

Mr. Bellino. Charged to reimbursements on advance to local 247. 

The Chairman. The check may be made exhibit No. 115. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 115" for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 14901.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Gibbons. What is the question in connection with this check, 
Mr. Kennedy ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to find out what it was for, what the back- 
ground of it was, why it was issued. 

Mr. Gibbons. Again, it is an individual check. In every capacity 
that I read off at the beginning of my testimony, some 10 or 12 
capacities, I sign checks in every instance. This is just one out of 

21243— 59— pt. 39 10 



14694 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

thousands that carry my signature. I cannot specifically tell you what 
it was for, but I suspect that either there was a mistake in charging 
it within the books, or, secondly, someone in this local union, or several 
people from this local union, had done some work for the Central Con- 
ference of Teamsters and we were reimbursing the local. 

It is something of that sort that happened. I am not too certain. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you say that the entry in the books and 
records, that it is charged, Mr. Bellino, to what % 

Mr. Bellino. Reimbursement of advance, local 247. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you say that would not be correct ? 

Mr. Bellino. I would not say that, but the only other thing I could 
imagine, unless there is a mistake in the books 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know who got this $1,000 ? 

Mr. Bellino. I imagine it was deposited in the books of local 247. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do vou know ? 

Mr. Bellino. From my knowledge of the operation of checks, I 
would assume it. It is endorsed by the local. It is made out to a local. 
From my knowledge of the operation of the checks — and I am no 
expert in this field — I would suggest that it went to the local union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know at whose suggestion that check was 
made? 

Mr. Gibbons. No ; I don't recall that at this time. 

Mr. Bellino. I might say that the records of the Central Conference 
of Teamsters do not reflect the receipt of any $1,000 from local 247. 
Therefore, it could not, under any circumstances, be what they charge 
it as reimbursements on advance. Nor do the records of local 247 
reflect that they ever issued a check to the Central Conference of 
Teamsters in that amount. 

The Chairman. Did you trace this check to see where the money 
went? What does it show? Was it deposited to the credit of this 
local ? 

Mr. Bellino. This particular check was deposited to the credit of 
the local. 

Mr. Kennedy. But there are some other matters that we are in- 
terested in, as to what happened at that time. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you tell us what the purpose of this check was ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, I am very sorry. I don't believe I can be ex- 
pected to tell you, Mr. Kennedy, expected to remember what the pur- 
pose of that one check was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you find out for us, please ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I will certainly inquire about it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have any residence or place of residence out- 
side of St. Louis, Mr. Gibbons ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't know if you would call it a place of residence, 
but I have a permanent abode, as it were. I used to keep an apart- 
ment in the city of Washington. That has since been canceled. 
I now share an apartment in the city of Washington for those days 
that I am in town. 

Mr. Kennedy. When were you keeping an apartment here? 

Mr. Gibbons. I suspect I kept an apartment for 5 years in the city 
of Washington, and only recently canceled out the apartment when 
I shared an apartment. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14695 

Mr. Kennedy. That was paid for by you, was it ? 

Mr. Gibbons. By the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. By the local ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No ; by the international union. 

Mr. Kennedy. They paid for your apartment here? 

Mr. Gibbons. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was when you held what position with the 
international ? 

Mr. Gibbons. The same position I still hold in terms of the ware- 
house division, national director. It was made available to me be- 
cause of the uncertainty of obtaining hotel space in the city of 
Washington, because I don't have opportunities to plan my trips. 
"When I get east, I try to duck in for a day or two to work at my 
office. If I came in some night at midnight and there was no hotels, 
especially at the time the Congress is in session, I have to have a place 
to sleep. 

Senator Ives. May I ask you what you paid for the apartment? 

Mr. Gibbons. $135 for a furnished apartment. If you know any- 
thing about the rents in this town, that is pretty reasonable. This is 
furnished. 

Senator Ives. I do. 

Mr. Gibbons. Nothing elaborate about it. 

Senator Ives. How much would you pay for a hotel room ? 

Mr. Gibbons. A hotel room? I have paid as high as $75 a day. 

Senator Ives. I mean a place to sleep. 

Mr. Gibbons. A place to sleep ? I would say the average day it is 
my experience you can't get a single room in anything like a first- 
class hotel for much under $12 to $15 a day, a single room. 

Senator Ives. How many days of the month on an average were 
you here ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Here? 

Well, it would vary considerably, Senator. 

Senator Ives. I am talking about the average. You said you had 
one for 5 years. 

Mr. Gibbons. We would obtain nothing by determining that, be- 
cause the apartment was available to other people who would come 
into Washington. 

Senator Ives. I will determine something. Never mind. You go 
ahead. 

How much would you pay on the average for a hotel ? 

Mr. Gibbons. If I stayed in hotel rooms? I would pay pretty 
close to $100 a month when I could get them. 

Senator Ives. In other words, you were paying for your apart- 
ment a little bit more than you would pay for a hotel room, wouldn't 
you? 

Mr. Gibbons. That is right, on the assurance that I would at least 
have a place to sleep, Senator. 

Senator Ives. I understand that. I have had the same situation 
myself in New York. 

Mr. Gibbons. It was probably a little bit more expensive than if I 
stuck strictly to rooms. But if you add in the fact that other people 
from the union were using it 

Senator Ives. I am not trying to accuse you of anything. I am 
trying to find out what you were spending. 



14696 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the international have an apartment at the 
Woodner during this period of time? 

Mr. Gibbons. I believe Mr. Beck had his own apartment there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wasn't there an apartment for visitors ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, I don't believe so. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is there an apartment there now ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Not for visitors. 

Mr. Kennedy. Not for visitors ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. They don't keep a suite there ? 

Mr. Gibeons. Yes, they keep a suite there. Mr. Hoffa and 1 live 
in that suite when we are in town, but it is not available to others, 
necessarily. 

Mr. Kennedy. And there was not such a place before this ? 

Mr. Gibbons. There was a place there before, and again, it was 
restricted to the international president's use. I don't know of a 
single person, to my knowledge, who ever stayed at the Woodner 
Hotel, excepting Mr. Beck, in those days. 

The Chairman. I hand you photostatic copies of 10 checks, each 
of them in the amount of $700 dated June 14, 1954, each made pay- 
able to Pete Saffo. I ask you to examine these photostatic copies and 
state if you identify them. 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Those checks may be made exhibit No. 116 in bulk. 

(Documents referred were marked "Exhibit No. 116" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us what they were for ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Bonus to Mr. Saffo. 

The Chairman. I didn't understand. 

Mr. Gibbons. Bonus to Mr. Saffo. 

The Chairman. Bonus? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, Senator. The form that it took, we have tried 
to figure out how come there were 10 checks, or whatever it is, at $700 
each, and all in 1 day or something and the only thing we can figure 
is that Mr. Saffo for some reason asked to make it out in that fashion. 
I authorized it. 

The Chairman. What kind of a bonus? 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, Pete Saffo is a staff member in St. Louis. He 
is secretary -treasurer of local 610. He is a very able and competent 
person. When we were setting up the Central Conference of Team- 
sters — what is the date on those — we set up the Central Conference 
of Teamsters, we had no staff and problems descended upon us and we 
drafted a number of individuals to help and assist. We didn't pay 
him any salary because we didn't have any money in those days. At 
the earliest opportunity we thought that this was something that 
should be taken care of and we gave Mr. Saffo a bonus. 

The form it took I can't explain unless that Mr. Saffo himself for 
reasons best known to him wanted it in that particular form. 

Senator Ives. I am just wondering if he had a bank account. 

Mr. Gibbons. I am sure he does, Senator. 

Senator Ives. He would not need it in that form if he had a bank 
account. You could give him $7,000 and he could put it in the account 
and draw it out. That would seem to be a legitimate reason. He 
wanted currency ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14697 

Mr. Gibbons. He wanted it in that form and I am at a loss to find 
out. I have not had a chance to check. 

Senator Ives. Isn't my reasoning more or less logical ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I think it is a logical kind of thinking. 

Mr. Kennedy. He cashed them all. I believe all on the same day. 
What was this charged to on the books and records ? 

Mr. Bellino. It was charged on the books as salary and expenses. 

The Chairman. Is there 1 entry or 10 in the books ? 

Mr. Bellino. For each check. 

The Chairman. Ten entries. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was this idea of giving him a bonus taken up with 
the board ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes ; we were authorized to do that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Will you give me the minutes on that ? 

Mr. Gibbons. To be specific ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Gibbons. No. In terms of the minutes we have continuing 
authority to spend money for those purposes which we feel is related 
to the work of our conference and in behalf of our conference and as 
our judgment best dictates. It is included in the financial report 
and everything else. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about this check to Mr. Kavner ? 

The Chairman. I present to you another check, No. 1633, dated 
June 29, 1954, in the amount of $10,000 paid to Richard Kavner and 
ask you to examine it and see if you identify it. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Gibbons. I think I made it clear — I identify this check, Mr. 
Senator. 

The Chairman. It will be made exhibit No. 117. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 117 for reference," 
and will be found in the appendix on p. 14902.) 

Mr. Gibbons. I think I made it clear in the case of Mr. Kavner that 
he did not receive any salary for his work other than this in the 
central conference. 

The Chairman. How was that charged on the books? 

Mr. Bellino. The $10,000 was charged as salary. 

The Chairman. Over what period of time? 

Mr. Bellino. It does not show. There is also on the salary, I forget 
the local, he was getting $9,600 a year at the same time as he got this 
$10,000 salary from the Central Conference of Teamsters. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is there any specific authorization on that, Mr. 
Gibbons? 

Mr. Gibbons. The same continuing authorization, Mr. Kennedy. It 
was a bonus for the same purpose. Dick Kavner, before he ever 
worked for the central conference, worked many a day and night on 
behalf of the central conference. 

Mr. Kennedy. If there were dishonest officials operating this Con- 
ference of Teamsters, you could be making checks to friends for illegal 
purposes. 

Mr. Gibbons. If I wanted to speculate I could say a lot of things 
but there are no dishonest officials in charge of the Central Conference 
of Teamsters. 

Mr. Kennedy. That would be possible. 

Mr. Gibbons. It would never strike my mind. 



14698 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. There is no check at all, is there ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, there is. This is accounting to our board. 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't tell the board specifically about the 
$10,000? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, we did, we told them specifically that Mr. Kavner 
had a bonus. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could I have the minutes on that, please ? 

Mr. Gibbons. It was reported in the course of the board meetings. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could I have the minutes on it, please ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't happen to have any minutes here. You didn't 
advise me what questions you would raise, what areas you would 
cover. I tried to come prepared as well as I knew how. At the 
moment I just don't have an answer to that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you say it is specifically mentioned in the minutes 
that you paid this money ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't believe it would be specifically mentioned in 
the minutes but the report on the handling of the finances was given 
by the chairman, or missed, and I am sure we did it. It was no secret. 

Mr. Kennedy. I just say, Mr. Gibbons, that under this arrangement 
where you can write checks to anyone, with this blanket authority that 
you have described to the committee, it is certainly possible and very 
easy to misappropriate the money and use it for illegal purposes. 

Mr. Gibbons. No. 1, this blanket authority or this use of money for 
legal purposes would run maybe from one board meeting to the next 
and I think would end real fast. We have been reelected year after 
year — elected — each and every year for the past 5 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. We had a description of your last election in Joint 
Council 13, Mr. Gibbons. 

Mr. Gibbons. You have, Mr. Kennedy. I have not had an op- 
portunity to discuss that election yet either, I want you to understand. 

Senator Ives. You admit if you want collusion you could do what 
the counsel says. There is no question about it. 

Mr. Gibbons. There is no question about it just as there is no ques- 
tion about a dozen other things that one could speculate. 

Senator Ives. The whole world is based on the matter of credit and 
honesty. 

Mr. Gibbons. That is correct. That is the only reason we are given 
any blanket authority. 

Senator Ives. I don't know why you quibble about this. 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't mean to. I don't like the implications that 
are being read into this. 

Senator Ives. I am not reading any implications. 

Mr. Gibbons. Not you. 

The Chairman. Mr. Gibbons, I present to you a series of checks, 
the first one dated April 1, 1956, in the amount of $1,000, the next 
one dated April 7, 1956, in the amout of $3,000, the next one dated 
apparently April 17, 1956, in the amount of $4,000, and the next one 
dated April 19, 1956, in the amount of $2,000, another one dated 
April 24, 1956, in the amount of $3,000, another one dated May 1, 
1956, in the amount of $3,000, another one dated May 14, 1956, in the 
amount of $2,000, and another one dated May 11, 1956, in the amount 
of $1,500, all of which are payable to one William Carl Schneider. 

Will you please identify these checks. I didn't get the total. We 
can set it in a moment. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14699 

(The documents were handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Gibbons. I identify them for the record, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. They may be made exhibit No. 118, in bulk. 

(Documents referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 118" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. I believe they total $19,500. 

Mr. Gibbons. That is correct. 

The Chairman. And all paid to one man within about a month's 
time? 

Mr. Gibbons. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the situation as far as they are concerned ? 

Mr. Gibbons. The situation is that Bill Schneider was handling the 
Ringling Bros, strike in the city of New York at that period of time, 
and this is strike benefits and strike expenses paid out by the Central 
Conference of Teamsters in the Ringling Bros strike. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have any vouchers ? 

Mr. Gibbons. If l"have them, you have them probably. If they 
aren't there, this was all O. K.'d by our account when the CPA report 
was made up, and it must have been at that time completely authenti- 
cated and vouched for. 

Mr. Kennedy. We didn't have any vouchers on it. 

Mr. Gibbons. Then I don't know what happened to the vouchers, 
but the audit report which took place after that by a CPA no ques- 
tion was raised on it. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have had those kind of audit reports before pos- 
sibly, Mr. Gibbons. Did they review and make sure this money was 
actually spent for this purpose ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes ; I am sure they did. They are pretty careful. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who is the audit by ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I imagine it was Gillis & McQuire, and they always 
make comments in their reports if there is anything that appears to 
be irregular or unsubstantiated. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they would go to Mr. William Carl Schneider 
and determine how lie spent the money ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No; I imagine there were vouchers there at the time. 

Mr. Kennedy. They would get the vouchers from him as to how he 
spent the money ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No ; I imagine they were already in the files. 

Mr. Kennedy. He would send them in to the Central Conference of 
Teamsters ? 

Mr. Gibbons. If he needed money, he would call up. He is a very 
trusting employee, and the money was sent to him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where is he now ? 

Mr. Gibbons. He is working for us in St. Louis. 

Mr. Kennedy. These checks are endorsed in many cases; for in- 
stance, Milton Holt, who was a great friend of Johnny Dioguardi. 

Mr. Gibbons. He is also in a Teamsters' local where he was known 
and where they could cash this check for him. 

Mr. Kennedy. A number of them Milton Holt and then Paul La- 
fayette. 

Mr. Gibbons. As you know, he was or is an official of the Retail 
Clerks' Union. 



14700 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. He was kicked out of the Retail Clerks. Then Abe 
Gordon. 

Mr. Gibbons. At that time lie was an officinl of the union and coop- 
erating and helping us on that particular picket line. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was some money paid by the Central Conference of 
Teamsters for Mr. Baker, when he was staying at the Essex House 
in New York, $150 for damaging a carpet? 

Mr. Gibbons. If you have the records indicating that, I suspect they 
are true. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that what the record shows ? 

Mr. Bellino. That is correct. 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't recall the particular incident. Mr. Baker had 
many people in and out of his room. I don't know whether Mr. Baker 
did it or one of his guests. 

Mr. Bellino. The Central Conference of Teamsters was charged 
$150 by the Essex House for carpet damage caused in the room which 
had been occupied by Robert Baker. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they pay that? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir; that is the Essex House in New York City. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were one of those who was responsible for the 
James HofFa dinner? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes: I carried the chief responsibility in that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have the figures with you, Mr. Gibbons ? 

Can we place those in the record, Mr. Chairman ? I have no partic- 
ular questions about them. I just want to place them in the record. 

Mr. Gibbons. Now that it is raised, the books on that were very care- 
fully audited and literally hundreds of copies of the audit were sent 
out, including George Meany. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not raising a question about the use of money. 
I just want to get the figures in. 

The Chairman. Mr. Bellino, do you have the figures? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You may insert them into the record at this point. 

Mr. Bellino. Shall I read them ? 

Mr. Kennedy. You can just insert them. 

The Chairman. They can be printed in the record. 

(The information is as follows:) 

HAROLD GIBBONS 

XIV. James Hoffa dinner committee : 

1. Total receipts $326,715.00 

2. Amount of contributions to Children's Home in Jeru- 

salem 265, 275. 47 

3. Amount contributed in the purchase of tickets by vari- 

ous Teamsters organizations and other union locals 165, 250. 00 

It is suggested that a complete list of contributors be made an exhibit 
for reference. 

Percent 

Teamsters $145. 450 45 

Other unions 19, 800 6 

Total 165, 250 

Trucking companies, etc 161,465 49 

Total 326, 715 100 

XV. Pistols and Holsters. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14701 

XVI. Baker : Damage to carpet : Payment of $150 by Central States Conference 
of Teamsters to the Essex House in New York for damage to carpet 
in room occupied by Barney Baker on February lfi, 1956. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can we have the rest of the records in connection 
with the dinner, made an exhibit for reference? 

The Chairman. The file in bulk that you testified to, Mr. Bellino, 
with respect to the dinner now being interrogated about, is that the 
file that you have on it ? 

Mr. Bellino. We have a photostat of the cash receipts book which 
was maintained in St. Louis, and also a compilation in alphabetical 
order of all of these receipts, which we would like to be made an exhibit 
for reference. 

The Chairman. That may in bulk be made exhibit No. 119. 

(Documents referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 119" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Chairman, may I ask is there any question about 
that dinner, the proceeds or where they went, the amounts or where 
it went ? Are some questions going to be asked on that '. 

Mr. Kennedy. Excuse me ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Is there some question in the counsel's mind as to 
where the fund went ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No; I understand that the majority of the funds, 
except for expenses, went to a home in Israel, for children? 

Mr. Gibbons. That is right, We are building a home there for kids. 

Mr. Previant. May I inquire as to the pertinency, if there is no 
question with respect to it, since this was a banquet for an individual, 
attended by him, prominent officials, and others ? 

Mr. Kennedy. We are interested in a number of individuals who 
attended the banquet, and we are interested in their contributions to 
the banquet and their relationships with certain Teamster officials. 
That is why I wanted the information in the record. 

Mr. Previant. Is there something sinister about attending this type 
of a banquet ? 

Mr. Kennedy. You keep attending the hearings, and you will see. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further? 

If not, the committee will stand in recess until 10 : 30 in the morning. 

Mr. Previant. Mr. Chairman, is the witness to return tomorrow 
morning? 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to get the explanation of those checks. He 
can come back next week. If he can get the explanation by tomorrow 
morning, that is fine. 

Mr. Previant. Otherwise, there is no need for him tomorrow ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Not tomorrow, but you better plan to come back at 
the beginning of the week. 

(Whereupon, at 5 : 10 p. m., the committee adjourned to reconvene 
at 10 : 30 a. m., Thursday, September 4, 1958.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 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. 

Also present : Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel ; Jerome S. Adler- 
man, assistant 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; Walter J. Sheridan, investigator; James Mundie, in- 
vestigator, Treasury Department ; John Flanagan, investigator, GAO ; 
Alfred Vitarelli, investigator, GAO ; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk. 

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

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. Let us have 
the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Walter H. Henson, of the committee staff. 

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

Mr. Henson. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF WALTER H. HENSON 

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

Mr. Henson. Walter H. Henson, 19311 Second Avenue South, 
Seattle, Wash. 

I am with the United States General Accounting Office. I am a 
certified public accountant. 

The Chairman. How long have you been with the General 
Accounting Office ? 

Mr. Henson. About a year and a half, sir. 

The Chairman. How long have you been assigned to this com- 
mittee? 

Mr. Henson. About a year and a half, sir. 

14703 



14704 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Henson, you are a certified public accountant? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you have been a certified public accountant 
since when? 

Mr. Henson. Since August 1955, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Prior to going with the General Accounting Office, 
you had been with an accounting firm ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What accounting firm was that ? 

Mr. Henson. Price Waterhouse & Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. When the committee was making an investigation 
of Mr. Dave Beck, you worked on that, did you not ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And for a long period of time you worked on that 
case, did you not ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Henson is with the General Ac- 
counting Office in Seattle. His work was so exceptionally good that 
we asked the General Accounting Office for him to help assist us in 
some work we were doing in Detroit. They were kind enough to 
allow him to come there and help us in some matters we were in- 
terested in. 

Mr. Henson, you have made an examination of the records of the 
Teamsters welfare fund in connection with a loan to the Winchester 
Village Land Co. ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you outline to the committee the amount of 
that loan, when the loan was granted, and what the situation was? 

Mr. Henson. This was a loan for $1 million that was granted on 
October 12, 1955. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the situation? Who was president at the 
time? 

The loan came from the welfare fund ; is that right ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us who was present at the time that 
the loan was granted ? 

Mr. Henson. The minutes of the trustee meeting reflect that James 
R. Hoffa 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you got the minutes there with you ? 

Mr. Henson. James It. Hoffa, George Fitzgerald, Abe Green, and 
John Babcock. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who were these individuals ? Mr. Hoffa we know. 
George Fitzgerald was the attorney for the welfare fund ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who are the other individuals ? 

Mr. Henson. Abe Green and John Babcock were representatives of 
the company known as Winchester Village Land Co. There was also 
present the trustees of the welfare fund, Frank Fitzsimmons, Robert 
Holmes, Howard Minnich, and Chester Dady. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Hoffa have any official position with the 
welfare fund at that time ? 

Mr. Henson. Not to my knowledge, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14705 

Mr. Kennedy. However, he was president at the time this loan was 
granted ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do the minutes reflect that ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How was the loan set up ? The money was to go to 
whom ? 

Mr. Henson. The money was to be deposited in an escrow account 
with the abstract and title guaranty company in Detroit. 

Mr. Kennedy. When were the loans made ? 

Mr. Henson. The loans were made in — the first check was issued 
about October 12, 1955. October 11, 1955, $500,000 ; December 23, 1955, 
$250,000; April 27, 1956, $100,000; June 1, 1956, $75,000; and June 26, 
1956, $75,000. This is a total of $1 million. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the rate of interest for the loan was how much ? 

Mr. Henson. Six percent, 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the present status of this loan? Have any 
payments been made against the loan ? 

Mr. Henson. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. No payments at all ? 

Mr. Henson. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Has any interest or principal been paid ? 

Mr. Henson. There has been approximately $104,000 interest paid. 

Mr. Kennedy. $104,000 interest but nothing against the principal ? 

Mr. Henson. No, sir ; not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, you made an examination ? 

Mr. Henson. It is not reflected in the records. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is not reflected in the records ? 

Mr. Henson. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do the records indicate or show that the Teamsters 
made any investigation of this company ? Did they obtain any finan- 
cial statements? Could you give us a background of that? 

Mr. Henson. There is no indication that I could find in the records 
or in discussing this with the parties concerned that any financial state- 
ments were obtained. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there anything in the minutes about it ? 

Mr. Henson. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the principals who requested the loan, namely, 
Mr. Green, Mr. Winshall, and Mr. Babcock, do the minutes show that 
they made a statement that they had spent some $1,200,000 already 
spent on the land, and that engineering was proceeding rapidly ? 

Mr. Henson. That is right, sir. This is reflected in the minutes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just read what it says. 

Mr. Henson. 

He- 
referring to John P. Babcock — 

stated further that considerable improvements had been already done on the 
land and that approximately $1,200,000 had already been spent for the land and 
engineering which was proceeding rapidly. 

Mr. Kennedy. From an examination of the records, could you tell 
us what this situation was? How much had, in fact, been spent on 
the land ? 



14706 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Henson. A $35,000 downpayment, applicable to the land, pro- 
posed as security to the Teamsters, and an additional $24,000 in im- 
provements. Essentially these amounted to planning and engineering. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is about $60,000 altogether ? 

Mr. Henson. I would say that would be a maximum. 

Mr. Kennedy. The maximum amount that was spent, $60,000 ? 

Mr. Henson. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they made the statement that there was $1,200,- 
000, is that right? 

Mr. Henson. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were there any financial statements from any of 
those who were principals or who requested the loan? Were any 
financial statements obtained from them ? 

Mr. Henson. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Where did you obtain the minutes that you have 
there? 

Mr. Henson. These were obtained from the Michigan Conference 
of Teamsters. 

The Chairman. Out of their records ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. The welfare fund. 

Mr. Henson. The welfare fund. 

The Chairman. Those minutes may be made exhibit 120. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 120" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. What about the liabilities and assets of this com- 
pany ? How did they compare ? 

Mr. Henson. The liabilities exceeded the assets by approximately 
$10,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. At the time they obtained the loan ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. May I explain that this is taking into con- 
sideration certain liabilities which were not recorded on the books. 

Mr. Kennedy. Liabilities that they had that were not recorded ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. But considering all of the liabilities, the liabilities 
exceeded their assets by $10,000 ? 

Mr. Henson. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do they also have some property called Winchester 
Woods? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was that ? 

Mr. Henson. This is a development that was made on approxi- 
mately 105 acres of land, and is adjacent to the Winchester Village 
property. May I explain that the Winchester Village property con- 
sists of development, consists of approximately 1,270 acres, which is 
the security for the Teamsters' loan. The 105 acres which is Winches- 
ter Woods, and which is adjacent to this property that was mortgaged 
to the Teamsters is not security for the Teamsters' loan. 

Mr. Kennedy. The Teamsters had the 1,200 — how many ? 

Mr. Henson. Approximately 1,270 acres. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then adjoining that was Winchester Woods 
which had about 105 acres? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14707 

Mr. Kennedy. Have they made a loan on the Winchester Woods? 

Mr. Henson. They borrowed $200,000 on July 25 ; 1955. 

The Chairman. Do we understand that the same interests own both 
Winchester Woods and also Winchester Village land ? 

Mr. Henson. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. And these tracts, one 1,270 acres in the name of 
Winchester Village, and the other of 105 acres in the name of Win- 
chester Woods 

Mr. Henson. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman (continuing). But owned by the same interests? 

Mr. Henson. I am sorry, sir. Maybe I didn't make that quite clear. 
Winchester Village and Winchester Woods was merely the name of the 
developments. 

The Chairman. I understand. 

Mr. Henson. Both of these tracts were owned by the Winchester 
Village Land Co. 

The Chairman. Both were owned by the Winchester Village 
Land Co.? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Well, the same interests, then, owned both tracts in 
operation. 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And they adjoined? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And the 105 acres, Winchester Woods, had already 
been mortgaged for how much? 

Mr. Henson. $200,000. 

The Chairman. $200,000. And the Winchester Woods tract was 
not included in the mortgage or security given to the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Henson. That is right, sir. 

Senator Ives. May I ask a question there, Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Senator Ives. 

Senator Ives. What is the value of these properties? 

Mr. Henson. At this point, sir ? 

Senator Ives. Yes, the assessed value. 

Mr. Henson. The only measurement I have is the purchase price. 

Senator Ives. What was that? 

Mr. Henson. That was about $470,000. Koughly $350 an acre, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. For the 1,270 acres ? 

Mr. Henson. For both of these, sir, in total. 

The Chairman. For both tracts ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The whole purchase price for the two tracts was 
$400,000? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Winshall also have other liabilities, as he 
had a number of lawsuits against him ? 

Mr. Henson. It is my understanding he has had about 20 lawsuits 
in the last several years. Say, 4 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tell me this: Was there any fee that was paid in 
connection with this loan from the Teamsters? Was there any 
finders' fee ? 



14708 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir; there was a $35,000 finders' fee paid to 
George S. Fitzgerald and Max Klayman. 

The Chairman. Who? 

Mr. Henson. Max Klayman. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who is Max Klayman? 

Mr. Henson. Max Klayman is an attorney associated with George 
Fitzgerald. 

The Chairman. I thought Mr. Fitzgerald was attorney for the 
Teamsters. 

Mr. Henson. He is, sir. 

The Chairman. Who paid this $35,000, the Teamsters or the other 
interest ? 

Mr. Henson. The Winchester Village Land Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why do you call it a finders' fee? 

Mr. Henson. That was described to me by Abe Green, who is a 
principal in the Winchester Village Land Co., as a finders' fee ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you known the term "finders' fee" before ? 

Mr. Henson. Not in this way; no, sir. I asked him to explain, 
and he explained to me that this is a fee commonly paid to a party 
who locates a source of funds. 

The Chairman. This is a finders' fee to locate the funds and not 
to locate the land ; is that right? 

Mr. Henson. That is right, sir. The land was already under con- 
tract before the loan negotiations commenced. 

The Chairman. A $35,000 fee to find where you could borrow a 
million dollars. Is that what it adds up to ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was this recorded on the books and records of the 
company ? 

Mr. Henson. No, sir ; it was not. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was not. This $35,000 payment was not recorded ? 

Mr. Henson. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did it go through the escrow agent ? 

Mr. Henson. No, sir ; it did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you explain to the committee how the $35,000 
payment to George Fitzgerald was handled ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. Abe Green made a $1,000 downpayment 
to purchase some property. This gave him an option to purchase this 
property. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you speak a little louder, please ? 

Mr. Henson. Abe Green made a $1,000 deposit, which gave him an 
option to purchase certain land near Flint, Mich. This was in May 
1955. Subsequent to making the deposit, he arranged to sell this prop- 
erty to General Motors Corp., and in the transaction would net a 
profit of approximately $35,000. 

On December 1, 1955, Abe Green made an assignment to George S. 
Fitzgerald and Max Klayman of his interest in the profits in the pro- 
posed sale. This sale was concluded in July of 1956. At this time, 
Max Klayman accompanied Abe Green to Flint, Mich., where Green 
received a check in payment of the land from the General Motors 
Corp. representative. 

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



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14709 

Mr. Kennedy. The sale price was $68,800, is that right ? 

Mr. Henson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he had the option for a thousand dollars? 

Mr. Henson. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. So he had to get some other money, is that right ? 

Mr. Henson. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. To actually purchase the land ? 

Mr. Henson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. So he got $68,800 from the General Motors Corp. ? 

Mr. Henson. That is right, sir. More or less. There was some 
deductions for expenses and so forth. 

Mr. Kennedy. Which made it how much ? 

Mr. Henson. The check received from the General Motors Corp. 
was $62,752. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did he do with that check, then ? 

Mr. Henson. Mr. Green went to the Michigan National Ba^ik of 
Flint where he purchased four cashier's checks. One in the amount 
of $35,000 payable to George S. Fitzgerald and Max E. Klayman. 
Two checks were purchased and payable to Edward and Susan Grubb, 
one for $26,615.60 and the other $7,185. This was in payment of his 
contract to purchase the land. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the money he owed for the purchase of the 
land above the $1,000? 

Mr. Henson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. He had the $1,000 option and then he owed this 
other money to Grubb for the actual purchase of the land? 

Mr. Henson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. He had a $35,000 profit and that $35,000 profit was 
the cashier's check then made payable to George Fitzgerald and Max 
Klayman ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you check what happened to that $35,000 ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, I did. On July 25, 1956, this $35,000 check was 
cashed by Max Klayman at the Detroit Welby Bank & Trust Co. in 
Detroit. Max Klayman at this time purchased three cashier's checks. 
These were as follows: Payable to George Stone, $9,625; payable to 
Max Klayman, $9,625. 

The Chairman. Give me those amounts a little slower. George 
Stone how much? 

Mr. Henson. $9,625. Max Klayman, $9,625. George S. Fitz- 
gerald, $15,750. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did Mr. George Fitzgerald do with his money ? 

Mr. Henson. Mr. Fitzgerald cashed his check at the City Bank in 
Detroit, Mich, and applied the proceeds as follows: Kepayments of 
loans he had previously made from this bank, $5,030. Deposited in the 
George S. Fitzgerald trustee account, $5,720. Deposited in the George 
Fitzgerald special account, $5,000. Both of these latter accounts 
with the City Bank. 

Mr. Kennedy. In my conversations with Mr. Fitzgerald, he stated 
that this money he received was under the escrow agreement, that the 
group that received this loan was to pay the attorney's fees, and that 

21243— 59— pt. 39 11 



14710 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

the attorney's fees were to be paid out of the loan, the million-dollar 
loan. 

Could you tell us what the records show on that ? 

Mr. Henson. The attorney's fees are not mentioned, sir. Shall I 
read the clause ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, please. There is a clause that says certain 
payments are to be made in connection with the loan ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes ? sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Will you read that to us ? 

Mr. Henson. I am reading from section 7 of an escrow agreement 
dated October 12, 1955, which was made in connection with this loan. 
Section 7 reads : 

The charges of the escrow agent and all expenses and fees incurred by said 
parties in connection with and in performance of this transaction and the afore- 
mentioned mortgage shall be paid by first parties and the escrow agent shall 
draw upon the mortgage fund for payment of same. 

Mr. Kennedy. It doesn't specifically mention attorney's fees, is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Henson. No, sir, it does not. 

Mr. Kennedy. But it says that the expenses in connection with 
this, the drawing up of the agreement, should be paid by the recipient 
of the loan ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. It also says that the expenses should be paid out of 
the loan, does it not? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. Disbursed by the escrow agent. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was this money paid to Fitzgerald out of the loan ? 

Mr. Henson. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it ever recorded ? Was there any record made 
of it? 

Mr. Henson. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Ordinarily from an examination of the books you 
would not be able to find this payment, is that right ? 

Mr. Henson. No, sir ; not in the books. 

Mr. Kennedy. When you talked to Mr. Green, he stated that this 
was a finder's fee ? 

Mr. Henson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. For finding a source of money ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. George Fitzgerald was being paid by the 
Joint Council 43 during this period of time? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. A regular monthly retainer? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How much, do you recall ? 

Mr. Henson. It varied from month to month but the average 
would be around $2,700 to $2,800. It was always close to that amount 
during this period we are discussing. 

The Chairman. I suppose that included a fixed retainer fee and 
such expenses as bills might be rendered for? 

Mr. Henson. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. You have been testifying there from a document 
which you term the option agreement ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14711 

Mr. Henson. No, sir. This was the escrow instructions. 

The Chairman. Escrow agreement ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That is an authentic copy ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That copy of the escrow agreement may be made 
exhibit 121. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 121" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to have Mr. Hen- 
son step aside for a moment and call another witness. Mr. Schultz. 

The Chairman. Just remain where you are we may wish to inter- 
rogate you further. The other witness will sit by you. You will be 
sworn, please, sir ? 

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. Schultz. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM J. SCHULTZ 

The Chairman. Be seated. State your name, your place of resi- 
dence, and your business or occupation. 

Mr. Schultz. William J. Schultz, 778 Lakeland, Grosse Pointe, 
Mich. 

The Chairman. What is your business or occupation ? 

Mr. Schultz. I am assistant secretary of the Abstract Title & Guar- 
anty Co. and escrow officer. 

The Chairman. In Detroit, Mich. ? 

Mr. Schultz.. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you waive counsel ? 

Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. You are the escrow agent employed by the Abstract 
Title & Guaranty Co.? 

Mr. Schultz. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You worked on and had something to do with the 
loan made to the Winchester Development Co. ? 

Mr. Schultz. I handled the escrow, yes sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. For the loan that was made from the Teamsters, 
is that right ? 

Mr. Schultz. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you a copy of that agreement that was made ? 
That is the escrow agreement, Mr. Schultz ? 

Mr. Schultz. Yes, it is. 

Mr. Kennedy. From your experience would you say that was a good 
agreement and protected the interests of the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You do feel that it adequately protected the interests 
of the Teamsters? 

Mr. Schultz. I think so. 

Mr. Kennedy. As that agreement was drawn up, is that correct? 

Mr. Schultz. Yes. 



14712 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Under the terms of the agreement, all the bills that 
the Winchester Co. would have would be submitted to you people as 
the escrow agent ? 

Mr. Schultz. Yes, that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why don't you explain generally how the situation 
was handled, and then I will ask you some specific questions. 

Mr. Schultz. The money was deposited with us for the purpose of 
paying bills for improving the land which would include paving, sew- 
age system, water plant, and general items that would be necessary 
to have a subdivision. 

Mr. Kennedy. How was that going to be arranged ? 

Mr. Schultz. The money was paid in and as the work progressed 
it was to be paid for upon certification of the engineer. 

Mr. Kennedy. They would submit their bills and you would pay 
the money out, is that right ? 

Mr. Schultz. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about when they sold the land? What was 
the protective feature in that ? 

Mr. Schultz. Well, as land was to be sold there is a provision in 
both the mortgage and the escrow agreement that parcels may be re- 
leased, and that these releases would be deposited with our company 
and as they were required they could come in and pay the amount 
called for. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who would deposit the releases with your company ? 

Mr. Schultz. The releases would have to be deposited by the 
Teamsters. 

Mr. Kennedy. As these plots of land were sold, the Winchester Co. 
would have to come to you to get the releases ? 

Mr. Schultz. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You would give them the releases, is that right ? 

Mr. Schultz. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they would pay you a sum of money ? 

Mr. Schultz. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much would they pay you ? 

Mr. Schultz. It varied. 

Mr. Kennedy. $15,000? 

Mr. Schultz. It is spelled out in the agreement. Some parcels were 
$1,500. Others were $2,000. I believe someare $3,000. It could be 
that they could be more on an acreage basis if it were a large parcel. 

Mr. Kennedy. They would not be able to sell any of the land under 
this agreement without getting a release from you, is that right ? 

Mr. Schultz. That would be true because they wouldn't have a 
clear title to sell unless they got a release. 

Mr. Kennedy. You would not give them the release until you were 
paid a certain amount of money ? 

Mr. Schultz. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. So there were these two features : number one, that 
they would have to submit their bills to you before you would pay out 
any of the money ? 

Mr. Schultz. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And, second, that none of this land could be re- 
leased until they paid a certain sum of money to you ? 

Mr. Schultz. That is right. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14713 

Mr. Kennedy. These were two protective features ? 

Mr. Schultz. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Going back to No. 1, did you understand from the 
agreement — from this protective feature — that they would have to 
submit bills for improvements? Did you understand that the im- 
provements they were going to install or put in, or any expenditures 
for improving the land, had to be expenditures for the land that the 
Teamsters had under mortgage ? 

Mr. Schultz. That was my original understanding and interpreta- 
tion. 

Mr. Kennedy. This Winchester Development Co. ? 

Mr. Schultz. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. This 1,270 acres ; is that right ? 

Mr. Schultz. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you tell us whether you learned differently and 
from whom you learned differently? Tell us what happened. 

Mr. Schultz. There were some bills presented which I was not sure 
fell under the provisions of the agreement and I refused to honor 
them. Then I got clarification or interpretation from the law office 
of George Fitzgerald. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive a letter from George Fitzfierald? 

Mr. Schultz. Yes. Several times I would have to chase him back 
to get 

Mr. Kennedy. You told the Winchester Development Co. that you 
would not advance money ? 

Mr. Schultz. I didn't think that certain of these things qualified 
for payments. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not feel that they did ? 

Mr. Schultz. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you received a letter from George Fitzgerald 
telling you that you should go ahead and pay these ? 

Mr. Schultz. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have copies of those letters ? 

Mr. Schultz. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Henson has. 

The Chairman. Mr. Henson, present the letters to Mr. Shultz and 
let him identify them ? 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Schultz. Yes ; this is the letter. 

The Chairman. You have in your hand a letter from whom to 
whom ? 

Mr. Schultz. This is a letter written by George Fitzgerald, dated 
November 11, 1955, addressed to the Abstract Title & Guaranty Co. 
and it is to my attention. 

The Chairman. That letter may be made exhibit No. 122. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 122" for reference, 
and will be found in the appendix on p. 14903.) 

The Chairman. Do you have another letter ? 

Mr. Schultz. This letter is also written by George Fitzgerald. It 
is dated December 9, 1955, addressed to the Abstract Title & Guaranty 
Co., to my attention. 

The Chairman. It may be made exhibit 122-A. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 122-A'' for refer- 
ence, and will be found in the appendix on p. 14904.) 



14714 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. May I have those letters, please? 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Ives. 

Senator Ives. I would like to ask Mr. Schultz a question just for 
information because I am not sure about the banking situation in 
Michigan. This Abstract Title & Guaranty Co. involved here is a 
State institution ; is it not ? 

Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ives. Will you kindly tell me this. Is it a commercial in- 
stitution or a commercial bank ? Does it handle deposits ? 

Mr. Schultz. No, sir. We are not a bank. 

Senator Ives. You are not a bank ? 

Mr. Schultz. No, sir. We are in the title insurance business. 

Senator Ives. You provide title insurance? 

Mr. Schultz. That is right. 

Senator Ives. Thank you. That is all I wanted to know. 

(At this point, the following members were present: Senators 
McCellan and Ives.) 

Mr. Kennedy. What was it, specifically, that brought these things 
about, Mr. Schultz? 

Mr. Schultz. I don't really remember. There were some bills, as 
I say, that I questioned. 

The Chairman. Who was submitting the bills that you questioned ? 

Mr. Schultz. Well, they would not always be brought over. Some- 
one from the Winchester Land Office would 

The Chairman. I don't mean who actually made the physical de- 
livery of them. I mean it was the Winchester Village Land Co. that 
was submitting the bills ? 

Mr. Schultz. That is right. 

The Chairman. Against the escrow account ? 

Mr. Schultz. That is right. 

The Chairman. And you were the one to judge and determine 
whether those bills were valid and should be paid ? 

Mr. Schultz. That is right. 

The Chairman. And you challenged some of them ? 

Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Then as a result of your challenge, you received 
these letters ? 

Mr. Schultz. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. For instance, this letter of December 9, 1955, says : 

Dear Sir — 

It is to the Abstract Title & Guaranty Co., signed by Fitzgerald. 

Pursuant to our telephone conversation of yesterday, relating to the tap privilege 
certificates in Clinton Township, Macomb County, Mich., you are hereby author- 
ized to release to the Winshall Associates $100,000 for their use in picking up 
these tap privilege certificates. It is understood that what mechanics you may 
use in connection with the payment of the money to them or to the proper 
receiving agency and what method may be used for the repayment of this 
money into the fund is left to you as the escrow agent and the Winchester Land 
Co. 

I have discussed this matter with my clients, and it is our feeling, one, that 
since the escrow account was created and the money loaned for the develop- 
ment of Winchester Village, the use of this money for anything which will 
promote this property, not only directly but indirectly, should bo left to 
the discretion of the Winchester Village Land Co. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14715 

Two. That, since the Clinton Township property is part of the partnership 
assets which was pledged as collateral on the original loan, any improvement 
of that Clinton Township property would only enhance our security. 

If there is anything further you desire, please contact the undersigned. 

Signed George Fitzgerald. 

First, the tap privilege certificates in Clinton Township, did that 
have anything directly to do with the Winchester Village develop- 
ment ? 

Mr. Schultz. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. In fact, isn't that a different county entirely than the 
Winchester Village Co. ? 

Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How far removed are the two tracts ? 

Mr. Schultz. Roughly 60 or 70 miles. 

The Chairman. How would improving a tract of land 70 miles 
away enhance the value of the Winchester Village land ? 

Mr. Schultz. I don't believe you have the full picture, sir. These 
are two completely separate developments. One up in Flint, that is 
the one that this loan is on, and the other is in Macomb County, I 
believe. 

The Chairman. I do have the picture. This letter says it would 
directly, or implies it would directly, or indirectly enhance the value 
of the Winchester Village Land Co. project. 

Mr. Schultz. That could never be. 

The Chairman. Sir? 

Mr. Schultz. That could never be. 

The Chairman. I don't see how an improvement 70 miles away 
would enhance the value of property. All right, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Maybe you should answer this, Mr. Henson. It 
states here : 

Since the Clinton Township property is part of the partnership assets which 
was pledged as collateral on the original loan, any improvement of that Clinton 
Township property would only enhance our security. 

Was that in fact pledged ? 

Mr. Henson. No, sir, it was not. 

The Chairman. In other words, this tract 70 miles away, or this 
project 70 miles away, was not included in the mortgage ? 

Mr. Henson. No, sir, it was not. 

The Chairman. And it was in no way, so far as you could ascertain 
or find out, pledged or mortgaged as a security or collateral for this 
loan 'I 

Mr. Henson. Only in that the individual partners signed the mort- 
gage note. 

The Chairman. They had their signature, and, of course, whatever 
they owned would be liable. I mean any assets that they might have 
after the mortgage security was exhausted might be liable for their 
debts. 

Mr. Henson. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. But it was not security. 

Mr. Henson. No, sir. 

The Chairman. In other words, after they improved that property 
up there, they could easily sell it and dissipate the money. 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir; they did. 



14716 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. And they did, is that so ? 
Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 
The Chairman. All right. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about this letter of November 11, 1955. "Dear 
Mr. Schultz." It is again signed by George Fitzgerald. 

It has come to iny attention that the aforementioned escrow agreement is 
not sufficiently inclusive to allow you to pay certain expenses of Winchester 
Village Land Co., sometimes billed to Winshall Associates, incident to the im- 
provements therein contemplated. Since our agreement with them is such that 
all moneys received by virtue of sales of any part of the mortgaged premises be 
placed in escrow, it was our intention that all expenses incurred incident to 
the improvement of said premises be paid from the escrow funds. Please accept 
this as your authority and direction to pay said expenses upon presentation of 
an invoice therefor, or an engineer's certificate authorizing said payment. 

Do you remember what that specifically was about ? 

Mr. Schultz. I believe that was the first letter. 

It followed several miscellaneous bills that I had rejected. 

Mr. Kennedy. That you could not trace directly to this property 
for the improvement ? 

Mr. Schultz. Probably. For some reason or other I did not know 
that they should have been paid. 

Mr. Kennedy. I Avould like to ask Mr. Henson a question. 

Mr. George Fitzgerald qualifies the written agreement by these two 
letters. Is there anything in the minutes of the Michigan Conference 
of Teamsters Welfare Fund, which shows that the trustees agreed to 
these changes in the agreement ? 

Mr. Henson. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. There is no mention of it whatsoever ? 

Mr. Henson. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. There is no mention even that it was taken up or 
considered by them? 

Mr. Henson. No reference whatsoever. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you, Mr. Schultz, when you received 
these letters from Mr. Fitzgerald, whom did you understand he 
represented ? 

Mr. Schultz. The Teamsters. 

The Chairman. That is the welfare fund ? 

Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. In other words, he was their attorney ? 

Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And you were acting on instructions from the one 
who you understood to be the attorney for the mortgagee ? 

Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was one other aspect we talked about. You 
thought that this agreement was a good agreement, and that there 
were two good features that protected the interests of the Teamsters, 
one, that the improvements should be made on the lot that they had 
under mortgage, which we have just discussed, and the second one was 
that when the property was released, that Winchester would pay a 
certain amount of money to you, to the Abstract Title Co., is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they in fact pay this money to the Abstract 
Title Co.? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14717 

Mr. Schultz. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. They did not ? 

Mr. Schultz. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you received any money for any of the land 
that has been released so far ? 

Mr. Schultz. I believe we got one payment, one or two, at the very 
most. 

Mr. Kennedy. The rest of the money has not been paid, is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Schultz. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to ask Mr. Henson in that connection : 
Have we found that the land has been released ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us what the records show as far as 
releases ? 

Mr. Henson. The number of releases? 

Mr. Kennedy. How much of the land has been released, and what 
the Teamsters should have received ? 

Mr. Henson. The best estimate I have is around 350 acres released. 
I call this an estimate because some of the land, instead of describing 
individual lots, describe parcels of land by legal description. This is 
approximately 350 acres in total. This land was released with 23 
separate releases. 

Mr. Kennedy. At least ? 

Mr. Henson. At least. 

Mr. Kennedy. Twenty-three recorded ? 

Mr. Henson. These are recorded by Genesee County. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much money should the Teamsters have re- 
ceived on their loan of $1 million ? 

Mr. Henson. The loan should be repaid as well as interest. They 
should have received upward of $1 million. I compute it at $1,279,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. That would have been repayment of the loan and of 
interest ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And instead, how much have they received ? 

Mr. Henson. $104,000, approximately, in interest. 

The Chairman. If I understand correctly, had the escrow agreement 
been enforced and carried out as these sales were made and the prop- 
erty released, had the Teamsters gotten the money that the escrow 
agreement provided they should get as the property was released, the 
$1 million loan would have been repaid ? 

Mr. Henson. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you now : Does this $104,000 pay all the 
interest that may have accrued ? 

Mr. Henson. No, sir. 

The Chairman. How much is still owing on the interest? 

Mr. Henson. Approximately $60,000 to $70,000, sir. 

The Chairman. Some $60,000 or $70,000 still due on the interest? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have the Teamsters granted extensions on this loan ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir ; they have. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did they grant extensions ? 



14718 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Henson. On October 12, 1956, the loan was extended to January 
12, 1957. On January 12, 1957, it was again extended to July 12, 1957. 
On July 12, 1957, it was again extended to January 12, 1958. And 
from January 12, 1958, it was again extended to June -30, 1958. 

The Chairman. It has not been extended since June 30? 

Mr. Henson. No, sir ; not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the present status of it? 

Mr. Henson. George Fitzgerald's office has initiated foreclosure 
proceedings. 

Mr. Kennedy. And those foreclosure proceedings have been issued 
since our investigation ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Henson. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is left? Will you describe that to the com- 
mittee ? The 350 acres, approximately, have been sold ; is that right ? 

Mr. Henson. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is where the improvements have gone, where 
the money has been used ? 

Mr. Henson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That has already been sold ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the Teamsters have lost control of that; is that 
right? 

Mr. Henson. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they received no money for it ? 

Mr. Henson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That property is gone and the Teamsters have lost 
completely the $1 million they should have gotten from it ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. There is more acreage left ; is that right ? 

Mr. Henson. There is approximately 950 acres left. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you describe what the situation is as far as 
the 950 acres? 

Mr. Henson. The land is largely undeveloped. A portion of the 
land, at least, has trunklines in only, that is for sewers and for water. 
However, as I say, this is only the trunkline and to further use the 
land you would have to run lateral lines out to service the entire 
area. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that has not been done ? 

Mr. Henson. That has not been done. 

The Chairman. Have streets been paved in that area ? 

Mr. Henson. No, sir. 

The Chairman. So it is just in an unimproved state altogether 
except the main lines having been run for water and sewers ? 

Mr. Henson. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the status as far as the water is concerned, 
the sewerage ? 

Mr. Henson. The water supply with the present equipment is 
insufficient to serve the area that is already developed. Because of 
this 

Mr. Kennedy. "Where did you get that information? 

Mr. Henson. This was received from the attorney to the Gaines 
Township Board of Governors, who forwarded to me a resolution 
passed by the Gaines Township Board of Governors to the effect that 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14719 

no more building permits would be issued for the building of homes on 
this land. 

Mr. Kennedy. Because of the lack of water ? 

Mr. Henson. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And what is the situation as far as the sewage is 
concerned ? 

Mr. Henson. There is a sewage plant with a total capacity of 
around 1,200 families. There are 1,721 building sites on the land 
that has already been released. There are additionally approximately 
209 lots in the area we discussed earlier, which is called Winchester 
Woods. So this means for the remaining 950 acres, the existing 
sewage plant can service maybe 250 more homes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And beyond that there are going to have to be new 
sewage facilities built? 

Mr. Henson. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. So they will have to erect a new water plant and 
new sewage facilities, as well as put in the streets and the other 
developments ? 

Mr. Henson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And none of that has been done ? 

Mr. Henson. None. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is this land that you have described where none of 
this has been done, and where the water is in short supply, and where 
the sewage is inadequate, the land that they are taking over at the 
present time under these foreclosure procedures ? 

Mr. Henson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the good land, where all the money has been put 
into, has been sold ? 

Mr. Henson. That is right, sold or mortgaged. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the Teamsters are out in the cold as far as that 
is concerned ? 

Mr. Henson. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know, Mr. Schultz, how it was arranged that 
the Winchester Development Co. was able to get these releases with- 
out going through your company as the contract provided ? 

Mr. Schultz. No, sir ; they were never deposited with our company. 

Mr. Kennedy. They must have been turned over directly either by 
George Fitzgerald or the Teamsters. 

Mr. Schultz. I have no knowledge of that. 

Mr. Kennedy. They never sent them to you. 

The Chairman. Under the escrow agreement those releases were 
to come through your office ? 

Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You were to 

Mr. Schultz. Release them for money. 

The Chairman. You were to deliver the release upon receipt of the 
money ? 

Mr. Schultz. That is right. 

The Chairman. So the escrow agreement has been completely 
violated with respect to the release of the property ? 

Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The original agreement was also violated by rea- 
son of the authority given to you by the attorney for the Teamsters. 
The terms of it were modified and changed by these letters ? 



14720 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you have any of the million dollars left that 
they deposited with you ? 

Mr. Schultz. I believe that there is $200 left, 

The Chairman. $200. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think that is all for Mr. Schultz. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions of Mr. Schultz ? 

Senator Ives. No. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Schultz. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, that gives a broad outline of what 
the situation is, and now I would like to go into some details as to 
how this was handled. 

Mr. Schultz has explained that the letters from Mr. Fitzgerald to 
him altered the agreement and allowed these funds to be used for 
other purposes. Was there a diversion? How much did you find 
was diverted ? 

Mr. Henson. $247,941.58, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That did not go into the improvement of this land ? 

Mr. Henson. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Under this side agreement with Mr. George 
Fitzgerald? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How was that used ? Could you break that down ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir; $20,935.75 was used to purchase 19 cows, 1 
bull and some farm supplies. 

Mr. Kennedy. What were the cows going to do ? How were they 
going to help the property ? 

The Chairman. I thought this was a city development. 

Mr. Henson. I did, too, sir. 

The Chairman. Is that all it is fit for, what is left, to raise some 
bulls and cows ? Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is $20,935 for the cows and the bull ? 

Mr. Henson. $98,550 was used to purchase the Clinton Township 
certificates we referred to. 

Mr. Kennedy. Which was the property 60 miles away ? 

Mr. Henson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And which property has now been sold ? 

Mr. Henson. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. Did the Teamsters get back any of this money from 
the sale of that property ? 

Mr. Henson. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then would you explain what happened to the rest 
of it? 

Mr. Henson. There were loans to other companies totaling $44,615. 
As these loans were repaid, the Winchester Village Land Co., of course, 
would then be holding the cash free of the escrow fund, and this is 
what occurred. 

The Chairman. I don't quite understand that one. 

Mr. Henson. There were loans made to other companies. 

The Chairman. You mean out of these escrow funds ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir, totaling $44,615. 

The Chairman. What security ? 

Mr. Henson. None, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14721 

The Chairman. All right, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now explain the arrangement they had with a com- 
pany called the Aero Realty Co. 

Mr. Henson. The Aero Realty was a company used to transact 
business for the Winchester Village Land Co. In using this company, 
the Winchester Village Land Co. diverted funds to other purposes on 
1 occasion, $51,020.83, and on 2 other purposes, $32,820. 

The Chairman. What are those purposes? Can you identify 
them? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are going to identify the $51,000 first. 

Mr. Henson. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is an exceptionally interesting financial trans- 
action, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. I think we may all be learning something. Go 
ahead. 

Mr. Henson. As a bit of background, I refer again to the fact that 
$200,000 was borrowed from a group headed by a Daniel Levine. We 
referred to that earlier. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was the other 105 acres. 

Mr. Henson. That is right, sir. There was an additional 10 acres 
involved in this transaction at that time. At that time an agreement 
was made by which the Winchester Village Land Co. would sell to the 
Daniel Levine group 10 acres of land for $10,000, and at the end of 
a year they would repurchase this land for $50,000. 

The Chairman. What? Say that again. 

Mr. Henson. At the time the $200,000 loan was obtained in July 
of 1955, there was also an agreement that the Winchester Village Land 
Co. would sell to Daniel Levine and others 10 acres of land for $10,000, 
and that a year later this same land would be repurchased at a pur- 
chase price of $50,000. 

The Chairman. By the same one who sold it 1 year ago for $10,000 ? 

Mr. Henson. That is right. 

The Chairman. Do you have that agreement there ? 

Mr. Henson. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you have that document anywhere in the files ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

The Charman. I would like to see that document. 

Mr. Kennedy. He will explain. 

Mr. Henson. Actually these are a series of documents which are 
in evidence of this transaction. 

The Chairman. Which are what ? 

Mr. Henson. Which are in evidence of this transaction. 

The Chairman. We will get them all together. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is the group that loaned Winchester $200,000 ? 

Mr. Henson. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. At the same time they sold them a piece of property 
for $10,000? 

Mr. Henson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. With the understanding that they would buy it back 
at $50,000 a year later? 

Mr. Henson. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have the letter there, do you not, where they 
remind them of the fact that they are to repurchase the land ? 



14722 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Henson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you present that to the chairman ? 

The Chairman. Will you identify that letter ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes sir. 

The Chairman. That letter will be made exhibit No. 123. 

(The letter referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 123," for refer- 
ence, and will be found in the appendix on p. 14905.) 

Mr. Kennedy. This letter is dated March 19, 1956, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Who is Mr. Jack I. Winshall ? 

Mr. Henson. He is the principal in the Winchester Land Co., sir. 

The Chairman. He is one of the owners ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Who is Norman Monning ? 

Mr. Henson. He is attorney for the Daniel Levine group. 

The Chairman. This letter is from Mr. Monning to Mr. Winshall 
and says : 

Mr. Goldman's principals would like to know when you are going to enter into 
a land contract to repurchase the 10 acres in Genesee County. They expected 
you to call them and arrange a closing in this matter before this. Therefore, 
your prompt attention to this matter will be appreciated. 

Then I find a notation down here. What do these notations mean 
on this letter ? These are pen notations. 

Mr. Henson. The $50,000 refers to the land contract which has not 
been made available to us. The $1,000, as far as I can determine, refers 
to an initial payment that was made pursuant to this letter toward the 
agreed repurchase of the 10 acres. 

The Chairman. I note here it says, "Five months from February 
3,1956." 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Can you interpret that? Do you know what that 
means ? 

Mr. Henson. The repurchase occurred 5 months from February 
1956. 

The Chairman. That is when it was due to occur ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Did it ever occur ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You mean they bought that land back, that 10 acres, 
for $50,000? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you also have a blank agreement that they will 
repurchase that land ? 

Mr. Henson. No, sir; I do not. I have an offer to purchase real 
estate. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is what I meant. Would you describe that 
document and show it to the chairman ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. This is a signed document, by David Se- 
bansky and Abe S. Green, both of whom are principals in the Win- 
chester Village Land Co. It is undated. It contains a legal descrip- 
tion which has been identified as the same as the 10 acres involved in 
the original sale for $10,000. 

The Chairman. That document may be made exhibit No. 124. 

(The document was marked "Exhibit No. 124" for reference and 
will be found in the files of the select committee.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14723 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have another document ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir ; I have. 

The Chairman. Identify the document you are now presenting. 

Mr. Henson. This is an invoice or statement to Winchester Village 
Land Co. on the letterhead of Aero Realty. It is dated June 29, 
1956, and it reads : 

Services rendered and miscellaneous closings through May 3, 1956, $51,020.83. 

The Chx\irman. That may be made exhibit No. 125. 

(The document was marked "Exhibit No. 125" for reference and 
will be found in the appendix on p. 14906.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you another document or do you want to de- 
scribe how this transaction was handled ? 

Mr. Henson. I will describe that one. 

The Chairman. Give us the explanation of this last exhibit. 

Mr. Henson. I discussed this invoice with a John Ruggero, who is 
doing business as Aero Realty, who informed me that this invoice was 
prepared in the offices of Winshall Associates. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could I interrupt a moment? To understand this, 
Mr. Chairman, we have to remember that under the agreement, the 
Abstract Title Co. would pay to Winshall Development Co. money 
when a bill was presented. That was the agreement, that they had to 
present some bills, and then the Abstract Title Co. would forward 
some money to them. 

The Chairman. Well, it is beginning to get a little complicated. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let's not consider the sale of this land at all. But 
the facts are that, under the original agreement between the Teamsters 
and the Winshall Development Co., the money that the Winshall 
Development Co. needed to develop their land would be forwarded to 
them by the Abstract Title Co. when they gave them some bills. 
This was to protect the Teamsters' money. 

We have had testimony regarding the fact that some of these bills 
came for pieces of land that did not have anything to do with the 
property on which the Teamsters had a mortgage. 

This is another gimmick. This is a company called the Aero 
Realty Co. 

The thing we are looking into here, Mr. Chairman, is where there 
are phony invoices given to the Abstract Title Co., and then the 
Abstract Title Co. pays on them. This is a deal within a deal within 
a deal. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Go ahead. 

Mr. Henson. This invoice was prepared in the office of the Win- 
chester Village Land Co., billing itself for $51,020.83. 

Mr. Kennedy. But using the stationery of this other company. 
They had, did they not, stationery of another company in their own 
office? 

Mr. Henson. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they would make up bills to themselves on the 
stationery of the other company ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Henson. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then they would submit those bills to the Abstract 
Title Co., receive the money of the Teamsters, and then use it for their 



14724 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Henson. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And in this particular case, the reason they needed 
the money was to repurchase the land for $50,000 from a group that 
they had sold it to for $10,000. 

The Chairman. Is that correct? 

Mr. Henson. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. So this bill was prepared by the land company that 
borrowed the money from the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That money was in escrow? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. They had sold 10 acres of the land that was mort- 
gaged ? 

Mr. Henson. No, sir. 

The Chairman. That 10 acres was not mortgaged ? 

Mr. Henson. No, sir. 

The Chairman. That was in the other tract that was not mort- 
gaged? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. They sold 10 acres of that for $10,000? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And repurchased it for $50,000, and made out a 
bill on the company's stationery from whom they repurchased the 10 
acres ? 

Mr. Henson. No, sir. 

The Chairman. This is another one altogether ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. They made up an invoice on an entirely different 
company, the Aero Realty Co., presented this bill to the Abstract 
Title Co., and got the $51,000. Tell them what happened to the 
$51,000, how they handled that. 

Now, you see, they got the $51,000, but they got it as coming from 
the Aero Realty Co. Now their problem is to get it over to the group 
that they had sold the land to for $10,000. 

They have to get it over there. Tell them how they handled that 
part of it. It is Teamster money. 

Mr. Henson. I have here a photostat of a check dated July 5, 1956. 
The check was issued by Abstract & Title Guarantee Co. for $51,020.83, 
payable to Aero Realty. 

The Chairman. That check may be made exhibit 126. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 126" for 
reference and will be found in the appendix on p. 14907.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Senator, they put the bill in, that they made 
up themselves, to the Abstract Title Co. The Abstract Title Co. then 
made out a check for $51,000 to the Aero Realty Co. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman, I am getting confused. I wish the 
witness kindly would tell us how many companies are involved in 
this whole business outside of the title company. 

Mr. Henson. Approximately 50 companies. 

Senator Ives. Approximately 50 companies ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. But they are not going to all be involved in this 
transaction. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14725 

Senator Ives. That is what I mean, this transaction. 

Mr. Kennedy. The only companies we have to think of is, first, 
the Abstract Co., the Winshall Co., which was getting the loan, the 
Abstract Title Co. which was handling the loan for the Teamsters; 
the Aero Realty Co., and then this fourth company. 

Senator Ives. That is all ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

It is only the four companies that are involved in this transaction. 

Senator Ives. Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then they got the check from the Abstract Title 
Co. to the Aero Realty Co. ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did they do with that ? 

Mr. Henson. Aero Realty deposited this check on July — it must be 
July 6, or possibly 9. The writing is hard to make out here. It is 
1956. And on the same date it issued a check for $51,020.83, payable 
to Manufacturers National Bank for a cashier's check to A. S. Green. 

Mr. Kennedy. That would indicate that the Aero Realty Co. knew 
of the phoniness and was a part of making up the phony vouchers. 
They allowed them to do it. They took the check, deposited it in 
their own bank account, and then made another check out. 

The Chairman. Who did they make that check out to ? 

Mr. Henson. This is payable to Manufacturers National Bank for 
cashier's check to A. S. Green. 

The Chairman. Who is A. S. Green ? 

Mr. Henson. This is another principal in the Winchester Village 
Land Co. 

The Chairman. Another what ? 

Mr. Henson. Another principal, another party. 

The Chairman. One of the owners ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. He got the money out in his name now ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. He got it in the name of one of the owners ? 

Mr. Henson. Right. 

Senator Ives. Just a minute. Have any of these companies been 
incorporated at all ? 

Mr. Henson. Pardon ? 

Senator Ives. I say have any of these companies been incorporated ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. The Winchester Village Land Co., some 
time in 1956, probably about the period we are speaking of, was 
replaced by a corporation known as North American Development Co. 

The Chairman. But up to this time they had not been incorporated ? 

Mr. Henson. No, sir. 

The Chahjman. They were partnerships. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let's stay out of that a moment. 

The Chairman. Don't get any deeper until we get this cleared up. 
All right. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. I have a photostatic copy of a check stub taken from 
the Aero Realty records m which it records the deposit of $51,020.83, 
and the issuance of a check for this same amount. The explanation 
is A. S. Green, and "exchange of checks." 

21243— 59— pt. 39 12 



14726 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit 126A. We will put it 
in with the other one. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 126A" for 
reference and will be found in the appendix on p. 14908. ) 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Henson. Mr. Green, using the check from Aero Realty — I am 
sorry, sir. The Manufacturers National Bank issued a cashier's check 
to Abe Green for $51,020.83. 

The Chairman. That is the way he got his ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. In other words, he turned in the other check and 
got a cashier's check ? 

Mr. Henson. The Aero Realty check, sir, was to Manufacturers 
National Bank for a cashier's check to A. S. Green. 

The Chairman. We will make those checks exhibits Nos. 127A 
and B. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits Nos. 127A and 
B" for reference and may be found in the appendix on pp. 14909- 
14910.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Then what happened ? 

Mr. Henson. Using this $51,020.83, Mr. Green purchased the fol- 
lowing cashier's checks from the Detroit Bank & Trust Co., payable 
to Daniel LeVine, doing business as F. & L. D. Co., $25,010.42 ; a check 
payable to William and Blanche Pearl, $6,252.61. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the same amount to Jerome Kirschbaum, the 
same amount to Harold Rosemont, and the same amount to Ira E. and 
Bella R, Falk and A. S. Green in the amount of $1,000, making a total 
of $51,020. 

Senator Ives. What is the F. & L. Co.? Is that Fitzgerald and 
LeVine? 

Mr. Henson. No, sir. The name escapes me at the moment. It is 
Federal, I believe ; that is the first word of it. 

Senator Ives. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Those checks you referred to may be made exhibit 
128A, B, C, D, E, and F. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits Nos. 128 A, B, 
C, D, E, and E, and F" for reference and will be found in the appendix 
on pp. 14911-14916.) 

Mr. Kennedy. So they go the $51,000 over to them for the repur- 
chase of this land by the methods you described ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Green, one of the principals, ended up with 
$1,000 for himself? 

Mr. Henson. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Has there been a similar transaction offering a bonus? 
Do you have a letter there showing actually that they were going to 
pay a bonus ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. These last checks I mentioned were dated 
July 6, 1956. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have the letter dated August 17, 1956 ? 

Mr. Henson. July i8. 

The Chairman. Do you have the letter of August 17, 1956? Do 
you have that before you ? 

Mr. Henson. No, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14727 

The Chairman. I present to you a letter here, purportedly from 
Jack I. Winshall, to Manny Harris, dated August 17, 1956, and ask 
you to examine it and state if you identify it. 

(The document was handed to the witness. ) 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That letter may be made exhibit 129. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 129" for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 14917.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, to demonstrate clearly the position 
on these matters, we have this letter of Mr. Manny Harris, with offices 
in the Guardian Building, to the North American Development Co., 
Jack I. Winshall. North American Development Co. was this 
company ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. The Winshall Development Co. ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Manny Harris was who ? He was a lawyer ? 

Mr. Henson. He is the head of a group. Their primary business 
is the ownership of real estate, real property, in Detroit. 

Mr. Kennedy. This deal never went through ; is that right ? 

Mr. Henson. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. But this is what the letter says, Mr. Chairman. 

Dear Sir : In consideration of the sum of $500,000 advanced to North Ameri- 
can Development Co. and its subsidiaries for the purpose of completing the instal- 
lation and improvements of 500 lots in Winchester Village Subdivision, Gaines 
Township, Genesee County, Mich., the undersigned is willing to arrange for the 
repayment of above, along with a bonus of $150,000, which bonus to be so arranged 
to be in the form of a capital gain. The capital gain will be arranged through 
the purchase by you of 70 acres of land for $26,000 and the subsequent repurchase 
of this land by our corporation for the sum of $176,000 within 1 year. 

The 70 acres of land are adjacent to our property. The site of our proposed 
apartment site development is well worth the purchase price. 

The Chairman. You say this transaction never went through ? 

Mr. Henson. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. But it shows the methods of operation. In this case, 
it was going to be a bonus of $150,000. In that case just described, it 
was $40,000. 

The Chairman. They treated this profit over the $10,000 as a bonus 
to Daniel LeVine, is that correct ? 

Mr. Henson. When you say treated, sir, do you mean as recorded ? 

In effect it was a bonus, yes, sir. 

The Chairman. It says here on this witness sheet I have before me — 
to pay bonus to Daniel LeVine and others $51,020.83. 

Mr. Henson. Bonus is my own word, sir. 

The Chairman. Bonus is your word ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. In other words, what you are speaking is this wind- 
fall of profit. 

Mr. Henson. That is right, sir. 

Senator Ives. Could you say commission ? 

The Chairman. It was too big for that. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was one thing I did not ask you earlier when 
we were talking about the property that the Teamsters had left to 
them, some 900 acres. Would you have any idea as to the value of 
this property? 



14728 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Henson. I could get no good measure of it. But using the 
original purchase price, taking into consideration there is now some 
service, but, again, allowing for the fact that the water supply is 
presently inadequate, and there is certainly a limitation of sewage 
facilities, I would say around $300 to $350,000 would be a maximum. 
This is speaking of raw land value, and based on the original purchase 
price. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. That is what they have left from this million dollar 
loan? 

Mr. Henson. That's right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think that is all. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Senator Ives. No. 

The Chairman. We find that we cannot conclude with another wit- 
ness at this morning hour before the Chair would have to leave. For 
that reason, as originally planned, we will recess the hearings until 
next week. I had in mind to resume hearings next Monday afternoon, 
but it might be that I would not be able to return by that time, and 
therefore, we will recess the hearings now until Tuesday morning 
next, at 10 : 30 a. m. 

The committee stands in recess. 

(Whereupon, at 12 :10 p. m. the hearing was recessed, to reconvene 
at 10 : 30 a. m., Tuesday, September 9, 1958, with the following members 
present : Senator McClellan and Ives.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1958 

United States Senate, 
Select Committee on Improper Activities 

in the Labor or Management Field, 

Washington, D. C. 

The select committee met at 10 : 30 a. m., pursuant to Senate Keso- 
lution 221, agreed to January 29, 1958, in the Caucus Eoom, Senate 
Office Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select 
committee) presiding. 

Present: Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas, and 
Senator Irving M. Ives, Kepublican, New York. 

Also present : Kobert F. Kennedy, chief counsel ; Jerome S. Adler- 
man, assistant chief counsel ; Paul Tierney, assistant counsel ; John J. 
McGovern, assistant counsel ; Carmine S. Bellino, accountant ; Pierre 
S. Salinger, investigator ; Leo C. Nulty, investigator ; James P. Kelly, 
investigator; Walter J. Sheridan, investigator; James Mundie, in- 
vestigator, Treasury Department; John Flanagan, investigator, 
GAO ; Alfred Vitarelli, investigator, GAO ; and Ruth Young Watt, 
chief clerk. 

(At the reconvening of the committee, the following members were 
present : Senators McClellan and Ives.) 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

All right, Mr. Kennedy, call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. George Fitzgerald. 

The Chairman. Come forward, please. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I think I have been sworn, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. All right. You may remain under the same oath. 

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE S. FITZGERALD 

The Chairman. Mr. Fitzgerald, would you care to make a state- 
ment first, a brief statement, to open up the testimony this morning? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, I have no prepared statement, Mr. Chair- 
man, but I have 

The Chairman. I thought you would like to make a brief state- 
ment. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. The only thing I did want to say was, and this 
was to correct any apparent inaccuracies — and I don't say "inaccura- 
cies" in bad faith, by any means — in the testimony : In the first place, 
I have no retainer from the Michigan Conference of Teamsters Wel- 
fare Fund. The retainer that was referred to was from the Michigan 
Conference of Teamsters. 

14729 



14730 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Let's see, what was that testimony, as to which 
fund ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, I think Mr. Kennedy did, in one question, 
refer to the joint council No. 43. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. 

The Chairman. I had the impression that you were retained by 
this fund that made the loan ; am I in error ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I was attorney for the fund that made the loan, 
but I was not on a retainer from the fund that made the loan, and I 
have never received — although I have worked as attorney for the 
fund — I have never received any compensation from the fund. 

Mr. Kennedy. You get your fees from joint council 43; is that 
right ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, my fees are paid through joint council 43 
and there is no charge made to the fund. No. 2, I had no financial 
interest, as such, in the Winchester Land or Development Co. No. 3, 
the borrower paid the money, which is a standard practice as far as 
the State of Michigan is concerned in matters involving these loans. 

I think that is about all I can say about it, except one other thing, 
that with respect to the fee, in my opinion the fee that I was paid was 
an adequate fee, and it was not an oppressive fee. 

The Chairman. Do you mean the $35,000 fee, you regard that as a 
proper fee for the particular service you rendered ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That I rendered and that I will still have to render 
until the retirement of the loan. I think that about covers it. If 
there are any questions, if the committee has any or if Mr. Kennedy 
has 

Mr. Kennedy. I have a few questions. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did you first hear about Winshall being inter- 
ested in the loan ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Can I refer to this ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I may not need it, but I don't want to have to 
interrupt the questions. 

Incidentally, I have the Winshall file, my file on the Winshall Co. — 
if I may interrupt, Mr. Kennedy — and there are some other files which 
were requested, which I told you I was making a check up on, and 
which we can turn over to the committee staff. The Winshall file I 
have here, and before I finish I will turn it over to the staff. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. The first time I heard of the Winshall loan was, 
I believe, sometime in the late spring or the early summer of 1955. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was Jack Winshall ; is that right ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No. The first contact that I had on the loan was 
from Mr. Klayman, who was an associate of mine in the office, and Mr. 
Abe Green, who is a copartner or partner of Jack Winshall. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am trying to identify the loan. It was a loan to 
Jack Winshall and the Winchester Development Co. we are talking 
about. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And it was a million dollar loan from the welfare 
fund? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is correct. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14731 

Mr. Kennedy. The Michigan Conference of Teamsters Welfare 
Fund ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You first heard about it through Abe Green; is that 
right ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, when 1 first heard about the loan, I learned 
of his desire to borrow money. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. And that was through Max Klayman, in your 
office ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, 1 am not certain whether it was directly 
through Max Klayman or whether they came together, but I know that 
Abe Green — whether there was a telephone conversation first, Mr. 
Kennedy, or what, I don't know, but I can give you the substance of it. 
That Green said he had learned that the pension fund, or, rather, the 
health and welfare fund, was making loans, and he wondered if a loan 
would be available for the Winchester Village Land Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had done some work, had you, for Abe Green 
prior to this '? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I had done, at some time prior to that— there was 
a bank transaction on the east side of Detroit, or just outside Detroit 
in the suburbs, and they had contacted me on it. They were going to 
participate in the formation of a bank. 

Mr. Kennedy. What year was that ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. This was through Mr. Klayman, incidentally. 

Mr. Kennedy. When was that? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, is was some months before, if my recollection 
serves me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did both you and Klayman work on that matter ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes ; we worked on it very briefly. There was no 
extended work. The thing came to a culmination very briefly. We 
made some contacts to see if the matter could be adjusted between 
Green and Winshall, and some of the other parties who were forming 
this bank, and we found out that no agreement could be reached, so 
we did not do anything about it. 

Mr. Kennedy. So that was through this earlier work that you had 
done for them that they knew you, and knew Mr. Klayman; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, I think Mr. Green knew Mr. Klayman for a 
long period of time before that. But that is at least the way that I 
got acquainted. 

Mr. Kennedy. I understand. Did you arrange a meeting between 
them and the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No ; not originally. You are asking me about 3 
years ago and I am giving you my best recollection. I think it is 
accurate. I think when they discussed it with me, I told them what 
they would have to do is file an application for a loan with the health 
and welfare fund trustees. Whether I hand anything to do with set- 
ting that up or whether I arranged the appointment, I can't exactly 
tell you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have a copy of that application? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is impossible. No ; I haven't. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where is the application ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know. 



14732 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Going through and reviewing the records that we 
had received — — 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Pardon me. When I say application, Mr. Kennedy, 
I don't want you to think it is a formal application. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, did they submit anything in writing ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't think primarily they did. I think that 
either they contacted the welfare fund or, through me they contacted 
the welfare fund, and the trustees, and I think meetings were 
arranged. 

Mr. Kennedy. So, they submitted nothing in writing, but, through 
you, they made arrangements to meet with the trustees of the welfare 
fund? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, that is my best recollection. It is either one 
or the other. But it doesn't make any difference, they got in contact 
with the welfare fund office, and we at that time were in touch with 
the welfare fund. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who in the welfare fund office was contacted ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who, besides you, was contacted about the matter ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, eventually it led to a meeting or a talk with 
some of the trustees, and a meeting with the trustees. 

Mr. Kennedy. Prior to that, you were the only one that had been 
contacted ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you made the arrangements then for them to 
see the trustees ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, you ask me to say something positively. I 
can't say that I did not. I may have done so, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have any idea who else arranged it or who 
else they saw ? That is what I am trying to get from you. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, outside the trustees, no. The more we talk 
about it, I don't want to haggle over it, because they knew me and I 
knew the trustees. So I would assume that I had something to do 
with setting that up. That is possible. 

Mr. Kennedy. You arranged this meeting, then, with the trustees ; 
did you? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, we go back to that. We arranged a meeting 
with the trustees. 

Mr. Kennedy. A meeting was arranged ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa attended that meeting ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No. Well, now, which meeting are you talking 
about ? 

Mr. Kennedy. The first meeting that you had with the trustees ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, I know there was a meeting with the trustees, 
according to a copy of the minutes which I had on October 1. Is that 
the meeting you are referring to ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, if that is the first meeting, Mr. Fitzgerald. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I think that was the first formal meeting, let us put 
it that way, with any of the trustees ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa was present at that meeting ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Hoffa, to my recollection, was present and was 
in and out of that meeting ; yes. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14733 

Mr. Kennedy. Why was he present if he was not a trustee ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, I would have to answer that question gener- 
ally. Mr. Hoffa is generally present at all meetings of any Teamster 
affiliate or Teamster body that has any importance in the State of Mich- 
igan, or particularly in 'the city of Detroit if he is in town. Now, he 
may not participate completely in the meeting, but I think that he is 
in and out of the meeting. 

Mr. Kennedy. I see. Did you request that he come ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No. No; I don't think there was any particular 
request made. 

Mr. Kennedy. During this period of time, October 5, 1955, you had 
some discussions with the representatives of Winchester Development 
Co. about a fee for you? Was it just prior to this meeting that you 
had a discussion witli them about a fee ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, I would say that a fee — a fee was discussed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who did you discuss that with ? Mr. Abe Green ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Abe Green. But I think a great deal of the dis- 
cussion on the fact that there would be a fee took place between Mr. 
Klayman and Mr. Green. I may have participated in the discussion. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the discussion of that fee was just prior to this 
meeting with the trustees ; was it not ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, my recollection is that the question of the 
borrower or of the Winchester Land Co. paying the legal fees was dis- 
cussed prior to that, Mr. Kennedy. 

There may have been a discussion just prior to. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it also discussed at that time that the fee would 
approximate 3% percent of the loan ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No. No ; I don't recall that. 

If there was such a discussion, I did not get that. I know that 
after the loan was consummated, and all of the 

Mr. Kennedy. Wait a minute. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. May I just complete this? 

Mr. Kennedy. Excuse me. Go ahead. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I know that after the loan was consummated, and 
this is my best recollection, that a fee of $35,000 was agreed upon. I 
don't believe, at least in my discussions — at least I don't recall — any 
percentage basis was used, because in setting the fee we took into 
consideration the fact that we had already done considerable legal 
work, even from the beginning, that is, from the inspection of the 
topographical map, and the title search and all of those things, and 
then we also kept in mind the fact that this fee would have to cover 
our work until the loan was retired. 

(At this point members of the committee present are: Senators 
McOlellan and Ives.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Fitzgerald, you discussed a figure of $35,000 
prior to the time or during the period of these meetings, did you not? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, that is possible, but my best recollection is, 
Mr. Kennedy, that the exact amount was agreed upon afterward. 

Mr. Kennedy. We had an interview with Mr. Green — I will show 
this to you — and he was asked, "You agreed to pay Fitzgerald $35,000 
before you got the loan ? Mr. Green. 'Yes.' " 

Then there is something in the documents about legal fees. 



14734 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I am not going to say that is not so. I am only 
giving you my best recollection. I know this. That Mr. Klayman 
and Mr. Green had several discussions about the fee and all I can tell 
you is what was transmitted to me. I may have participated in some 
of those discussions. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was agreed, was it not, that it would be a con- 
tingent fee, contingent upon their receiving the loan ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, not to my understanding. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say it was not ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Not to my understanding. Well, yes, it would 
have to be. When you say contingent, yes. In other words, if the 
loan was not granted, since the borrower was going to pay for the 
money, I would assume that if we had done this legal work, if they 
didn't get the loan 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you wouldn't get the fee ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That never occurred to me. Now that you bring 
the situation up it seems to make sense. That is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is true. It was contingent upon their obtaining 
the loan ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, yes. I don't think they would want to pay 
$35,000 and then not get this loan. 

Mr. Kennedy. If you were representing the Teamsters and Mr. 
Green, when he was first interviewed by our staff investigators, he 
stated that this was a finder's fee, the money was paid to you because 
of your ability to find a source of money — if you were actually repre- 
senting the Teamsters, Mr. Fitzgerald, why did you discuss the fee 
with them at all? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Because it is common practice both with banks 
and lending institutions within my knowledge that any borrower 
always pays the legal fees. You have 2 questions together and I wish 
you would let me answer 1 thing. Mr. Green, according to my recol- 
lection, came to us with the knowledge, or at least with the impression, 
that he could obtain a loan if it was properly presented from the health 
and welfare fund, or at least that the health and welfare fund were 
loaning money in matters of this kind. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Fitzgerald, I think you answered my question. I 
would like to go on and ask you some other questions. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. We won't argue about it except one thing, Mr. 
Kennedy. Let me straighten this out. My understanding from the 
beginning of this was not a finder's fee. This was a legal fee and the 
work that was done, the legal work, substantiates what I say. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you submit a bill to the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, we did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. If this was a legal fee for the work that you did for 
the Teamsters, why wasn't a bill submitted to the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, it was under according to the escrow agree- 
ment that all fees should be paid by the borrower. Since this matter 
has come up, if I had it to do over again, to eliminate this situation, I 
would have undoubtedly submitted the bill to the welfare fund and 
the welfare fund could have been in turn reimbursed by the borrower. 
That part of it was not done that way in this case. I might say part 
of it might have been because we had never had an instance of this 
kind before. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14735 

Mr. Kennedy. This is the only time you ever followed this pro- 
cedure ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. This is the only time I ever received any fee from 
anything in connection with the welfare fund. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is the only time ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you mention it to the trustees that you were 
receiving $35,000 ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I believe it was understood by the trustees that a 
fee was to be paid by the borrower, but I cannot say to you that the 
amount of the fee was discussed with the trustees. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never told any of the trustees ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I do not believe that the amount of the fee was 
discussed with the trustees. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you disclose to Mr. Hoffa that you were receiv- 
ing $35,000 ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, I don't think any more than I did to the 
trustees. 

Mr. Kennedy. If a specific figure had been discussed of $35,000, why 
wasn't that figure put in the escrow agreement ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I can't tell you that. I can't tell you that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why wasn't it specifically stated in the escrow agree- 
ment that the attorney's fees were to be paid ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. It is fees stated there. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say it was understood that it was attorney's 
fees. Why wasn't it identified as the attorney's fee ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know why it wasn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you draw up the escrow agreement? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No. Well, Mr. Stone drew it and I supervised it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is Mr. Stone from your office ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Stone is associated particularly with Mr. Klay- 
man and both of them are associated with me. 

Mr. Kennedy. In your office you, Stone, and Klayman, who were 
to receive the fee, drew up this agreement. It was drawn up under 
your supervision, why dicLn't you specifically include attorney's fees? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know why we didn't. The question of fee 
is stated there. I assume at that time we thought that was sufficient. 
There was no secret about the fee. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you submit a bill to the company ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No. That I can't tell you. I shouldn't say we 
didn't. I don't know. I know that Mr. Klayman particularly dis- 
cussed this with Mr. Green. I am not certain whether or not a bill 
was sent to the company or not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have a copy in your Winchester file ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, I haven't. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me ask you this: How could you arrive at a 
specific figure as to what your work for the Teamsters would amount 
to prior to your doing the work? How could you arrive at the figure 
of $35,000 prior to your doing any of this work ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I think, Mr. Kennedy, that is a matter of judg- 
ment. We had done considerable work on it and we felt that there 
was considerable work more to be done on it and the figure of $35,000 
was agreed upon mutually between Mr. Klayman and Mr. Green. 
When I learned about it, I ratified it. 



14736 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. You say that the agreement was made between Mr. 
Klayman and Mr. Green. Mr. Green was to receive the loan. You 
were working supposedly, from what you state here, for the Teamsters. 
This was money to be paid for work done by the Teamsters, and yet 
we can't find any evidence even from your testimony that this was 
ever discussed with the Teamsters, for whom you were supposedly 
doing this work. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't see anything particularly wrong with 
that. If the Teamsters were paying it, that would be a different 
matter. But if the borrower was paying it, I think the borrower was 
particularly concerned with how much money would be charged. 
The setting of this fee and the setting of all the fees — and I don't 
wish to argue about it — but I think I can place a certain value on my 
services and I think Stone and Klayman can set a certain value on 
theirs. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you this question. You were actually 
the attorney for the Teamsters. That is correct ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. For the health and welfare fund and at the same 
time Mr. Stone and Mr. Klayman were both acting with me. 

The Chairman. Your firm ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. It is not a firm. They are associates. 

The Chairman. You and your associates ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

The Chairman. If you were going to require the borrower to pay 
all the legal fees, isn't it proper and certainly ethical, and doesn't 
ethics require, that you disclose that to your client and the amount of 
the fee? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I wouldn't say so, Mr. Chairman. I think it is a 
matter of judgment. If the hindsight is better than foresight, if I 
knew that this inquiry was going to be made about it, it would have 
made a difference. The mere fact that this fee was paid, there was no 
attempt to hide it. 

The Chairman. As lawyer to lawyer 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I am talking as lawyer to lawyer. 

The Chairman. I am too, now. As lawyer to lawyer, if you are 
representing the Teamsters and the welfare fund, any money that you 
get from the borrower must be made known to your client. Isn't 
that correct? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I can't answer that question definitely but I am 
not going to disagree with you. I would like to find out about it. 

The Chairman. All right. I may say sometimes arrangements are 
worked out whereby the other side pays the attorney fees and pays 
all of the costs and there is nothing wrong in that? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

The Chairman. There is one thing in my judgment, and I think I 
am right about it, that those facts must be disclosed to your client. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I am not going to disagree with you, Mr. Chairman. 
In my judgment under these circumstances I might feel it wouldn't 
make any difference. 

The Chairman. You may have felt that way. I am saying I have 
no right as a lawyer to represent you, and then get money from the 
other side without making that fact known to you and without your 
approval. I think we agree on it. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14737 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. I am not going to change the fact. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Fitzgerald, in the escrow agreement it states 
here that charges of the escrow agent and all expenses and fees incurred 
by second parties in connection with and in performance of this trans- 
action in the aforementioned mortgage shall be paid by first parties, 
and the escrow agent shall draw upon the escrow fund for payment 
of same. 

Was your fee paid out of the escrow account ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No ; it wasn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. In fact it was handled in a most devious manner, 
was it not ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No ; I don't think so, Mr. Kennedy. In the light 
of circumstances 

Mr. Kennedy. Will you explain how you received it ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes. In the light of circumstances that followed 
it might be capable of that type of interpretation. However, in the 
first place it was our intention that money be paid out of the escrow 
account and now it occurs to me, Mr. Chairman, that may have taken 
care of the objection that the chairman has here. 

Senator McClellan, may I say this to you? That may have taken 
care of the objection, what we are talking about now, that you had. 

The Chairman. I am not making an objection. I am, just declaring 
what I know about the ethics of the profession. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. When this escrow agreement was 
drawn, it was provided in paragraph 7 of the escrow agreement that 
all the fees and the charges including the charges of the escrow agent 
would be paid out of the escrow fund. I think that is exactly what 
we had in mind at that time. If that had been the case, Mr. Chair- 
man — and I am answering Mr. Kennedy's question but referring to 
you — if that had been the case, then the health and welfare fund 
would have known the amount of the fee. It would have been made 
known to them because it would have been an abstraction from the 
escrow account. That is correct. 

The Chairman. They might have found out later that way. But 
in the escrow agreement, if you provided for it that way, and the 
welfare fund of the Teamsters signed the escrow agreement, then they 
had knowledge of it ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

The Chairman. But you do not say in the escrow agreement spe- 
cifically, nor do you state the amount ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Nor is it mentioned in any of the minutes of any 
of the meetings % 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, that is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then the third thing, of course, is that it was not 
handled that way ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is what I was going to cover, Mr. Kennedy, 
in answer to your question. After the culmination of this deal and 
the money was deposited — and I am generally relying on hearsay, but 
I think it is reliable — that it was the intention to obtain the money 
from the escrow account, and Mr. Green and the representatives of 
the company, as I understand it from Mr. Klayman, did not want to 



14738 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

abstract that money from the welfare, or from the escrow account, in 
view of the fact that they had a deal they were closing with the Gen- 
eral Motors Co. on a piece of property in the general area of the 
Winchester Village. They had, as I remember it, acquired this land 
in May 1955. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Maybe we could let Mr. Eickmeyer summarize it, un- 
less you have it exactly. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I think so. If I haven't, he can correct me. This 
I have gotten mostly from Mr. Klayman. And they had an option, 
or I should say that they had acquired some property with a down 
payment, and the General Motors Corp. had an option on it, which 
was executed some time in May 1955, and was to run until February 
1956. Mr. Green, according to my understanding, talked to Mr. 
Klayman, and said "Instead of taking this out of the escrow account, 
why can't you people wait until this deal is closed with the General 
Motors?" 

I know definitely, of my own knowledge, that Mr. Klayman dis- 
cussed this matter with me, and I told him that I could not see any- 
thing wrong about it. We discussed the fact that the escrow agree- 
ment provided that it be paid out of that. It was agreed between us, 
as lawyers, that that provision in the escrow agreement, in section 7, 
was a permissive provision and not a mandatory provision. So we 
stood on that basis. They had first said, I believe to Mr. Klayman, 
that General Motors was going to exercise it any day. Mr. Klayman 
contacted them some time around the first part of December, and said, 
"Well, this escrow agreement has not been executed." 

I should say "The option has not been exercised by the General 
Motors, and we should get our fee." 

I think at that time Mr. Green suggested to Mr. Klayman, so that 
we would have full protection on the fee, that he would assign not 
the option but the proceeds of the option, proceeds of the sale of the 
property under the option, to myself and Mr. Klayman so that when 
General Motors did exercise the option, eventually we would have 
security for our fee. That, I understand, was done. 

Now, in February, General Motors did not exercise the option, and 
it was extended from February 28, 1956, to July 10, 1956. At that 
time, according to my information, the option was exercised, and I 
gave a power of attorney to Mr. Klayman to handle my end of it. He 
went to Flint and met with Mr. Green and met with Brownell and 
Gault, the attorneys for the General Motors Corp. 

At that time, a check was delivered to Mr. Green for in excess of 
$60,000 or $65,000, and right at the time Mr. Green obtained the 
cashier's check and made a cashier's check payable to Mr. Klayman 
and myself for the $35,000 or $34,010, something around that amount. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was in July 

Mr. Fitzgerald. And at the same time we gave to General Motors, 
Klayman gave to General Motors, an assignment of the assignment of 
the proceeds. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was in July of 1956 ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is what they advised me. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is about 8 months after this deal had been 
consummated ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14739 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right; 

Mr. Kennedy. After the loan had been made ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. This served also, Mr. Fitzgerald, to keep the whole 
transaction most secret, did it not ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, I don't think so, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is what the practical result of it was, was it 
not? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, I don't think so. That wasn't my intention, at 
least. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not talking about your intention, I am saying 
as a practical matter 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, no. What inference you draw depends upon 
what side of the table you are sitting on. As far as I am concerned, 
there was no reason to keep it secret. When I received my check 
from Klayman, I made a deposit of it in the bank. 

Mr. Kennedy. You received a cashier's check. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. A cashier's check from Klayman for $15,750. 

Mr. Kennedy. Nobody would know that that had in turn come 
from Mr. Green. You received a cashier's check from the man who 
worked in your office. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I know, but the attorneys for General Motors — 
anyone that wanted to find out about it did not have to go down in a 
well and dig around. They would merely have to go to the attorneys 
for General Motors. There were people by the name of Grubb, I un- 
derstand, who were at that meeting, and they were paid at the same 
time. I don't think there is anything sinister about that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell the escrow agent that you were han- 
dling the matter in this fashion ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever tell the escrow agent that you were 
to receive a fee ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't think I did, and I don't think I was under 
any duty to tell the escrow agent that. 

Mr. Kennedy. My only point is, Mr. Fitzgerald, is that really no- 
body knew that you were going to receive the fee, except Abe Green, 
Klayman, your partner, yourself, and Stone. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, I don't think that's true, because anyone that 
would read the escrow agreement would know we were going to re- 
ceive a fee. 

Mr. Kennedy. It does not say anything in here about attorney's 
fees. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. It says "fee." If they didn't add the word attor- 
ney is something I can't tell you about now. 

Mr. Kennedy. You can tell us about it, because you drew it up. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I helped to draw it up. But the fact that it does 
not say attorney's fee does not mean we were trying to hide it. If we 
were trying to hide an attorney's fee and trying to act in a sinister 
manner, Mr. Klayman would not have taken an assignment in the 
first place, he would not have gone to General Motors, he would not 
have talked to the attorneys for General Motors, he would not have 
gone to a bank and gotten a cashier's check. And when he gave me 
my cashier's check, I would not have deposited it in the regular way 
in my bank. 



14740 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. I think we just proved it. General Motors would 
certainly know nothing about your arrangement on the purchase of 
this land. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Certainly anyone who would ask about it — and 
incidentally, I was never asked by any of the staff about this trans- 
action, and I am not complaining about it, but I was never asked by 
the staff about this transaction until just now, or until you asked me on 
the telephone. 

Mr. Kennedy. But the facts remain that the only individuals who 
knew about the fee were yourself, Max Klayman, Stone, and the 
Green interests ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, I don't agree with you on that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who else knew about it ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, I don't know who else knew about it. But I 
know that everybody who had anything to do with the case was in a 
position to know about it. What they knew, I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. We talked to the trustees and they said they never 
knew about it, at least the employer trustees. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. If they did not know about it, they did not read 
the escrow agreement and must have thought that this legal work was 
being done for nothing. Certainly these employee trustees or no one 
else is going to do that much work for nothing. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you tell me anyone else who knew about it, Mr. 
Fitzgerald, other than you, your partners, and the people who re- 
ceived the fee? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. About the fact that 

Mr. Kennedy. About the fact that you received $35,000. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, I don't know that. I don't know what they 
knew. I know that there was no intention on my part and no effort 
on my part to hide the fee from anybody, as is disclosed by the facts. 

Mr. Kennedy. What work did you actually do, Mr. Fitzgerald, for 
the $35,000? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, the first thing we did was we made an in- 
spection of the topographical map or chart. 

Mr. Kennedy. All right, you looked at the map. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Now, don't make it that simple, Mr. Kennedy. I 
don't like your inference. 

Mr. Kennedy. All right. You examined the topographical map. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. You make it appear as though it is just a road- 
map or something. That isn't so. 

Mr. Kennedy. All right. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I was a prosecutor myself and I know what you 
can do with those things. 

Mr. Kennedy. Shall I put it in your language? You examined 
the topographical map ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Right. 

Give me just a minute. I will find this in just a moment. 

Now, when you say "we," or what did I do, I might say that most 
of this was, from myself, in a supervisory capacity, or a lot of it was, 
because there were three people involved, Mr. Klayman, myself, 
and Mr. Stone. 

So when you say "What did you do," I hope you are considering 
the plural, because it all came under our work. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14741 

Now, first of all, we examined the topographical map and then we 
made at least one visit and I believe — I think Mr. Klayman may have 
made more visits — to Flint, inspecting the property. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever go out and look at the property ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. What? 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you go out to look at the property ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You went out ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I did, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. During this period of time ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. During that period of time. I am sure I did. 
And we checked into all the experience of the developers. They 
furnished at that time, for our inspection, quite a bit of material 
about the big developments, 4 or 5 developments, that they had had 
along these lines. Mr. Klayman, I know, consulted with several peo- 
ple who were in the land developing business as to the capabilities 
and capacities of this particular organization as developers. And 
then 

Mr. Kennedy. Just on that. Do you have any documents there on 
their background and experiences, the developers ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, at that time we did. Now, most of it was 
in the possession of the Winshall Co., or of the Winchester Land 
Co. I know we saw — I know there were 4 or 5 developments that they 
had prior to this time on the east side of the city of Detroit. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't have anything at this time ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. According to my recollection, no. 

Mr. Kennedy. All right. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. We made a thorough check and study of the law 
on the thing. We had a title search made, which was checked. And 
then we drew up all the legal papers. We had any number of con- 
ferences on it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wait a minute. All the legal papers, what would 
that consist of ? The escrow agreement ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, the legal papers eventually. Incidentally, 
this was not just done in the course of a conference. We had several 
conferences over this thing. We had several conferences over the 
question of the appraisal. We had what boiled down finally to a 
mortgage or mortgage note and the escrow agreement. I don't want 
to be limited to that, but I am giving you my offhand recollection of 
it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that what you did ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, yes, over a period from, I would say, some 
time in August until October when this loan was granted. 

Mr. Kennedy. I have made notes as you told me. That consists 
of examining the topographical map. You made several visits ; you 
looked into the experience of the developers; you had consultations; 
you looked up the law ; you searched the title ; and you drew up the 
escrow agreement and the mortgage. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you charged $35,000 for that? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, we didn't. No, we didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am asking you, what did you do, then ? 

21243— 59— pt. 39 13 



14742 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That was all of the work done up to the time the 
loan was granted. From that time on 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me ask you this : Did you get personal financial 
statements from the individuals ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. We saw, if I recall — when you talk about financial 
statements, I am not positive on that. But no, I don't want to say we 
did, and I don't want to say we did not see any financial statements. 
But we knew the financial institutions they were doing business with. 
We knew that they had been 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you check with those banks ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I believe a check was made. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have any letters that you wrote to the bank ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, where are the financial statements ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know. I don't say that there was financial 
statements in the sense that you are talking about, but what I do say 
is that the big thing in the land developing business, and no matter if 
a man was worth $10 million, his capacity and capability as a land 
developer is the most important thing, and his experience. That was 
what we were chiefly concerned about. 

Mr. Kennedy. You would want to know what his financial status 
was and, to find that out, you get a financial statement. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. At that time, I believe everybody was satisfied. I 
know that I was satisfied of the financial stability of these people. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where are the documents ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I have no documents on it. 

Mr. Kennedy. If you are representing the Teamsters Union, that 
would be one of the first things you would get, a financial statement. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Everything was checked out. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where are the documents on it ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I have no documents on it at this time. Everything 
that we asked for at that time was offered for our inspection. 

The Chairman. Mr. Fitzgerald, you dealing with a million dollars 
from a pension fund. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

The Chairman. You are going to make a loan. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

The Chairman. You expect to handle that money in a businesslike 
way and on the basis of sound business principles. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

The Chairman. Isn't the very first thing you would do when you 
go to make loans to individuals is to get a financial statement from 
them? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. This was not a loan, Mr. Chairman, to an individ- 
ual. This was a loan to a land developing company. 

The Chairman. But it was a partnership, and, therefore, the loan 
was to individuals. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

The Chairman. Well, it was to individuals. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. I am certain that at that time a 
check was made of their financial standing and I think satisfactory 
proof was offered at that time. 

The Chairman. I would say this, in handling union welfare and 
pension funds, there certainly ought to be a check. A loan certainly of 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14743 

that dimension ought to be handled just as strictly as a bank would 
handle it. You are dealing with trust funds here, money that is set 
aside to pay pensions with, and the welfare of workers. It should have 
been handled with every safeguard. You agree with me on that ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Oh, I will agree with you on that ; yes. 

The Chairman. All right. Incilentally, there is one thing I forget 
to mention. There were two independent appraisals made of this prop- 
erty, too, do you have those ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. The committee staff, I believe, has those. They got 
copies of them from the health and welfare fund. I asked the health 
and welfare fund to turn everything over to them some time ago. 

Mr. Kennedy. They, of course, were appraisals of what the land 
would be worth if this project went through, and everything was suc- 
cessful. 

M. Fitzgerald. That is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were not appraisals of the land as it was worth 
at that time. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. The land at that time was not raw land. It was 
engineered land. That is the way to put it. The appraisals were based 
on what the property would be worth on completion. I think you 
are right about that. 

Mr. Kennedy. You stated also, Mr. Fitzgerald, that you went out 
and inspected the land. At this meeting of October 1, 1955, it was 
stated by Mr. Babcock and Mr. Green who were present at the meeting 
representing Winshall & Associates, that the acreage was originally 
raw land but is presently what is called in the trade "engineered 
acreage." He stated further that considerable improvements had 
already been done on the land and that approximately $1,200,000 had 
already been spent for the land and engineering, which was proceeding 
rapidly. 

When you went out there did you see $1,200,000 ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No ; I am glad you brought that up, Mr. Kennedy. 
With all due respect to this young gentleman, Mr. Babcock, I do not 
recall any statement made at that time that there was $1,200,000 put 
in that land. 

Mr. Kennedy. I mean from the minutes. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Wait. May I complete it? I know it is in the 
minutes, but I don't want to do an injustice to someone even though it 
would be much easier for me to say that Mr. Babcock said that because 
he is in the minutes. I can't do that in justice to him. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not questioning 

Mr. Fitzgerald. May I just say 

Mr. Kennedy. Go ahead. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I will try to make it brief. My best recollection is 
that the representation made was that they had about $200,000 or 
more in this land from the standpoint of the land and the engineering 
cost, and a lot of other stuff, exclusive of the time they had spent on it 
themselves. At that meeting there were a lot of figures kicked around, 
$1 million and $2 million and all of that sort of stuff, and we talked 
not only about the Winchester Land Co. in Flint, but the Winshall 
Development, in Clinton Township. It may be possible that whoever 
drew those minutes made a mistake on it. It may be possible that Mr. 
Babcock said that. But I think there is a transposition of that from 
something else. That is all I can say about it. 



14744 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. I am talking not only about Mr. Babcock, but your- 
self. When you went out there, did you see $1,200,000 worth of 
improvement ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know much about land just looking at it, 
but certainly no, it didn't look like a million two hundred thousand 
dollars to me, and I don't think it possibly could have been that way at 
that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. What good did it do ? You say you went out there 
and looked at the land, and now you say you don't know much about 
the land. Do you know much about examining a topographical map ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Not too much about it. I am a lawyer. I don't 
presume to be any expert on land. But I did the same thing that you 
or any other lawyer would do under the circumstances. I wanted to 
see the property that was in question. 

Mr. Kennedy. When you looked into their finances, Mr. Fitzgerald. 
did you find that their liabilities exceeded their assets by $10,000 \ 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I heard that testimony. I couldn't say that. I 
want to say this, however, Mr. Kennedy. The big thing we were con- 
cerned with at that time was the value of the land, whether it would 
make a good investment, and the experience and capabilities of the 
investors, what we based it on was upon the appraisals that we had 
from these two independent appraisers. 

Mr. Kennedy. Certainly to understand their capabilities Mr. Fitz- 
gerald, you have to know about what their assets are and their liabili- 
ties. An examination of their liabilities and assets of that time would 
have indicated to you that their liabilities exceeded their assets by 
$10,000. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, I don't recall that phase of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are getting $35,000 for doing this, Mr. Fitz- 
gerald. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I can't answer something on that. In the first 
place, I am not in the banking business. I could not make any expert 
judgment on a matter of that kind. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is why I don't understand why you were get- 
ting $35,000 for it, 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I think I have earned the $35,000 and will earn 
it before this thing is over, because we have to work on this until the 
loan is retired. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say that 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I didn't get the $35,000. I got $15,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say there were two appraisals. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Two independent appraisals. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have only one appraisal. Do you have copies 
of the two appraisals ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Pardon me. I just have one. I have both ap- 
praisals from the file. Didn't Mr. Bellino get two appraisals on it? 

Mr. Kennedy. We have only one appraisal. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I will be glad to have you inspect it, but because 
it does constitute a legal file on the thing I would be happy to make a 
copy of it, but I will produce it for you so you will see it. Is 
that O.K.? 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you want to hand it up here now ? 

Air. Fitzgerald. Yes ; as long as you don't keep it, 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14745 

Mr. Kennedy. We will inspect it and hand it back to yon. Just so 
a copy can be made. It will be returned to you. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. It is not to me. 

Mr. Kennedy. It will be returned to yon as the attorney for them. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I will give you both appraisals so you can distin- 
guish between them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Fitzgerald, let me ask you, What authority did 
you have to waive the provisions of the escrow agreement ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't think I did, Mr. Kennedy. I don't think 
I waived it, 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the purpose of the letters, then, that you 
wrote of November 11, 1955 ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Could I see the letters, please ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I will tell you what, If you want to use them for 
the purposes of the examination, I have a copy of one of the letters, 
and the other letter I have not, but I have Mr. Henson's testimony, 
if it is complete. Could I check it against the testimony ? 

Mr. Kennedy. November 11, 1955. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That letter I am sure I have a copy of. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let us talk about that first. We can expedite it. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes, I am sorry. I have it, 

Mr. Kennedy. This letter says : 

It has come to my attention that the aforementioned escrow agreement is not 
sufficiently inclusive to allow you to pay certain expenses of Winchester Vil- 
lage Land Co. incident to the improvements there contemplated. Since our 
agreement with them is such that all moneys received by virtue of sales of 
any part of the mortgaged premises be placed in the escrow, it was our inten- 
tion that all expenses be paid from the escrow fund. 

Why did you write that letter ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. My recollection is that either Mr. Green or Mr. 
Winshall or somebody — Mr. Babcock, the attorney — came to me and 
stated that the escrow agent — that they had some talks with the 
escrow agent about whether or not some of these bills ought to be 
paid. This was very early in this transaction. To be frank with 
you, I have very little recollection of what it covered. When Mr. 
Schultz testified, I believe Mr. Schultz testified he did not know what 
bills it covered, it was miscellaneous bills. Frankly, Mr. Kennedy, 
I can't tell you. I am inclined to believe, however, from the letter 
that some of these bills came in there, investigation invoices came in 
not billed to the Winchester Village Land Co., but had come in billed 
to the Winshall Associates and different names were used. I think 
that was the chief cause of the difficulty. I am not certain about that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why was it necessary to write the letter if they had 
the escrow agreement, and were following the escrow agreement? 
Why was it necessary for George S. Fitzgerald to write a letter to 
them? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. You are asking me now ?> years later why it was 
necessary for me to write a letter and to be frank with you it is very 
difficult for me to answer, because Mr. Schultz even said, and I was 
hoping he could refresh my memory on it — that is, from his testi- 
mony — that he did not know what bills it covered. It covered mis- 
cellaneous bills. Frankly I can't recall that. 

Mr. Kennedy. The escrow agreement 



14746 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I think that letter has to speak for itself. I am 
not saying that to avoid answering. If he could not remember what 
bills it covered, Mr. Kennedy, surely I can't. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is my point. I do believe it should speak for 
itself. The escrow agreement under section (c) states that the con- 
tractor shall be entitled to payment on his contract upon the certifi- 
cate of the supervising architect or engineer. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. This letter allowed the escrow agent to pay bills 
that were submitted other than those that were certified by contractor 
or engineer. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, that was not the intention of the letter. I 
don't see how it could be read into the letter. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me read this to you : 

It has come to ruy attention that the aforesaid escrow agreement is not 
sufficiently inclusive to allow you to pay certain bills of the Winchester Village 
Land Co. incident to the improvements therein contemplated. Since our 
agreement with them is such that all moneys received by virtue of sales of 
any part of the mortgaged premises to be placed in escrow, it was our inten- 
tion that all expenses incurred incident to the improvement of said premises 
should be paid from escrow account. 

Mr. Fitzgerald, this is what led to the bills of the Aero Co. being 
paid. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Kennedy, that is a verj^ far-fetched idea, and 
I heard that testimony. This letter on November 11, 1955, in no wise, 
in my judgment, could be construed as a release to the escrow agent 
that they pay all kinds of bills. It would not to me if I was the 
escrow agent in any way. The escrow agent uses this apparently as 
their excuse, and I don't pay the escrow agent ; if some bills presented 
to them turned out to be phony later on, how they would know about 
it. I don't know how I would know about it sitting over in the 
building 

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

Mr. Kennedy. You would not have had a problem, Mr. Fitzgerald, 
if you had not written that letter. You told them to pay all bills. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, no. The bills that this covered was mis- 
cellaneous invoices that was at that time. This was no coverall 
authority to the escrow agent, in my judgment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Fitzgerald, it clearly states that any bills that 
are submitted 

Mr. Fitzgerald. For the improvements of the land. 

Mr. Kennedy (continuing). Should be paid. This escrow agree- 
ment does not say that. This escrow agreement says — 
on the certification of the supervising engineer or architect. 
That is far different from this. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, it would have to be within the spirit, if not 
the letter, at least in the spirit of the escrow agreement. 

Mr. Kennedy. If you had not written that letter, Mr. Fitzgerald, 
these bills would not have been paid. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, I don't agree with you, Mr. Kennedy. 

The Chairman. If it wasn't to change the escrow agreement or 
to modify it, or to relax it, so to speak, what was the purpose of the 
letter ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14747 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, I caD only say, Mr. Chairman, what Mr. 
Schultz said. I have no independent recollection of this. I am de- 
pending on the letter, and I am depending on Mr. Schultz' testimony. 
He said that this was made to cover miscellaneous bills that were 
presented at that time, and he did not recall what they were. Now, 
I don't know, because I never saw the bills. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you this : The escrow agreement spoke 
for itself, didn't it? It set out the terms upon which the money was 
to be paid out, 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

The Chairman. Then you say in this letter "Please accept this as 
your authority and direction." 

He already had his authority and direction spelled out in the escrow 
agreement. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

The Chairman. Then this was to modify it or to extend it or ex- 
pand it or something ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, it all depends on how it occurs to the indi- 
vidual. 

The Chairman. He already had the authority and direction as pro- 
vided in the escrow agreement. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, now, Mr. Chairman, the escrow agreement 
had not only the letter to contend with, but the spirit of it, just like 
the laws that you pass have not only the letter of the law but the 
spirit and the intent of Congress in making the law. 

The Chairman. Well, O. K. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I think that covers this particular escrow agree- 
ment. 

Mr. Kennedy. I will ask you about the letter of December 9, 1955. 
I will ask you if this does not change the escrow agreement. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know if I have that complete. 

Mr. Kennedy. This says : 

You are authorized to release to the Winshall Associates $100,000 for their 
use in picking up these tap privilege certificates in Clinton Township. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Does the letter start out — I think Mr. Henson read 
the whole letter or Mr. Schultz. 
Mr. Kennedy. December 9, 1955. 
Mr. Fitzgerald (reading) : 
Pursuant to your telephone conversation of yesterday — 

is that they way it starts ? 
Mr. Kennedy. That is right. 
Mr. Fitzgerald. I think the whole letter is here. 
Mr. Kennedy. Then it says : 

You are hereby authorized to release to Winshall Associates $100,000 for their 
use in picking up tap privilege certificates in Clinton Township. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. What authority did you have to do that ? 
Mr. Fitzgerald. Do you want me to explain the whole transaction ? 
Mr. Kennedy. Let me ask you this : 

"I have discussed this matter with my clients and it is our feeling." 
Did you discuss this with the trustees ? 



14748 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I discussed, and since this matter has come up I 
have tried to recall, and it is my belief that I discussed this with one 
of the trustees, Mr. Frank Fitzsimmons, on the telephone. I did not 
discuss the entire details of the transaction with him, but my recol- 
lection is that I told him that the Winchester Land Co., or at least the 
copartnership with whom we were doing business, were having diffi- 
culty in Clinton Township. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss it with any of the employer trustees % 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, I am sure I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. When you state in here "I discussed the matter with 
my clients," that is not correct? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, I did — I — do you mean the plural part of 
it isn't right? 

Mr. Kennedy. "I have discussed this matter with my clients" is 
not correct, 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That perhaps is in error. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you released $100,000 for work done in a differ- 
ent area, some 65 miles away, is that correct ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, it isn't as simple as that. I did not release 
it. 

Mr. Kennedy. I will let you explain it, but isn't that correct? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, I don't think that I released it. That is why 
I wanted to explain it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Go ahead. 

The Chairman. All right. Go ahead. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I want to explain it in the light of the testimony 
of the escrow agent that he could not see — not the escrow agent but 
the employee of the escrow agent- — he could not see how helping a 
development 70 miles away could help Winchester Village. Along 
that time, and that was in December sometime, or prior to that, along 
about that time in Clinton Township, in Macomb County, these peo- 
ple who made the loan from the health and welfare fund had a develop- 
ment going, and Clinton Township — there was a lot of building going 
on on the east side. I am going to try to simplify this as much as I 
possibly can, in my layman fashion, as far as land is concerned. 

Clinton Township had expanded beyond their capacities, not only 
of water but of sewer and drainage, as did most of those east side 
communities that were springing up under this building boom. Clin- 
ton Township found itself in a position where it had to refinance 
itself to the extent of about nine hundred or nine hundred and fifty 
thousand dollars in order to put in this sewer expansion. 

Clinton Township, according to my understanding, would be able 
to raise $500,000 to cover the cost of this expansion, by bonds; the 
other $450,000 would have to be raised to assist the township, would 
have to be raised by the developers who were working in that area. 
And there was 3 or 4 big developers, one of whom was the Winshall 
Co. 

They came to me — and I have found a memorandum which I am 
turning over to the committee, I would like to read it and then you 
can have it. This was given to me as just a memo at the time we 
had these several discussions of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. I don't see that this is answering the question at all. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, it will, in just a minute. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14749 

The Chairman. Go ahead. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I would like to abbreviate it, Mr. Kennedy, but I 
can't, and properly explain it. 

The Chadrman. All right. Go ahead. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Now, they gave me this memorandum stating that 
it was necessary for Clinton Township to get this help financially; or 
all of the projects, including their own in Clinton Township would 
fall, would collapse, because Clinton Township could not provide 
sewers. They represented to me that if that happened, if Clinton 
Township could not provide sewers because they could not raise the 
money, all these big developments would fall, including their own, 
and, as a consequence, all of the builders would also collapse. The 
road contractors who were putting in roads and who had done a con- 
siderable amount of work would collapse. 

The material men would be left hanging. And if that happened, 
the Winchester Village in Clinton Township would likewise collapse. 
They further represented that if that happened, if that entire thing 
went to pieces, then that would be the end of their development in the 
Flint area, that is, the Winchester Village on which we had the mort- 
gage. 

The Chairman. Mr. Fitzgerald, I notice this letter was written 
December 9, 1955. The loan was made when ? October of what date? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. October 1955. 

Mr. Kennedy. October 11. 

The Chairman. That is less than 2 months after this million dollar 
loan was made. According to your testimony now, the whole thing 
was about to collapse ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

No, no, no. Oh, no, no ; oh, Mr. Chairman, no. I am talking about 
this development in Clinton Township. 

The Chairman. That was a different thing than what you had 
made this million dollar loan on ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. But this whole Winchester devel- 
opment in Clinton Township would collapse, because Clinton Town- 
ship could not adequately supply sewage facilities. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you this. I am trying to follow you. 
Suppose Clinton Township collapsed. Where was your obligation to 
go in there and bail it out, or the obligation of the escrow agent to 
bail it out? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. If Clinton Township collapsed, Mr. Chairman, 
the Winchester Village project would have collapsed right around 
our ears. 

The Chairman. Why should it ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Because the builders that were involved in the 
Clinton Township development, the material men, and the road con- 
tractors, and the sewer contractors, and everything else, that were 
being used in Clinton, were the same sewer contractors being used in 
Winchester. 

The whole project in— if there was a collapse of the Clinton Town- 
ship project, not only the Winchester Co. itself, but all of the people 
with whom they did business, and their credit and everything else, 
would have stopped immediately. 

The Chairman. All right. Within 2 months after this loan was 
made, the loan was in jeopardy. 



14750 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Because of this. 

The Chairman. All right. It was in jeopardy. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. It could have been in jeopardy because of that. 
Yes. I am not going to disagree. It is not because of anything out 
in Winchester, but because of this. 

The Chairman. Up to that time, only $500,000, I believe, of the 
money had actually been advanced. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

The Chairman. Still $500,000 or half of it was in escrow. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Only $500,000 had come from the Teamsters to the 
escrow agent, but hardly any of that had been paid out as of that 
time. 

The Chairman. I did not quite understand it. 

I noticed the $500,000. Now, if I understand you correctly, up to 
that time, within less than 2 months, when you ran into this distressing 
situation where you had to divert the $100,000 up to another project, 
less than $500,000 had actually been spent. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I can't say that. I can only go by the records. 
I am not going to disagree with the records. 

The Chairman. Can you tell us how much had been paid out as of 
that time? 

Let's get the real picture as to what the situation was up to that time. 
Up to this December 9 letter, how much money had actually been paid 
into the escrow agent, and how much had he actually paid out on this 
loan ? Can you tell us ? 

Mr. Hen son. There had been $500,000 paid into the escrow fund, 
sir. 

The Chairman. The welfare fund of the Teamsters had actually 
paid to the escrow agent $500,000 ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir ; that is right. 

The Chairman. The loan was for $1 million ? 

Mr. Henson. That is right. 

The Chairman. So $500,000 of the loan was still in the treasury of 
the welfare fund ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Now, what happened to the $500,000 that had 
been paid to the escrow agent ? 

Mr. Henson. Most of this amount, sir, was used to purchase the 
land. 

The Chairman. I am talking about up to the 9th of December. 
What was the status or the balance of that $500,000 that had not been 
paid out? 

Mr. Henson. Offhand, sir, without a chance to check actually, I 
would say approximately $100,000 would remain in the escrow fund. 

The Chairman. In other words, $400,000 had been paid out as of 
that time ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. You see, the terms of the agreement pro- 
vided that the land contract — they had to buy the land with this first 
deposit. They used $370,000 to buy the land, some cows, and a bull. 

Air. Kennedy. They did not even own the land. 

Mr. Henson. The Winchester Village Land Co., sir, did not own 
the land that was pledged as security for the loan. They used the 
proceeds of the Teamsters loan to gain clear title to the land. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14751 

The Chairman. How much did they have to pay out of this amount 
they borrowed to get title to the land ? 

Mr. Henson. About $350,000, sir. 

The Chairman. About $350,000. That is what they paid for the 
land ? 

Mr. Henson. This was the unpaid balance. 

The Chairman. How much had they paid on the land before that ? 

Mr. Henson. $35,000. 

The Chairman. Do you mean that 1,200-and-some-odd acres only 
cost about $385,000 ? 

Mr. Henson. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. Is that your testimony now, from your examination 
of the records ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. This is speaking of the 1,270 acres, approxi- 
mately. 

The Chairman. That is what I am talking about, the 1,270 acres that 
the escrow agreement covered. 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Now, then, the point I wanted to make, Mr. Fitz- 
gerald, I mean, the thing that, on its face looks bad to me, after you 
had bought the land for them, and that is in effect what you had done, 
and then you saw the whole tiling was about to collapse, it looks to me 
like it would signal to you right then and there that it was a bad 
bargain that had been made, and you would start to retrench to save 
that money. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, Mr. Chairman. We are looking at it through 
the eyes of 1958. I was trying to look at it back in those days. There 
was a building boom on, and there was a lot of money invested. What 
Mr. Henson says may be exactly true. I am not going to dispute him, 
because he has been a CPA and over these books, and I have not. My 
understanding, however, is that they had about $140,000 in this land, 
according to the representations that were made to me, and about 
$60,000 in the engineering. That is not in accord with what you just 
said, so I am in no position to argue that out with you. 

The Chairman. I want you, Mr. Henson, to review what you have 
said and review your records. I want it exact. I don't want to be 
unfair in any way at all. I want you to get what the records really 
reflect. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Chairman, I can't argue with it. 

Mr. Kennedy. He can clarify the situation about the difference in 
figures. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. You don't have to clarify it for me. I know he is 
testifying under oath and not attempting to tell an untruth. 

The Chairman. I am not charging that. I do want to be as accu- 
rate as we can from what the records reflect. 

Mr. Henson. There was a payment of approximately $109,000 made 
relative to land adjacent to the Teamsters' property. If you will re- 
call, sir, from the testimony the other day, this had to do with the 
land that was pledged to a Daniel Levine and others as security for a 
$200,000 loan. This was not related to the 1,270 acres of land. 

The Chairman. In other words, some of this money was used to 
buy some more land or pay off the indebtedness on some other land. 



14752 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Henson. No, sir. I am trying to explain Mr. Fitzgerald's 
figure of approximately $200,000 paid for the land, and point out that 
$109,000 related to land not pledged to the Teamsters. 

Mr. Kennedy. They said they had made improvements and spent 
money on lands, that land was land that was not covered by the Team- 
sters. It was an ad j oining piece of land. 

Mr. Henson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is where they had spent their money. 

Mr. Henson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. They had gotten a $200,000 loan and pledged that 
land in connection with that loan. 

Mr. Henson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. This had nothing to do with the Teamsters' land, 
Mr. Chairman, so the figures that he gave to the committee are correct, 
figures. He spent a good deal of time checking them. 

The Chairman. As to the Teamsters' land. The figures you gave 
you say now you are confident are accurate ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. In a few moments I can give you the exact 
figures. 

The Chairman. In round numbers they are accurate. 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You may get the exact figures and supply them for 
the record. 

(The information referred to follows :) 

Downpayinent on purchase of 1,270 acres $35, 000. 00 

Initial survey and road costs 24, 791. 40 

Total 59, 791. 40 

The Chairman. Senator Ives. 

Senator Ives. I would like to back up a little bit and check up on 
something. I think this dissertation started out because Mr. Fitz- 
gerald challenged the statement of Mr. William Schultz, assistant 
secretary of the Abstract & Title Guaranty Company of Detroit, 
Mich.; isn't that right? Some statement that Mr. Schultz made that 
you differed with. In your opinion, what was it? What was it that 
he said that you did not agree with ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Senator Ives, he said that he could not see how this 
property 70 miles away could in any way affect the property in Flint. 

Senator Ives. That is what I thought. Let me ask you a question. 
I take it that the Abstract & Title Guaranty Company of Detroit, 
Mich., is an outfit of good reputation; is it not? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Oh, yes. Yes; that is why we chose them as the 
escrow agent. 

Senator Ives. I figured you would not choose them unless they were 
all right, In this particular field they have a good idea of the value of 
property, haven't they ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, I think in their organization there are men 
who have a good idea of the property. 

Senator Ives. Certainly ; there may be several assistant secretaries, 
but an official with the title of assistant secretary should have an idea, 
Moreover, he would not be expressing himself to this committee under 
oath unless he pretty nearly knew what he was talking about. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14753 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, I think you misunderstood my statement, Sen- 
ator Ives. 

Senator Ives. I wisli to get your statement clearly. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't want it to have the appearance that Mr. 
Schultz categorically having a knowledge of all the facts made a 
statement that it could not affect the Winchester deal. I said he said 
it could not affect the Winchester deal but I do not believe that when 
he said it that Mr. Schultz was in the possession of the facts that I was 
attempting to recount to the committee. That was all. I think Mr. 
Schultz is a very tine gentleman, and I am not — I don't know how 
good a real estate man he is. 

Senator Ives. The point I am making is that he said it and he said 
it under oath. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

Senator Ives. And the company he represents is probably one of 
the best companies in that section of the country. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right, and he probably meant it. 

Senator Ives. That ought to be sufficient authority. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Not for me. 

Senator Ives. Maybe not for you, but it ought to be for us. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't think so, Senator Ives. I am not trying 
to lessen his ability. He probably knows more about land than I do, 
but I don't think that Mr. Schultz — it is only opinion evidence any- 
way, and I don't want to say. I know he gave it in good faith. 

Senator Ives. Wait a minute. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't think he was in possession of all the facts. 

Senator Ives. He undoubtedly gave his opinion in good faith, a 
company like that should have some idea of the values concerned here. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Now that you have reached a point, let me cover 
my letter. 

Senator Ives. I have not reached a point at all. I am trying to talk 
about the testimony of Mr. Schultz. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. All right. Let us talk about Mr. Schultz. I wrote 
this letter, and there has been an attempt by Mr. Schultz, rightly or 
wrongly, to make it appear that a letter of mine made a complete 
change in the agreement. I would like to read the first paragraph 
of the letter to you. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Fitzgerald (reading) : 

Pursuant to our telephone conversation of yesterday relating to the tap certifi- 
cates in Clinton Township, Macomb County, Mich., you are hereby authorized 
to release to the Winshall Associates $100,000 for their use in picking up these 
tap privilege certificates. 

Let me stop there for just a moment, if I may. They were going 
to pick up these tap privilege certificates according to their under- 
standing with us. When they picked them up they were going to take 
them to a bank and they were going to borrow money on the tap 
certificates, and the money that they borrowed would be approxi- 
mately $100,000, and they would return it to the escrow account. 
That was our understanding. That was covered in this agreement 
that I tried to read to you. But this was a temporary arrangement 
to save any collapse of this particular transaction. 



14754 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Now, to bear out what I say to you was my understanding, here is 
the next sentence in the letter : 

It is understood that what mechanics you may use — 

this is to the title company — 

It is understood that what mechanics you may use in connection with the pay- 
ment of the money to them — 

meaning the Winchester Co. — 

or to the proper receiving agency, and what method may be used for the repayment 
of this money into the fund is left to you as the escrow agent and the Winchester 
Land Co. 

Senator Ives. So far as that is concerned, that has nothing to do 
with what Mr. Schultz testified. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Except, Mr. Ives, or Senator 

Senator Ives. "Mister" is all right. I am not fussy about that. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I am sorry. Except that we did set up, or that is, 
we asked the escrow agent to set up machinery, that would cover not 
only the payment of the money to them, but would cover the repayment 
of the money to the escrow account when this crisis was over. 

Senator Ives. On top of everything, Mr. Schultz gave the testimony 
he did. That stands as far as I am concerned. I have great faith in 
that company. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. So have I. So have I. We still do business with 
them. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you, was that $100,000 ever repaid ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, no, Mr. Chairman. As we have since found 
out, it was not. All I can tell you is what I have since learned. That 
$100,000 instead of being returned, and they told us this later on in 
the winter of 1957, they said that money, when they got the $97,000, 
and we were raising cain with them about their whole conduct — this 
thing came to a climax in the winter of 1957 — we said to them, here 
is a matter where $100,000 was released and was to be paid back, and 
the escrow agent and yourselves were to work out the mechanics of 
that thing. They said, "Well, it was put back into the land. It was 
put back into the Winchester Development." I said, "Did it go into 
the escrow account?" They said "No." When they borrowed this 
money on the tap certificates from the Manufacturers' Bank, according 
to what they told me — again it is hearsay 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Fitzgerald 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Wait a minute. Can I say this, and then I am 
through. When they borrowed the money, they should have deposited 
it in the escrow account. They put it in the Manufacturers' Bank in 
the account of the North American Development Co., and according 
to them used the money for the development of Winchester Village. 
That is all. 

The Chairman. Now, let me ask one question. How much is the 
welfare fund going to lose in this transaction? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Personally, Mr. Chairman, I don't think — and I 
am not a real-estate expert or land expert — I don't think the welfare 
fund is going to lose money. I think from the advice that we have 
been given, the welfare fund is going to make a considerable profit 
on it. Before that is done, it is going to take a period of 3 or 4 years 
because Flint is presently a depressed area because of the automobile 
situation. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14755 

The Chairman. As of now, if you foreclose that mortgage, how 
much will you lose ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, Mr. Henson — again I am in a field where 
I don't belong, but I am perfectly willing to answer it. 

The Chairman. All right, if you don't feel competent. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I can't. I am only guessing. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you had an appraisal made of the land that 
is left? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Not yet ; no. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, we have. The land as it is left, Mr. Chair- 
man 

The Chairman. You are talking about that part now that has not 
been released to the purchasers ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is right. According to the appraisal by Mr. 
Lawrence L. Cook of Flint, Mich., who has been in the real estate 
appraisal business since 1929 and has done appraisal work for various 
government agencies, namely the city of Flint, the State of Michigan, 
and also the United States of America in recent years, he states: 

From as careful a study of this problem as time would permit, it is my be- 
lief that the present fair value of the balance of the mortgaged property is 
$351,400, bearing in mind that no value was given to the disposal plant or to a 
speculative value. 

Both of these points have been mentioned above. There is a dis- 
posal plant on the property, Mr. Chairman, that is serving the sewer- 
age facilities for the property that has already been sold. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I believe, Mr. Kennedy, that is worth about a 
quarter of a million dollars. Maybe less, I don't know. Again I am 
not sure. I have not attempted to set any values on it. But I think 
it should be held in mind, Mr. Chairman 

Mr. Kennedy. I don't think you said $250,000 unless you have 
some evidence or information on it, Do you know how much it cost 
to build? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I have to get the figures. About $78,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. $78,000. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I think so. 

Mr. Kennedy. About 75 percent of its capacity now is going to the 
property that has already been sold by the Teamsters. 

The Chairman. On the face of it, it looks like 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't believe that, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. On the face of it from these figures it looks like 
the Teamsters are out around $700,000 or close to it. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Chairman, this is 

The Chairman. I am talking about the interest that is due on the 
loan. You get a million dollars, and you have $60,000 interest due 
as of now. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. The first thing you have to remember is that we 
are in a depression as far as the mortgage and building market is con- 
cerned, and particularly as far as the Flint area is concerned. So it 
would be impossible for us to say that is going to be the loss. If we 
were in normal times and with proper work being put on it by people 
that know their business, I don't think there will be any loss. I be- 
lieve there will be a substantial profit. 

Mr. Kennedy. If you go into the land and sewerage business. 



14756 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Fitzgerald. We are not going into the land business. First, 
we have to deal with the foreclosure, and then we have to let the future 
take care of itself in trying to get people to come in there and de- 
velop it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are the Teamsters going to start running a sewage 
plant? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are going to have to dispose of it. Are you 
going to start developing land in Flint, Mich. ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No ; we cairt do that. I .am in no position to say 
what can be done until after we explore the situation. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to go back for a moment. Did you get 
an agreement with them on this $100,000 for the tap certificates in 
Clinton Township? Did you get an agreement that they would pay 
the money into the escrow account ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No. That was to be done by the escrow agent 
•according to my letter. 

Mr. Kennedy. It does not specifically state so. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes ; it does. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where does it state in the letter, Mr. Fitzgerald, 
that the escrow agent is to make an agreement such as you have 
described ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. "It is understood what mechanics you may use in 
connection with the payment of the money to them or to the proper 
receiving agency and what method may be used for the repayment of 
this money into the fund is left to you as the escrow agent and the 
Winchester Land Co." 

Mr. Kennedy. Where did you inform them, in the letter, that this 
money was to be paid into the escrow account? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I do that there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. You have to read it in its complete context. 

Mr. Kennedy. You read it to me. Where do you tell them to make 
this agreement? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. "It is understood what mechanics you may use in 
connection with the payment of the money to them" — meaning the 
Winchester Land Co. — "to the proper receiving agency and what 
method may be used for the repayment of this money into the fund is 
left to you as the escrow agent and the Winchester Land Co.'' It was 
their responsibility to draw up the contract. 

Mr. Kennedy. You said you had some agreement, Mr. Fitzgerald, 
whereby the $100,000 would go into the escrow account. Where did you 
inform them, in the letter, that you had such an agreement ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. The letter speaks for itself, and that is about as 
far. I would assume if you gave an escrow agent those instructions, he 
would reach an agreement and reduce it to writing. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever see that was done, Mr. Fitzgerald ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No; I did not. That was the duty of the escrow 
agent. 

Mr. Kennedy. You wrote them the letter. You waived the provi- 
sions of the contract. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Whether I did or not is another matter. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wait a minute, Mr. Fitzgerald. The escrow agree- 
ment says that the money is to be spent on this land. It doesn't say 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14757 

anything about Clinton Township. You wrote the letter waiving the 
agreement. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. If there was a temporary waiver, we waived it, but 
the agreement was that it was to be paid back. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. The agreement — you say you made a verbal agree- 
ment, Where did you ever tell anybody that this agreement had been 
made. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Which was to be set up by the escrow agent and 
the Winchester Land Co. That was left entirely to them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where was the letter you wrote to the trustees, tell- 
ing them you had waived the provisions ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. We didn't write any letter to the trustees, because 
I didn't think that was any waiver of the terms of the escrow agree- 
ment, 

Mr. Kennedy. You just said you thought it was a temporary waiver, 
Mi-. Fitzgerald. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Not a temporary waiver. If I used the word 
"waiver," I misspoke myself. It was a temporary arrangement in 
order to save this whole transaction. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Fitzgerald, the agreement states specifically that 
the money is to be used for Winchester Village, the development of 
that land. You gave them money to go into Clinton Township, 
some 60 miles away. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Kennedy, you have to put your own interpre- 
tation on it and I have to put mine. In my interpretation, it did not 
constitute any waiver. 

Mr. Kennedy. It isn't a question of interpretation. I want to find 
out where you wrote a letter to the trustees and told them about this 
waiver. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I told you there was no such waiver done, because 
there was no waiver in my estimation. It was all a matter of my 
own legal judgment or my judgment as an attorney. 

Mr. Kennedy. It would appear to me, as we have gone along so 
far, Mr. Fitzgerald, that you were much more interested in the rights 
of the recipients of the loan than you were of the Teamsters Union. 
Every agreement that you made was for the benefit of the recipient 
of the loan, and nothing for the benefit of the Teamsters. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, that isn't true, and that isn't the way I felt and 
it isn't they way I acted. But it all depends on what side of the 
table you are sitting on when you say those things. 

Mr. Kennedy. When you allowed them to use the money for the 
Clinton Township, did you inquire or find out what the financial 
status of Clinton Township was ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, other than to know that I had been out to 
Clinton Township and I had seen the tremendous developments, and 
I know that apparently if they did not have the money, they cer- 
tainly had unlimited credit, because they were building roads and 
sewers, and houses going up and everything else. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know what the mortgage was at that time ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. On what ? 

Mr. Kennedy. The Clinton Township. 



14758 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No ; I wouldn't know that. 

Mr. Kennedy. The mortgage, Mr. Fitzgerald, was $700,000 at the 
time you allowed them to use $100,000. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is possible. That is possible. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir ; according to Mr. Winshall. 

Mr. Kennedy. The releases of the property, under the escrow 
agreement, Mr. Fitzgerald, were to be handled through the escrow 
agent. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Right. 

Mr. Kennedy. According to the testimony that we have had, these 
releases were not handled in that fashion. Were the releases handled 
through your office, Mr. Fitzgerald ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Partly through my office. Let me say that no 
one in the health and welfare fund, and no one in my office, including 
myself personally, ever authorized the Winshall Co. or any of the 
copartners to release any of this property without going through the 
escrow agent and paying the $1,500. 

Mr. Kennedy. They had to get the releases from the Teamsters or 
from your office, did they not ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell the committee why you gave them 
these releases, then ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, I had no personal knowledge of it, but I 
will have to go back and try to reconstruct it for you, if you want me to. 

Mr. Kennedy. What I am trying to find out is this : You say that 
the Winshall Development Co. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I would like to find out about this, too, although 
I can't impute to anyone in my office or anyone in the health and wel- 
fare fund any improper motive in what they did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, can I just explain the seriousness of 
this situation? Under the escrow agreement, the money was to be 
paid, $1,500 and up, for each lot that was sold, and as the escrow agent 
released this property to the Winshall Development Co., the Winshall 
Development Co. would pay either the $1,500 or the $3,000 to them, 
which, in turn, was to be given back to the Teamsters. When the Win- 
shall Development Co. repaid this money, the escrow agent would 
then release this property. The escrow agent did not release the prop- 
erty. The Teamsters' Union, through Mr. Fitzgerald's office, evi- 
dently released the property. 

The result has been that they should have received $1,200,000, which 
should have been returned to the Teamsters, which was never returned 
to the Teamsters because this agreement was not followed. 

The Chairman. Mr. Fitzgerald, were you supposed to be the at- 
torney and supervise the legal aspects of this transaction all the way 
through ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is correct. My office was. 

The Chairman. What arrangement was made whereby the escrow 
agent could be bypassed on these releases ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. There was no arrangement made, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. How did it happen ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is what I wanted to tell Mr. Kennedy. I 
don't know. But I have been trying to reconstruct it. When I say 
I don't know — positively. I think that the answer to this could be 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14759 

made by Mr. Green or by the Winshall Co. I know, and I have heard 
two versions of it, and it is all hearsay, that Mr. Green, according to 
what I get, delivered some releases to one of the gentlemen in my office. 
This man took them down to the welfare fund. The welfare fund 
employee went around and had the releases signed. According to the 
gentleman in my office, that was the last he heard of the transaction. 

According to the employee of the welfare fund, he brought them 
back and gave them to this same gentleman or left them in this gentle- 
man's office. 

Mr. Kennedy. In your office ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. In my general office; yes. But left them in this 
lawyer's office. Whether someone came and took those releases with- 
out any authority is one matter. But even if they got possession of 
the releases, Mr. Chairman, they had absolutely no right to put these 
releases through without taking them to the escrow agent, depositing 
them, and, as they got a release, got $1,500 for the release. 

The Chairman. That is correct, 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

The Chairman. I mean the way the transaction was set up, it is 
perfectly obvious now that this loan would have been repaid if it had 
had proper supervision, and the escrow agreement had been carried 
out. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

The Chairman. But instead, a million dollars plus that should have 
come back went in some other direction. These folks, this welfare 
fund, are left holding the bag. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't think they will be. I don't think they will 
be. 

The Chairman. Well, as of now, it is. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. As of now, it is. When I ask you to look at it 
in the eyes of 1955, I have to, by the same token, look at it through 
the eyes of 1958. 

The Chairman. O.K. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Fitzgerald, I would like to know what you are 
going to do about this violation of contract. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. The first thing we have done is we have started a 
foreclosure action. Let me say this: We have — and I am not even 
attempting to supervise this part of the action, but my office, through 
an attorney in Flint, has started a foreclosure action, which is No. 1. 
We have started a foreclosure in equity rather than a foreclosure on 
the law side of the court in Michigan. No. 2, we have attempted, 
through an attorney, Allen Schmeir, in Detroit, Mich. — he has been 
handling most of the work or all of the work, as a matter of fact, and 
supervising it — to reconstruct this thing, find out where we are going, 
find out what the whole picture is, and then we will go from there. 

Senator Ives. We are pretty nearly telling you what the picture is. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I am not finding fault with some of the things that 
have come to light here. As a matter of fact, this transcript is en- 
lightening to me. 

Senator Ives. "What do you expect to get out of this investigation, 
and apparently that is what it is, which you are talking about § 

Do you expect to recapture anything through this investigation 
where this violation was concerned ? 



14760 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I think so. 

Senator Ives. How much ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, I couldn't tell you that, because I am not 
qualified in the land business. But we certainly appreciate some of 
the efforts of the staff in bringing some of those things to light. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are welcome, Mr. Fitzgerald. 

Senator Ives. Well, we have tried to clear it up as best we could. 
You are not cooperating very much. You know, you remind me of 
Barney Baker, as an attorney. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Senator Ives, if you want 

Senator Ives. Just a minute. I don't want to insult you in any way, 
shape, or manner. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I think you are. You are certainly way out of line 
with me on that. I have tried to give you, to the best of my recollec- 
tion, everything. 

Senator Ives. All right. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you don't have any idea how they received these 
releases ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I honestly don't, except, Mr. Kennedy, when it 
got in their hands, even if it got in their hands by mistake, it was 
their duty and obligation to deliver them to the Abstract Co. and 
to pay the money before they sent these releases out. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wasn't it also your obligation to see that this was not 
done, Mr. Fitzgerald? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, yes, but of course, sometimes you can't pro- 
tect yourself from a type of thing like this. That would be the last 
thing that I would assume that they would do. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had the releases, evidently, or you sent them 
down to the Teamsters to sign them. Certainly you had an obligation 
to follow up and see that they were returned to the escrow agent, 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, you say I did. My office did, yes, and I did, 
I suppose. 

Mr. Kennedy. You told us originally you got $35,000 for the work 
that you did on this. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who in your office, then, did this ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I just told you. I am informed by Mr. Prebenda, 
when I checked up, that Mr. Prebenda got the releases from Mr. Green. 
Somehow they got to the health and welfare fund. Then I was in- 
formed by Mr. Duane Johnson that he had them signed and that he 
brougt them back and put them in Mr. Prebenda's office. That is as 
far as I know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Fitzgerald, you don't have any idea at the 
present time as to what money you will receive out of this property in 
this foreclosure proceedings ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, of course, in the foreclosure proceedings I 
do not tell you at this time on it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You talked earlier about the Teamsters making a 
profit. What did you mean by that ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, I say that we can't stop at merely the fore- 
closure proceedings, that we have to go ahead with this project, be- 
cause it is an ideal development up there. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14761 

It would be, if handled properly. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you are going to invest more money in it? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know whether that eventually will happen 
or not. But I know this, that there has to be a recovery made, and 
there will be, 

Mr. Kennedy. When you say, then, that you will make a profit on 
this, you have no facts to back your statement up, do you ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I would have to refer you to Mr. Allen Schmier 
on that, who can give you the picture. 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to make sure when you state that you could 
make a profit on this, or that the Teamsters could make a profit on 
this, you have no facts to back that up ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I have no experience with which to back it up. I 
am only telling you what — no, that is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are the Teamsters planning to go into the land 
development business in Flint, Mich. ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't think so ; no. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you going to build a water plant there ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know, Mr. Kennedy, what will be done. 
That is out of my field. That would have to be handled by someone 
else. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could I ask Mr. Henson a question ? 

Mr. Chairman, we not only have the appraisal of the land 

The Chairman. Let's have that appraisal made an exhibit, 

Did you get this appraisal, Mr. Henson ? 

Mr. Kennedy. One of the staff members got it, But it is sworn to. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Chairman, could I have my appraisals back ? 

I guarantee I will give them a complete photostat. 

The Chairman. Yes ; you may have them. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Which one, Mr. Bellino, don't you have ? 

The Chairman. The appraisal that the staff has had made may be 
made exhibit No. 130, for reference, 

(Document referred to was marked '"Exhibit No. 130"' for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Bellino. This is all we have [indicating] . 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Do you mean you didn't get photostatic copies of 
those? 

Mr. Bellino. That is right. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I am sorry. I will see that you get photostatic 
copies. 

Mr. Kennedy. In addition to this appraisal, do we have further 
information regarding that land out there, as far as the water supply 
is concerned ? 

Mr. Henson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the situation ? 

Mr. Henson. At the present time, the Gaines Township Board of 
Governors has refused to issue building permits at the request of the 
Michigan State Department of Health because of an inadequate water 
supply v 

Mr. Kennedy. Could I read a couple of paragraphs more from this, 
Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. I have just made it an exhibit. 



14762 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes ; I want to point something out. 

I am informed that permits for new houses proposed in Winchester Village 
have been denied because of the limited water supply and pumping facilities, 
and that the present sewage-disposal plant is limited to about 300 more houses. 
I also find that new and completed houses are being offered for sale at the 
present time for about $1,500 less than the original asking price. There are 
about 20 uncompleted houses in the project on which all work has been stopped. 

From records secured from the Guaranty Title & Mortgage Co., which reflect 
those of record in the office of the register of deeds for Genesee County, Mich.. 
I believe that the original mortgage covering 1,270 acres and that releases to 
date reduces the land covered by said mortgage to approximately 1,074 acres, 
which is a little larger than stated. 

I am firmly convinced that the remaining acreage should be treated as farm- 
land because of the present demand for houses, the limited utilities stated above, 
and the cost of platting, engineering, etc., prohibits the immediate sale for other 
purposes. 

So the 19 cows and the bull, Mr. Chairman 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't think that is the final chapter in the story, 
Mr. Chairman. I don't want to get into it, except to say that there 
is an answer on this water plant, there is an answer on the board 
of health, which I know can be supplied by the people who handled 
that transaction. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have an advertisement in the 
paper, the Flint Journal, Sunday, September 7 : 

Winchester Village. You saw it for $15,600, and now you can own it for 
just $14,490. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Is that an acre ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is for the homes out at Winchester. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, actually, Mr. Kennedy, I am advised that 
that is the type of home that will go out there, because it is a working- 
man's home. I don't know. 

The Chairman. The committee will take a recess until 2 o'clock. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Am I excused now, Mr. Chairman ? 

Mr. Kennedy. We have some other matters. 

(Whereupon, at 12 : 25 p. m., with the following members of the 
committee present: Senators McClellan and Ives, recessed to recon- 
vene at 2 p. m., the same day.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

(At the reconvening of the session the following members were 
present : Senators McClellan and Ives.) 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE S. FITZGERALD— Resumed 

The Chairman. Mr. Fitzgerald, we have some other witnesses here. 
You are going to be here anyway, so we are going to let you stand 
aside for the afternoon and try to hear these other witnesses so they 
can get back. There is just one question I think we should ask you 
about, if you know : 

What became of the cows that they bought out there ? What hap- 
pened to them ? Are they still a part of your security ? What is the 
story about them ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't know anything about 
the cows, except what I heard. I understand, although I have cer- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14763 

tainly made an inquiry because I was very interested in it, I under- 
stand — I hate to go into a long-winded explanation of this thing — 
the cows that were on that property, and I am telling you what I have 
been told 

The Chairman. I think it is a matter that we ought to clear up 
for the record. Maybe they will help to repay the loan. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. All I can tell you is give you hearsay testimony 
on it. 

The Chairman. You don't know whether or not you have them as 
collateral, or what they are worth. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I know they are not collateral and never would be 
considered collateral, but I guess they were purchased from the orig- 
inal owner. This property was owned by a Civil War Governor of 
Michigan, and this was quite 

The Chairman. Were they purchased along with the land ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is, and it was kept in that condition as a pro- 
motional deal as far as these people were concerned, I found out later. 
I understand since that time that the cows have been sold, or whatever 
happened to them, and the money went back into the fund of the 
Winchester Land Co. 

The Chairman. It did not go back into the pension fund or welfare 
fund? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No. In the first place, we know nothing about that, 
although it is an interesting factor. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. Let's have the next witness. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to take up your time, 
but do I understand that I will not be called for the rest of the after- 
noon, in case I do have to leave ? 

The Chairman. That is correct. You wouldn't be called the rest 
of the afternoon. We will resume with your testimony tomorrow. 

All right, thank you very much. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. John E. Rogers. 

I might say before he comes, Mr. Chairman, that we are going into 
a different phase of the investigation. 

The Chairman. All right. Come forward. Be sworn. 

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

Mr. Rogers. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN E. ROGERS 

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

Mr. Rogers. John E. Rogers. I live at Grovespring, Mo. 

I am a truckdriver on construction work. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. You waive counsel ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, over the period of the work of this 
committee we have had statements by Mr. Hoffa, and when his chief 
assistant, Mr. Harold Gibbons, appeared, we also had numerous state- 
ments by him as to their faith and confidence in the democratic pro- 



14764 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

cedures in the Teamsters Union. We went extensively into the situ- 
ation involving Mr. Harold Gibbons' election as president of joint 
council 13 in St. Louis. Mr. Gibbons had many statements to make 
at that time regarding democratic procedures. We saw at that time 
the violation of the constitution and the fact that the constitution was 
waived by Mr. Hoffa, by the executive board, in the appointment of 
these so-called officers of local 447, the Carnival Workers' local. 

The next few witnesses will be in connection with union democracy, 
where union members have been deprived of their rights, and where 
the waiver of the constitution was not carried out as it was in the case 
of the election of Mr. Harold Gibbons. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed. 

Do you have some 3 or 4 witnesses on this particular phase of it ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. These witnesses this afternoon, Mr. Chair- 
man, will be from Missouri, will be within the bailiwick of Mr. Harold 
Gibbons and Mr. James Hoffa. 

Mr. Rogers, you have been a member of local 245 in Springfield, 
Mo.; is that correct? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. For how long? 

Mr. Rogers. Since 1939. 

Mr. Kennedy. 1939 ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are working on construction work ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us what happened in 1950 regarding 
local 245 ? 

Mr. Rogers. In 1950, local 245 was placed under trusteeship by 
the international union. Our local officers were removed, and officers 
appointed to replace them. 

Mr. Kennedy. The local secretary-treasurer at that time was Mr. 
E. J. Barrett? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is B-a-r-r-e-t-t? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the international come in and make an audit 
of the local's books ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did they find ? 

Mr. Rogers. They found the local about $25,000 in debt. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they find that there had been a mishandling of 
union funds I 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. So they stepped in and put the local under trustee- 
ship; is that right? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they removed Mr. Barrett ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 
{ Mr. Kennedy. Did they find Mr. Barrett to be "incompetent, 
neglectful of his duties," is that right ? 

Mr. Rogers. That was the words of the auditor, yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that dues, initiation fees, et cetera, were not 
deposited in the bank as they should have been ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14765 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that many bills remain unpaid, is that right ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And it was because of Barrett's incompetency that 
the local union became heavily indebted ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have a copy of the audit report, Mr. Chairman, 
in connection with this. 

The Chairman. Did you ever see a copy of the audit report ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir ; I saw the original books. 

The Chairman. You saw the original ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Could you identify this for us, this photostatic 
copy, please, sir ? 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Rogers. They are copies of the original books. 

The Chairman. That is a copy of the audit ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. It may be made exhibit No. 131. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 131" for 
reference and may be found in the files of the select committee. ) 

Mr. Kennedy. In February of 1950, was one Verl Nickels placed 
in charge of the local ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is N-i-c-k-e-1-s, is that right ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there subsequently an election held ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir, along about 1951, the latter part of the year, 
I believe. 

It may have been 1952. I am not for certain. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was Mr. Nickels elected to secretary-treasurer ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir, secretary-treasurer and business representa- 
tive. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long did he remain in as secretary-treasurer? 

Mr. Rogers. Well, when we were placed under trusteeship in 1950, 
he was appointed to that position. He held that position all the way 
through. When we had our election, he was elected to the position 
and continued to hold it until September 1954. 

Mr. Kennedy. Until 1954. What was the financial status of the 
union when it was under Mr. Nickels' control ? 

Mr. Rogers. During the control of Mr. Nickels, the local paid off 
the $25,000 indebtedness incurred by Mr. Barrett. We also accumu- 
lated the revenue to purchase the land and build a building to the 
cost of approximately $50,000. When they removed Verl Nickels, 
the local was out of debt, except for seven, eight, or maybe nine hun- 
dred dollars current bills. We had four or five thousand dollars in 
the bank. 

Mr. Kennedy. So it thrived financially under his direction and 
control ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Nickels had been elected bv the local mem- 
bership in 195, 1 or 1952? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 



14766 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. You say it was put back in trusteeship in 1954 ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. For what reason was it put back in trusteeship? 

Mr. Rogers. I do not know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the international inform the union members 
why their union had been placed in trusteeship ? 

Mr. Rogers. I was not at the meeting that they held to place the 
local back under trusteeship. The members that were there said that 
they gave them no reason. Verl Nickels told me that the reason that 
was given to him was that he had been instrumental in having the 
newspaper published in Springfield for a group of dissident members 
of the Joplin, Mo., local. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was another group in Joplin, Mo., revolting 
against its leadership ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he had helped or assisted them by having a 
newspaper published ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he understood that was the reason why the lo- 
cal was placed in trusteeship ? 

Mr. Rogers. That was the reason he gave me, yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was made trustee ? 

Mr. Rogers. Harold Gibbons. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he come into the local himself ? 

Mr. Rogers. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who did he send in ? 

Mr. Rogers. Richard Kavner. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand anything about the background 
of Mr. Kavner ? 

Mr. Rogers. No, sir. I just knew that Mr. Kavner was from St. 
Louis. 

The Chairman. He was not from St. Louis ? 

Mr. Rogers. He was from St. Louis. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have here a letter making Mr. 
Harold Gibbons the trustee. 

Mr. Tierney, who has been sworn, obtained it. 

The Chairman. Have you been sworn, Mr. Tierney ? 

Mr. Tierney. I have not. 

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

Mr. Tierney. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF PAUL J. TIERNEY 

The Chairman. Be seated. You are a member of the staff of this 
committee ? 

Mr. Tierney. I am, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Have you examined the records of this local in 
St. Louis? 

Mr. Tierney. That came from the international records here in 
Washington. 

The Chairman. You have examined the international records with 
respect to this local that the witness has been testifying about ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14767 

Mr. Tierney. That is right. 

The Chairman. I hand you a photostatic copy of a letter. State 
if you can identify it and, if so, where you procured it. 

Mr. Tierney. I can identify it, Mr. Chairman; it is a letter of 
September 24, 1954, to Mr. Harold J. Gibbons, from Einar O. Mohn, 
acting for the general president of the Teamsters, appointing Mr. 
Gibbons as trustee. This is a photostatic copy of the letter obtained 
from the records of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters in 
Washington by subpena. 

The Chairman. That letter may be made exhibit No. 132. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 132" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN E. ROGERS— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. There was some question also, or they raised a ques- 
tion that Mr. Nickels was drinking, is that right ? 

Mr. Eogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he drinking to excess ? 

Mr. Rogers. To my knowledge, not to excess, no, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the union was thriving ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was making money during that period of time ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. All the officers were removed by Mr. Gibbons ? 

Mr. Rogers. By Mr. Kavner, yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Under Mr. Gibbons' direction ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they place anybody in there to run the local for 
them? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. They brought in E. J. Barrett. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is Mr. Barrett, who had been removed in 1950 
for incompetency? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. For mishandling of the money ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. They brought him back in and placed him in charge 
of the union? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where had he been in the interim time ? 

Mr. Rogers. Well, he had worked several places. I think for the 
last year or so he had been at Joplin, Mo. 

The Chairman. Is this the same Barrett that they removed because 
he let the local get in debt, and so forth ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Is he the one that the auditor wrote about as being 
incompetent, with malfeasance in office, and so forth ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

The Chahiman. Had he improved any in the interim ? 

Mr. Rogers. I couldn't tell you about that, sir. 

The Chairman. Y"ou saw no sign of it, I guess ? 

Mr. Rogers. No, sir. 



14768 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there anybody else put in charge of the local, 
anybody else made officers ? 

Mr. Rogers. There was a Howard James, and, later, there was 
Frank Wainwright and A. J. Round. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was a Mr. James, a Mr. Round, and a Mr. 
Wainwright ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is Branch Wainwright ? 

Mr. Rogers. I think so, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was Mr. Wainwright's background in this 
period ? 

Mr. Rogers. I only knew Mr. Wainwright from February 1954 
when he came into Missouri as an organizer for the Missouri-Kansas 
Conference of Teamsters. 

Mr. Kennedy. What year was that ? 

Mr. Rogers. February 1954. 

Mr. Kennedy. What had he done prior to that time? Do you 
know ? 

Mr. Rogers. He had been in Kansas City. I couldn't say. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't know what his background or experience 
had been ? 

Mr. Rogers. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't know what unions he had been working 
with? 

Mr. Rogers. I think he was working in local 541, a construction 
local in Kansas City. But I couldn't say for sure. 

Mr. Kennedy. He had never been working in your local ? 

Mr. Rogers. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if he had ever been arrested ? 

Mr. Rogers. No, sir ; I heard that he was, but I could not say as to 
when or what for. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know he had been arrested 13 times at least ? 

Air. Rogers. No, sir ; I did not know that. 

Mr. Kennedy. For burglary, larceny, assault with intent to rob, 
felonious assault, and receiving stolen property. Did you know that ? 

Mr. Rogers. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That he was convicted for burglary, convicted for 
larceny, and a third conviction for assault with intent to rob ? 

Mr. Rogers. No, sir. 

Air. Kennedy. That is the other individual. Did Mr. Wainwright 
play an important role in your local ? 



Mr. Rogers. N 



<>w 



Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Rogers. He controls our local now. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he was placed in there by Mr. Gibbons during 
the period or time Mr. Gibbons was trustee ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. I might ask, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Chairman, what the 
records show of Mr. Wainwright's criminal record. 

The Chairman. Do you have that information, Mr. Tierney ? 

Mr. Tierney. Yes, sir ; I do, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. You may state what it is. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14769 

Mr. Tierney. Wainwright has an extensive record. It includes 
some 13 arrests on charges of investigation of burglary, larceny, as- 
sault with intent to rob, felonious assault, receiving stolen property. 
He was convicted for burglary and larceny, for which he was fined and 
for assault with intent to rob. 

The Chairman. How many convictions has he out of the 13 ? 

Mr. Tierney. Three convictions. 

The Chairman. For what offenses ? 

Mr. Tierney. Burglary, burglary and larceny, and assault with 
intent to rob. 

The Chairman. What was the date of the last conviction ? 

Mr. Kennedy. 1949. 

The Chairman. When was he placed in charge of this local, 1954 ? 

Mr. Tierney. 1954 ; that is correct. 

The Chairman. How much time did he serve ? 

Mr. Tierney. It does not appear that he served any time. He was 
fined in each of these instances. He was placed on 1 year's probation 
in 1934. 

Mr. Kennedy. And 2 years in 1950. 

The Chairman. This photostatic copy from which you are testify- 
ing may be made exhibit 133. 

( The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 133" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee. ) 

Senator Ives. I would like to know whether this gentleman has 
had his full rights of citizenship restored to him, or weren't they 
taken away at the time he was convicted ? 

Mr. Kennedy. We don't have that information. 

Senator Ives. I think that is rather important. 

The Chairman. They were convicted of a felony and that automat- 
ically takes away the citizenship. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell us what happened in 1954? Barrett 
came in. When did Mr. Wainwright come in ? 

Mr. Eogers. Wainwright was already there. He was working there 
as an organizer from the Missouri-Kansas Conference. 

Mr. Kennedy. Of which Mr. Harold Gibbons is the president; is 
that right? 

Mr. Rogers. I believe so. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did he come in and take an active role in your 
local ? 

Mr. Eogers. Some time after Mr. Barrett came in. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know anything about Mr. A. J. "Doc" 
Round? 

Mr. Rogers. No, sir ; only that he had been an organizer for the Mis- 
souri-Kansas Conference in Joplin, Mo. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about the individuals while Nickels was run- 
ning the union, the individuals that worked under him ? They were 
just removed from their jobs ? 

Mr. Rogers. They were removed from office. They were forced to 
leave town. They were not allowed to work any place else. 

Mr. Kennedy. What do you mean by that ? 

Mr. Rogers. They were removed from the office as officers. They 
were still members of the local, but they could not find work any place 
in town. 



14770 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. How would that be ? Why couldn't they find work ? 

Mr. Rogers. It is simple if the union tells somebody not to hire them. 

The Chairman. It is what ? 

Mr. Rogers. It is very simple. If the union tells a company not to 
hire you, you don't go to work. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that what happened to these individuals ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say they had to leave town because they could 
not get work ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. How do you know the union told the companies that ? 

Mr. Rogers. I know Verl Nickels had a job and then he lost it. 

The Chairman. Was Nickels elected ? Were these officers you are 
talking about elected by the members ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. These were the elected officers ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And the others we have been talking about here, 
were those that were appointed over you ? 

Mr. Rogers. That replaced them, yes sir. 

Senator Ives. How were these officers elected ? 

Mr. Rogers. By the membership. 

Senator Ives. What kind of a ballot ? Did you have a secret ballot ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes. 

Senator Ives. It was satisfactory to you ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ives. Have you ever suffered in any such way so that you 
have been deprived of work ? 

Mr. Rogers. I have just been kept from working is all. 

Senator Ives. That is what I mean. How long have you been kept 
from working ? 

Mr. Rogers. I have had 4 weeks' work this year. 

Senator Ives. And the union has kept you from working ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ives. What reason has the union kept you from working? 

Mr. Rogers. If they keep you from working long enough, maybe I 
will give up and go some place else and take my membership with me. 
I would transfer to some other local and I would not be eligible to run 
for office in my local. 

Senator Ives. And you can transfer and still get work ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ives. They can't in any way object to your getting work 
under those conditions or prevent you from getting work ? 

Mr. Rogers. Sure they can. They can stop me from any place I go. 

Senator Ives. Any place you go ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ives. Then you are powerless to do anything in your de- 
fense, aren't you ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ives. It is a fine situation. 

Mr. Rogers. I can take it up with the international. 

Senator Ives. Do you think you would get anywhere doing that ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14771 

Mr. Rogers. Well, they issued me a withdrawal and it took me 4 
months one time, and I took it up with the international and I got 
back. I had my membership restored. Of course, I would lose 4 or 
5 months work each time. 

Mr. Kennedy. When was that ? 

Mr. Rogers. In 1955. 

Senator Ives. Let me ask him a question in this connection, Mr. 
Counsel. I am not quite through with him. I want to get his opinion 
on something. 

What do you think an open shop in the Teamsters would do ? Do 
you think you could have such a thing ? 

Mr. Rogers. In an open shop ? 

Senator Ives. An open shop, not a union shop ; an open shop. I am 
just curious. Do you think it would work, or do you think the Team- 
sters would use such force that it would require all the workers to 
belong to the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Rogers. I think that if any union had the economic power with 
a company, and a company was of such a nature that regardless of 
whether you had a closed shop or open shop, you would have a closed 
shop. 

Senator Ives. In other words, what you mean is, I assume, that the 
local police authorities would not be sufficient to take care of a situa- 
tion such as I am referring to ? 

Mr. Rogers. I think 

Senator Ives. They would use force in one way or another, wouldn't 
they ? 

Mr. Rogers. I think any company would rather go along with a 
union than to have trouble with them. 

Senator Ives. Which union, Teamsters, you mean ? 

Mr. Rogers. Any union. 

Senator Ives. I can understand how a company would prefer to 
have a contract with a good union and have a union shop with a good 
union. I can understand all of that. What I am driving at is this 
Teamsters situation. I have asked you a very direct question. You 
are penalized and a lot of others are penalized in one way or another, 
some directly and some indirectly, because they are not in good favor 
among the Teamsters. I have asked you the question if you think 
an open shop affecting the Teamsters would be possible. I am fram- 
ing it a little bit differently now ; I am saying "would be possible." 

Mr. Rogers. I don't hardly understand how you mean it. 

Senator Ives. I mean this. At the present time you have a union 
shop. 

Mr. Rogers. Yes. 

Senator Ives. There are union shop contracts made. 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ives. In other words, what I am driving at 

Mr. Rogers. Would it be any different if you had an open shop? 
Is that what you mean ? 

Senator Ives. It would be very different if you had an open shop 
in some ways because you would not have to belong to a union to obtain 
work. Do you think it is possible ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, it is possible. 

Senator Ives. Do you think you could do it with the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Rogers. I doubt it, but it is possible. 



14772 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Ives. You carried out my thought in the matter. In other 
words, you figure anybody working with the Teamsters will have to 
belong to the Teamsters. 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ives. Anybody in that kind of work will have to be a 
member of the union. 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ives. Otherwise they will be in trouble. 

.Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ives. All right, go ahead. 

Mr. Kennedy. During this period when you were deprived of a 
job, why didn't you go directly to the employer and try to get a job? 

Mr. Rogers. I tried that. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened % 

Mr. Rogers. They said they were hiring through the union. 

The Chairman. Said what \ 

Mr. Rogers. Hiring through the union. They called the union 
when they wanted men. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you have to go to the union prior to getting a 
job. 

Mr. Rogers. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And not directly to the employer. 

Mr. Rogers. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And when you applied to the union what did they 
say? 

Mr. Rogers. No work. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that what happened to these other gentlemen that 
had to leave town? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were just told there was no work ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And if they went to the employer, the employer 
would tell them that they would have to go through the union ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. When they were telling you no work, do you know 
other individuals who were receiving work? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had they had less time in the union than you had ; 
less seniority ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. So there is no question there was discrimination 
against you ? 

Mr. Rogers. No question. 

Mr. Kennedy. And there is nothing you can do about it ? 

Mr. Rogers. Not a thing. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell the committee about the nominations 
for the officers and the election that was to be held in your local ? 

Mr. Rogers. We had nominations set up for the month of May. 

Mr. Kennedy. Of what year ? 

Mr. Rogers. Of this year. They have five nomination meetings 
scheduled. One at Lebanon, Mo., and four at Springfield, Mo. The 
first meeting was at Lebanon. 

Mr. Kennedy. You will have to give us the names again. What is 
the first one ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14773 

Mr. Rogers. The first meeting was held at Lebanon, Mo. 

Mr. Kennedy. Go ahead. 

Mr. Rogers. The meeting was opened by A. J. Round and the 
regular order of business dispensed with and turned over to Mr. 
William Schneider for nominations. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you explain about the nominations then? 
Did your group nominate people ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. At first there were motions made to have two 
business representatives. First they made a motion that the term of 
office be for 5 years. Then they made the motion or the motion was 
made that the union have two elected business agents. One of them 
would be the president and business representative, and the other 
would be a secretary-treasurer and business representative. On the 
question I asked for a secret ballot vote on that motion. First they 
refused it. I was ruled out of order by Mr. Schneider. I asked that 
the nominations be suspended for a month to give the membership time 
to decide how many business agents they were going to have elected. 

Previous to that we had never elected but one business representa- 
tive in our local. I was ruled out of order on that motion. I made 
the motion that we only have one business representative and I was 
ruled out of order on that motion due to the fact that Mr. Schneider 
said that I did not make the business agent be a member of the execu- 
tive board which under our international constitution he does not have 
to be. 

Senator Ives. May I raise a question there? I would like to know 
who these business agents are that you are talking about. Are any 
of them former criminals ? 

Mr. Rogers. I could not say that. 

Senator Ives. You don't know anything about their background? 

Mr. Rogers. No, sir. 

Senator Ives. The reason I raise these points is that we found so 
many situations existing in the Teamsters where you have criminals 
or former criminals holding such offices that I am just wondering. 
That is my chief criticism of the Teamsters. You could have the 
greatest union in this country if your leadership really wanted it to 
be. I don't mean in force or anything like that. I mean in influence 
generally speaking. Influence for good in organized labor. But you 
are not going to have it the way you are situated. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell us what happened, then, at the meet- 
ing for nominations ? 

Mr. Rogers. We started nominations. Mr. Schneider called for 
nominations for president, vice president, secretary treasurer, record- 
ing secretary, and three trustees. After nominations were closed, they 
selected a committee who went down to one of the cars, removed a file 
cabinet of the records and checked the eligibility of the members who 
had been nominated to see whether they were eligible according to the 
international constitution to be nominated and to be put on the ballot 
for election. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were some of the men ruled as ineligible? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Prior to nominating people for these offices, couldn't 
you find out who was eligible and who was not eligible? 

Mr. Rogers. No, sir. 

21243— 59— pt. 39 15 



14774 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. They would not tell you? 

Mr. Rogers. No. 

Air. Kennedy. So you would nominate people and you would not 
know whether they would be ruled ineligible after you nominated 
them ? 

Mr. Rogers. You could find out after they were nominated. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you could not find out before that ? 

Mr. Rogers. No. Well, you could find out on an individual prob- 
ably if you went out to the office and asked him if so and so was 
eligible. 

Mr. Kennedy. They did not put out any list as to who was eligible 
and who was not ? 

Mr. Rogers. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You nominated people and found out later they 
were ineligible ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were declared to be ineligible by the local 
officers ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did this continue at the other meetings? There 
were five meetings ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. They never told you during this period of time who 
was eligible and who was ineligible ? 

Mr. Rogers. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was your attitude? Did you try to find out 
for a list ? 

Mr. Rogers. One member asked Mr. Schneider if they could have 
a list at the next meeting and he assured them that they would. At 
the next meeting he said he thought they meant a list of those nomi- 
nated who were eligible. 

Mr. Kennedy. So, he never gave you a list ? 

Mr. Rogers. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were there people who were nominated but who were 
declared ineligible ? Is that right ? 

Mr. Rogers. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ob j ect to all of this procedure ? 

Mr. Rogers. There were objections made, yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened ? 

Mr. Rogers. They explained that it was all in accordance with the 
international constitution. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many members in your local, approximately ? 

Mr. Rogers. Approximately 1,200. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many were declared to be eligible afterwards ? 

Mr. Rogers. Afterwards there were 53 members found to be eligible. 

The Chairman. Eligible for what ? 

Mr. Rogers. To be nominated for elections. 

The Chairman. Fifty-three were eligible ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Out of 1,200? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What made the others ineligible ? 

Mr. Rogers. Their failure to have their dues paid on or before the 
first business day of each month for 2 years preceding nomination. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14775 

The Chairman. For 2 years ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. They have the checkoff in some places, do they not ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Some of these people did not pay their dues. They 
were withheld from their wages by their employers. 

Mr. Rogers. That is right. 

The Chairman. Under contract, is that correct ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. In other words, the paydays were made on the first 
of the month, and then it takes a day or two to get down to the union 
treasury. 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir, several clays sometimes. 

The Chairman. Those people are declared ineligible ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Notwithstanding the money being withheld from 
their paychecks ? 

Mr. Rogers. That is right. 

The Chairman. Are they not permitted to vote ? 

Mr. Rogers. They are permitted to vote, but they are not permitted 
to run for office. 

The Chairman. So, if a fellow is on a checkoff system, he is just 
ineligible to run for office. 

Mr. Rogers. According to the constitution he should go down and 
pay a month in advance in addition to this checkoff, thereby he would 
be eligible if the company failed to remit those dues by the 1st of 
the month. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the new constitution. 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not even find out who was eligible in this 
list of 53 until after everybody had been nominated ? 

Mr. Rogers. We got that list after the board of monitors stopped 
the election. That was a new list that was made up the following 
month that the election was to be held. My name was on that list. It 
would not have been if the list were published in the month that we 
were to have the election in or the month we were to have nominations. 

Mr. Kennedy. The list of those ineligible was not published during 
this period of time ? 

Mr. Rogers. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you nominated for office ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you found to be ineligible ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why were you found to be ineligible ? 

Mr. Rogers. Failure to have my dues paid by the first day of the 
month. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long a period of time had you had your dues 
paid up ? 

Mr. Rogers. According to the records I failed to pay my June dues 
in 1956 until about the 5th of July or the 7th of July. 

Mr. Kennedy. Almost 2 years' before. 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. But the election was held at the end of June, is that 
right? 



14776 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kogers. It would have been ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. June of 1958 ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you just missed by 4 or 5 days ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't they waive the constitution for you? 

Mr. Rogers. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. I thought Mr. Hoffa and Mr. Gibbons and the execu- 
tive board would waive the constitution. They did not waive the 
constitution ? 

Mr. Rogers. Not that I know of ; no, sir. 

Senator Ives. May I ask in that connection, Mr. Chairman, what 
elections are involved in this matter ? All elections ? 

Mr. Rogers. No; only elections in the local union. You mean 
on — — 

Senator Ives. This question of meeting these certain requirements. 

Mr. Rogers. All elections. 

Senator Ives. Delegates to conventions and local officers, and every- 
thing, is that right ? 

Mr. Rogers. I think in the last constitution the delegates to the 
international conventions changed some. 

Senator Ives. Do you know how ? 

Mr. Rogers. No, sir. I don't recollect. 

Senator Ives. Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were some of the oppositions to the incumbent offi- 
cers eliminated completely, by this ruling of being ineligible ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir ; several. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you tell us about that ? 

Mr. Rogers. Well, they would just check and tell them they were 
ineligible to run, that they were not in compliance with the inter- 
national constitution. 

Mr. Kennedy. For instance, I see for president there were four 
people nominated, Wainwright, Harcourt, Starr, and Clinton. Is 
that right? 

Mr. Rogers. I believe it is ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And how many of those were declared ineligible ? 

Mr. Rogers. I think 2 of them out of the 4. 

Mr. Kennedy. Harcourt and Clinton ; is that right ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. So Mr. Wainwright only had one person in opposi- 
tion to him ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Starr, he is an older man, is he not ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about the vice president; there were six in- 
dividuals nominated for vice president ? 

Mr. Rogers. Probably 3 or 4 of those that were ineligible. 

Mr. Kennedy. In that case, there was the incumbent officer and 
everybody was eliminated but one of his opposition ? 

Mr. Rogers. I believe so. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the secretary-treasurer? Mr. Round was 
nominated ? 

Mr. Rogers. All his opposition was eliminated by being not eligible. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14777 

Mr. Kennedy. So he ran unopposed ? 

Mr. Eogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then the recording secretary ? They had about six 
individuals. 

Mr. Rogers. I think they only ended up with one that was eligible, 
and they rechecked and I don't think he was eligible. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about the trustees? 

Mr. Rogers. There were several nominated on those, and I don't 
remember how many were eligible. 

Mr. Kennedy. Six of those were eligible out of about eight. So 
the opposition to the incumbent officers, the people who had been 
appointed in there, was drastically restricted, was it not, by this 
ruling ? 

Mr. Rogers, Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you make an appeal to the monitors ? 

Mr. Rogers. There was an attorney that made an appeal to the 
union, and to the monitors. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened? 

Mr. Rogers. The board of monitors sent an investigator in to 
Springfield, Mo. He investigated the conditions. As I understand 
later, the board of monitors asked Mr. Hoffa to cancel the nominations 
and cancel the upcoming election. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the status of it at the present time? 

Mr. Rogers. Well, they also asked him to issue a list of all eligible 
members and that is the status. They have issued the list, and that 
is it. 

They also asked to have the books audited by Price Waterhouse. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have they gone into auditing the books ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. They have sent somebody down to audit the books ? 

Mr. Rogers. It is my understanding then from the newspaper ac- 
counts that they did send in the auditors and Wainwright and Round 
refused to let them audit the books. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long ago was that ? 

Mr. Rogers. A week or two, I don't remember exactly. 

Mr. Kennedy. So they have not been able to audit the books? 

Mr. Rogers. Not that I know of, no, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have a janitor who was keeping the build- 
ing? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long had he been with the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Rogers. He had been a member for about 20 years or more. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was retired, was he ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. He was disabled, as far as working for the 
truckline where he had worked, and when he reached 65 he retired. 
Members hired him out at the hall, then, after he retired from the 
trucklines. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he removed as janitor ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. On whose orders ? 

Mr. Rogers. The letter that removed him was signed by A. J. 
Round. 

Mr. Kennedy. For what reason did he remove him as janitor? 



14778 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Rogers. They just said they didn't need him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they replace him ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. With whom did they replace him \ 

Mr. Rogers. With Carl Gates. 

Mr. Kennedy. C-a-t-e-s? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know anything about his background ? 

Mr. Rogers. Not prior to the time that he came to the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know what experience he had had ? 

Mr. Rogers. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know where he had been for the previous 
22 years? 

Mr. Rogers. I had heard that he had been in jail. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know he was in jail in the State penitentiary 
from 1935 to 1956? 

Mr. Rogers. No, sir, I did not know that. 

Mr. Kennedy. He had been convicted three times. 

Mr. Rogers. I did not know that when he came to work. 

Mr. Kennedy. So they removed this man Scott who had been in 
the Teamsters some 20 years, retired from his other job because of 
disability, who came to work as a janitor. They let him go and re- 
placed him with this Mr. Carl Cates, is that right ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Carl Cates has a record consisting of three 
convictions for violation of the national motor vehicle theft act, 
forgery, and first degree robbery, and who had spent from 1935 to 
1956 in the Missouri State Penitentiary. 

The Chairman. Mr. Tierney, have you checked this man's record ? 

Mr. Tierney. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. You have heard the statement of counsel. Is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Tierney. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. You have his record there, have you ? 

Mr. Tierney. His record may be made exhibit No. 131. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 134'' for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee. ) 

The Chairman. Do you mean they took a fellow who had been loyal 
and working there, and just kicked him out and brought in this 
convict ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Had this convict ever been a member of that local 
before ? 

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

The Chairman. I guess he had not been in very good standing, or 
maybe he was, for all that period of time from 1935 to 1956. I just 
don't quite understand how people operate that way. You dues- 
paying members just have no control at all ? 

Mr. Rogers. We have no say in our local in Springfield. 

The Chairman. All you can do is just pay dues and keep your 
mouth shut? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir, if you want to work. 

The Chairman. If you want to work. Well, most people want to 
work, don't they ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14779 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. What are you going to do, Mr. Rogers, in view of 
the fact that you can't get a job ? 

Mr. Rogers. Well, I will keep trying. I will take it up with the 
international. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa? 

Mr. Rogers. Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Hoffa, whoever is in charge. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Gibbons was running the local, was he not ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. I have usually corresponded with Mr. Eng- 
lish on these matters. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are they doing something about it ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. They always have. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was back in 1955 ? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Since then, have they done anything about it ? 

Mr. Rogers. I have not contacted them lately. 

Mr. Kennedy. What area does your local cover besides Springfield? 

Mr. Rogers. It covers about 12 or 13 counties, I believe. 

Mr. Kennedy. In that area around Springfield? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. A number of other cities and towns 1 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir, small towns. 

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

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Wainwright. 

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

Mr. Wainwright. Yes, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF BRANCH WAINWRIGHT, ACCOMPANIED BY 
COUNSEL, DANIEL J. LEARY 

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

Mr. Wainwright. My name is Branch Wainwright. I live at Buf- 
falo, Mo. I am a representative of Teamsters Local Union 245, 
Springfield, Mo. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, sir. Do you have counsel 
with you? 

Mr. Wainwright. I do. 

The Chairman. Counsel, will you identify yourself, please? 

Mr. Leary. Daniel J. Leary, Joplin, Mo., a member of the Missouri 
bar. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Wainwright, how long have you been with this 
local ? 

Mr. Wainwright. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my 
privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution 
not to be a witness against myself. 



14780 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Wainwright, did Mr. Harold Gibbons, who testi- 
fied here, know of your criminal record and background when he placed 
you in this position of authority in this local union ? 

Mr. Wainwright. I respectfully decline to answer and, assert my 
privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution 
not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Did Mr. Gibbons appoint you? Is he the one 
responsible for you having this job ? 

Mr. Wainwright. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my 
privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution 
not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Do you know what I think Congress is going to do? 

I think it is going to assert its privilege and pass some laws to deal 
with your type. I hope it does. And I think it will. I think you are 
just simply asking for it. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt there ? 

The Chairman. Senator Ives. 

Senator Ives. I am not sure that those laws would hold up under 
some rulings of the Supreme Court, but I am definitely positive that 
the Congress still has the authority to submit constitutional amend- 
ments, and I think those constitutional amendments might be approved 
by three-quarters of the States. 

The Chairman. Well, they are asking for it. Go ahead. 

Mr. Kennedy. The international placed this local in trusteeship in 
1954. Can you tell us why it was put in trusteeship ? 

Mr. Wainwright. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my 
privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution 
not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell the committee why Mr. Nickels was 
removed when the union was doing well, financially ? 

Mr. Wainwright. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my 
privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution 
not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you tell us why Mr. Barrett was put in there 
after his bad record, and subsequently you were placed in charge of the 
local ? 

Mr. Wainwright. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my 
privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution 
not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it correct that Mr. Howard James, who was in 
there, had formerly been an assistant business agent to Floyd Webb, 
in local 823, in Joplm, Mo. ? 

Mr. Wainwright. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my 
privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution 
not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Wainwright, could you tell us what conversa- 
tions you had with either Mr. Gibbons or Mr. Hoft'a in connection 
with the election that was to be held at your local! 1 

Mr. Wainwright. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my 
privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution 
not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. And who Mas it arranged with at the international 
level to rule all of these individuals ineligible to run for office ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14781 

Mr. Wainwrigiit. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my 
privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution 
not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell the committee why the constitution 
was not waived in this case, as it was waived in the case of Mr. Harold 
Gibbons, so that he could gain control of joint council 13 in St. Louis? 

Mr. Wainwright. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my 
privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution 
not to be a witness against myself . 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it correct that the constitution is* used by Mr. 
Hofi'a and Mr. Gibbons and those under him at the international level 
for their own purposes, that it will be enforced when it will help them, 
and it will not be enforced where that will help them ? 

Mr. Wain wright. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my 
privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution 
not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. And isn't this situation in Springfield, Mo., a perfect 
example when you compare it with what happened in St. Louis with 
joint council 13? 

Mr. Wainwright. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my 
privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution 
not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell the committee if that is the reason — 
so that you could continue to control the local — that you would not 
tell the rank and file who was eligible to run for office? 

Mr. Wainwright. I respectfully decline to answer and assert 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. Wainwright, about the re- 
moval of Frank Scott as the janitor at the local? 

Mr. Wainwright. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my 
privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitu- 
tion not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us about his replacement with Mr. 
CarlCates? 

Mr. Wainwright. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my 
privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitu- 
tion not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it a fact that the reason Mr. Cates replaced 
Mr. Scott was that you knew him from the time that he was in the 
penitentiary ? 

Mr. Wainwright. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my 
privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitu- 
tion not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us how much money you received 
from the local union ? 

Mr. Wainwright. I respectfully decline to answer and assert nry 
privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitu- 
tion not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. What salary or expenses you received, Mr. Wain- 
wright ? 

Mr. Wainwright. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my 
privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitu- 
tion not to be a witness against myself. 



14782 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all for now. 

The Chairman. Is your name Branch Wainwright ? 

Mr. Wainwright. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Branch M. or Branch Milton ? 

Mr. Wainwright. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Apparently you have been arrested about 35 or 40 
times. You got a year's probation for burglary. 

Mr. Kennedy. There are some repeats. We believe about 13 times. 

The Chairman. You got 2 years for felonious assault with intent 
to rob. That' is the 6th of November 1950. But most of your arrests 
seem to be for burglary. Is that so ? 

Mr. Wainwright. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my 
privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitu- 
tion not to be a witness against myself. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the witness a question ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Senator Ives. I would like to know if your citizenship rights have 
been restored. 

Mr. Wainwright. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my 
privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitu- 
tion not to be a witness against myself. 

Senator Ives. That is an odd comment to make in the light of the 
question. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was it in your background or experience, Mr. 
Wainwright, that made Mr. Gibbons select you ? 

Mr. Wainwright. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my 
privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitu- 
tion not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Have you been stealing from this union ? 

Mr. Wainwright. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my 
privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitu- 
tion not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. That seems to be your special talent from this 
record here. I just wondered if you were put in there for that pur- 
pose. Were you ? 

Mr. Wainwright. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my 
privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitu- 
tion not to be a witness against myself. 

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

The Chairman. All right, stand aside, Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Chairman, we will go into another local 
in Joplin, Mo., and also an election that was held in that city, also 
under the control of Mr. Hoffa, and in the Missouri-Kansas Confer- 
ence under the control of Mr. Gibbons. I would like to call as the 
first witness Mr. Amos Eeniker. 

The Chairman. Mr. Reniker, come around. 

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. Reniker. I do. 

The Chairman. Be seated. State your name, your place of resi- 
dence, and your business or occupation, please, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14783 

TESTIMONY OF AMOS E. RENIKER 

Mr. Reniker. Amos E. Reniker, 2019 Adele, Joplin, Mo., employed 
by Armour & Co., as a truck driver. 

The Chairman. You waive counsel, do you ? 

Mr. Reniker. I do, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Kennedy. You spell your name R-e-n-i-k-e-r ? 

Mr. Reniker. Right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Your first name is Amos ? 

Mr. Reniker. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are a truck driver for Armour & Co. ? 

Mr. Reniker. Armour Packing Co. out of Kansas City. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have been in local 823 of the Teamsters for how 
long? 

Mr. Reniker. Since 1941. 

Mr. Kennedy. Has there been a dissident group in the Teamsters 
Union, Local 823 ? 

Mr. Reniker. There has, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. For how long has that existed ? 

Mr. Reniker. Since 1954, early March. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who has been in control of the local ? 

Mr. Reniker. Mr. Floyd C. Webb. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long has he been running the union ? 

Mr. Reniker. Since about 1937. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you explain to the committee what hap- 
pened, that this dissident group sprang up? Could you give the 
background of that ? 

Mr. Reniker. First I would like to say that any statement I made 
here is and has been under oath in the past or deposition. Anything 
that I might say here I certainly hope doesn't hurt the Teamsters 
Union as a union, but as for the individuals, I don't vouch for them. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman, may I comment there? I want to 
assure the witness, and I think I speak for the feeling of the com- 
mittee, that we have no desire whatever to hurt the Teamsters Union 
as a union. What we are trying to do is help you clean house. 

Mr. Reniker. I realize that, sir. 

Senator Ives. So you will enjoy the respect you should enjoy in 
this country. 

The Chairman. All right, sir. 

Mr. Reniker. To begin with, in May of 1953, there was a Clyde 
Buxton working for the Roadway Express in Miami, Okla. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is C-1-y-d-e, B-u-x-t-o-n? 

Mr. Reniker. That is right. They had a disagreement or a griev- 
ance, you should call it, I guess, and they sent it in to the international 
union to Mr. Hoffa, and he immediately sent the grievance back to 
Mr. Webb and as a recurrence of that there was a beating. 

The Chairman. A what ? 

Mr. Reniker. A beating. 

The Chairman. You say a meeting or a beating ? 

Mr. Reniker. Beating — b-e-a-t-i-n-g. 

Mr. Kennedy. They sent in a complaint, and it was signed by 13 of 
them, is that right ? 



14784 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Reniker. I believe that was the correct number. 

Mr. Kennedy. They sent in a complaint to Mr. Hoffa about the 
way the union was being run as applied to them. 

Mr. Reniker. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa after receiving this sent it back to Mr. 
Floyd Webb, is that right? 

Mr. Reniker. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the leadership of the local against whom the 
complaint had been made. 

Mr. Reniker. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then what occurred after that ? The petition was 
signed not only by Clyde Buxton, but by Jess Cawthorn; is that 
right? 

Mr. Reniker. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. J-e-s-s, C-a-w-t-h-o-r-n? 

Mr. Reniker. Right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Plus these other people ? 

Mr. Reniker. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now would you tell us ? 

Mr. Reniker. After this beating — — 

Mr. Kennedy. You have to describe what happened in the beating. 

Mr. Reniker. I wasn't there. I did not see any of the beating. I 
am only going to describe what was told to me by Mr. Buxton, and 
what actually developed in a National Labor Relations Board 
hearing. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have the information here that we can place 
in the record. Could you tell briefly what you were informed hap- 
pened ? 

Mr. Reniker. We were informed 

Mr. Kennedy. Which information led you to your action later on ? 

Mr. Reniker. Yes. In other words, you are wanting to find out 
what started the dissension and what started the argument within our 
local structure, is that right, sir ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Please. 

Mr. Reniker. That was the reason. The beating took place in 
Miami. 

Mr. Kennedy. Miami, Old a. 

Mr. Reniker. Yes. They are members of local 823, of Joplin. 
Those being brothers of our own organization they came to some of 
us fellows and told us of the beating and of the discrimination and 
showed us the papers of which the National Labor Relations Board 
had given their findings. So we felt obligated as upright union 
members to ask of our local business representative and president 
what happened and why it happened. We were flatly told that it 
was none of our business. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who told you that ? 

Mr. Reniker. Mr. Webb! 

Mr. Kennedy. That was at a union meeting ? 

Mr. Reniker. That was at a union meeting. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you get up at a union meeting and ask? 

Mr. Reniker. I did. I asked him about it and he told me it was 
none of my business. Later on they got in an argument between Mr. 
Pat Kennison, and Mr. Hode;es, and Mr. Webb to clarifv those men's 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14785 

position. Mr. Webb being the president, Mr. Hodges the secretary- 
treasurer of our local union, and Mr. Pat Kennison not an elected 
officer, but appointed assistant business agent. They decided to fire 
Pat Kennison, and we had a big union meeting in the fall of 1954. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let us go back a little bit. 

Mr. Reniker. Correction. That is in the fall of 1953. 

Mr. Kennedy. Prior to that time did you ever go to Mr. Webb and 
try to get an explanation other than at the meeting ? 

Mr. Reniker. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What conversation did you have with him then ? 

Mr. Reniker. The only thing he said to me is that he sent them 
down there to take care of them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wait a minute. Got them to take care of them. 
Explain the question you asked Mr. Webb. To take care of who? 

Mr. Reniker. To take care of Mr. Buxton. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who had been beaten ? 

Mr. Reniker. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You went to him and asked him why ? 

Mr. Reniker. I went to him and asked him about the deal and asked 
him why and if he had sent Mr. Kennison down there. I couldn't 
believe it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Kennison had come to you in the meantime and 
said he had been sent down there ? 

Mr. Reniker. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He told you he had been sent down there by Mr. 
Webb to beat that man up ? 

Mr. Reniker. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. He told you that ? 

Mr. Reniker. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you went to Webb ? 

Mr. Reniker. I went to Webb. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tell us what Webb said. 

Mr. Reniker. He said, "Yes; I sent Pat to take care of the boss, 
and he was going to take care of some of the rest of them if they 
didn't keep their mouth shut." 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he say how it was going to happen ? What was 
going to be the result ? 

Mr. Reniker. Not at that particular conversation — not at that con- 
versation did we go into that ; no. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell us if subsequently he told you ? 

Mr. Reniker. Subsequently — may I bring you up to date on this, 
sir? 

Mr. Kennedy. All right. 

Mr. Reniker. I don't want all this confused with the circuit court 
case back in Missouri, which is not settled as yet. To begin with, in 
the interim we had this meeting and they decided to dispose of Mr. 
Kennison as a business representative and were discussing giving him 
a withdrawal card. At that meeting things got kind of out of hand, 
and one of the members — who it was I do not recall at the present 
time — made a motion that there be a committee appointed out of the 
rank and file to investigate this situation, the situation being the argu- 
men between Mr. Kennison, Mr. Hodges, and Mr. Webb, and the other 
conditions in the union. It so happened that I was appointed by the 



14786 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

members there as 1 of the 11 -man committee, and was appointed as 
chairman of that 11-man committee. So we started a routine inves- 
tigation, and we called Mr. Webb, Mr. Hodges, and all those others 
connected with the investigation, Mr. Kennison, into a room and asked 
them questions. They granted us that power as a committee. Again 
the subject of the beating of Buxton came up, and in the questioning 
I asked Mr. Webb, "Did you send Pat Kennison down to Miami to take 
care of the boys down there ?" referring to the Roadway situation. He 
said, "Yes; I did, but he didn't do what I wanted to do. What I 
wanted was some funerals, and there are going to be some if you guys 
don't keep your nose out of it." That was told to under oath by at 
least 2 or 3 other men besides myself in a court case in Jasper County. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you heard him distinctly say that? 

Mr. Reniker. I did, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He said he had sent this man down, and that he 
didn't go as far as he wanted, that he wanted a funeral ? 

Mr. Reniker. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that there would be more, unless you kept your 
nose out of it ? 

Mr. Reniker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ives. May I interrupt there? I am curious to know 
whether Mr. Webb or either of the other gentlemen to whom you re- 
ferred in connection with him, had criminal records. 

Mr. Reniker. Sir, to my knowledge I don't believe that there is 
any of our officers of our local union who has any records, to my 
knowledge. 

Senator Ives. Has any criminal record ? 

Mr. Reniker. Has any criminal record to my knowledge. If so, 
it is not to my knowledge, and I have heard no rumors of such. 

Senator Ives. I thought Mr. Webb's statement with respect to the 
funerals might almost indicate that he had something in the back- 
ground of that nature. 

Mr. Reniker. It might have been in that line of thinking. I took 
it as that. 

Senator Ives. Usually people don't make those threats unless they 
have something of that kind in their past. 

Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you continue, please ? 

Mr. Reniker. After this meeting in the latter part of 1953, we 
were going to have an election and we were going to nominate certain 
officers, and we wanted to have a free and democratic election. 
Actually, there were certain dissenting members of the union who 
wanted a change. Democratically we felt we were entitled to that, 
and under the constitution of the Teamsters we felt we were entitled 
to it. 

But apparently they had no intention of making any change, be- 
cause they didn't allow us to have any election at that time. So, in 
March of 1954, we were, during that period of time, heckling back 
and forth, and accusations flying back and forth from both sides, 
but in March of 1954 we filed a petition with the court in the civil 
court, asking them to remove or restrain Mr. Webb from the control 
of the union. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14787 

In our injunction suit we were granted a temporary injunction 
suit, which was later dissolved by agreement and went over into a 
civil suit in court. On the date, which was March 6 of 1954, that 
we filed this suit, that evening— I want you gentlemen to bear with 
me on this because I cannot prove that my home was bombed by the 
Teamsters Union, nor am I trying to prove it. I am merely stating 
the facts as they were and as they happened at that time. We filed 
that suit in the morning, and that evening my home was bombed. I 
was out to a going-away party for one of the officials of Armour & Co. 
who was retiring, and was called from that party to my home. There 
had been a bomb placed outside of my window. 

It didn't do too much damage to the house, so apparently it was set 
there not to harm too many people but possibly to scare me. Later on 
that night I received three calls, warning me that that was just a 
taste, that the next time they would blow me to hell. I ignored those 
warnings and went on with the lawsuit. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was anybody else's home bombed \ Were there any 
other bombs ? 

Mr. Keniker. Yes. Mr. Alexander's home had been bombed pre- 
viously to mine. He is another one of the dissenting members who is 
a plaintiff in this lawsuit. 

Then we went on into court and went through what you gentlemen 
are probably more familiar with than I — to me it was amazing — the 
stipulations and the motions which we tossed about. But we came to 
an agreement that — the judge rendered this decision — that to the in- 
ternational union he would give them an opportunity to clean their 
face, and if they would give us a free and democratic election within a 
period of approximately 90 days, that then we would go on and he 
would render a decision in this suit one way or another. 

There is a lawyer present, Mr. Leary, who is much more familiar 
with the legal technicalities of this, because certainly I am not a law- 
yer, and there are a lot of stipulations and motions I don't understand. 
But I am giving you my version of this suit as passed on to me by our 
lawyer back in Joplin, Mo. 

Mr. Kennedy. Has the local been placed in trusteeship at this time ? 

Mr. Keniker. Yes. It was placed in trusteeship the day we filed the 
suit. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was made the trustee ? 

Mr. Reniker. At that time, Mr. Kavner. I beg your pardon, sir. 
Mr. Hoffa was made the trustee. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. James Hoffa was appointed ? 

Mr. Reniker. James R. Hoffa, who then was the vice president of 
the International Teamsters. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who did he appoint to run the local '. 

Mr. Reniker. He appointed a gentleman by the name of Mr. Kav- 
ner, who came in to Joplin to take over the local union. Our attorney 
investigated Mr. Kavner. Something transpired between the judge 
and the lawyers, and the only thing that I know is the judge said that 
he was an unfit person to control the union, and he was removed at 
the judge's request. 

The Chairman. Removed by the court ? 

Mr. Reniker. Yes ; at the judge's request. He was removed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had there been any specifics about his activities in 
any particular area ? 



14788 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Reniker. One that was very recent at that time, I think the 
judge was possibly using, was the fact of the Wichita situation, and 
also what the judge stated was his criminal record, of which I have no 
knowledge of, other than what I heard. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is, Mr. Chairman, one of the chief assistants to 
Mr. Gibbons, and about whom we have had considerable testimony 
already. 

So who was sent in to replace him ? 

Mr. Reniker. Mr. Keul. 

Mr. Kennedy. His name is Carl Keul ? 

Mr. Eeniker. Right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he remain active in the local, then? 

Mr. Reniker. Sir, I don't know how active Mr. Keul was because 
only at a hearing held in the Hotel Connor was about the only time 
that I ever had any experience in meeting or talking to Mr. Keul. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was running the local then ? 

Mr. Reniker. Mr. Webb. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Webb was back in running the local? 

Mr. Reniker. Mr. Webb had never been out of the local. 

Mr. Kennedy. He has run the local under Mr. Hoffa, then ? 

Mr. Reniker. Yes, sir. He has never been out of the local. 

Mr. Kennedy. The local was put in trusteeship. Mr. Hoffa took 
over as trustee, and Mr. Webb then continued to run the local ? 

Mr. Reniker. I think it was necessary that Mr. Webb continue to 
run the local, Mr. Kennedy. He was familiar with the contracts, of 
which Mr. Keul was not familiar with the contracts and the local 
situation. I think that is possibly why they left Mr. Webb in there. 

Mr. Kennedy. But Mr. Webb continued to run the local? 

Mr. Reniker. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the objections you had at that time were against 
Mr. Webb, were they not ? 

Mr. Reniker. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you explain what happened about your at- 
tempt to get an election ? 

Mr. Reniker. Well, they agreed in this court stipulation that they 
would have this election, and Mr. Hoffa notified the local union that 
they would have this election. They had the nominations, and we 
set up a croup of rank and file from almost every town that was 
covered bv local 823, and we nominated our slate. We did consid- 
erable amounts of running around over the territory from one town 
to another. If you gentlemen are not familiar with it, local 823 
covers ouite a few towns in the tristate area. 

We covered some of the out-of-town boys to see how they felt, and, 
naturally, trying to get things set up so that we felt we could have a 
change in the officers. We published a paper in regards to the election, 
and we went at it in a way where we felt like we might stand a chance 
to compete against the officers who were in there. 

Everything was goin<r along just fine until about 4 or 5 davs before 
the appointed time, which was August 1, 1954. I received a letter 
from Mr. Hoffa, or. I should say that letter carried Mr. Hoffa's printed 
si<rnature. It was that I was not eligible to run, and that the election 
had been postponed indefinitely. The reason that I was not eligible 
to run was because I was considered in arrears of my dues, and yet 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14789 

for several years I had been on the checkoff system, and never before 
prior to the election or the promised election it should be, had I ever 
been notified that I wasn't eligible to run for any office, because we 
naturally presumed, because we were forced on to the checkoff system 
in lieu of our contracts — and by using the word force it may sound 
pretty stout, but they just told us that we had to sign these cards, and 
they handed them to us, and we all signed them, and they hold the 
money out of our paycheck, which is held out the first day of every 
month — and we felt we were eligible because we had nothing to do with 
paying our dues. 

They put us on the checkoff system. The fact is I was on the 
checkoff system before I even knew it. It was in the contract. It is 
in our contract that we be on the checkoff system. We are on the 
checkoff system. So we naturally felt that through the laws of agen- 
cies that if the company was an agent appointed by the international 
union to collect our dues, that we should have been in good standing. 
But Mr. Hoffa rendered a decision contrary, so, consequently, we didn't 
have any election, and we bypassed that election. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were all declared ineligible, then, all of the 
opposition slate? 

Mr. Keniker. Every one of the opposition slate was declared in- 
eligible. 

Mr. Kennedy. And this was a letter sent by Mr. Hoffa; is that 
right? 

Mr. Keniker. It is my understanding from the other members of 
the slate that they did receive a letter. 

Senator Ives. May I ask a question ? 

I would like to ask the witness if, in his opinion, this was a situation 
that was deliberately set up to prevent opposition, apparent opposition 
such as he established there with his slate, from holding office? 

Mr. Keniker. Well, naturally 

Senator Ives. I gather from what has been said here this afternoon 
that there are some members of the union that paid their dues in ad- 
vance in such a way that they were always up in their dues; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Reniker. Yes. 

Senator Ives. They were always eligible? 

Mr. Reniker. You have that privilege. 

Senator Ives. But you didn't know anything about that setup ? 

Mr. Reniker. I didn't know anything about it. I was told that 
I could do that after I was — I said, "I want to be eligible, I might 
want to hold an office in this thing some day." 

Senator Ives. In other words, the whole thing was geared to prevent 
you from holding office, and your associates ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Reniker. I don't know if that is correct, but that is my opinion. 

Senator Ives. I am going to ask you another question, because the 
farther we get into this thing and the farther we go into this whole 
labor-relations question, the more pertinent it becomes. In your 
opinion and in your judgment would it be possible to have an open 
shop in the Teamsters Union ? 

Mr. Reniker. Sir, on the first part of your question, yes, it is 
possible. 

21243— 59— pt. 39 16 



14790 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Ives. Yes; it would be possible. All things are possible, 
according to the good book. But I mean do you think it could actually 
operate. 

Mr. Reniker. I would say this, I am a unionman and I don't believe 
in open shop. I don't believe it is necessary. 

Senator Ives. I am not asking you that question whether you like 
open shops or not. It so happens that I happen to favor the union 
shop myself. But I am asking you this : Do you think it would be at 
all possible to have an open shop with respect to the Teamsters? 

Mr. Reniker. Yes; it is possible. I hope it isn't probable, though. 

Senator Ives. How are you going to do it ? 

Mr. Reniker. Well, that is beyond my scope of thinking and beyond 
me as a rank and file. I don't know how you are going to do it- 
Senator Ives. I just wondered whether it was possible. 

Mr. Eeniker. But I am not for open shop, as I stated before. 

Senator Ives. Well, I am not for an open shop, either. I am not 
for an open shop in any labor organization. That is not the question. 
The question is whether it is possible or feasible to do that where 
the Teamsters are concerned. 

Mr. Reniker. I think it is possible. 

Senator Ives. But you don't think it could be done ? 

Mr. Reniker. I can't see any benefit in it in an open shop by the 
Teamsters. 

Senator Ives. You don't see any benefits ? 

Mr. Reniker. No. 

Senator Ives. Well, I do, certainly. It would mean simply that 
those people that thought they were being treated unfairly the way 
you were in the particular instance you are talking about wouldn't 
have to belong to the union. 

Mr. Reniker. I am not mad at unionism. I am just mad at a few 
individuals. 

Senator Ives. All right. But the way to clean things up is to stay 
out of the union. Then they will clean up automatically? 

Mr. Reniker. Yes ; but you might kill unionism and then you have 
your other problems. 

Senator Ives. All right. I am not in favor of killing unionism. 
After all, I am strongly in favor of unionism. Don't you forget that. 
But I am trying to figure out how you gentlemen in the Teamsters 
who want to clean house can get at it so you can do that. Have you 
ever thought of that '? 

Mr. Reniker. I thought that was the object of this committee. 

Senator Ives. That we were going to clean house for you ! 

Mr. Reniker. Yes. 

Senator Ives. I wish we could. We would do quite a job, if it was 
left to us. Haven't you any ideas how you can do it ? 

Mr. Reniker. I have them, but they are all illegal. 

Senator Ives. All right. 

The Chairman. I present to you here a photostatic copy of a letter. 
I will ask you if that is the letter you received from Mr. Hoffa declar- 
ing you ineligible to run for office. 

(Document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Reniker. That is it. It is a photostatic copy thereof. 

The Chairman. It may be made exhibit No. 135. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14791 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 135" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. Mr. Tierney, you have in your hand photostatic 
copies of what ? 

Mr. Tierney. I have photostatic copies of letters from James R. 
Hoffa to various members of local 823, the Teamsters, in Joplin, Mo., 
which advises them they are ineligible as nominees for office in the 
local. 

The Chairman. Do you have there also a list of those who were 
declared eligible ? Where did you obtain these records % 

Mr. Tierney. I obtained these records from the trustee files relat- 
ing to this local. 

The Chairman. All right. This group of letters and the list of 
eligibles and ineligibles may be made exhibit No. 136, all of them, 
in bulk, for reference. 

(Documents referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 136" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. How many, Mr. Tierney, were declared to be 
eligible? 

Mr. Tierney. Seven were declared to be eligible. 

Mr. Kennedy. Those were the incumbent officers who paid their 
own dues ? 

Mr. Tierney. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. The only ones who were eligible were those who 
were working for the union who paid their own dues; and people 
who were on the checkoff system were not eligible for office. 

Mr. Tierney. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who presided at the nomination meeting in early 
August of that year ? Wasn't it Vice President Hoffa ? 

Mr. Reniker. Mr. Hoffa was there, and it seems to me that he is 
the one who presided, but I am not sure. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was Mr. Gibbons there also ? 

Mr. Reniker. Mr. Gibbons was there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they make any statement in favor of Mr. Gib- 
bons, or Mr. Webb ? 

Mr. Reniker. Oh, definitely. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did he say about him ? 

Mr. Reniker. He praised Mr. Webb, telling the rank and file that 
he was a very hard worker for the organization, and that he had 
known him for several years, and he felt he was doing an awful good 
job in Joplin, and that there had not been anything ever proven or 
anything. All there was was a bunch of idle accusations, and that 
he thought we should feel that we were fortunate in having a man 
like Mr. Webb. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was quite an advantage, was it not, for Mr. Webb 
to be placed in control of this local by Mr. Hoffa and Mr. Gibbons 
during this period of time, an advantage as far as you people were 
concerned who were trying to get rid of him? 

Mr. Reniker. It was an advantage to him definitely. 

Mr. Kennedy. Certainly Mr. Gibbons or Mr. Hoffa had not placed 
in control of the local an objective third party who was trying to 
make a decision, not taking one side or another in connection with 
this controversy. 



14792 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Keniker. You think in other words they should have appointed 
a neutral party to control the local. 

Mr. Kennedy. As far as your opposition and your complaint. 

Mr. Renikee. Yes, we felt the same way. 

Mr. Kennedy. You said earlier you thought that maybe Mr. Hoffa 
made the only decision possible in putting Mr. Webb in charge of 
the local. Certainly a neutral third party could be placed in charge 
of the local and then an election held, a selection by the rank and file 
membership as to who they wanted as their leader. Don't you think 
that would have been a better way to handle the matter ? 

Mr. Reniker. I thought it would have been, but they did not do it 
that way. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Chairman 

The Chairman. Mr. Tierney, I hand you another photostatic copy 
of a document. Will you state what it is \ 

Mr. Tierney. This is a photostatic copy of the minutes of the 
meeting, special meeting of local 823, August 1, 1954, which is a 
special nomination meeting conducted by trustee James R. Hoffa. 

The Chairman. Those minutes may be made exhibit No. 137. 

(The minutes referred to were marked "Exhibit 137" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I would like to call Mr. Tierney 
to give a background about this meeting so that we can understand 
and put in correct perspective the statement that Mr. Gibbons made 
regarding Mr. Webb and your support, and the fact that Mr. Hoffa 
placed Mr. Webb in control of this local during this period of time. 
I think it is important to get the background of this situation and 
Mr. Webb's activity. 

The Chairman. All right. The committee will take a 2-minute 
recess. 

(Present at the time of taking the recess: Senators McClellan and 
Ives.) 

(Short recess.) 

(Present at resumption of the hearing: Senators McClellan and 
Ives. ) 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Tierney, we had some testimony regarding the 
beating that took place at Miami, Okla. Will you give us the back- 
ground? The National Labor Relations Board made an investiga- 
tion. There were also some civil suits. 

Mr. Tierney. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Will you give us the background and what hap- 
pened and what the National Labor Relations Board finding was? 

Mr. Tierney. I will. 

Mr. Kennedy. This should be kept in mind in context of the state- 
ments of Mr. Harold Gibbons at this meeting, and statements that 
he made subsequently, and also the fact that James Hoffa kept Floyd 
Webb in control of this local. 

The Chairman. All right, proceed. 

Mr. Tierney. Following the petition of these 13 rank and file mem- 
bers to Mr. Hoffa and his return to Mr. Webb, and Mr. Webb's 
supposed investigation of it, 2 of the signatories were fired by Roadway 
Express, Inc. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14793 

The Chairman. That is a trucking company \ 

Mr. Tierney. That is the trucking company. 

Mr. Kennedy. Two of those who signed the petition were then fired 
by their employer. 

Mr. Tierney. By their employers. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many people had been beaten up ? 

Mr. Tierney. One person was beaten up. Walter Buxton. 

Mr. Kennedy. Plow had he been beaten ? 

Mr. Tierney. With a ball-peen hammer. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had he gone to the hospital ? 

Mr. Tierney. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. All right. 

Mr. Tierney. Following their discharge, Buxton and Cawthorn, 
two of the signatories to this petition, filed an action with the National 
Labor Relations Board charging unfair labor practices on the part 
of both companies, Roadway Express Co. and the union, local 823 in 
Joplin. There were extensive hearings, witnesses examined, cross- 
examined, and evidence submitted. They made findings in fact which 
I will summarize here. 

Following submission of this letter, approximately 2 weeks follow- 
ing the submission of the petition, in April 1953, Ray Kaylor, who 
was a union steward, told that the signatories, Carl Rundell and R. E. 
Simmons and Ralph Hayes to take their names off the petition or they 
would be fired. On May 1, 1953, which was several weeks after the 
petition had been sent in, Floyd C. Webb, the president of local 823, 
and Pat Kennison, an assistant business agent of the local, questioned 
one Ralph Hayes, who had also signed the petition concerning his 
signing this petition, and asked him if he didn't think he had done 
wrong in signing the petition. Hayes replied that he had not. Webb 
and Kennison then took Hayes' union book from him, and because of 
the rules then in effect at the time, that prohibited him from working. 

On May 8, 1953, Walter Buxton, who also signed the petition, was 
met at the terminal in Miami, Okla., where Roadway Express was 
located, by Kennison and one Harris Powell. They questioned Bux- 
ton concerning signing the petition, a fight developed and Powell 
beat Buxton unconscious with a ball-peen hammer. 

On July 20, 1953, Pat Kennison, who was then an assistant business 
agent to Floyd Webb, the president of the local, told the Roadway 
safety supervisor, an official of Roadway, Inc., W. C. Turner, that as 
long as Roadway kept Buxton and Jess Cawthorn on the payroll, the 
company could expect hell from the union. 

On July 22, 1953, local 823 called a 24-hour strike ostensibly because 
men servicing trucks for Roadway were nonunion. However, a 
memorandum written by Kenneth McLinn, manager of Roadway's 
Miami terminal, reflects that he contacted Webb to find out what this 
strike was all about, and Webb stated that Kennison had already 
discussed with Mr. McLinn off the record what it was about, and that 
Webb during his discussion with McLinn repeatedly talked about 
Buxton, Hayes and their attitudes; Buxton and Hayes being two 
of the individuals who signed the petition. Roadway Express then 
discharged Jess Cawthorn, one of the signers of the petition, for 
failing to report to work on July 25, 1953. The National Labor Rela- 
tions Board examiner concluded that Cawthorn was actually dis- 



14794 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

charged because of the pressure by union officials Webb and Kennison 
and not because of Cawthorn's failure to report for work, since there 
was undisputed evidence before the National Labor Relations Board 
that he had picked up his pay at Roadway's offices on July 25, 1953, 
and was told by McLinn, who is the manager of the terminal for 
Roadway, to report for his run as usual. 

On June 30, Buxton, the second of the signators, was summarily 
discharged for carrying firearms. The examiner in connection with 
that found that Buxton had carried a gun openly for a week with per- 
mission of local law enforcement officers to protect himself against 
further attack by union officials, as he had formerly been subjected to. 

Mr. Kennedy. So, in summary, they found they had been fired 
because of the pressure of the union. 

Mr. Tierney. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that was because of the fact they signed this 
petition. 

Mr. Tierney. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Objecting to the way the union was being operated. 

Mr. Tierney. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then what happened ? What was the result ? 

Mr. Tierney. The result was that NLRB finding against the com- 
pany and the union required the union to make Buxton and Cawthorn 
whole by paying back wages. As a result of it, the union paid a total 
of $4,825.14, and the company paid $4,825.14. 

Mr. Kennedy. So the union actually had to pay money in con- 
nection with this. 

Mr. Tierney. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. In firing these individuals. This was taken out of 
union funds? 

Mr. Tierney. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And it was in connection with the making of this 
petition ? 

Mr. Tierney. That is correct. 

The Chairman. That record from which you are testifying may be 
made exhibit 138. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 138" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. What else occurred ? 

Mr. Tierney. Following his assault, Buxton filed an action in tort 
against local 823, and certain officers thereof, including Webb, Harris, 
Powell, and one Merrill Petty. He sued the local and thereafter the 
local settled with him, and they agreed to pay $4,000 in settlement. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that in connection with his being beaten ? 

Mr. Tierney. That is in connection with his being beaten with a 
ball peen. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they settle? 

Mr. Tierney. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much did they pay ? 

Mr. Tierney. $4,000 out of union funds in settlement of that. In 
that connection we have a financial report here showing that $4,000 
was disbursed by the union to United States District Court 1036 which 
is the number of the case. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14795 

Mr. Kennedy. So, in fact, they admitted by these payments of these 
moneys of getting members of their own union fired from their jobs 
because of opposition to the local officers, and that they had been 
responsible for ordering the beating of one of their own members, and 
in view of that, paid how much in union funds in connection with that? 

Mr. Tierney. The total was $9,825. 

Mr. Kennedy. Some $9,825 of union funds was paid ; is that correct? 

Mr. Tierney. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. This was all ordered and instructed by Mr. Floyd 
Webb, and was found to have been so by the National Labor Relations 
Board? 

Mr. Tierney. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. By their settlement they made an admission of that ? 

Mr. Tierney. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. This was the same Floyd Webb that Harold Gibbons 
spoke about at the meeting ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Reniker. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he explain to the membership that they had to 
make those payments in connection with the beating and the wrongful 
firing of these individuals ? 

Mr. Reniker. No, there was no explanation made in that regard, 
and it was not even mentioned. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was Mr. Webb at the meeting called a messiah ? 

Mr. Reniker. Not by Mr. Gibbons. That was by Mr. Keul. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Keul ? 

Mr. Reniker. Yes. 

He said if there ever was a messiah for labor, it was Mr. Webb. He 
made that statement. Also Mr. Hoffa told the rank and file, "I want 
you gentlemen to bear in mind that this meeting was called for nomi- 
nations," and it kind of threw us to a tremendous disadvantage to have 
the international vice president and the trustee of the organization, 
plus men in the organization like Harold J. Gibbons come into Joplin, 
speaking to the rank and file, and admiring the activities and the indi- 
viduals of those who we had contested in court. Mr. Hoffa made the 
statement there that the case was finished in Joplin, and there had not 
been anybody charged with anything ; there had been no convictions, 
and that the officers were not found guilty of anything, and the accu- 
sations were false. And at that time, and still to this date, the court 
case is still being held in abeyance, and there has not been any deci- 
sions rendered pro or con, and there would have been nobody convicted 
in a civil case because it was a civil case and not a criminal case. 

Mr. Kennedy. Actually, you had won the case on who was respon- 
sible for the beating and the case on the wrongful discharge. 

Mr. Reniker. Well, we had one point of the case, sir. We had not 
won the case yet. 

Mr. Kennedy. Not your case that grew out of that, but on those two 
matters you had won. 

Mr. Reniker. Those we did ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to have a comparison of Mr. Webb's 
attitude toward these people witli Mr. ITonVs and Mr. Gibbons' atti- 
tudes, who were controlling this local, toward these individuals who 
were in opposition to the local officials and to his own brother. What 
happened to him I Would you tell the committee about that ? 



14796 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Tierney. A brothei- of Floyd "Webb, the president of local 823, 
Basil Webb, was charged in November of 1953 with grand larceny. 
Thai charge was brought against him in connection with his employ- 
ment with Roadway Express, the same company with which the other 
was involved. 

It was about having stolen some tires as a dockhand. On September 
30, 1956, Basil Webbentered a plea of guilty to the charge of larceny, 
for which he received a suspended sentence. The company considered 
discharaino- Webb, and, in fact, thereafter really suspended him on 
March 13, 1954. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why ? What was the reason that they did not dis- 
charge him ? 

Mr. Tierney. Well, Mr. McLinn, who was the manager of the ter- 
minal at the time, stated he had discussed this matter with Basil and 
with Floyd Webb, at which time Floyd Webb merely reprimanded his 
brother for committing this act and warned him against a recurrence. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there a recurrence ? Did anything happen at 
a later time? 

Mr. Tierney. In March 1955 the company discovered that Basil 
Webb had falsified certain records, as a result of which he overcharged 
Roadway for work which he had performed. On March 29, 1955, 
Basil Webb was discharged by Roadway Express for dishonesty by 
Mr. McLinn. However, on April 2, 1955, a letter was sent to Mr. Basil 
Webb informing him that he had merely been suspended for 1 week. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was the total penalty, the suspension for 1 week ? 

Mr. Tierney. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he suspended on the other offense ? 

Mr. Tierney. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. He wasn't suspended at all % 

Mr. Tierney. They did suspend him on March 13, 1954. 

Mr. Kennedy. For how long ? 

Mr. Tierney. I don't have the records of how long it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. But he was not discharged as the other individuals 
were? 

Mr. Tierney. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. He continued at his job ? 

Mr. Tierney. He did. 

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

The Chairman. That is a case where the union interferes to protect 
a thief, is that right, to keep him from losing his job ? 

Mr. Tierney. That is what it amounts to, yes. 

The Chairman. Even on the second offense ? 

Mr. Tierney. That is right. 

The Chairman. And that is because he is a brother of this man 
Webb? 

Mr. Tierney. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. But when their own membership tries to get some- 
thing done in the local, the union leadership moves in and gets them 
suspended or fired from their jobs. 

What happened, then? There was no election. Your slate was all 
ruled ineligible, and Mr. Hoffa called off the election entirely ? 

Mr. Reniker. Right. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened ? Did you have an election ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14797 

Mr. Reniker. They had an election in 1956, which was 2 years later, 
which we did not recognize, because, getting back again to this civil 
case, we were still in court, and they definitely were not holding the 
election to the satisfaction of the judge or the plaintiffs in the case. 

Mr. Kennedy. At this time, the judge had become ill, is that correct? 

Mr. Reniker. The judge did become ill, yes, but I don't know ex- 
actly whether it was at that time that he became ill or since the time 
they had that in 1956. I do not know the date that the judge became 
ill. But that is what is holding the case off at the time now. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you nominate any slate ? 

Mr. Reniker. No, sir ; because we were advised not to do so by our 
attorney, because we did not recognize it as being a legal procedure 
within its own structure. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Hoffa attend the meeting where this slate 
was nominated ? That was on December 2, 1956. 

Mr. Reniker. I believe he did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Hoffa make a speech at that meeting ? 

Mr. Reniker. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did he say ? 

Mr. Reniker. Yes ; he attended that meeting. I know now, because 
that was when Mr. Hoffa again came back and told them that the case 
was finished, that there wasn't anything to it ; that none of the officers 
had been charged or found guilty of anything, and the charges brought 
by the dissident members were false, and the officers that were involved 
he felt sorry for them and their families because they had been falsely 
accused. Mind you, he is talking to the rank and file, 

And in his statement he said that I as one of the dissenting members 
had cost the local union over $70,000 in litigation fees. I felt pretty 
proud about that, I must have had something if it cost them $70,000. 
Anyway, he made those statements to the rank and file. That was pre- 
vious to the time they held their supposed nominations. All the time 
I sat restraining myself because that was my instructions of my 
counsel. At that time in that union meeting, Mr. Dan Leary, the 
attorney for the union was there, and he got up and made statements 
leading the rank and file to believe that it was all over. 

xVt that time, I went down to the courthouse, because I didn't know 
but what maybe I had been crossed up by my own counsel and did 
not know whether the suit had been settled or not, I went down to 
the courthouse and checked the records and there it was, just as it had 
been. So when they made the statements that that suit was settled, 
and that they was going to put that back in local autonomy, it was a 
falsehood. Whether it was an intentional falsehood, I do not know, 
but it was definitely false, and it has proven so today. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Hoffa say anything about taking action 
against you people who had brought this action? 

Mr. Reniker. Mr. Hoffa said they ought to throw me out of the 
union. 

Mr. Kennedy. That the local should throw you out of the union for 
bringing all of this trouble to the local ? 

Mr. Reniker. Yes. And I was sitting there wishing they would. 

Mr. Kennedy. Has the trusteeship been lifted over the local \ 

Mr. Reniker. The trusteeship at that particular meeting, according 
to Mr. Hoffa, was being lifted, and that was why they had the election. 



14798 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Yet again, according to records, it was in April of 1958 when they 
finally recognized that the international union recognized and did lift 
the trusteeship of local 823. 

Mr. Kennedy. April of 1958? 

Mr. Reniker. Yes. That was 2 years, almost, or a year and so many 
months later. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you don't know whether it was at that time ? 

Mr. Reniker. I don't know whether it was lifted or not. 

All we have to go on when there is a trusteeship is they come in and 
say "You are under trusteeship," and there you are. 

You don't know when you are going to get out or what. If they 
decide to come down tomorrow and take you out of trusteeship, the 
president has that power. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you nominate or elect any representatives to the 
Miami convention? 

Mr. Reniker. We don't never have anything to do with any dele- 
gates. That automatically becomes your executive board and your 
officers. We do not elect any delegates to go to a convention. 

Mr. Kennedy. During the year 1957 did you elect any delegates? 

Mr. Reniker. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Reniker, we had an investigator out to see you 
in 1957; is that right? 

Mr. Reniker. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. In September of 1957. After you talked to him, did 
you hear anything further regarding your conversations ? 

Mr. Reniker. Quite a deal; yes. Mr. Tierney, the investigating 
attorney, was in Joplin investigating this situation for this committee. 
I had talked to Mr. Tierney at his request, first in our lawyer's office, 
because we felt that he might do us some good, and he wanted to know 
what was going on. So we told him. We showed him this testimony 
in court, and all of the proceedings, so on and so forth, that had hap- 
pened in the past, which we have been discussing here. 

Mr. Tierney left — I may stand correction on this date. I believe it 
was September 28th. I believe Mr. Tierney left on the 27th, and on 
the day of the 28th, in the morning, I was working over at Galena ; I 
had just gotten through loading out the trucks. I had my suitcase. I 
started to get in my unit that I was driving that day and 4 men drove 
up, 2 of whom I knew. Mr. Bill Self came up to me, who is the 
brother of local 823, and I have known him for several years, he came 
up to me and said, "I want to talk to you." I said, "I got nothing to 
talk about. I am working." 

"Well, by gosh," so on and so forth, "you will talk." At that time, 
then, the other three men crowded up around me. I was standing with 
my back up to the truck, with my right foot up on the fender. Bill 
Self stretched out and took ahold of my shirt. He said, "Now, if you 
don't quit talking about Mr. Hoffa, and quit talking to these Senate 
rackets investigators, and quit talking about Mr. Webb, we .are going 
to make you an awful sorry boy." 

I said, "Well, I don't know what you are talking about at the pres- 
ent time, because I have not been talking about them. But that is no 
sign I wouldn't talk about them, because I don't like the way things is 
going, and I have that right to say that." 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14799 

When I said that, lie made a pass at me, and the other guy made a 
pass at me, and in the deal one of them succeeded in hitting me, 
although they did not hurt me. They did not, certainly, get the job 
done they had anticipated, because it was very plain that the fellows 
had been drinking. And had they been sober they would have prob- 
ably beat the tar out of me, which they wanted to do, but they did not 
succeed in the job. 

There is three witnesses to that effect. The mayor of Galena, Kans., 
was there, and it happened on his property. He called the police and 
they came down there. I wouldn't prefer any charges against the boys. 
The Federal Bureau of Investigation stepped into the case and have 
complete records, complete files on it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why didn't you prefer charges ? 

Mr. Reniker. Well, now, that is a good question. I felt like if they 
didn't succeed that time, the next time they might succeed, so the best 
thing to do was to just leave it alone, get rid of it. I don't like the 
idea of people wanting to go around beating me up all the time, so I 
didn't file any charges against them, because it didn't make any differ- 
ence anyhow. All that would have been done was they would have 
been fined $25 and turned loose. 

That is what happened in other cases, because I was a witness in 
other cases where they had done that. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the status of the whole situation now ? Do 
you feel discouraged about your efforts ? 

Mr. Reniker. Well, no, I think we are making progress. I don't 
know which direction it is in, but we are going. 

But, Mr. Kennedy, could I answer this gentleman's question over 
to the right? I have to call him a gentleman because I don't know 
what his name is. 

The Chairman. This is Senator Ives. 

Senator Ives. Call me mister, if you feel any better about it. 

Mr. Reniker. Well, you asked me a question a while ago that I 
answered rather quickly in regard to what did I think there was 
anything that could be done to help straighten this situation out, and 
I think I answered you in a rather — — 

Senator Ives. I think you misunderstood what I was driving at. 

Mr. Reniker. Yes, there is a lot that can be done through legisla- 
tion, and that is the only way I can do it. 

Senator Ives. You have to do it through legislation ? 

Mr. Reniker. I think so. 

Senator Ives. What would you do through legislation, while you 
are on that subject? That is what we are really after here, 

Mr. Reniker. What would I do? I don't think it would be fair. 
I have a lot of things I would like to do. 

Senator Ives. Suppose you could do it, what would you do? 

Mr. Reniker. Well, it looks to me like the situation has gotten so 
big that when the rank and file can't take care of their own problems 
and don't have any say in their own problems, then there should be 
laws made to protect the rank and file, 

Senator Ives. I doubt if you could do that on the Federal level very 
well. It would take pretty near an army to do that. That is one of 
the problems we had with the Taft-Hartley Act when the matter 
came up. Do you see what I mean ? 



14800 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

After all, your teamsters are interstate, and they cover the whole 
country. After all is said and done, I don't want to see this thing 
done by force. That is the very thing that the Teamster leaders are 
now employing, and the thing that I deplore. It seems to me there 
is some peaceful way by which this thing can be handled. 

If your leader, Mr. Hoffa, who sits back there, and with whom I 
have argued time and again on this question, would just see fit to get rid 
of some of these fellows that are running the show inside the union, 
I think that would go a long way toward straightening it out. 

What do you think ? 

Mr. Reniker. I think it would, too. I have all the admiration in 
the world for Mr. Hoffa, and in lieu of the fact of the condition that 
I sit in at the present time. I still have admiration for Mr. Hoffa. I 
think he is one of the best unionmen and leaders that we have ever had. 

Senator Ives. Except for that one thing. 

Mr. Reniker. Well, yes, except for what we are discussing. 

Senator Ives. He lets this thing be run by force in violation of the 
law. You just can't do those things. What can we do with regard to 
legislation ? You are talking about having a police force throughout 
the country to look after this thing. What else have you got in mind ? 

Mr. Reniker. No, I am only talking about — I think if you take and 
control the money, you will take a lot of this racketeering out of it. 

Senator Ives. In other words, make them report all the dues that are 
collected, all the initiation fees that are collected, all the special assess- 
ments that are collected, everything like that. Have them report to 
some agency in the Government; is that right? 

Mr. Reniker. That is the way I feel about it. 

Senator Ives. That would go along a long ways, wouldn't it? 

Mr. Reniker. Yes. 

Senator Ives. And have secret elections. That would go a long 
ways, wouldn't it? 

Mr. Reniker. It should solve it. 

Senator Ives. Well, I don't know that it would solve it completely, 
but it would go a long ways toward solving it. 

Mr. Reniker. Look, I wouldn't have any objection if they have a 
free and democratic election. I don't have any objection if Mr. Webb 
is elected back in or who is elected back in. 

Senator Ives. As long as it is done properly. 

Mr. Reniker. As long as it is clone proper. And if conditions had 
been different, I would have voted for Mr. Webb myself. 

Senator Ives. And done periodically. You would have a time limit, 
wouldn't you, on the office holding? 

Mr. Reniker. That is right. 
Senator Ives. That is exactly what was in the Kennedy-Ives bill that 
was passed by the Senate. I think it would go a long ways towards 
helping you clean up. 

Mr. Reniker. Yes, but somebody came along and cut somebody's 
throat on that one, didn't they? 

Senator Ives. I don't know who did what. If you have any other 
ideas, we would appreciate them, because that is what we are hunting 
for from the standpoint of legislation. 

Mr. Reniker. Well, I am speaking as one rank and filer. I think 
perhaps Mr. Hoffa put it right, I am a rabble rouser. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14801 

Senator Ives. You know, it takes rabble rousers now and then to get 
things done. 

Mr. Reniker. Well, I served my country and came back to face this 
situation, and I felt that when I was serving my country, I was 
lighting for a democratic condition, when I returned home. 

Senator Ives. That was World War II, wasn't it ? 

Mr. Reniker. Yes, sir. And it is just a difference in opinion. A 
lot of the rank and file don't have that opinion. I have had fellows 
tell me "What do you care what they do with the money ?" Really, I 
don't care what they do with the money, but I would like to have a little 
bit of it for myself once in a while. 

Senator Ives. I think we have covered the money angle, haven't we? 
What else have you in mind — anything ? 

Mr. Reniker. There would not be anything else to it if they had 
free and democratic elections. 

Senator Ives. You think it would take care of it, free and democratic 
elections and accounting of funds? 

Mr. Reniker. Yes. I think Mr. Hoffa would probably be reelected 
as president of the international union if he went out and got rid of 
his racketeers. Certainly I don't admire any man to come up here 
and take the fifth amendment because if a man takes the fifth amend- 
ment he has something to hide. I don't like to be in an organization 
as a rank and filer and be under men who sit and continuously take 
the fifth amendment. I don't think it is a very honorable organiza- 
tion that continues to tolerate some of that. 

Senator Ives. That is the observation of some of us, too. I don't 
see how we can stop them to take the fifth amendment if they choose 
to do so. What we can do is perhaps pass some laws, as the chairman 
said, or a constitutional amendment as I have indicated may be neces- 
sary, to straighten this fifth amendment business out so people won't 
make a joke or travesty of it and abuse it as is being done at the 
present time. Thank you very much. 

The Chairman. What do you think about having these ex-convicts 
put over you to boss you ? 

Mr. Reniker. Well, I don't like it myself but there is nothing I can 
do about it. 

The Chairman. I think we can do something about that. 

Senator Ives. That was also in that Kennedy-Ives bill, to prevent 
that. 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to make sure we get the record clear. When 
you say you would like to get a little bit of the money yourself, I don't 
believe you meant illegally, would you ? 

Mr. Reniker. No. There would not be any necessity for it 
illegally. 

Mr. Kennedy. It would be a question of having 

Mr. Reniker. I am referring to the fact that some of these days 
I am going to get old and I would like to have a little bit of it for my 
future. The health and welfare fund has been dipped into as proven 
here before this committee. 

Mr. Kennedy. You would like to have a little of the money left that 
you have been paying your dues into ? 

Mr. Reniker. That is what I was referring to. 



14802 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Not in the manner we have described here as to these 
people dipping into the union funds ? 

Mr. Reniker. Xo. I am afraid they wouldn't allow me to do that 
anyway. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

You and Mr. Rogers have dared to come up here and tell this com- 
mittee the facts as you see them and believe them to be in your locals 
and if more of you rank and file members would have the courage 
to do that you would help us to help you clean up. I think you are 
to be commended. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on that, too. 
I want to thank the witness and the other witness to whom you re- 
ferred for helping us out. You have indicated the opinion that some 
of us have with respect to legislation. I am sure that next year efforts 
will be made in the legislative field to go perhaps even further than was 
attempted this year. 

I won't be a Member of the Senate next year but I am very sure the 
effort will be continued. I hope that effort will be fair. I hope it 
will be just. I hope it won't be aimed at crippling labor organizations. 
That is the thing of which I am fearful. I am strongly in favor of 
organized labor and I think anything that would cripple it in this 
country would be disastrous. 

Mr. Reniker. I don't think it is necessary to go that far. It can 
be straightened out. 

Senator Ives. I don't either. 

The Chairman. If you have not already done so, you give the staff 
of this committee the names of the fellows who assaulted you. 

Mr. Reniker. I only have two of them, sir. Bill Self and Bill 
Goddis. 

The Chairman. Make a note of that, Mr. Counsel, and at the proper 
time we will take this up at a meeting of the committee. I want to 
find out whether people can do that and escape being convicted of 
contempt of the Senate of the United States. 

Mr. Reniker. I would be interested to find that fact out, too. 

The Chairman. So you have given us the names of two of them. 
Who can supply the names of the other two ? 

Mr. Reniker. I think your Federal Bureau of Investigation local 
agent can. 

The Chairman. I understand the reason they accosted you, and 
started this argument with you and assaulted you, was because you 
had been talking to an investigator of this committee and that is the 
charge they made against you ? 

Mr. Reniker. That is exactly it. 

The Chairman. This would be a good time to find out. Thank you 
very much. 

Mr. Reniker. Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Virgil L. Walters. 

The Chairman. Mr. Walters come around, please, sir. 

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. Walters. Ido. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14803 

TESTIMONY 0E VIRGIL L. WALTERS, ACCOMPANIED BY 
COUNSEL, DANIEL J. LEARY 

The Chairman. Be seated. State your name, your place of resi- 
dence, and your business or occupation. 

Mr. Walters. Virgil Lewis Walters, Joplin, Mo., representaive of 
local 823, Joplin. 

The Chairman. You have counsel present? Mr. Counsel, identify 
yourself for the record. 

Mr. Leary. Daniel J. Leary, Joplin, Mo., member of the Missouri 
bar. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Walters, how long have you been an officer of 
local 823 ? 

Mr. Walters. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my privi- 
lege under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution not 
to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Walters, I have one very important matter to 
discuss with you and that is in connection with the delegates that were 
supposedly elected to the convention in 1957. I would like to have 
jyou examine the minutes that are written up for the selection or 
election of those delegates. 

The Chaerman. You are the recording secretary, I believe, you said 
of this local, is that correct? 

(Witness consulted with counsel.) 

The Chairman. Isn't that what you said a moment ago? 

Mr. Leary. Mr. Chairman, may I query a moment? Did he not 
answer that he was a business agent ? 

The Chairman. I am not sure. I just asked him for clarification. 

(The pending question was read by the reporter.) 

The Chairman. Then you didn't say that you were recording secre- 
tary. I misunderstood you. 

I hand you here the minutes, regular meeting, local 823, of May 5, 
1957, at 2 p. m., and ask you to examine the minutes of that meeting 
and state if you identify them. 

Mr. Walters. I do. 

The Chairman. You do identify them? 

Mr. Walters. Yes. 

The Chairman. Then they may be made exhibit 139. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 139" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee. ) 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Walters, I want to call your attention to the 
paragraph which reads : 

Motion by John Starchman, that Floyd Webb, E. M. Hodges, and W. W. Kitts 
be sent as delegates to convention of international union in Miami, Fla., in 
September, second by Al Watkins, motion carried by unanimous vote. 

Was that actually discussed at this meeting in May of 1957? 

Mr. Walters. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my privi- 
lege under the fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Is that a false record ? 

Mr. Walters. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my privi- 
lege under the fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States not to be a witness against myself. 



14804 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it a fact, Mr. Walters, that that paragraph did 
not appear in these minutes as they were first written up ? 

Mr. Walters. 1 respectfully decline to answer and assert my privi- 
lege under the fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it a fact that the matter of dealing with the 
election of the delegates was never taken up at this meeting, and that 
this paragraph that I have read was forged in at a later time '. 

Mr. Walters. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my privi- 
lege under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution 
not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. And isn't it correct that you erased an entirely dif- 
ferent paragraph, where this paragraph appears, and then forged in 
that paragraph in connection with the selection of the delegates ? 

Mr. Walters. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my privi- 
lege under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution not 
to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have had this matter examined 
by the scientific lab at the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I would 
like to ask Mr. Tierney what the finding was in connection with that 
paragraph? 

You can see from an examination of the minutes that there was an 
erasure, that whole paragraph was erased, and a paragraph substi- 
tuted for the original paragraph. 

The Chairman. All right, did you have this document examined, 
this exhibit 139, by the FBI laboratory ? 

Mr. Tierney. I did, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. What is the result? Do you have the results of 
the finding ? 

Mr. Tierney. I do. I might say at the outset I had discussed this 
matter with Mr. Walters in Joplin, at which time he told me that these 
erasures were made in order to permit him to place the names of the 
delegates in the order in which they were actually selected or the 
order in which the motions were actually made. With that in mind 
the examination was requested of the FBI. In that connection the 
report of the FBI reveals that none of the erased letters within this 
area conform to any of the names of Floyd Webb, E. M. Hodges, and 
W. W. Kitts, now set forth in the present paragraph. 

The report further reveals that the erasures concluded with a signa- 
ture of the recording secretary, similar to the signature which appears 
at the end of the minutes as they are presently constituted, which 
would indicate that the minutes concluded at that juncture where this 
paragraph was inserted. 

Mr. Kennedy. So these paragraphs that read : 

Motion by Crotts, to cancel meetings until first Sunday in October, second 
by Al Watkins, motion carried and motion made by W. W. Kitts to adjourn 
and seconded by John Starchman, motion carried, meeting adjourned — 

were all placed subsequently and mere not in the original minutes. 

Mr. Tierney. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. So the paragraph regarding the selection of the 
delegates as set up was not in the original minutes and the paragraph 
that said that they would not meet again in October, which would 
have been after the date of the election of the delegates or which would 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14805 

have been after the date of the convention, was also put in subse- 
quently ? 

Mr. Tierney. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. From the FBI report ? 

Mr. Tierney. That is right. 

The Chairman. The FBI report, if you have it, may be made 
exhibit No. 140. 

( Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 140" for reference, 
and may be found in the files of the select commitee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Will you tell us about that, Mr. Walters ? 

Mr. Walters. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my privi- 
lege under the fifth amendment not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I would like to call Mr. Floyd Webb 
to see if he can throw some light on this. 

The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Webb, will you come around and sit 
next to the witness. Will you be sworn, sir ? 

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. Webb. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF FLOYD C. WEBB, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
COUNSEL, DANIEL J. LEARY 

The Chairman. You have something there to refresh your memory 
as to what your occupation is? 

Mr. Webb. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my privilege 
under the fifth amendment of the Constitution not to be a witness 
against myself. 

The Chairman. You don't have a lawyer, do you ? 

Mr. Webb. Yes, sir. [Witness indicates gentleman seated at his 
right.] 

The Chairman. I can't get that thumb going into the record. Do 
you have an attorney ? 

Mr. Webb. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Let the record show the same counsel that appeared 
before with the preceding witness. 

Do you occupy any position with a labor union ? 

Mr. Webb. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my privilege 
under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution not to 
be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. What is there about unionism that could possibly 
tend to incriminate you ? 

Mr. Webb. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my privilege 
under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution not to 
be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. There are some unions where it is a great credit, 
I think, to be a member. Is there something peculiar about the 
Teamsters Union that causes you to feel that you can't talk about 
your position with it without incriminating yourself? 

Mr. Webb. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my privilege 
under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution not to 
be a witness against myself. 



14806 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy. 

Senator Ives. Just a minute, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask 
Mr. Webb a question. 

The Chairman. Senator Ives. 

Senator Ives. Is it not true that you are a friend of Mr. Hoffa ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Webb. Repeat your question, sir. 

Senator Ives. I say, Is it not a fact that you are one of Mr. Hoffa's 
friends? 

Mr. Webb. I am a friend of Mr. Hoffa's ; that is right. 

Senator Ives. All right, then. Your taking this fifth amendment, 
especially when you come to your relationship with Mr. Hoffa, can 
do nothing but damage to Mr. Hoffa. Now, if you have any regard 
whatever for him, you had better not take the fifth amendment. That 
is all I want to comment, I am not asking you a question. I am 
telling you. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been working with your friend 
Mr. Hoffa? 

Mr. Webb. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my privilege 
under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution not to 
be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you consulted often about union affairs, you 
and Mr. Hoffa? 

Mr. Webb. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my privilege 
under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution not to 
be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it his friendship toward you that led him to 
appoint you as trustee of this local, or his administrator of this local 
in Joplin ? 

Mr. Webb. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my privilege 
under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution not to be 
a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was trustee and he could appoint anybody that 
he wished. What was it about your background and experience that 
led him to select you to run the local for him ? 

Mr. Webb. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my privilege 
under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution not to be 
a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is it the fact that you sent a couple of people down 
to Miami, Okla., to beat somebody up with a hammer ? 

Is that correct ? Is that the reason that he selected you ? 

Mr. Webb. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my privilege 
under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution not to be 
a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Or was it the fact that you sent them down there to 
put this man in a funeral parlor? 

Mr. Webb. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my privilege 
under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution not to be 
a witness against myself . 

Mr. Kennedy. Or was it your ability to talk so tough to the rank- 
and-file members that you would have them killed, too ? Is that it, Mr. 
Webb? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14807 

Mr. Webb. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my privilege 
under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution not to be 
a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you find that you can pretty well take care of a 
man if you send three men down with hammers to beat him up ? 

Do you think that you are always pretty successful in that operation ? 

Mr. Webb. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my privilege 
under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution not to be 
a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever try to get into a fight just you against 
one other man or is it always two with a hammer ? 

Mr. Webb. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my privilege 
under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution not to be 
a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Are you a physical coward ? 

Mr. Webb. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my privilege 
under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution not to be 
a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. If that does not work, and the man continues to op- 
pose you, Mr. Webb, is it a fact that you can then deprive him of his 
1 i velihood ? Is that what Mr. Hoff a likes ? 

Mr. Webb. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my privilege 
under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution not to be 
a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Also your willingness to go to an employer and order 
him to fire anybody that is opposed to you ? 

Mr. Webb. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my privilege 
under the fifth amendment of the Constitution not to be a witness 
against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then, Mr. Webb, if you get into difficulty or troubles, 
you can always get the union to pay the bills ; is that right ? 

Mr. Webb. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my privilege 
under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution not to be 
a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't that correct ? Isn't that what you did in this 
case, offer $9,000 for getting people fired and for beating somebody up 'i 

Mr. Webb. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my privilege 
under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution not to be 
a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then all your legal bills are paid for by the Team- 
sters, some $70,000 of legal bills, according to Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. Webb. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my privilege 
under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution not to be 
a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is the kind of operation that he likes and wants 
to continue ; is that right, Mr. Webb ? 

Mr. Webb. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my privilege 
under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution not to be 
a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then, in an election, an arrangement where you 
rule ineligible all of the opposition. The other two methods of beat- 
ing people up and depriving them of their job; after that, the third 
possibility is to rule that all the opposition is ineligible; is that right, 
Mr. Webb? 



14808 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. "Webb. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my privilege 
under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution not to be 
a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is this what Mr. Hoffa approves of % 

Mr. Webb. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my privilege 
under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution not to be 
a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then even beyond that, if necessary, you forge 
the minutes of the meetings in order to elect delegates; is that correct X 

Mr. Webb. I respectfully decline to answer and assert by privilege 
under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution not to be 
a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Did you doctor those records ? 

Air. Webb. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my privilege 
under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution not to be 
a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Is that your handwriting, those minutes ? 

Mr. Webb. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my privilege 
under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution not to be 
a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa would approve of all this, would he not, 
because of the fact that these delegates voted for him in the election 
down in Miami ? 

Mr. Webb. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my privilege 
under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution not to be 
a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. This takes place within the Missouri-Kansas Confer- 
ence of Teamsters, of which Mr. Harold Gibbons is president. Can 
you tell us what Mr. Gibbons has done about all this ? 

Mr. Webb. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my privilege 
under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution not to 
be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. He stated he was against violence ; that he was anx- 
ious to get criminal elements out of labor unions. Can you tell us 
why he has not taken some action in your case and in the case of 
Springfield, Mo. ? 

Mr. Webb. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my privilege 
under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution not to 
be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. There has not been anything done in your union, has 
there, that has not been in the category of improper and illegal activi- 
ties as we have gone into them before this committee ? 

Mr. Webb. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my privilege 
under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution not to 
be a witness against myself. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question. 

The Chaerman. Senator Ives. 

Senator Ives. I would like to ask the witness what he has against 
Mr. Gibbons? 

Mr. Webb. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my privilege 
under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution not to 
be a witness against my self . 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14809 

Senator Ives. All I want to do is to point out to you once more is 
that all you are saying is very harmful to Mr. Gibbons. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you a friend of Mr. Gibbons ? 

Mr. Webb. I respectfully decline to answer and assert my privilege 
under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution not to 
be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

If not, stand aside. 

The committee will stand in recess until 10 : 30 in the morning. 

(Whereupon, at 4: 30 p. m. the hearing was recessed, to reconvene 
at 10 : 30 a. m. Wednesday, September 10, 1958, with the following 
members present : Senators McClellan and Ives.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR-MANAGEMENT FIELD 



WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1958 

United States Senate, 
Select Committee on Improper Activities 

in the Labor or Management Field, 

Washington, D. C. 

The select committee met at 10 : 30 a. m., pursuant to Senate Resolu- 
tion 221, agreed to January 29, 1958, in the caucus room, Senate Office 
Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select com- 
mittee) presiding. 

Present : Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas ; Senator 
Irving M. Ives, Republican, New York; Senator Karl E. Mundt, Re- 
publican, South Dakota. 

Also present : Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel ; Jerome S. Adler- 
man, assistant 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; Walter J. Sheridan, investigator ; James Mundie, investi- 
gator, Treasury Department; John Flanagan, investigator, GAO; 
Alfred Vitarelli, investigator, 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 : 
Senators McClellan, Ives, and Mundt. ) 

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Fitzgerald, please. 

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE S. FITZGERALD— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. We talked yesterday, just briefly, about the financial 
arrangements that you had with the union. Do you get paid by the 
joint council, is that correct ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And do you represent various locals plus the Michi- 
gan Welfare Fund ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, I represent various locals, and I represent at 
times, or I have represented at times practically all of the Teamsters 
affiliates. 

Mr. Kennedy. That would be Joint Council 43, and you do repre- 
sent locals 299 and 337, as I understand it ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. You would include those, yes, be representations. 

Mr. Kennedy. And on occasion you get paid by them ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes, there have been times, some special occasions 
when I have been paid, I believe. 

14811 



14812 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Mainly your fee comes from Joint Council 43 ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the arrangement on the fee, and what do 
you receive from them ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, I receive a $600 basic retainer, and then I 
am paid for work other than — strike that for a moment. I am paid 
a basic $600 retainer, which would be the same as a retainer for a 
lawyer for a corporation, for general consultation and things of that 
kind. Then I am paid in addition to that fees for special work that 
may be involved, that I believe goes beyond the scope of the retainer. 

That arrangement incidentally, has persisted for some number of 
years. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then do you have your other bills paid for by the 
Teamsters, your stenographic help and telegraph and all of that? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, yes, I don't know when that started, but that 
could be considered or as a matter of fact the stenographic could be 
considered a part of the general retainer in one sense of the word. 

Senator Mundt. While the counsel is talking to the chairman, you 
left this $600 hanging in the air. Is that per day, per week, or per 
year, or what ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I am sorry, Senator. That $600 is per month. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, you also bill them for your telephone and 
telegraph, is that right ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I bill them for telephone and telegraph. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you bill 

Mr. Fitzgerald. The bill for telephone and telegraph includes my 
own time, not only the specific bill that I have been paid for telephones, 
but my own time involved in work on the telephone. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you bill them for actual bills that you have for 
telephone and telegraph, and stenographic help ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, now, do you mean, is nry bill to the union 
confined to the bill for just telephone and telegraph that I receive 
from those utilities, is that what you mean ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, it isn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. You bill them for something in addition to that ] 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, I bill them for the time and the work that I 
do in connection with the telephone, and that bill includes the actual 
charge for telephone. 

Mr. Kennedy. How do you determine what you are going to charge 
for telephone and telegraph, for instance? We noticed for a 5-year 
period that you charge some $46,000 for telephone and telegraph from 
1953 through 1957. On your tax returns you treated all of that money 
as income, but it was charged to the Teamsters Union as bills for 
telephone and telegraph charges, $46,650. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And this was all treated by you as income in your 
income-tax return ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you explain that to the committee? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I can explain it in this way : Let us say I bill them 
over a period of 5 years, $46,000 for telephone and telegraph. That is 
what I received from the Teamsters on that, and I treated the entire 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14813 

thing as income. Then, in making up my income-tax returns, I de- 
ducted the actual bills that I received from the telephone company as 
the expense. 

Now, the difference over and above what I paid the telephone com- 
pany for my actual expense and the total amount shown is payment 
to me for work that I have done that I would list under services 
rendered by the use or means of telephone. I might say a major por- 
tion of my operation is that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the Teamsters understand when they paid your 
bill that this is not for telephone and telegraph bills that you have 
accrued on their behalf ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I am sure they did. I am sure they did. Let me 
say something, Mr. Kennedy, I put a certain value on my services, 
and I have represented this Teamsters Union over a period of 25 years, 
and I am certain that the Teamsters are aware of the fact that a great 
majority of my work for that union has been done on the telephone or 
in connection with telephone, or matters discussed on the telephone. 

Mr. Kennedy. If that were true, I don't understand why you 
wouldn't put it down as "conferences on the telephone," instead of 
charging it to telephone and telegraph, $46,000 ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Do you want me to bill it your way ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No. 

Mr; Fitzgerald. I have been billing it this way for a number of 
years, and now let me say this to you : This has been going on for a 
period of years, and certainly if there was anything wrong with it 
they would have complained by this time. 

Mr. Kennedy. They knew about it, did they ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. There isn't any question they knew about it, and 
if they didn't know about it I think they should ask me or they would 
have been the first ones to ask me. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Fitzgerald a 
question in that connection about the telephone charges and telegraph 
charges, and I think it covers both, does it not, that item ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes, telephone and telegraph, and the telegraph 
is not as large. 

Senator Ives. I assume it is largely telephone ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

Senator Ives. In that connection, does any part of that telephone 
item include personal calls of your own, which cannot be construed 
by any stretch of the imagination to be dealing with Teamster 
business ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No : I would not say so. But I don't mean, now, 
that over a course of time, over a period of 25 years, that I would not 
have made personal telephone calls. 

Senator Ives. Then you don't separate them ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes, I do. I don't have sufficient telephone—per- 
sonal telephone calls that would make any difference. 

Senator Ives. Do you use another telephone for personal matters? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No. What do you mean by personal telephone? 
This is 

Senator Ives. Suppose- 



Mr. Fitzgerald. Wait a minute. Let me make the distinction for 
you, so there will be no question. 



14814 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Ives. All right. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Over the years, if I have personal telephone calls, 
certainly I am not going to bill them to the Teamsters and did not 
consciously do so. If I have telephone calls for other clients, I am 
not going to bill them to the Teamsters, consciously. 

I can't keep track of ever 4-cent call that I make on my phone. 

Senator Ives. Can you make a 4-cent call nowadays ? 

Mr. FitzCxERald. That is what they charge you, I understand. 

Senator Ives. I am not talking about local calls. I am talking 
about the long-distance calls. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No. Long-distance calls would be in every event, 
with very few exceptions — and I am not saying that at times there 
could not have been a personal call that would not have crept into 
this thing, if I wanted to call my wife, or call one of my family long 
distance. 

Senator Ives. That is right, or some other part of your legal activity 
that does not deal with the Teamsters. I assume you must have other 
clients than the Teamsters. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes. No, I haven't had for the last couple of 
years. That is the situation. 

Senator Ives. That is all you have in the way of clients is the 
Teamsters ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, I wouldn't cover it that way, but I will say 
this, that I have not been able to pay any personal attention to any of 
my personal law business except the Teamsters in the last 2 years. 

Senator Ives. I can see how they would keep you pretty busy. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I think it is because you people contributed to 
that. 

Senator Ives. Never mind who contributed it. I think they started 
it. But on the other hand, you don't separate, you don't run an 
account on the telephone wherein you separate your personal items 
from the Teamsters' items, do you ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. If you say to me can I give you a rundown with my 
method of operation, where I could separate every possible call, I 
am not in the bookkeeping or the accounting business, and I don't 
pretend to be 

Senator Ives. I am not talking about what business you are in. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. If that is the case, Senator, I would go out of the 
business, I would go out of the law business so far as the Teamsters 
are concerned. 

Senator Ives. Do you mean you have so many calls that the amount 
of accounting would be somewhat beyond your capacity to handle? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, I don't have an operation that I can run 
where I have to keep track of all my personal calls and list them down 
like a corporate law firm or somebody who has a bookkeeping system 
and an office set up where they could do that. 

Senator Ives. I do. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. You do ? 

Senator Ives. Yes. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, I think that is an excellent thing, and I wish 
I had the time. 

Senator Ives. I think it is an excellent thing. I think it is the only 
thins to do. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14815 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, I don't. As a matter of fact, if it is the best 
thing to do, then I am going to get out of it. I am going to handle 
somebody else's business. 

Senator Ives. I think we are off the track in this direction. The 
question I raised was whether you included all calls, and apparently 
you do. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, I don't. 

Senator Ives. From what you say about accounting, you do. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, I don't. If I had personal calls, I said to you 
this, so that my position will be straight on the record : When I send 
a bill to the Teamsters Union, that is an honest bill in my judgment, 
and I am being paid for it for the honest work I did for them. 

Senator Ives. Let me 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Wait a minute, will you please, Senator? I am 
sorry, but let me finish. I don't want to say here 

Senator Ives. Wait a minute. Wil you kindly show a little more 
respect to this committee ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I am sorry. I have the utmost respect. 

Senator Ives. Never mind me. But to the members of the com- 
mittee. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I have it for you, too. But I want you to under- 
stand something and I wish you wouldn't cut me off. 

Senator Ives. Go ahead. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't want my position to be that over a course 
of 25 years that there has not been at different times instances where, 
unconsciously, personal calls might have been included by error in that. 
I say to you that consciously any personal calls that I would have, I 
would not bill to the Teamsters' Union. That is the position. 

Senator Ives. Well, the Teamsters understand that situation, don't 
they ? Is it agreeable to them that you do things in this way ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, I assume it would be, because if they would, 
they would have told me about it, and then they probably would have 
gotten somebody else. 

Senator Ives. Well, I assume that they think you are an honest 
person. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, they should at this stage of the game. 

Senator Ives. That is all I want. 

The Chairman. Mr. Fitzgerald, let me see if I can get this straight. 
What you get from the Teamsters, first, is $600 a month retainer? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

The Chairman. Then you send them a bill, I assume monthly, or at 
intervals you send them a bill in which you charge them for the time 
you have used on the telephone looking after the Teamsters' business. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

The Chairman. In other words, you may send them a bill this month 
for $1,000, showing that you spent that much time working on their 
business ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

The Chairman. Then you would add to that bill whatever your tele- 
graph and telephone bills are ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

The Chairman. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 



14816 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Then you may do other work for them in addition 
to that, for which you also send them a bill ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

The Chairman. That gets it in its proper perspective, does it not ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

The Chairman. First you get $600, and then next you are on the 
telephone, you are working for them, and at the end of the month 
you send them a bill for that, plus whatever your telephone bills are. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is correct, Senator. 

The Chairman. That is as a part of fees for your services, for 
your time. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is it. 

The Chairman. Then if you go into court, maybe, or something 
else, you would send a bill and include that in the bill for additional 
fees. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

The Chairman. Am I correct ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I just want Senator Ives to be straightened out. 

Senator Ives. I understand. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I know you understand it, but as a lawyer some- 
times we are a little bit vehement in the way we express ourselves. _ I 
don't want you to think for a moment that it is done out of any dis- 
respect for your personally. 

Senator Ives. As long as you are talking to me personally, it does 
not make a particle of difference. But I want you to show respect 
for the committee. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. It does to me, personally. And I don't want you 
to go away with the impression that the fact that I got a little 
forensic, you might say that — it doesn't mean disrespect for you or 
for the committee or for the Congress. 

The Chairman. In clearing this up, in sending a bill to the Team- 
sters, you just bill your services as telephone and telegraph? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

The Chalrman. That is the kind of bill they get? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is correct. 

The Chairman. But your contention is that in that bill, the tele- 
phone and telegraph expense, you are charging them for your per- 
sonal time. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Do you bill them separately ? Do you say so much 
time on the telephone or so many dollars? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No. 

The Chairman. You just send it in to them as telephone and 
telegraph ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. On a monthly statement. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the arrangement then made on the 
stenographic services, Mr. Fitzgerald? Is that actual stenographic 
services ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, some long time ago — I would give } 7 ou the 
year if I could remember it 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14817 

Mr. Kennedy. Again, I am not questioning that you don't have 
stenographic services that they should pay for, but I am raising the 
same question that I raised on the telephone and telegraph. When 
you send them a bill for stenographic services, is that actually for 
stenographic services ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes. On the stenographic services, and this is 
why I am trying to recall it, Mr. Kennedy, I told you last night I 
asked you what you wanted to question me about, and I would be a 
little bit prepared to answer. I am trying to make extemporaneous 
answers. The committee has all of those bills from the Teamsters. 
I don't want to make a big deal out of this, but it is my belief that 
the stenographic is charged for the exact cost of the stenographer. I 
think that is true. Every month. 

Mr. Kennedy. We found, again, the same kind of situation as in 
the telephone and telegraph, that you bill them, for instance, for 
1953 through 1957, $20,000 for stenographic services. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That isn't fair. I don't mean you are trying to 
be unfair. But my recollection is that all of these bills were billed 
for the exact stenographic — the salary of a stenographer. There 
may have been instances where there was a lot of dictation involved, 
and I may have, on top of that, billed on stenographic for my own 
personal services. I am not sure about that without seeing it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You took all of this as income as you did the tele- 
phone and telegraph ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You took the $20,000 all as income. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I took it all as income and what I actually paid out 
I deducted. 

Mr. Kennedy. Which was not the whole $20,000. It was about 
$14,000. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Then the charge of $6,000 over the 5-year period 
would fall into the same explanation that I gave Senator McClellan 
and Senator Ives. 

Mr. Kennedy. Which is what ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That it was for my own personal services in con- 
nection with stenographic work that I did for the Teamsters. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just let me ask you once again : Did the Teamsters 
understand that when you billed them for stenographic help, that 
this was for something beyond stenographic help? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, I know the Teamsters understood 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Hoffa understand that? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I am certain that Mr. Hoffa would understand it, 
because I know that we had an understanding because the Teamsters' 
work was getting to the extent where I had to have a girl do it. 

Mr. Kennedy. He understood also on the telephone and telegraph ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, you are asking me what he understood which 
I can't say. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, you told him that that is what you were then 
doing, that is how you were handling it ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes. My understanding, within my personal 
knowledge now, I did tell him about that, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did tell him ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I believe I did. 



14818 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman. 

I dare say that Mr. Hoffa is learning quite a lot about this account- 
ing business where you are concerned. 

It seems to me, if I understand correctly, and I certainly stand to be 
corrected, that you are charging practically the total expense of your 
office to the Teamsters. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, I am not charging the whole expense of the 
office to the Teamsters. 

Senator Ives. How much of the expense are you charging to the 
Teamsters and how much are you charging other places ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, now, Senator Ives, that is why I got a little 
bit worked up about this situation. I represented these people 

Senator Ives. Mr. Fitzgerald, I am in no way reflecting upon you. I 
am trying to find out. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I am not charging my whole office to the Teamsters. 

Senator Ives. Don't get excited about it. That is all you have to say. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I am not getting excited, but you are sitting there 
and setting a price — not setting a price, but you are inferring that 
there is something or might be something wrong. I am a lawyer. I 
have a right to set my fee on what I think I am worth. If my clients 
don't like it, they don't have to hire me. I don't have to answer to 
anybody for those fees. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Fitzgerald, nobody quarrels with your right to 
charge these tilings. As far as the Teamsters paying for your total 
office expense, as far as that is concerned, if they want to do it, that is 
their prerogative. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. And if I want to charge it, it is my prerogative. 

Senator Ives. That is right. That is your prerogative, All I am 
trying to find out is what you did. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. In addition to that, Mr. Fitzgerald, do you have 
arrangements where you make some arrangements for other attorneys 
to handle business for the Teamsters that they give you a certain per- 
centage of their fee ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, no. You are a lawyer, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. I just asked the question. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, I don't like your question as a lawyer ad- 
dressed to a lawyer. There may have been instances, and I don't 
know what you are talking about, where another lawyer was hired, 
and under any code I am entitled and could be entitled to a forwarding 
fee the same as any other lawyer. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am just asking about it. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Why don't you ask it in the right way ? That isn't 
the way to put it, the way you did. 

The Chairman. Well, do you sometimes charge a forwarding fee? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I may have, Senator. 

The Chairman. In other words, if you get the business, if you can't 
handle it, or you need to have someone else handle it in another 
locality, you forward it to some attorney, and then you accept from 
that a forwarding fee. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. A forwarding fee, and I would be involved in the 
work also, incidentally. But my fee — if I accepted a forwarding fee, 
there would be no double charge made by me. There never has been. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14819 

Mr. Kennedy. Does Mr. Hoffa know that you receive forwarding 
fees? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, I believe he does. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you told him that ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know. But if he ever asked me I would 
have told him. There is no secret about it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever tell him that in the instance where 
you forwarded work, got work of the Teamsters for other attorneys, 
that you were receiving a fee from these attorneys for getting that 
business for them ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, you are talking generally. I think that I 
have answered — if he asked me, I would have told him, and it is pos- 
sible that he did and I told him. It is possible that I told him without 
being asked. You are talking about 5 years' time, and you are not 
talking about a specific instance. Now, if you will give me specific 
instances, then I will tell you, if I can recall, what my best recollection 
is of it- 
Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember ever telling him when you received 
these fees ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. In a specific instance ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Over a 5-year period do I recall ? No. 

Mr. Kennedy. You can't remember any time ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I can't remember that. I have had thousands of 
conversations with Mr. Hoffa over 5 years. 

We have discussed lawyers, we have discussed union business, and 
everything else. If you want to ask me about specific things, I will 
answer them. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Fitzgerald, I remember this discussion of for- 
warding fees coining before our committee on several different 
occasions over the past few years. For a long time I was in the real- 
estate business and we have the same arrangement there. We are a 
little more frank about it. We call it a commission. I started asking 
lawyers if they paid a commission to another lawyer and they made 
the same protestation you did. 

They said, "We lawyers call it a forwarding fee." 

So that is a different word for a different term employed by a dif- 
ferent profession or a different occupation. So we will stick to the 
lawyers' word of forwarding fee. In the real-estate business, we 
just call it a commission. It works the same. The thing I want to 
know, however, is who pays the forwarding fee. Is that paid by 
Mr. Hoffa or is it paid by the lawyer who gets the business? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, let's leave Mr. Hoffa out of it 

Senator Mundt. Well, the Teamsters. The Teamsters. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, I don't know of instances, and I am telling 
you frankly, Senator, and honestly, I don't know of a specific instance 
right offhand where that could have happened. 

If it did happen — all right, let's just use Mr. Hoffa and the 
Teamsters as an example. 

Senator Mundt. Let me rephrase the question for the purpose 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I think I know your question. 

Senator Mundt. I don't think you do. The question is this : As a 
lawyer, and forgetting about Teamsters, and forgetting about Mr. 



14820 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Hoffa, but as a lawyer of about 30 years' experience, or something like 
that 

Mr. Fitzgerald. How many years ? 

Senator Mundt. Thirty. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. About 32, 1 believe. 

Senator Mundt. In your experience as a lawyer, have you ever 
collected a forwarding fee in connection with this? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Have I ever collected ? 

Senator Mundt. Yes. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Any number of them. And I have paid any 
number. 

Senator Mundt. I want to find out what the practice is among 
lawyers in forwarding fees. I can tell you what it is in the real-estate 
business, but what is it with lawyers ? 

When you collect a forwarding fee, is it paid by the client or is it 
paid by the lawyer who gets the business ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No; generally it is paid by the lawyer who gets 
the business. 

Senator Mundt. Is that an inviolate rule or would you say gen- 
erally ? 

The Chairman. It all comes from the client. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, just a minute. Of course, these newspaper- 
men have me a little upset here. They are giving the legal profession 
a great going over. It is paid originally by the client to lawyer A. 
Lawyer A refers a matter to lawyer B for any reason. Lawyer B bills 
C, the client. The client pays lawyer B, and lawyer B gives a for- 
warding fee to lawyer A. 

Senator Mundt. And when lawyer B bills client C, I don't presume 
he says "$2,000 legal talent, $4,000 forwarding fee," but he just bills 
them for whatever he thinks the job is worth, and then he pays the 
forwarding fee ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. And if the client doesn't like the bill, he gets a 
new lawyer ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. If the client doesn't like the bill he gets a new 
lawyer. 

Senator Mundt. I wanted to find out. It is paid by the client ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes. 

The Chairman. I don't think that this is very important, but if a 
lawyer like you is retained by the Teamsters as general counsel for 
them, if you have a case off in another State or somewhere, and they 
ask you to handle it, you may call and arrange with a lawyer down 
there to handle it ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

The Chairman. Now, except for the fact you are getting a retainer, 
perhaps, you would be entitled to a forwarding fee ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes. 

The Chaerman. You would be entitled to a forwarding fee, but if 
that comes within your retainer, then you wouldn't be entitled to a 
forwarding fee, and it is just that simple. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. It is simple ; that is right. 

To clear the record here, at any time over the years that I have re- 
ceived a forwarding fee from another attorney for Teamsters Union 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14S21 

business, I haven't just taken the forwarding fee and not done any 
work. I have retained my responsibility in it the same as the other 
lawyer. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think, of course, it is an important factor, the point 
you were on retainer by the Teamsters at the time, but I would like to 
ask you some specific questions. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That you are on retainer and you forward business 
to another attorney, the Teamsters pay the bill, and the attorney gives 
you a part payment. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. If you want me to represent people for $G00 a 
month, you have the wrong guy, Mr. Kennedy. You better go out 
and represent them and I will take your job then. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Fitzgerald, I think before we finish with this 
we will find that you got a good deal more than $600 a month. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I certainly did, and if I didn't I would have been 
crazy because I have done a lot more work than that. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about Mr. James Haggerty? Did you ar- 
range for him to represent some individuals ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive some money on that ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes, sir ; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much money did you receive ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know ; you have the records, and he turned 
his records over, and I turned my records over. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, now we have it on September 16, 1953, he re- 
ceived $15,000 and on the same day, September 16, 1953, he issued a 
check to you in the amount of $5,000. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right, and that is because I was unfortu- 
nately running for Lieutenant Governor of Michigan and I got mixed 
up in politics. I was working on that case but there was no forwarding 
fee. It was a forwarding fee in one sense, and in the technical sense 
it was, but in the sense of actual work being done I handled that case 
that Mr. Haggerty was in, and Mr. Haggerty and I worked together. 

I handled all of the preliminary examination in the criminal courts 
under our setup in Michigan, and I prepared and argued motions for 
dismissal, in quashing of information which is similar to an indict- 
ment. After that and during the progress of the trial I did work 
but I couldn't appear, first, because I was campaigning. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, did you inform Mr. Hoffa and the Teamsters 
that you received that $5,000 ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't loiow specifically, and I don't think I 
ever did ; no. But you tell him about it and if he doesn't like it he can 
get another boy. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is learning about it now. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. He isn't learning, and there are no secrets I have 
to be ashamed of in my relations with Mr. Hoffa as far as my personal 
fees are concerned. 

Mr. Kennedy. On August 13, 1954, Mr. Haggerty received another 
check for $12,712.50, and on August 18, 1954, he issued a check to you 
for $3,178.12. Did Mr. Hoffa know about that ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know if he did or not. 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't tell him ? 

21243— '59 — pt. 39 18 



14822 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I know in the same matter I was working, and that 
involved 2 cases, 1 involving a jukebox conspiracy where men were 
Found guilty, and 1 involving some of the local officers of local 247. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell him that you received that money ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know if I did or not. 

Mr. Kennedy. You can't remember if you did ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No ; I can't remember if that was discussed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then on March 24, 1955, Mr. Haggerty received from 
joint, council 43. a check of $11,405.05, and on April 4, he issued a check 
to you for $2,800. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That was in connection with an appeal, and I think 
that was in the same matter. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell Mr. Hoffa about that ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know if I did or not. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say that you were running for lieutenant gover- 
nor at the time ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, during part of that time, that was the same 
year, and wasn't that 1954 ? 

Mr. Kennedy. 1953 and 1954. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. And then some of this stuff happened over into 
1955, and I worked with Mr. Haggerty on the case. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the Teamsters financially help you in your 
campaign % 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I think that they certainly did, I would be very 
disappointed if they hadn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much money did they pay ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know. That went through a committee 
and it is all a matter of record. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could I ask Mr. Bellino, Mr. Chairman, how much 
money we can trace to help Mr. Fitzgerald in that campaign ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Chairman, can I ask Mr. Kennedy a question ? 

The Chairman. You may ask me a question. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I would like to know if this is an investigation of 
me personally. So I can get my own mind straight. 

The Chairman. Well, we are investigating management and labor 
relations and improper practices, and if there are improper practices 
in the expenditure of union money and if it was spent for your bene- 
fit, then possibly you would be involved. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. If it was spent in a State campaign, they had a 
perfect right to spend it. 

The Chairman. That isn't a point here, but one of the things that 
this committee is looking into, and we haven't started into that field 
of it altogether, is campaign contributions in political activities of 
labor organizations. That is one of the subject matters. Am I right ? 

Senator Mundt. That is right. 

The Chairman. As we come along, we pick up some of it, and there 
will probably be a time when we will go into it specifically. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I have no objection to what you are trying to do. 

The Chairman. The question is whether we find as we develop what 
the facts are, whether legislation is needed to correct some practices, 
in that field, in that particular area of union activities. 

So any campaign contributions made by a union is a subject that 
comes within the purview of this committee's jurisdiction, and long 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14823 

ago, as early as April of last year, this committee determined that that 
would be one of the practices that it would look into. 

Proceed. This is not singling you out. We are going into more 
of it. We have already been into some of it, and these questions have 
been asked before. 

Mr. Kennedy. Of course, he was attorney at the time. 

TESTIMONY OF CARMINE S. BELLINO 

Mr. Bellino. We have noted the large payments which were made 
in connection with George Fitzgerald's campaign in 1954, and thev 
amounted to $42,807.10. 

The Chairman. How do you break that down, and how do you 
trace it ? 

Mr. Bellino. There was $15,000 initially by locals 299 and 337. 

The Chairman. What was that paid out of ? 

Mr. Bellino. That was paid out of dues of the Teamsters money. 

The Chairman. Out of union treasury ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Regular union dues? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. Then there was $27,807.10 paid out of the 
joint council; $10,807.10 came out of the defense fund. 

Senator Mundt. What is that? 

Mr. Bellino. Of the joint council, and $17,000 came out of the 
joint council 43 good and welfare fund. 

The Chairman. You mean money was contributed to political 
campaign out of welfare funds? 

Mr. Bellino. The good and welfare fund. 

The Chairman. I am trying to get it clear. Out of what? 

Mr. Bellino. These funds involve expenditures on behalf of his 
campaign, and they came out of the joint council 43 good and welfare 
fund. That is a special fund which the joint council has. 

The Chairman. Not the regular welfare funds? 

Mr. Bellino. No, sir. 

The Chairman. But out of good and welfare fund. What was the 
good and welfare fund ? How did the money get in there, and what 
is the source of that money ? 

Mr. Bellino. It would be contributions from other locals which 
would be members' dues. 

The Chairman. In other words, other locals contributed to the 
joint council good and welfare fund? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir, I believe so. 

Senator Mundt. What was the purpose of it ? 

The Chairman. Did that come out of dues ? 

Mr. Bellino. I believe Mr. Hoffa could explain better as to the 
purpose. They have used it for various purposes, we find, and in 
other words there are moneys to the wives of individuals who had gone 
to jail, the moneys were used for that purpose, good and welfare 
fund. 

The Chairman. What I am interested in is the source of that 
money, primarily, and where did that money for the good and welfare 
fund come from ? 

Mr. Bellino. It is my belief it came from the members' dues 
initially. 



14824 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. The locals would contribute to this joint council's 
good and welfare fund? 

Mr. Bellino. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they contribute directly or did Mr. Hoffa take 
that money and put it in the good and welfare fund ? 

Mr. Bellino. I believe this would be a contribution that they would 
be called upon to make. It would go into the joint council's good and 
welfare fund. 

The Chairman. What I am trying to get at is whether it is a 
voluntary contribution, as when a fellow gives a dollar to be spent in 
campaigns, or whether it is a contribution where they call on the 
locals to contribute to this fund out of dues money. 

Mr. Bellino. I believe they call on the locals for the contribution. 

Senator Mundt. Is that your understanding, too, Mr. Fitzgerald? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I beg your pardon ? 

Senator Mundt. Is that your understanding of how the good and 
welfare fund is created ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. You are outside of my field. I don't know ; what 
is of use of me trying to guess. 

Senator Mundt. As far as you know, Mr. Bellino's report is correct ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't think it is correct. 

Senator Mundt. Do you know it isn't correct ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know it isn't correct, but I am assuming it 
isn't from what he just said. 

Senator Mundt. In it we have no contradictory evidence. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know, and I have no knowledge about it, 
except I have known the way — what is the use ? 

Senator Mundt. His testimony stands unrefuted as far as you are 
concerned, let us put it that way. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. All right. I can't say anything about it because 
I don't know, and I wish I did. 

Senator Mundt. If you don't know, you can't talk about it, so it 
stands unrefuted as far as you are concerned, and maybe Mr. Hoffa can 
put some other light on it, but as far as you are concerned, there is no 
challenge to the accuracy of his statement. 

The Chairman. The question at issue here is this : If people volun- 
tarily make a contribution to a campaign fund or make a voluntary 
contribution for any purpose, that may not be any of this committee's 
business. But if they take dues money paid for the advancement and 
to be used for union purposes, if that money is taken and put into a 
politcal campaign, then the Congress may feel that that is a practice 
that it wants to prohibit. It has prohibited it insofar as Federal offi- 
cials are concerned. 

The question is whether it is within the propriety of officials of a 
union to take dues monej 7 assessed against members that they have to 
pay to belong to the union, and as a part of their right to work in many 
instances, to take that money and invest it in political campaigns. 

Now, that is the point. Some people believe in it and some don't, 
and I say it is a subject matter that we intend to develop, so that Con- 
gress can determine whether remedial legislation is needed. That is 
why I am concerned. I want you to investigate it just as far as you 
can, and we will try to develop here now whether these funds came out 
of dues paid by members or whether they just took up a collection. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14825 

Mr. Bellino. These definitely came out of the local dues. 

The Chairman. That is what I want to establish for the record, 
if it is a fact I want that definitely established. 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Bellino, was this a primary campaign, or was 
this a general election campaign? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. This was a primary campaign, and so I will 
straighten this out. It was the Democratic Party primary campaign. 

Senator Mundt. Now, you have listed $59,000 roughly as contribu- 
tions ? 

Mr. Bellino. It is $42,000. 

Senator Mundt. There is $27,800 from the joint council and $10,000 
from the defense fund ? 

Mr. Bellino. No ; the $27,000 is from the joint council but I sub- 
divided that. 

Senator Mundt. "What percentage of the total money spent by the 
George Fitzgerald campaign committee does this represent? 

Mr. Bellino. We haven't looked into his total expenditures, 
Senator. 

Senator Mundt. Have you examined where he got his other con- 
tributions ? 

Mr. Bellino. No, sir; we haven't gone into his other campaign 
expenditures. This is merely from the local payments to Fitzgerald. 

Senator Mundt. Don't you think it would be helpful and more il- 
luminating if you got an account, which I presume you have to file 
an account of your campaign expenditures, do you not, in Michigan ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. In the State there is a requirement, and all of this 
was done through a committee. 

Senator Mundt. I think that we should have for the record, at this 
point, the total amount that was raised and spent, and the other con- 
tributions to indicate whether this $42,000 is 10 or 90 percent. 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Who was your opponent in that primary? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Phillip Hart was, and Governor Williams were 
my opponents. 

Senator Mundt. You had two? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. He was the campaigner. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Williams was supporting him ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Did Mr. Hart receive any union contributions in 
his campaign ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. You would have to ask Mr. Hart, and I am not 
here to do that, but if you want us to check that whole campaign, I 
think that you should have checked the whole thing. 

Senator Mundt. In justice, Mr. Fitzgerald, we should have in the 
record an account also of where Mr. Hart's money came from as filed 
with the Secretary of State; is it? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

The Chairman. Let the Chair get one thing straight for the record 
now. That might be illuminating, but at the same time this com- 
mittee doesn't necessarily have jurisdiction over campaign expendi- 
tures, except as they may come from union funds. 



14826 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. That is exactly what I am interested in. It is to 
determine whether or not the union No. 1 was playing both sides of the 
street, and No. 2— — 

The Chairman. That part of it is all right. 

Senator Mundt. Or whether perhaps there was a contest between 
unions in this matter, and perhaps another union was supporting 
another candidate, and I think we should have all of the facts and not 
the fact just relating to one union, and one candidate. 

"Would the chairman agree on that? 

The Chairman. Absolutely. All I am saying here is that we can- 
not go into, or it is none of our business, to find out who else con- 
tributed. We have to relate all of our efforts to union funds and union 
activities. 

Senator Mundt. "We have no way of telling from what Mr. Bellino 
has done, whether this is all of the union money, or whether there 
are other unions involved, and we have apparently only examined the 
Teamsters' books, instead of examining the secretary of state's records ; 
isn't that right? 

Mr. Bellino. We are looking into the expenditures of the Teamsters 
only at this time. 

Senator Mundt. I think we should get the whole picture, because 
we are not trying to pillory any particular candidate or pillory any 
particular union, but we are interested throughout and across the board 
as to whether or not unions are spending money collected under com- 
pulsion for political purposes. 

We are interested in that whether it is the Teamsters, or the Steel- 
makers, or the TJAW, or any other union, because Mr. Reuther from 
the same city testified here when he was on the stand, and we asked 
him the same question, Mr. Fitzgerald, he contributed out of dues- 
paying money, a third of the operating costs of Americans for Demo- 
cratic Action, which is a political action committee. 

Now, as the chairman has pointed out, this may not be illegal, and 
in fact we know it is not illegal, because it was a State election as far 
as you were concerned, but Congress may very well desire to protect 
the working men and women of this country against an employment 
tax, in a closed shop, whereby in order to earn a living for their 
families, they have to pay tribute to some political boss and political 
ambitions and his political prestige. 

So this is very relevant, and very pertinent, and very helpful. But 
I do think we should have the whole picture, in the primary, all of the 
candidates involved, and all of the unions involved insofar as the 
report in the secretary of state's office discloses the facts, and I would 
like to have it inserted at this point in the record, so the record will 
be fully illuminating and not be reflecting on one particular candidate 
or one particular union. 

The Chairman. All right, proceed. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Bellino, do you have the figures on the amount 
of money that Mr. Fitzgerald has received from the union ? 

Put those figures in. 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Over what period of time ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14827 

Mr. Bellino. Over the period from January 1, 1953, to December 
31, 1957. 

The Chairman. 1957? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Fitzgerald received 

The Chairman. That is 5 years ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Bellino. From the joint council, the general fund, the defense 
fund, and good and welfare fund, he received a total of $196,395.50. 
From local 299, Detroit, Mich., he received $35,375. 

The Chairman. How much ? 

Mr. Bellino. $35,375. From local 337, Detroit, Mich., he received 
$25,000. From local 332, Flint, Mich., he received $500. From local 
777, Chicago, $5,000. From Teamsters, a local not identified, there 
was $6,780. 

From Joint Council 41, Cleveland, Ohio, $1,100. It is a total of 
$270,150.50. The receipts from Joint Council 43, general fund, which 
amount to $192,560.50, is further broken down. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Could I ask a question there ? I don't understand 
what he is saying. 

The Chairman. Just a moment. 

Let me see, what is that first total you gave ? 

Mr. Bellino. $192,560.50. I have given you from Joint Council 
43, the general fund, defense fund, and good and welfare fund, a total 
of $196,395. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Chairman, is he talking about my legal fees 
here? 

The Chairman. Just a moment. We will get it straight. 

After that, you gave locals 299, 337, and then you gave a grand total. 

Mr. Bellino. $270,150.50. 

Senator Mundt. These are legal fees we are talking about ? 

Mr. Bellino. These are moneys received. 

Senator Mundt. Nothing to do any more with political campaigns ? 

Mr. Bellino. No, sir. 

The Chairman. This does not include the campaign contributions ? 

Mr. Bellino. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Then you started to break them down. 

Senator Mundt. How many years is this ? 

The Chairman. 5 years. 

Mr. Bellino. What he received from joint council 43 general fund, 
which was a total of $192,560.50, which item is included in the $196,000 
that I had given previously. 

The Chairman. Now, before we break it down, Mr. Fitzgerald, }^ou 
had some question. I was trying to get this clear so that we would 
know what we were talking about. 

As I understand you now, this is total funds received for all pur- 
poses, reimbursements of expense, retainer, special charges, and a 
grand total? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. May I ask him, not ask him but could I ask him, is 
that total $270,150 that I received altogether? Is that the total? 

Mr. Bellino. From the Teamsters unions. 



1482S IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Fitzgerald. From the Teamsters' Union ? 

The Chairman. He listed them as joint council 43, from three 
different funds of the joint council, totaling $196,395.50, and then he 
listed local '299, then local 337, local 332, local 777, and then unidenti- 
fied, and then joint council — what was the last one? 

Mr. Bellino. 41. 

The Chairman. Joint council 41. 

Air. Bellino. Cleveland, Ohio. 

The Chairman. Those are 7 different sources. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That would mean, as I get it, Mr. Chairman, that 
over a period of 5 years' time I received in total fees and expenses 
from the Teamsters union $54,150 a year. Is that correct? 

Mr. Bellino. That is correct, 

The Chairman. Whatever 5 into the 270 would be. 

Senator Mundt. $52,000 plus. 

The Chairman. $54,000. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That covers only fees and expense. I appreciate 
Mr. Bellino doing that. 

Mr. Bellino. The $192,560.50 includes charges made by Mr. Fitz- 
gerald for investigations, rent, telephone and telegraph, and stenog- 
rapher. 

The Chairman. And his retainer fee? 

Mr. Bellino. And his retainer fee. 

The Chairman. Also any special fees that he charged ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. It covers the whole thing. 

Mr. Bellino. Investigations was $20,578. He started to include a 
charge for investigations in September of 1953, which is about the 
time that the William Buffalino case was before the recorder's court, 
Judge Martha Griffiths, on September 15 or 16, 1953. That is the 
time he started the charge for investigations. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Bellino, this does not include, of course, moneys 
that he got from other unions during the same period of time? 

Mr. Bellino. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Or other fees that he received ? 

Mr. Bellino. Or other moneys that he received from other locals. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Just a moment, When he said other locals, he has 
covered all teamster unions, I understand. 

Mr. Kennedy. The fees you received from other unions, other than 
the Teamsters. 

And it does not include where there is a fee to another attorney and 
they make a payment — what did you call it, a forwarding fee? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, it does include the moneys we know about. 

Mr. Kennedy. The Haggerty ones ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes. 

The Chairman. It does ? 

Mr. Bellino. These particular items does not include that, no. I 
have it included in other totals. 

Mr. Kennedy. The figure you gave does not include the forwarding 
fees? 

]\Ir. Bellino. It does not include that, no, sir. That is separate. 

Senator Mundt. Does the $270,000— is that exclusive of the for- 
warding fees? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14829 

Mr. Bellino. That is correct. That is just paid by various teamster 
organizations. 

Senator Mundt. Directly ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. What other unions do you represent? Or do you 
have retainers with, or during that 5-year period we are talking about, 
Mr. Fitzgerald ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I would have to go backwards, Senator. I don't 
represent any other unions but the Teamsters now, except the bar- 
tenders. I think they pay $100 a month retainer and that is all. It 
is just for work involving some of those claims for back wages or 
someone violating a contract. Then at a time I represented the sheet 
metal workers' union, and over that period of time — I could not tell 
you. I may have represented 3 or 4 unions, but not on retainer, if that 
is what you mean. 

Senator Mundt. Would it be a factual statement to say that this 
$54,000 a year represented the majority of your income from unions 
during this period ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes, absolutely. Yes. And when I say income, 
of that $54,000 for the 5 years, I paid these expenses. So when you 
come right down to it, the fees are 

Senator Mundt. Does this include expenses as well as fees? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. This is from his income-tax report or from his 
books, or the Teamster books, or where ? 

Mr. Bellino. These are actual moneys which he billed to the imion, 
which included expenses just mentioned. 

Senator Mundt. So what you are giving us is from the books of 
Mr. Fitzgerald or the books of the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Bellino. It is a combination of both books. 

Senator Mundt. All right. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all for now. 

I have some more questions for Mr. Fitzgerald. 

Do you have investigators assigned to your office, Mr. Fitzgerald? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, not now. What do you mean ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you had investigators? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. There was some investigative work done by peo- 
ple, Air. Kennedy. I don't know what you are specifically referring 
to. 

Mr. Kennedy. The money that was charged to the Teamsters for 
investigation. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, I can explain that. That goes back beyond 
1953, because those were the only records available. 

I explained to the Chairman in my record — not in my record but in 
my letter. I would like to read that, if I may. Then I would like 
to preface anything that is said about it in there. 

The Chairman. Well, then, if you want to read an excerpt 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes, if I may. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. You wanted files on charges for investigation. 



14830 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

My letter reads as follows : 

Since my checks are in the possession of the committee staff, I do not know 
to what items this reference is made. However, if I paid for outside investi- 
gators it will be reflected in my checks, 

which is definitely true. If there were investigators that I paid for, 
my checks would show it. 

If I made personal legal investigations or my office did over the years, as 
distinguished from other types of legal work, then charges would be made. 
These legal investigation charges would probably cover every case or matter 
I have handled for the Teamsters Union for a period of almost 25 years. 

The use of the term investigation, how it started, I don't know, legal 
investigations. But that covered a multitude of the legal work, and 
the only way I could define it. If a better term could be used, that is 
probable. But I have always billed it that way. 

It could even cover even court appearances. It could cover every- 
thing but research and briefing. 

The Chairman. Do you recall instances where you may have hired 
an investigator yourself, and then billed the union for it ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I can't recall offhand, but if I did, it would be 
reflected in my checks, which the committee has. 

The Chairman. But often you just billed for your own services, 
work you did as investigating services ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. And if my checks don't reflect the 
payment to anybody, then it means that I did it. 

The Chairman. That you either did it or it was done by people 
associated with you in your office ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Right. I might say this, too, Mr. Chairman, and 
it almost got away from me. Out of this $54,150 that I have gotten 
each wear for 5 years — that is, it did not amount to that. The last 2 
years, the charges if you got a complete picture, would be a lot heavier, 
because I have to dispense personally with all my legal work except 
this work. So the bulk of that $270,150 is about the last 2 years. 

You will find out up until the last 2 years that all of my work ran 
about $2,600 to $2,700 a month as distinguished from now, when all 
of my time is consumed in this. 

That $54,150, you not only deduct from that all my expenses in con- 
nection with it, but you also deduct from that over the years what I 
paid other lawyers in my office, particularly, and in some instances 
lawyers outside my office in connection with that case. 

Mr. Bellino, I don't know what that would amount to. 

The Chairman. This is the overall amount of what you have drawn 
from the Teamsters during the period we have records for. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

But some months, maybe, there would be no charges, and other 
months I would have substantial payments to other lawyers. This does 
not include only my own, because there are other lawyers involved in 
the office whose compensation grows out of my payment of their ex- 
penses in the office. 

Senator Mundt. Do I understand you are head of a firm of lawyers ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, it isn't a firm, Senator Mundt. It is an as- 
sociation. 

Senator Mundt. Well, you are the senior lawyer, and you have other 
lawyers associated with you ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14831 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes. These other lawyers are all associated 
with me. 

Senator Mundt. And you pay them out of your fees ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right, in certain instances. Now, in order 
to maintain the staff and in order to maintain a proper working or- 
ganization, I don't pay just $122 rent for my office. There are other 
segments involved in this thing. It is quite a large office, from the 
standpoint of space, and there are other lawyers involved. Where 
a boy might be working in association with me where he would con- 
tribute, he has a particular office. He might contribute to his office. 
The rent might be $65 a month. He is available to me for different 
work. Well, he may pick up a tab of $25 on it and I would pay the 
remainder. But my checks on what I spent actually to George S. 
Fitzgerald & Associates, that is the way we listed the bank account 
the last few years, would show the amount of money that I have 
actually paid out for expenses. 

I don't know what value it would have. The only thing is I am 
beginning to worry myself if I am charging enough. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have the records of George Fitzgerald 
Associates? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you get those for us ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Now, Mr. Kennedy, I have been getting things for 
you for 2 years. My checks here show exactly. I am not going to get 
them. 

Mr. Kennedy. You brought this up, Mr. Fitzgerald. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I brought it up because it is in my checks. 

Mr. Kennedy. But we can't make a check until we get George Fitz- 
gerald Associates. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. You look in my checks every month since we moved 
into 2550 Guardian Building and you will see a check every month to 
George S. Fitzgerald & Associates. 

Mr. Kennedy. We would like to know what that is for — and a 
breakdown. We can find it out later. 

I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, we don't have those records. 

The Chairman. We don't have those records as of now. Let's 
move on. 

Mr. Kennedy. In this investigation, did you or the Teamsters have 
any investigation conducted of any member of the committee or any 
member of the staff ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No; we had no member — no; no member of the 
committee was investigated. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you investigate members of the staff ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I think some members of the staff that were in- 
volved in the Cheasty case. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who on the staff ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't recall. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have the records on that ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, I don't have any records on it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who did you hire to investigate the staff? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. We did not investigate the staff, Mr. Kennedy. 
There was only three people involved in that matter. 

Mr. Kennedy. Which members of the staff did you have investi- 
gated ? 



14832 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, there was Mr. Cheasty. Is he still a mem- 
ber of your staff ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No; he is not. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, he was at the time. There was a Mr. Dunne, 
who played at least — at least whose name was mentioned. And a Mr. 
Jones. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have somebody investigate them? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who investigated them ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Lavenia, a former secret service agent who is 
established here in Washington. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who paid his bill ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I believe it was paid by the union itself. 

Mr. Kennedy. The Teamsters Union? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right, under the authority to pay it. 

The Chairman. Who was it you sent to Arkansas to investigate 
me ? Do you remember that ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No. No, as a matter of fact, Senator, I don't 
think we sent anyone to Arkansas to investigate you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where did you get the information that we found 
in Air. Hoffa's office when we were up there ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, I don't know what you are talking about, 
Mr. Kennedy. I honestly don't. 

The Chairman. I am not saying you know about it, but it is known. 
It can be established. I honestly don't care. I anticipated that be- 
fore I ever started. Proceed. 

Air. Fitzgerald. I don't think you and I mind being investigated. 

The Chairman. I don't. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I certainly don't, and I have been investigated. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could I call Mr. Bellino to ask him what the records 
of the Teamsters Union show as the amount of money that was paid 
to Mr. Tom Lavenia ? 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Bellino, let's see what it is. 

Mr. Bellino. Tom Lavenia, operating under the name of Asso- 
ciated Investigators, Inc., submitted bills totaling $10,918.87, for 
which payments were made as follows: A check in the amount of 
$4,000 was issued by local 299 to George Fitzgerald on June 12, 1957. 

The Chairman. How much ? 

Mr. Bellino. $4,000. 

Mr. Fitzgerad. Pardon me, Mr. Chairman. Could I get the date 
of that? 

Mr. Bellino. June 12, 1957. On the same day 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I beg your pardon. I am sorry. Can you give 
me the amounts ? 

Mr. Bellino. June 12, 1957. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I have that. I meant the amount. 

Mr. Bellino. $4,000. On the same day, a cashier's check was pur- 
chased at the City Bank, payable to Associated Investigators in the 
amount of $4,000. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That was purchased by me, was it not ? 

Mr. Bellino. I believe so. On June 26, 1957, local 299 issued a 
check to Associated Investigators in the amount of $3,354.42. On 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14833 

June 24, 1957, Lavenia acknowledged receiving $500, which applied 
against his bill dated July 3, 1957. The source of this $500 we do not 
know at this time. However, we do know that on June 24, 1957, 
there was a check issued by local 299 in the amount of $1,764, which 
was cashed by local 299, and the possibility, from the practice followed 
by the local union, the possibility exists that the $500 may have come 
out of that $1,764. However, we found no itemized bill or notation 
or anything that could identify the purpose of the issuance of the 
$1,764 check. The total amount paid to Lavenia was $7,854.42. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Would you give me that again, please % 

Mr. Bellino. $7,854.42. 

The Chairman. How do you make up the $10,918.87 ? 

Mr. Bellino. The balance has not been paid. 

The Chairman. Have bills been submitted for that ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You have bills pending that you found for the 
balance between the $7,854 and the $10,918 \ 

Mr. Bellino. That is correct. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Fitzgerald, did he also make an investigation 
of the jurors on that jury ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No. Here is what he did : When you talk about 
investigation of the jury, he didn't investigate the jury as such. The 
only thing he did was go to the credit houses, and he got from the 
credit houses a credit check on the people who were on the panel. 

Mr. Kennedy. All the jurors that were on the panel ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes, just a credit check. He made no investiga- 
tion of any jury and he was not authorized to do so, as far as I know. 
All he did was go to the credit houses, and he got — what do they call 
those places ? Credit 

Senator Mundt. Bureau ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Credit bureau. In the credit bureau he would ask 
for the name of John Smith, and they would give him a report on it, 
for which they charged him $2. So some of this money that was paid 
to him, as I understand it, was paid to the credit bureau, which you 
and I could do or anybody else could do. That was the extent of the 
investigation of any juror. 

The Chairman. What jury did this relate to ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Cheasty. Cy Cheasty. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes. He ran a credit check on the jury. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did we also find, in addition to the money that was 
paid to Mr. Fitzgerald, some $8,000 to $10,000 that you mentioned 
here to Mr. Lavenia, there was other money charged to the local for 
investigation ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you give us a couple of examples of that ? 

For instance, on December 26, 1957. 

Mr. Bellino. On December 26, 1957, local 299 issued a check to 
Investigators' Technical Services, of New York, in the amount of 
$1,960. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us what that was for, Mr. Fitzgerald ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I got the name, Investigators' Technical Services? 

Mr. Kennedy. In the amount of $1,960. 



14834 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, no, I can't tell you offhand, Mr. Kennedy, 
what that was for. Who is Investigators' Technical Services? 

Mr. Bellino. I believe that is Bernard Spindell's outfit. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I can imagine what was done, although I would 
like to give you some definite information. 

Mr. Spindell held a private detective agency license in New York, 
so I assume it was work done growing out of an investigation in that 
New York lawsuit, preliminary investigation before trial, or some- 
thing of that kind. 

It would be in connection with the New York lawsuit. But I can't 
give you anything more definite on it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you used Mr. DeLamaleir at all to conduct 
investigations for you ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. There have been times ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What have you used him for ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Over what period of time ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, over the last few years or 2 years ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, there have been matters which — specifically 
it is hard to pin it down, but I know I have used him. 

Mr. Kennedy. For what ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. For investigative work. 

Mr. Kennedy. What sort of investigative work? He was on the 
payroll of local 876 of the Retail Clerks. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. He was on the payroll of local 876, but this did 
not interfere with his work. I have known DeLamaleir 

Mr. Kennedy. That does not answer the question. What specifi- 
cally did you use him for? What investigative work did you use 
him for ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, it would be in connection — there would not 
be any work outside of union work. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you use him for ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know. I am trying to think. What do 
you want me to do, sit here, and you ask me a question off the cuff 
and I give you one right away ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to get the answers to the question. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I know you would, and I would like to give them 
to you. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Pardon me. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I don't 
want to speak disrespectfully to Mr. Kennedy or anything. 

The Chairman. Well, try to think. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is what I am trying to do, but he doesn't want 
to let me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, I do. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I have been too long in this business for you to 
put 

The Chairman. Well, stop and think. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. All I can tell you generally, Mr. Kennedy, unless 
you can give me specific instances, is that if we had a lawsuit where 
I needed investigative — particularly where I might need a subpena 
served, or where I needed a certain thing checked in connection with 
some teamsters' business, where I had an in j miction case pending 
before the court or the NLRB, where growing out of the service of 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14835 

subpenas — I think he did serve some subpenas in connection with the 
New York lawsuit, too. I think he may have checked some stuff in 
the New York lawsuit. I am certain he did, through the police de- 
partment, as to a breaking and entering of Mr. Hoffa's home. I think 
we had him check that. Those are the things you are talking about, 
isn't it? 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to know what else he did. Will you give us 
a memorandum on the kind of work he did for you ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I can't give you a complete memorandum. 

I don't know. I wish I could tell you. I will tell you what I will 
do, though, I will try and run it down, and I will talk to Mr. 
DeLamaleir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is the best I can give you on it. 

The Chairman. Submit to us a memorandum of statement. 

Mr. Kennedy. Has William Patrick done any work for you? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes; William Patrick did some work for me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Investigative work ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Investigative work, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What kind of work did he do ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, we have a matter — part of it was investiga- 
tive work, and part of it was plain legwork, when we had a grand 
jury in Detroit. 

Mr. Patrick is a very elderly gentleman, a very fine man. We had 
witnesses who had to appear before the grand jury. I was in the 
same spot with them as I have been with you. They would say to me 
"George Fitzgerald, you bring somebody in," or "You get me these 
records." 

You could not take a lawyer's time to stand around and do that kind 
of work, so Mr. Patrick did a great deal of it, That was one par- 
ticular instance. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was what, back in 1953 ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes, that would be 1953. I am just citing one 
instance. Then another time 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he have anything to do with any of the indi- 
viduals who appeared before the grand jury carrying miniphones 
into the grand jury ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. They didn't carry any miniphones into the grand 
jury- 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he have anything to do with strapping mini- 
phones on them ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Kennedy, he had nothing to do, and nobody 
strapped miniphones on anybody in the grand jury, to my knowledge, 
and I believe I was there all the time. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he wasn't responsible for fitting the miniphones 
on any of these individuals ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. To my knowledge, no miniphones were fitted on 
anybody. This was in the summertime. If you fitted a miniphone 
on somebody, I think everybody in the Wayne County Building would 
have known it. 

Mr. Kennedy. He had nothing to do with it ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't like the premise of your question. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just answer the question and I will go on. 



14836 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I said within my knowledge there never were any 
miniphones, and I think I am in a position to know, ever used before 
a grand jury, and no miniphones strapped on, to my knowledge. 

As a consequence, I must say under the same token that Mr. Patrick 
himself didn't do any strapping, and I didn't have any knowledge of 
it. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is what I wanted to know. What other work 
did he do for you? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, he has done a great deal of work in con- 
nection — when I say "a great deal of work" I shouldn't use that ad- 
jective; he has done work in connection with other matters pending 
before the circuit court on injunction proceedings and lining up wit- 
nesses and things of that kind. I will have to run that down for 
you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Will you give us a memo on that ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was he being paid by ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I think Mr. Patrick was paid out of the union 
funds, wasn't he? 

Mr. Kennedy. No, from the Michigan Conference of Teamsters 
welfare fund during this period of time. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. He was paid by them, but that was work separate 
and apart from the work I am talking about. 

Mr. Kennedy. What does being on the payroll of the welfare fund 
have to do with going in and serving subpenas and arranging for 
witnesses to appear before a jury ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. His work for the welfare fund was as an in- 
vestigator for the welfare fund, and now you clarified it. If you 
told me those things first I could straighten you out. 

Mr. Patrick worked as an investigator for the welfare fund and 
what work he did there I don't know. That was a separate thing. 
You asked me if he worked for me and I told you he did at different 
times, but that didn't interfere with his work for the welfare fmid. 

The Chairman. For the welfare fund, claims are made against it, 
and they have people to check up and investigate that ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I would assume so. 

The Chairman. I would assume so. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I would assume that. 

The Chairman. Where claims arise against the fund ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

The Chairman. But the work he did for you was something dif- 
ferent from that? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Patrick is a very elderly gentleman. 

Mr. Kennedy. I might say when we interviewed him, he couldn't 
name one claim that he had ever checked for the welfare fund. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, Mr. Patrick, I guess, is around in the seven- 
ties, and he is an ill man, and I think it is unfair to cast any aspersions 
on him. 

The Chairman. I don't want to do that. The question was, Was he 
actually working? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I beg your pardon ? 

The Chairman. I can understand that you would possibly have 
need for someone as an agent or investigator to check claims filed 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14837 

against the welfare fund. I see nothing wrong with that. That is 
just good business. Good business would direct that that be done. 

But the question here was whether he was paid out of the welfare 
fund to be an investigator in another field or another activity other 
than the welfare fund. In other words, would he go around and check 
on jurors or make that character of investigation, and so forth? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Oh, no. There was nothing like that. Mr. Patrick 
isn't the kind of a man who would do that in the first place. 

The Chairman. I don't know, and I am not saying, but if he was 
working and getting his pay out of the welfare fund, and then he did 
no investigation for the welfare fund, then it would be something 
of some concern. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. I could almost guarantee under oath 
that you would find Mr. Patrick is a man of the highest integrity. 

The Chairman. I make no question about him at this time. Pro- 
ceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. I just have a question or two, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Fitzgerald, you were making certain payments to Mr. Phillip 
Gillis, is that correct, Mr. Joseph Gillis ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Payments, you mean ? They were not payments ; 
they were fees. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you make certain payments to him ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Fees. I paid him fees for work they did with me, 
and they are both lawyers and very competent. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did they start to work for you ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, you want from a date standpoint, Mr. 
Kennedy ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have the exact date ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, I am just trying to figure it out. Let us take 
Joseph Gillis. He was a lieutenant colonel in the Regular Air Force, 
and he left after service in Okinawa, it might be about 4 years ago, 
I think. He came in my office, or when I say "my office," I should 
say "our office," and became associated with me. He has done work 
on some Teamsters matters and he has been paid. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about Philip Gillis ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Philip Gillis originally when he came out of the 
Army, or the Navy, as a lieutenant commander, or commander, or 
something, I think lieutenant commander, he went over with Mr. 
Baxter, and then he came to me shortly after. He came to me after 
that ; he handled work with me before his brother Joe came out of the 
Air Force. 

Mr. Kennedy. Philip Gillis did work for the Teamsters, or did 
Teamster work? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. He did some work. 

Mr. Kennedy. So that the money that you paid to him was for 
work that he did in connection with Teamster matters ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Not all of the money I paid him. There are some 
other fees that I paid him that didn't involve Teamsters work. 

Mr. Kennedy. For instance, in 1953, he received a total of $3,330. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. What year ? 

Mr. Kennedy. 1953; and on April 5. 1954, he received 1 payment 
of $3,500, and then subsequently he received some $450 more, making 
a total for 1953 and 1954 of $7,280 to Philip Gillis. That was in 

2 I 2 I:; — 0!) — pt. 39 ID 



14838 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

connection with the investigation being made of the Teamsters at 
that time? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, I don't think so. I don't think it was all, Mr. 
Kennedy. I think Mr. Gillis did work. There was a building service 
union case. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't he do work 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Let me finish. 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to ask you a question. Didn't he do work in 
connection with the Teamster investigation ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. He did some work, but it was not much. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he appear with some of the witnesses at the 
grand jury? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes, very few of them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wasn't this case that ultimately was tried in con- 
nection with these Teamsters, wasn't it done before his father, Judge 
Gillis? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. It was tried before a jury over which his father 
presided. Now let us straighten that record out on that. I know 
where you are wrong. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not wrong. I just ask you questions, and if 
anybody is wrong, you are wrong. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Your question leads to a bad inference against very 
decent and high-minded people, as much as yourself and your family. 

Now, Philip Gillis — strike that from the record, please. 

When the grand jury was proceeding, it was proceeding before 
Judge Miles Culihan in Detroit, a circuit judge, and I was the liaison 
man, and I was present outside of the grand jury room while all of the 
Teamster witnesses were questioned. On 1 or 2 occasions — and may 
I continue? 

Mr. Kennedy. Go ahead ; I am listening. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Because I want to straighten your thinking out on 
this, if I might. It is not that it is wrong, but I just don't want you 
to get the wrong impression. 

On 1 or 2 or 3 occasions Mr. Gillis may have substituted with me when 
I produced a witness, and when I was out of town, and just stayed 
there temporarily. Now Mr. Gillis — that was all he had to do with 
the case, as far as I can remember. This fee of $3,500, or was it 
$3,500 

Mr. Kennedy. $3,500. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That fee was paid because we had intervened in a 
matter of the International Building Service Union. They had 
placed a trusteeship over the local union in Detroit. I went in repre- 
senting intervenors who were the rank-and-file members of the union. 
This was quite an important matter, and consumed a lot of time. 

When the case came to trial before Judge Arthur Webster in the 
circuit court, I was busy with my first love, the Teamsters, over before 
Judge Miles Culihan, and so I had Mr. Gillis go in and represent these 
intervenors in my name. I believe that is where that fee was received. 

Mr. Kennedy. Maybe we can refresh your recollection about that, 
Mr. Fitzgerald. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I would like to have you do so. That is my best 
recollection. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14839 

Mr. Kennedy. What fee did you receive from the other group, the 
one you just mentioned? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know, but it would be reflected in my rec- 
ords. This is 1953 you are talking about ? 

Mr. Kennedy. This is 1954; it is April 5, 1954. Where did the 
money come from that was used to pay him ? 

Mr. Bellino. We find just before April 5 he received a deposit of 
$3,600, or received a check, I should say, in the amount of $3,600 from 
Joint Council 43. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is Mr. George Fitzgerald ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir, and deposited in his account, and on the 5th 
he issued his personal check to Philip Gillis for $3,500. 

The Chairman. What do the checks show they were for ? 

Mr. Bellino. The check from the union was professional services, 
$3,600, to George Fitzgerald, in March of 1954. 

The Chairman. Was that a regular monthly check where he would 
submit a bill, or was that a special fee ? 

Mr. Bellino. We did not find a bill at all, Senator. 

The Chairman. Each month he sends in a bill ? 

Mr. Bellino. That is in addition. 

The Chairman. With a breakdown of what it is for ? 

Mr. Bellino. This is in addition. 

The Chairman. Did you find any statement for which this check 
was issued ? 

Mr. Bellino. No, sir. 

The Chairman. There was no statement ? 

Mr. Bellino. No, sir. 

The Chairman. In other words, that is not a check in payment of 
one of these regular monthly bills submitted ? 

Mr. Bellino. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Now, am I right about that ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. This is something in addition ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes. 

The Chairman. For which you found no statement ? 

Mr. Bellino. That is correct. 

The Chairman. What does the record show that the check was 
given for other than professional fees? 

Mr. Bellino. That is all the record shows, professional services, 
March 1954. 

The Chairman. The photostatic copies of the checks may be made 
exhibit No. 141, A and B, in the order in which they were issued. 

(Documents referred to were marked "Exhibits 141, A and B" for 
reference, and will be found in the appendix on pp. 14918-14919.) 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I would like to check into that particular item 
after I get the records, but I can assure you, and I now state, that any 
money that Mr. Philip Gillis received from me, he received for pro- 
fessional services rendered as a lawyer working under my supervision, 
and for no other purpose. 

The Chairman. That could be true. We have an instance here 
where you got a check from the union, and the next day possibly 
issued a check to him. We found no bill where you billed the union 
for it. Now, maybe you did, but we don't find it in your records. 



14840 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Can I make an observation, Mr. Chairman ? 

It is a very peculiar thing that Mr. Bellino, with all of the time that 
he spent in Detroit, and interviewing witnesses and having me produce 
witnesses for him, has never questioned me about these things in a 
preliminary way so that I could clear some of these things up. I never 
heard of this thing. 

Mr. Bellino. "We didn't get all of his records, and, in fact, we still 
haven't got all of Mr. Fitzgerald's records so we could say they are 
complete. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. You have all of my records for 1953, 1954, 1955, 
1956, and 1957. 

The Chairman. All right, any of these things that you feel that you 
can't recall, or be accurate about, when you find out what you think 
the facts are, you submit a memorandum here explaining it. I don't 
want to leave a record unexplained if it can be explained. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I appreciate that. 

Senator Mundt. What did you find in your examination of Mr. 
Fitzgerald's books from the standpoint of payments received by him 
from this International Building Services Union? Are you sure you 
were a representative of the interveners? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. What was that payment ? 

Mr. Bellino. The total that he recevied in 1954 from the Building 
Service Employees International Union was $11,047. 

Senator Mundt. Did it show anything there to indictae that part of 
that money went to this Mr. Gillis ? 

Mr. Bellino. There is no notation, and we have no bills he has given 
us to indicate it is broken down to Mr. Gillis. In other words, he has 
given us no bills either he received from Gillis to say this was services 
for that, and we couldn't say exactly what it was for. 

Senator Mundt. How do you pay Mr. Gillis ? Does he submit bills 
to you? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, sometimes yes ; and his brother Joseph Gillis 
does, and Mr. Philip Gillis is not with me now, but I don't believe that 
Mr. Philip Gillis did, Senator Mundt. But one thing I wanted to ask, 
could I get the date when that check was received ? 

The Chairman. Give the date of the two checks. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. When I received that payment from the Building 
Service Union? 

Mr. Bellino. I gave the totals in 1954, and the first check I noticed 
from Building Service was April 5, 1954, which is the same day that 
he issued this check to Philip Gillis, $8,173. 

The Chairman. How much ? 

Mr. Bellino. $8,173. 

Mr. FitzgeRxVld. That is what I was talking about. 

Mr. Bellino. Then there is another check in October from them, 
$2,874. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Bellino, what was the amount of the check I 
received in April 5, 1954? 

Mr. Bellino. $8,173. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Then I gave $8,000 to Gillis ? 

Mr. Bellino. You gave $3,500 to Gillis. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I thought there was something peculiar about that. 
That is $3,500 to Gillis. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14841 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Fitzgerald, do you feel that there is anything 
improper about paying whatever it might be, fees to the sons of a 
judge who was trying a case in which you and the Teamsters are 
involved ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Can I answer that fully ? 

Mr. Kennedy. It is the question I am asking. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. First of all the money was paid to Philip Gillis, 
and when he performed the work within my knowledge, his father, 
Judge Joseph Gillis, was in no wise involved, and no one knew he ever 
would be involved. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is not correct. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Wait just a moment. Let me finish, and then if 
my recollection isn't correct, and it is based on my recollection, Judge 
Miles Culehan conducted the grand jury at the time, according to my 
recollection when Gillis did the work. From Judge Miles Culehan 
in the circuit court, jurisdiction was taken bv the recorder's court. 
There are 10 judges over there, and after the indictment, so-called, was 
returned, it had to go to a presiding judge of the court. When the 
trial occurred 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was the presiding judge ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. At that time ? 

Mr. Kennedy. It was Judge Gillis ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, he wasn't. Just a minute, I say that to show 
how wrong you are. I am almost sure it was Judge Reickert. 

Mr. Kennedy. Judge Gillis was the presiding judge in January of 
1954. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. He wasn't the presiding judge when this case was 
assigned to him for trial. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. That is right. He was the pre- 
siding judge in January of 1954, when it was put off, and you were 
given a 90-day extension. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I wasn't in the case at that time. My office wasn't 
in the case. 

Mr. Kennedy. The Teamsters were given a 90-day extension in 
January of 1954, and it was given by Judge Gillis at that time, who 
was the presiding judge. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. And it was undoubtedly given with the consent 
of the prosecutor's office. 

Mr. Kennedy. Over the objection of the prosecutor's office. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. It is immaterial to me, but are you going to sit 
there as a lawyer and infer there is something wrong and impugn the 
honesty, or something, of a judge ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I am just asking you a question. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. But you go further than that, Mr. Kennedy, and 
you did that with Judge Hartnick up in Oakland, in the Michigan 
State Bar Association, and they are in a turmoil about it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who is the head of the Michigan State Bar Associa- 
tion? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Haggerty is at this time. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the same Mr. Haggerty we are talking 
about ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. One of the most respected men in the State of 
Michigan, and you may be in Massachusetts, and I don't think you 



14842 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

are right by your questions to infer that. You can do as much damage 
by your question as some witness could do by an answer, and it isn't 
fair to these people. 

Mr. Kennedy. You haven't answered the question. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I am not going to sit here, Mr. Chairman, and I 
don't think that it is fair for him to do that to people. 

The Chairman. Well, the question is now, and you can help clear 
it up, was Mr. Gillis employed here at that time, at a time when his 
father was the judge handling the case? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Chairman, I will have to reconstruct it, be- 
cause I don't remember. But to be absolutely to the best of my recol- 
lection, Mr. Gillis, Mr. Philip Gillis, had nothing to do with that 
case other than substituting for me before the grand jury. He may 
have participated in the preparation of some motions, which were 
not heard by his father, but were heard by Judge Paul Krause, an 
entirely different individual. The motions were denied. After the 
motions were denied, and I got involved in this political thing, I 
stepped out of the lawsuit. I assume Mr. Gillis did likewise, Mr. 
Philip Gillis. 

The Chairman. What was this $3,500 paid to Mr. Gillis for ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. As I recall it, the $3,500 was paid out of the Build- 
ing Service case, and that is the $3,500 that I remember. Let me ask 
Mr. Bellino. 

The Chairman. Is that the case now that is postponed ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. The Building Service case? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, the Building Service case was heard before 
Judge Arthur Webster, and a decision was reached successfully for 
us, and that ended the case. 

Now, I don't know, is Mr. Bellino talking about another $3,500, 
and that is the question I wanted to pose. Is there one $3,500 payment 
to Gillis, or two? 

The Chairman. What do you have ? Is there 1 check of $3,500, or 
2 payments? 

Mr. Bellino. There is 1 check for $3,500. 

The Chairman. That is all I recall being identified in the record. 

Mr. Kennedy. In 1953, there are other moneys going to him. 

Mr. Bellino. That is just one item, and there is a total. 

The Chairman. Do you have other items there? Give us all of 
the items you have on Gillis. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the brother, Joseph Gillis. 

The Chairman. On both of them. 

Mr. Bellino. In 1953, Philip Gillis reecived a total of $3,330, and 
the largest item being of $1,400 payment. 

The Chairman. That is Philip Gillis ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. What is that? 

Mr. Bellino. $3,330, and the largest being a $1,400 payment on 
December 1, 1953. 

Senator Mundt. Before you leave that, as far as you can reconstruct 
the records, what was that for ? 

Was this Teamster money, or was that this other union? 

Mr. Bellino. These were checks from Mr. Fitzgerald, and we don't 
know how much, if any, of that actually was Teamster money, because 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14843 

Fitzgerald would submit his own bills to the Teamsters, and include 
various items which he could have paid money out of. 

Senator Mundt. Before we leave 1953, let us ask Mr. Fitzgerald, 
what was that $3,330 for? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. The $3,300 was paid during the year to Gillis for 
legal work. 

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

Senator Mundt. In connection with the building trades deal or the 
Teamsters ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't think the building trades deal entered into 
it. He did a lot of work for other people and for me. Part of this 
$3,300 was undoubtedly for Teamsters' work, Senator Mundt. Part 
of it was. The $1,400, 1 don't know what that was for, but I am going 
to try to find out, 

Mr. Bellino. In 1953, Gillis was helping out at the grand jury and 
contacting some of the witnesses going into the grand jury. 

Senator Mundt. Was that a Teamsters' trial ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Is that the one where his father gets involved, 
if he is involved at all ? 

Mr. Bellino. His father was involved in the subsequent trial. 

Senator Mundt. We are speaking of 1953. In 1953, was Judge 
Gillis involved in the trial? 

Mr. Bellino. Not in the trial. The trial was in 1954. 

Senator Mundt. At this time, now, Mr. Gillis was appearing before 
some other judge, if he appeared in the case, is that right? 

Mr. Bellino. Well, it was in connection with the appearance of 
witnesses before another judge, yes. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. In a different court, 

The Chairman. You have 1953. Get to 1954. 

Mr. Bellino. In 1954, he received a total of $3,950, the largest 
amount being a $3,500 payment on April 5, 1954. I might say I ques- 
tioned Mr. Gillis on the telephone and he indicated he had not gotten 
any moneys from Mr. Fitzgerald. I was surprised, because I had the 
checks from Fitzgerald in my possession showing all these payments. 
He subsequently said, well, he only received some small amounts. 

The Chairman. What is the date of that $3,500 check ? 

Mr. Bellino. April 5, 1954. 

The Chairman. What was the status of the case at that time? 

Mr. Bellino. At that time, they were awaiting trial. The trial had 
been called. They were ready to proceed with the trial of Buffalino 
or the Keating case. They were both ready on about January 29. 

The prosecutor was all set to proceed with the trial when I under- 
stand a motion was made before the court for a 90-day continuance, 
and it was granted by Judge Gillis. He was the judge before whom it 
was heard. 

The Chairman. Had that continuance been granted before this 
check was paid, or was it after the $3,500 ? 

Mr. Bellino. The continuance was granted before this was paid. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. He said January 1954, Mr. Chairman. The check 
was dated April 1954. 

The Chairman. April 5, 1954, is the date of the check. 



14844 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Eight. 

The Chairman. What was the status of the case at that time ? Had 
it already been continued ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The continuance had been granted before that time ? 

Mr. Bellino. By Judge Gillis, yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Fitzgerald, was he employed and was he 
working in this case ? I don't know that there is a thing in the world 
wrong with it 

Mr. Fitzgerald. To my knowledge, no. 

The Chairman. He gets a fee of $3,500 on April 5. Prior to that, 
the case had been continued for 3 months, as I understand, over 
the objection of the State. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Let me clear this up, and I hope these newspaper- 
men get this. I don't want any reflection upon a decent lawyer and a 
decent judge. After the argument of the motions before Judge 
Krause — there are 10 judges that sit in the recorders' court in the city 
of Detroit where Judge Gills sits. Those judges preside, Mr. Chair- 
man, each month, one judge each month. He becomes the presiding 
judge. Unquestionably, when the motions were argued, Judge 
Krause was the presiding judge. We argued motions to quash the 
so-called information or indictment. They were denied. 

The case was undoubtedly set for trial and came up before the 
presiding judge in the month of January, Judge Gillis. 

Undoubtedly, according to what they say, he was the presiding 
judge. He doesn't hear jury trials ordinarily. That presiding judge 
adjourned this matter for some period of time, months, 3 months. 

When the case came up again, it went to an entirely different pre- 
siding judge, Judge Ricca, and Judge Gillis undoubtedly was working 
on what they call felonies. There may be 3 or 4 judges of the courts 
working on felonies each month. 

One judge works on presiding, one judge on preliminary examina- 
tions, one judge on early sessions, and perhaps other things. But 
there are 3 or 4 judges sitting in felony trials. Now, Judge Gillis, in 
that, would have no control over where that case was going to be 
assigned. When it came before the presiding judge, the presiding 
judge could send it to any judge who was open for trial. He sent it 
to Judge Gillis. At that time, Judge Gillis or I was not in the case 
or Philip Gillis was not in the case. 

To my knowledge, the last work he did — strike that, The first work 
he did was appearing for me at the time as a substitute for me when 
some of the Teamster witnesses went before the grand jury. To my 
recollection, he may have done some work with me on the preparation 
of a motion that was argued before Judge Krause. After the denial 
of that motion, I was no longer in the case. 

The Chairman. Was he still in the case ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, I do not believe so. Now, to go back to this 
$3,500 check, Mr. Gillis was for weeks, probably for 2 months before 
Judge Arthur Webster in this building service case. I was supposed 
to be there, and because of the fact that I was before the grand jury, 
or outside the grand jury, Mr. Gillis appeared before Judge Arthur 
Webster in the building service case. I remember when I got the 
check from the building service union, I gave Mr. Gillis a substantial 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14845 

fee. That undoubtedly was $3,500, which was nothing more or less 
than compensation for his court appearances before Judge Arthur 
Webster. As long as they want to complete this investigation, go to 
the Wayne County Circuit Court in 1954, and they will find how many 
weeks were spent in the trial of that cause before Judge Arthur 
Webster. 

That will remove any question from the minds of your staff that this 
$3,500 was paid in connection with any Teamsters' work, and particu- 
larly in connection with any work that came before Judge Joseph 
Gillis. 

That is the best reconstruction I can give you, but I am going to 
give it to you further. I did not want to leave here and leave anything 
in anyone's mind. Here is a lawyer who appeared for weeks before 
Judge Arthur Webster in an entirely different matter, and I paid him 
for it. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. And it had no connection at all with the money 
from the Teamsters or with the so-called Buffalino trial. 

The Chairman. Let's proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to ask you about these checks, Mr. Fitzgerald. 

The Chairman. I present to you two checks. They are each dated 
October 23, 1957. Each of them is in the amount of $25,000. Each 
is made payable to cash. One of them is given by the truckdrivers' 
local union No. 299 ; the other by the food and beverage drivers' union. 
I ask you to examine them and state if you can identify these checks. 

(The documents were handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I can't identify the checks as such, but I can ex- 
plain the transaction ; as a matter of fact, I never saw the checks before, 
but I know about the transaction. 

The Chairman. You know about the transaction in which the 
checks are involved? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes. I will be very happy to explain it to you. 

The Chairman. The checks may be made exhibit No. 142, A and B. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits Nos. 142 A and 
B" for reference and will be found in the appendix on pp. 14920- 
14921.) 

The Chairman. They are $25,000 each, and dated the same date, 
with each made payable to cash. One was drawn on one union and 
one was drawn on another. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. At the time this occurred, or at the time these 
checks were issued, there was a case pending before Judge Letts in 
the district court down here in the District of Columbia. I was not in 
the city of Detroit, and Mr. Hoffa was not in the city of Detroit. 
Whether we were in Washington or New York at that time, I don't 
know, but I know we were together. We got definite word — that is, 
through rumor, if you want to call it that — that an order was to be 
issued by the court tying up the funds of locals 299 and 337, along with 
the funds of the international union. 

At that time, if that had happened in the midst of all that furor, 
it would have been impossible for the union to operate and pay any 
attorney's fees. 

Mr. Kennedy. Attorney's fees? 



14846 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Wait a minute. You did not wait until I got 
through. You just want to take your own conception of it and in 
your own way. 

The Chairman. Go ahead. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Attorney's fees, or do anything else, or do anything 
in connection with the operation of the local. 

The Chairman. Let me understand you. You got the impression 
the court was going to make an order taking over the union ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Right, 

The Chairman. And that, of course, would have included taking 
over the union's funds ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Right. 

The Chairman. For some purpose of protection. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is what the court would have said. 

The Chairman. That would have been the court's judgment about it. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Of course, this was an adversary proceeding, and 
we felt at that time, and I felt as counsel, that the union had to be 
protected, that is, the union itself in this adversary proceedings had 
to be protected against the charges that were made against it, or any 
court order that we thought legally was an improper one. 

Instructions were issued to issue these cash checks and to hold this 
money in escrow, 
it, in Detroit, and put in some depository. 

The Chairman. What kind of depository ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know. I think it was put in the safe. I 
am only speaking from hearsay. The money was held and the pro- 
ceedings went on before Judge Letts. Sometime after the settlement 
of the proceedings before Judge Letts, the money was returned to 
the union. It was never out of the custody of the union, but I mean 
it was returned to the general 

The Chairman. It was taken to keep it out of the custody of the 
court ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Not out of the custody of the court, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Well, if the court was going to place all of the 
assets of the union and the union affairs under some court order, then 
you took this money out so that it would be without the jurisdiction 
of the court, 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Because we 

The Chairman. And the court would not know about this. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. The court would know about it because the records 
of the union showed it, and we would not be left in a position where 
13 dissidents in our terms, at least, were controlling the affairs of 
thousands of rank and file members in the administration of that 
union. 

This money — may I finish ? 

The Chairman. If you say the court would know about it, then it 
would be the duty of the court, if he made such an order, to order 
this money immediately returned. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. He undoubtedly would have tried to do that, and 
we would have appealed from it. There is nothing unusual about 
this, because it never went out of the union office. It never went into 
my hands. And as the records of the union will show, and as the 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14847 

report will show, this money was held in escrow, and then returned to 
the general fund of the union as soon as — well, I think it was some 
period of time after. 

The Chairman. Mr. Fitzgerald, when you say held in escrow, by 
whom, and what was the escrow agreement ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. When I say escrow, I use that loosely, not strictly 
legally, because it never passed out of the hands of the union. 

The Chairman. You don't want to say escrow, but you want to say 
that union officials tok that much money out, and held it in a lockbox 
somewhere. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. In the union. 
The Chairman. That is what it amounts to ? 
Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

The Chairman. Well, whether held in the union or put in a lock- 
box in a bank ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

The Chairman. In other words, the officers of the union withdrew 
the money and took control of it ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. The officers who were charged with the welfare 
and protection of all the members of those two locals. 

The Chairman. Well, of course, if the court made such an order, 
he was taking the responsibility away from those officers. 
Mr. Fitzgerald. If he had made such an order. 
The Chairman. As I understand you, no such order was made. 
Mr. Fitzgerald. No, no such order was made. 

The Chairman. And, finally, there was a consent agreement en- 
tered into the record, with monitors appointed, and so forth. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. And after that, the money was returned to the 
general fund. 

The Chairman. You say it was returned to the general fund of the 
union ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes. The 1958 records of the union will show 
that and the Government reports — I forget the name of that, I forget 
the number of that. It shows on the reports of the union filed with 
the Government, I believe. 
The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was that charged to on the union books ? 
Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know, Mr. Kennedy. I was not in town. 
It strikes me from the way the checks look, it was charged to attorney's 
fees. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was it charged to, Mr. Bellino ? 
Mr. Bellino. Legal fees is my recollection. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. It may have been, but I am telling you what the 
transaction was. They undoubtedly would have been legal fees. If 
the court had issued such an order, believe me there would have been 
legal fees in connection with it, and that money undoubtedly would 
have been used for legal fees to protect the property rights of all of 
the members in those two locals in the city of Detroit. 

Mr. Kennedy. You gave them the advice that they could write 
these checks under those circumstances ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. That is right, and I think I was 
justified. I think it is a common practice to protect the interest of 
your clients. If I did not do that, I would have been derelict. 



14848 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. I think the judge and the court were also interested 
in it, your clients are the union, not just Mr. Hoffa and Mr. Brennan. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, the judge in court was interested, but also my 
clients' interest was paramount to me. 

Mr. Kennedy. The judge was not going to steal the money, Mr. 
Fitzgerald. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't say the judge was going to steal the money. 
But I have seen unions paralyzed by court orders. I did not intend 
and I would not intend to sit by and see that happen. And if I repre- 
sented you or a corporation, I would not want to have you paralyzed 
by what I thought was an unjust order. 

Mr. Kennedy. And insured that in case that happened, the legal 
fees would be paid ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. The legal fees? Yes, because if there was an 
attempt on the part of the court to paralyze a particular corporation 
or union or individual, the first thing he needs is a lawyer, and the 
only way you get most lawyers is by paying them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you had some financial transactions with Mr. 
Benjamin Dranow, Mr. Fitzgerald ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes, I think I did. I had one. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was that about ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, I loaned Mr. Dranow $5,000 as my records 
show, my checks show. And then I think what I did was buy from 
Mr. Dranow a couple of sweaters and something. 

The Chairman. Who is Mr. Dranow? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Dranow is the gentleman in 
Minneapolis who was involved when Gerald Connelly took over the 
department store. It was to him that the Teamsters made the loans 
of about a million dollars. They had made a loan prior to that of 
$200,000 for the department store. 

The Chairman. Is Mr. Dranow the head of the department store ? 

Mr. Kennedy. He owns the department store. The department 
store has now gone into bankruptcy. Mr. Dranow has taken off and 
we have not been able to find him. He has been gone for about 8 
weeks out. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. To straighten the record out, I had absolutely 
nothing to do with the Dranow loan of the Teamsters, positively 
nothing. 

The Chairman. You say you made a loan. Is this the check cover- 
ing it ? 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is the check. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit 143. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 143" for 
reference and will be found in the appendix on pp. 14921-14922.) 

Senator Mundt. Did you get your $5,000 back ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No ; I have not. 

Senator Mundt. All you got out of it was a couple of sweaters? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I haven't gotten my money back. I hope I do. 

Senator Mundt. Can you tell us where Mr. Dranow is now ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, I can't. 

Senator Mundt. How long has he had your $5,000 ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I think that was issued in 



IMPROPER ACTWITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14849 

The Chairman. August 1956. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. August 1956. 

Mr. Kennedy. What collateral did he give you ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. All I had from Mr. Dranow was a note. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have that note ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No. I think I have the note, yes. I haven't had — 
as a matter of fact, when this transaction came out, or came up, I was 
going to have the note executed on it. 

I believe the note was executed — not at that time or later 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have the note in your possession ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know. I don't know whether I have it or 
not, Mr. Kennedy. I will check it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where would the note have gone to ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. The note would have gone to me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where is it now ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is what I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. If it is $5,000 you know where the note is. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know where the note is. 

The Chairman. You say you don't even know whether you have a 
note or not ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I am not certain. 

The Chairman. Are you certain he did give you a note ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I can't say that positively. The reason I say that 
was this : At the time I loaned him the $5,000, a note was going to be 
executed. It is my memory that a note was executed by him to me. 

Now, I have tried to find this note ever since I checked that trans- 
action. 

The Chairman. And you can't find it ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I will find it if it is in existence, but I have not been 
able to find it up to the present time. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Fitzgerald, $5,000 is quite a load of hay. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is a load of hay. 

Senator Mundt. That your money, or the Teamsters' money ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is my money. It came out of my bank ac- 
count. 

Senator Mundt. When you loan a man $5,000 you have some con- 
cern about it ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I have a concern about it. 

Senator Mundt. And about having some evidence that he owes it to 
you. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I have a concern about it, and as far as that is 
concerned, I have no concern about being paid for it, or else I would 
not have loaned it to him originally. 

Senator Mundt. Had you had previous transactions that led you 
to believe he was reliable ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No. Well, my relation was never a business rela- 
tion with him. I knew Dranow back in the days when he worked in 
Robinson's store in the fur department in Detroit. That is many 
years ago, and I have seen him off and on since then. 

The Chairman. What was the source of the $5,000 that you 
loaned him? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That was my own money, my fees. 

The Chairman. I believe the records show you deposited $5,000 
the same dav 



14850 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is correct. 

The Chairman. What was the source of that ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, the source of that was money from checks and 
accumulation of money that I had and had in my office, and I would 
have had it in the office when Dranow wanted the money. I went and 
put the money in the bank so I could show, and instead of giving him 
cash money 1 would have evidence of the issuance of a check to him. 
1 did it for my own self-protection. 

The Chairman. It would seem at that time you would also get a 
note from him. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, yes, it would have, at that time, except — I 
even took Mr. Dranow over to the bank. He was trying to establish 
credit at that time. We were going to execute the note later. It was 
a short-term proposition, as far as I was concerned. 

The Chairman. When was this loan made by the Teamsters to his 
company ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know. A long time before that, Mr. Chair- 
man. 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe the same year, 1956. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know. I did not have anything to do with 
the loan. I have just stated that. 

Mr. Kennedy. I see. 

The Chairman. I know. I wanted to see whether it was before or 
after. Do you have that record ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Chairman, I know that it was before, because 
he talked about that when I talked to him in Detroit. 

Mr. Kennedy. Aren't you the attorney for the Michigan Conference 
of Teamsters ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I am the attorney for the Michigan Conference of 
Teamsters, but I did not have anything to do with the Dranow loan 
whatsoever. 

Mr. Kennedy. The $200,000 loan was made on the same day — ■ 
June 6, 1956. Excuse me. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. When did I give him the check ? 

The Chairman. What intrigued me was he was trying to get credit 
established at a bank. I thought if a fellow would go out and borrow 
$290,000 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know how serious that was. He was talk- 
ing about establishing credit. 

As a matter of fact, that did not have too much to do with it. He 
has credit with banks. 

The Chairman. Didn't you just say a moment ago he wanted to get 
credit established? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No. We talked about it at the time we went over 
to the bank. 

The Chairman. That is what I am talking about in August. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes. 

The Chairman. And this note had been made in June 1956, 2 
months before. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. He had credit at other banks, Mr. Chairman. As 
I recall his conversation, he wanted to know if he could establish any 
credit. I introduced him to one of the officers and left it there. That 
is all I had to do with it. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14851 

I didn't represent him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Once again, where did you get the money that you 
deposited in your bank account that day ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I got it from my office, which was an accumula- 
tion of fees. 

Mr. Kennedy. Cash, was it? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. It was cash money, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. $5,000 in cash? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You kept that at your office ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me ask you about another matter. You made a 
payment to Mr. Lawrence Burns in 1953 ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I undoubtedly did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Excuse me, February 13, 1954. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I probably did. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was for $2,400? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. February of 1954 ? That would seem to be in con- 
nection with that Buffalino and Nicoletti lawsuits. I know Burns 
did a tremendous amount of work over that period of time. 

The Chairman. I present to you a check dated February 13, 1954, 
in the amount of $2,400. State if you identify it. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Lawrence Burns is an attorney. From the 
date, it would be my recollection that this was in connection with 
the matters of the grand jury. This was an accumulation of work 
over a period of time from the time the grand jury started. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were reimbursed for that. 

The Chairman. That check may be made exhibit 144. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 144" for reference 
and will be found in the appendix on p. 14923.) 

Mr. Fitzgerald. When I say the grand jury work, Mr. Chairman, I 
would like to have the record show it was in connection with the Cala- 
han grand jury work, which involved the investigation of the Team- 
sters. It is my belief that this check was payment for an accumula- 
tion of work he had done over a period of time. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was representing Vincent Meli at that time. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes, I think he probably was, but that had noth- 
ing to do with what he did for me. 

The Chairman. Let me see that check a moment. 

The check made exhibit 144 is dated February 13, 1954. Now I 
hand you another check from joint council 43, good and welfare fund, 
dated February 12, 1954, in the same amount, $2,400. Can you identify 
that check, a check made payable to you ? 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Fitzgerald. What is the date of that check, Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. The date of this one here, to Mr. Burns, is dated 
February 13, 1954. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. What I did was bill the union, and then I got the 
money from the union and I paid it to Burns for the work he did. 
This check corresponds with the other check. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit 144A. 



14852 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 144A" for 
reference and will be found in the appendix on p. 14924.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Why didn't Mr. Burns bill the union directly ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Why didn't he ? At that time he was not billing 
the union directly. Why it was done is because all the work he did 
was under my direction. Not under my direction but under my au- 
thorization. He didn't have any specific authorization from the union 
to work on the matter. 

I billed them because it was my responsibility. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was not in connection with this representation of 
Mr. Vincent Meli ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, not anything to my knowledge, that he would 
have any payment for representation of Vincent Meli. Not through 
me. 

Mr. Kennedy. But he was representing Vincent Meli at the time. 
Do you deny it ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Now, don't start that. I knew that he represented 
Vincent Meli. 

He was part of a conspiracy with the Teamsters. But what he got 
from Vincent Meli is his business. He worked for me on the Buffalino 
conspiracy case and on what I might term the Keating conspiracy 
case, two cases, and did a lot of work on them. 

The Chairman. Buffalino is an officer in the union who was in- 
dicted ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. And found not guilty by a jury. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was a case we discussed earlier where Judge 
Gillis presided ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes, and Judge Gillis did not get into the jury 
room any more than you did. 

The Chairman. I present to you a check dated January 3, 1955, 
drawn on the joint council 43 defense fund in the amount of $5,000 
payable to Joe Louisell. Would you examine that check and state if 
you identify it. 

(Document handed to witness.) 

Mr. Fitzgerald. What I have to say about this one, is strictly hear- 
say, but I mean I preface it that way. Not that you are not allowed 
to listen to hearsay here. 

The Chairman. Do you know about the check ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I know of it in a second- or third-hand fashion. 
I had nothing to do with the employment of Louisell, but I do know 
this, that Louisell was representing one of the coconspirators. Loui- 
sell did a tremendous amount of work in the Buffalino case in connec- 
tion with Mr. Buffalino's interest. 

The Chairman. I see on the back of the check it says "In full set- 
tlement of the Buffalino case," I believe. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. You see, it is a conspiracy case, and 
you have 4 or 5 defendants involved. I may represent a coconspirator 
and I may be paid a stipulated amount with him. However, because 
the act of one conspirator is attributed to every one, as you well know, 
you have a joint defense. Now, during the course of that, I had been 
called upon many times to perform work which rightfully should not 
be billed to the client I represent, but which I am doing at the request 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14853 

of another defendant. I think that was the situation with Mr. Louisell 
as far as I know. I know he did a tremendous amount of work in 
preparation for that case and during the trial of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Actually, he was representing Mr. Turk Prujansky; 
was he not ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I think on the record he did. Did you ever try a 
conspiracy case, Mr. Kennedy ? 

The Chairman. I can understand that in a conspiracy case if you 
are able to serve one you probably in some respects are serving all of 
them. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. If you don't, Mr. Chairman, they generally all go 
to jail. That is what happened. If one lawyer is just serving his own 
client in a conspiracy case without respect to the other fellows, the 
lawyers go crazy and the clients go to j ail. That is about what happens. 

The Chairman. Well, obviously the lawyers did not go crazy, but 
the point I am making here is the union paying for all of this defense 
for these folks. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. They didn't pay for that. Mr. Louisell 

The Chairman. Isn't that from the union ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is from the union. As I understand it, he was 
called upon by Mr. Buffalino and by union people to work on different 
phases and aspects of that case. 

Mr. Kennedy. But that is for his representation of Mr. Prujansky. 
That is what he told us. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Did he ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I told you this was second or third hand with me. 
If he told you that, I would be very much surprised. 

The Chairman. For the record, who was Mr. Prujansky ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. He was a codef endant in the union case. 

The Chairman. Was he a union official ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No. 

The Chairman. So the union was paying 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No. I am entirely removed. I am only telling you 
what I believe happened here. 

The Chairman. Maybe you can't throw any light on it 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I can't. 

The Chairman. But I can't understand, certainly, a union going 
out and paying a lawyer's fee for somebody who is not an official. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't believe the union did. As a matter of fact, 
I would be sure they would not, because I know if he did work in that 
case, he did work for the union or for union defendants who were on 
trial, or, I should say, at the request of union defendants who were on 
trial. 

The Chairman. The check may be made exhibit 145. We will get 
further identification of it. But since I have presented it to you and 
interrogated you about it, we will make it an exhibit. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 145" for reference 
and will be found in the appendix on p. 14925.) 

Mr. Kennedy. I think we already have some of the background of 
Mr. Prujansky in the record. 

The Chairman. The committee will stand in recess until 2 : 30. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Chairman, do you need me this afternoon ? 

21243— 59 — pt. 39 20 



14854 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to get the rest of your records, Mr. Fitz- 
gerald. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. You got all of my records that I can furnish you 
with, to the best of my knowledge. I don't know what records you are 
referring to. 

The Chairman. You don't want him to testify any further today, 
do you ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Do you want me this afternoon ? 

Mr. Chairman, before you break up, I would like to have from Mr. 
Bellino the records of joint councils 43 and 876, which I believe I am 
entitled to. They have had sufficient time to examine them. 

If they want to get them back, I would like to have them photostated 
or verifaxed. That is the only thing I have been asking for, and I 
never hear from them. 

The Chairman. We will work it out, and if we are not through 
with them, we will get through with them. 

(Whereupon, at 12:55 a recess was taken until 2:30 p. m. of the 
same day, with the following members present: Senators McClellan 
andMundt.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

(At the reconvening of the session the following members were 
present : Senators McClellan and Mundt.) 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE S. FITZGERALD— Resumed 

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

Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Chairman, before Mr. Kennedy proceeds, may 
I make an observation or a statement covering some matters that arose 
this morning? 

The Chairman. You may. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I was questioned this morning, and I made certain 
statements concerning the item of $50,000, which was changed from 
bank funds of local 299 and local 337 to what might be termed the cash 
currency reserve fund. That was in 1957, the 2 checks that you showed 
me. 

The Chairman. The two checks that you took out at the time you 
anticipated an adverse court order. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes. Well, now, there are several points to be 
made in that connection which may not have been clearly stated this 
morning. 

I might state that I called committee counsel last night. I talked 
to him in the hall and I told him I did not want to pry into what he 
wanted to inquire into, but I asked him if he could tell me what fields 
he wanted to explore so that I would be prepared to answer. I did 
call him and he told me he would refer to some of my personal records, 
including the question of items that were marked "Investigation." 

The Chairman. Is that these two checks ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right, but I am not through yet, if I may 
continue very, very briefly. 

The Chairman. I am just trying to understand you. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. To return to the cash reserve fund of $50,000 or 
to the transfer of that money from the bank funds of those 2 locals, to 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14855 

a cash reserve fund, because that is what it amounted to because it 
never left the hands of the union, either local, I believe the following 
must be understood. 

First, I want to state on the record there was no plan, scheme, or 
deA'ice to circumvent or thwart any possible order of any court, 
whether it was in Detroit or Washington. 

Secondty, it had nothing directly to do with the proceedings against 
the international union and the officers thereof that had been insti- 
tuted in the District of Columbia. 

Third, it was our information, that was the officers of the union and 
my own, based merely on rumor, that the bank funds of local 299 and 
local 337 might be tied up. The officers of the union and I, as their 
attorney, owed a duty to the employees and to the administrative staff 
of the unions to see that their salaries were paid, and that they were 
able to carry on. 

The union had certain contract obligations, the functions of which 
could not await the outcome of any proposed or prospective litigation. 

These union functions had to be carried on from hour to hour to 
day to day, and without that the hundreds of business firms who do 
business under collective bargaining contracts with these locals might 
find themselves out of business because thousands of union employees 
would have no responsibility to guide them as far as the union was 
concerned. 

Now, the union and its members could not and did not lose anything 
by virtue of the transfer of the funds and the form in which it was 
made. Not even interest was lost, because the funds were in a com- 
mercial account where no interest was paid. The payroll of the union 
was in excess of $10,000 per month, I believe of both locals, and the 
advice I gave concerning this matter was without opportunity for long 
research and investigation. 

It was, as I said before, and as I presently believe, done over the 
telephone. I believe I was right then and I believe I did the proper 
thing in the interest of my clients. Now because of my prior interro- 
gation about attorney's fee, and my overwrought feelings on that 
subject, I may have overemphasized attorney's fees and legal protection 
in this morning's statements. 

One of the basic and underlying reasons for the advice was to 
protect the union and to protect its contracts with employers and to 
protect the employees of the unions and preserve the proper admin- 
istration of union affairs. These rumors start from any place. I 
believe that this rumor grew out of the proceedings before Judge Letts, 
and that those proceedings might give other dissidents an idea to start 
similar proceedings in Michigan. 

I believe in my testimony — I have not seen the transcript — that I 
made a reference to Judge Letts' proceedings. I have been told that 
an inference could be drawn from that, that that had some bearing, 
or any decision of Judge Letts had controlling importance as far as 
my decision was concerned to give this advice, to transfer these bank 
deposits to a cash reserve fund. 

I want to correct that, because it is apparent on its face that the 
proceedings before Judge Letts was against the international union, 
and it could not in any way have affected local 337 or 290. because 
neither of those locals, nor their officers, nor their membership, were 



14856 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

involved in that lawsuit. So any court decision of Judge Letts would 
necessarily apply to the international union. 

I did not want the chairman or the committee to feel that it would 
be an attempt to circumvent Judge Letts' order because Judge Letts' 
order could merely be directed to the parties to the lawsuit, which was 
the international union. 

When I talked to Mr. Kennedy last evening and asked him about 
this, and he told me it was a question of investigations, I in good faith 
accepted that. I had no means of knowing what matters this interro- 
gation was going to affect, or what they were going to go into. So all 
morning long I have been attempting to give off-the-cuff answers to 
many things that I had not had the opportunity to refresh my recol- 
lection about. 

I would like to read into the record from a news ticker tape that 
came out this morning : "Senate rackets probers recall Teamsters' law- 
yer, George S. Fitzgerald, for more questioning today, but made mys- 
tery of what they would ask him. Robert F. Kennedy, counsel to the 
investigating committee, told reporters he did not want Fitzgerald to 
know in advance the subjects to be explored." 

Now I say, Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask that this be made an 
exhibit and put into the record. 

The Chairman. You have read it in. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, all right. I am not trying to be too personal 
about this thing, but I think in view of my request on Mr. Kennedy 
last night to advise me, and in view of the fact tha the did say it was 
investigations, it should be understood that this does not — and many 
of these things do not — partake of a legislative investigation. 

But apparently from his standpoint, from the fact he wants to keep 
shrouded in mystery the questions he wants to ask me, it partakes of a 
legislative trial, an inquisition, or a grand jury proceeding. I did 
not think that I was coming in for that, not that it makes too much 
difference. I would have still given my answers to the best of my 
recollection. 

But I don't think it is quite fair in view of, I believe, the cooperation 
that I have attempted to extend to the committee up to now. I just 
want to make that a part of the record. I am not the least bit angered 
about it, but I am somewhat taken back. 

The Chairman. Let me say this now : You are a lawyer and I once 
tried to be. In a matter of inquiry such as this, a grand jury inquiry, 
or even a legislative inquiry where we are looking into things, and we 
have looked into many things that are corrupt and where there is some 
indication there may be corruption and we should inqure into it, you 
don't go around and tell everybody exactly what you are going to do 
when you get in a courtroom or a committee room. 

There is no great secret about the general subject matter that we 
are inquiring into. May I say this now, gentlemen ? I didn't know 
you wanted an argument, but going back to your $50,000, suppose a 
bank official would get a rumor that someone is going to put the bank 
in receivership. Would those bank officials have a right to take out 
$50,000 and lay it aside somewhere ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. They didn't take it out. I don't say we took any- 
thing out. I say that all that was done in this instance, if this is an 
argument, is that the funds were put into such a position that attor- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14857 

ney's fees, and as I said liis morning, and the administrative functions 
could be paid for during the progress of the litigation. That was 
all that was done, and I think that 

The Chairman. Well, the bank officials couldn't do it, as you did. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, I don't know. 

The Chairman. You will agree with me on that, wouldn't you ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know about that. You are talking about 
a bank, and you can't have the same rules written for both. As a 
matter of fact you gentlemen in Congress haven't written the same 
rules for labor unions that you wrote for banks. 

The Chairman. We haven't gone as far, and that is something that 
you folks don't want us to do. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know about that. When you say, "you 
folks," you are covering, Mr. Chairman, a wide territory. 

The Chairman. Let's just make it the Teamsters Union, then. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, sir; I have never expressed an idea on what 
you want to do. Whatever rules you decide to write, I as counsel 
will tell this Teamsters Union to live by them, and that is the way we 
have always proceeded. When you wrote the Taft-Hartley Act, the 
union people didn't like it, but they have lived under it. 

That is the same way, if you write some other rules. I am not 
objecting to what you are trying to do. I am not objecting to what 
you are trying to do here. 

The Chairman. Let us not argue any further. You mentioned that 
we haven't written the same rules for banks as we have for unions. 
We haven't. I think that these hearings have thoroughly demon- 
strated that we need to write some new rules. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. All you have to do, Mr. Chairman, is to convince 
the Congress. I haven't -anything to do with that. Apparently there 
are quite a few that disagree with it. I don't know. 

The Chairman. That is what we are holding these hearings for, 
to get the facts together. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. If you go on long enough, you might convince 
some more. 

The Chairman. Let us proceed. 

Senator Mundt. This morning, Mr. Fitzgerald, you did say that 
the trial before Judge Letts had given rise to rumors which you had 
heard which induced you to give this advice to the locals that had 
put this money into a separate fund. Now you tell us that on reflec- 
tion you recall that Judge Letts was dealing only with the interna- 
tional officers and that consequently his court could not conceivably 
have taken any legal action to hold those funds. 

Is that right? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I think that you are right on both counts. May I 
answer it this way 

Senator Mundt. That is an answer. I have no question on that. 
I am leading now to whether you want perhaps to give some different 
explanation of the rest of your testimony this morning, when you told 
us that it was after Judge Letts had appointed the monitors that you 
then advised the union officials to turn the money back to the local 
treasury, and I was wondering why in view of the fact that the Judge 
Letts case had nothing to do with the original action it was the ap- 
pointment of the monitors that led you to give them that second bit 
of counsel. 



14858 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I didn't give them any counsel on that, Senator 
Mundt. I am glad you brought it up, because it will help clarify it. 

Senator Mundt. You said this morning it was after the monitors 
were appointed that the money was returned to the original union 
funds. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I was stating that from the standpoint of time. 
It was not because that happened. I didn't give them any advice when 
to put it back. I merely said now, and if I may state it properly, I 
did not advise them when to put it back. It is my understanding that 
when the proceedings before Judge Letts cooled off, it was put back. 

Senator Mundt. I may have inadvertently implied that you ad- 
vised them to put it back, and I am not sure that you said that this 
morning. I am positive you said this morning that they put it back 
after the monitors were appointed. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Sometime after. 

Senator Mundt. And certainly your testimony, taking two things 
in juxtaposition, indicated that that was the reason why they had put 
the money back. I am wondering why that particular action by 
Judge Letts would bring about the restoration of the funds since you 
now tell us, and I think correctly, that the Judge Letts case had noth- 
ing to do with these two local unions. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Let me say this, and I think the record which the 
committee staff has will bear it out, that immediately upon the ap- 
pointment of the monitors or let me put it better — immediately upon 
this consent order being entered by Judge Letts, and the appointment 
of the monitors under the consent order, it is my understanding that 
the money wasn't immediately put back but when the situation cooled 
off so that these dissident groups apparently had cooled off, that is 
when the money was put back. I don't know. 

I know it was not put back immediately upon the appointment of 
the monitors, and I think it was some time after that. But I am in 
no position to state what date. In other words, what I am trying to 
say is this : 

I am saying it very badly, but when the consent order was entered 
and the monitors were appointed, this money was not immediately put 
back in there. There were other factors involving union internal 
matters, I would assume, that intervened and eventually when the in- 
ternational union started proceeding under this monitor arrangement 
and the local unions had settled down in their ordinary business, I 
believe the money was put back. 

Senator Mundt. I was simply trying to understand this: I think 
you are correct when you tell us now that the hearing before Judge 
Letts had nothing whatsoever to do with taking the money out. I 
couldn't explain in my own mind why the decision of Judge Letts 
should have anything to do with putting the money back. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, only apparently, I know in the beginning the 
reason it was done was because the rumors were afloat, and apparently 
when they put it back the rumors had died clown. That is my best 
explanation of it. 

The Chairman. There is one other thought. Any court making 
an order placing a union in receivership or trusteeship would have 
jurisdiction to make a proper order with respect to the distribution 
or disposition of funds and the use of them. I can hardly conceive 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14859 

that a court would put a union in receivership or trusteeship and tie 
up the union to where no one could operate it and no one would be 
authorized to disburse funds for proper and legitimate union purposes. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, in my experience over 25 years of repre- 
senting trade unions, there have been many attempts to do that, Mr. 
Chairman. 

It is not so much lately, since unions reached a position that they 
have today, but in the early days there were those things done and 
worse, or attempted to be done. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Mr. Kennedy. When was the money redeposited, Mr. Fitzgerald? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know, and I haven't any record. Mr. Bel- 
lino has it, and it was in 1958, and you can check the union records, or 
I could find it out for you, if you want me to. 

Mr. Kennedy. So this situation that you described this morning, 
about Judge Letts and the court, is not correct? This, which you are 
telling us this afternoon, is correct ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Oh, no. That isn't so, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it correct this morning what you told us about 
why it was done ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Just a minute, there is no incorrection. There is 
no need of correcting anything. I said, and you didn't listen to me 
apparently. 

Mr. Kennedy. I thought that is what you spent the last half hour 
correcting — what you said this morning. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is what you think, but you are wrong, and 
the record will show. I said that because you had questioned me about 
attorney's fees, I was a little bit overwrought about it, just perhaps 
like a real-estate man might be or any other person in a profession 
when someone else questions his right to set his fees. You may have 
overemphasized the fact of attorney's fees in relation to this $50,000. 
What I tried to point out to you today or this afternoon is that upon 
reflection there were other factors involved, and I have attempted to 
state them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, did it have anything to do with the court pro- 
ceedings here in Washington, before Judge Letts ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Only in relation to the fact that the rumors grew 
out of that, and as a matter of fact, the rumors grew out of the liti- 
gation before Judge Letts. 

Mr. Kennedy. That the court would step in and take over this local 
union? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. What is that ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is what I am asking you. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That the court would step in, and I just gave you 
a reason and a good, valid, legal reason that this court, Judge Letts 
couldn't step in because those two locals weren't a party to the action. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was going to step in ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Courts m Michigan, and that would be the only 
court that would have jurisdiction over those locals. 

Mr. Kennedy. So that the reason the $50,000 came out was because 
rumors, arising out of the court case here in Washington, stated that 
a court in Michigan was going to step in and take over the local, and 
you wanted $50,000 out. 



14860 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Fitzgerald. You are simply filing it for your own purposes. 

The Chairman. Well, I think we have made a record on this. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I have tried to straighten it out, and I could an- 
swer your questions. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Fitzgerald, how much money in loans have you 
received from the Teamsters Union ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. You say me, personally ? 

Mr. Kennedy. You or a company with whom you are associated. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Those two. There was the Marbury Construction 
Co., which was testified to by Mr. Grosberg. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much is that ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know. Here we are at the beginning, Mr. 
Kennedy. You are asking me for off-the-cuff statements and I have 
no records in my possession at this time either of the Marbury Con- 
struction Co., or of anything else and I find it impossible to recon- 
struct anything without reference to those records. 

Mr. Kennedy. What other companies are there ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. With the return of my records, I will be happy 
to examine the record and make a complete answer. I must ask the 
chairman for the right to make a complete answer, and not to guess. 
I have had too many matters in the last 35 years to be ready with 
any off-the-cuff answers. 

Now, I am compelled reluctantly, Mr. Chairman, to take this posi- 
tion, but I must in view of the fact that Mr. Bellino and the testimony 
regarding the Gillis brothers this morning, failed in the beginning to 
tell of the $8,300 check which I had received from the Building Service 
Union, on the very same day when I gave Phillip Gillis a check for 
$3,500. 

Now, the withholding of that information by Mr. Bellino, whether 
it was done by mistake or what it was, almost resulted in a mixup, 
and if it wasn't for Senator Mundt's question I would have been 
making assumptions. 

The Chairman. Now, Mr. Fitzgerald, we asked you a question and 
if you can't answer, just say you can't answer. If you don't know 
the answer to it, just say so. The Chair has told you that upon any- 
thing you testify about here, where you say you are not sure, you may 
file a memorandum stating what the facts are. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Pardon me ; I am sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt 
you. 

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

The Chairman. The $8,300 item — we had not finished with the wit- 
ness — we can't say everything at one time. Nothing is going to be 
concealed as far as this record is concerned, if we have it. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I appreciate that. 

The Chairman. I can say that to you. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I know that. 

The Chairman. You don't have to worry about that. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I know that. That is the least of our worries when 
we come before this committee. There are no worries about that. 

The Chairman. All right. Let's proceed, then. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know any other company that you have been 
associated with? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14861 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes. The Marbury Construction and the Union 
Square Agency. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the Union Square Agency ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is an insurance firm. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive a loan ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. We received a loan from the health and welfare — 
the Michigan Conference of Teamsters health and welfare fund. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was in that company with you ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Herb Grosberg, Ben Grosberg, Moe Wolf- 
gang, and myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Herb Grosberg is the accountant ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. He is the accountant. You know that. That was 
all testified to. You have had access to all of those records, too. We 
gave you complete access to those records, Mr. Kennedy. You have 
had a chance to examine them. You have examined Marbury Con- 
struction, so don't try to make a mystery out this one. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am just asking you questions. Don't you want 
the testimony to come in like that ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I want you to be honest with me and I will be 
honest with you. 

This news release puts me on notice that you want to make a mystery 
of what questions you want to ask me. I don't want to get out of 
line here. 

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I have to deal now at arm's length 
with this gentleman which I did not think I had to do, because he is 
a lawyer like myself. 

The Chairman. Just a minute now. The Chair wants to be very 
patient. You just answer questions or refuse to answer. If you can't 
answer, do your best, 

Mr. Kennedy. Just tell me who the other people are. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I just told you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Herb Grosberg and who else ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Read it back for Mr. Kennedy, please ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Who are the other people ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I told you Mr. Grosberg, his father, and Mr. Moe 
Wolfgang. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Moe Wolfgang is who ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. He is an attorney in Detroit, 

Mr. Kennedy. How much money did you receive ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That I don't exactly know, and I am not going 
to guess. I will have to check the records, and I will file a memo- 
randum, as the chairman suggests. 

Mr. Kennedy. We will put those figures into the record, and you 
can tell us whether they are correct. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Wait a moment, Mr. Chairman ? I would like to 
object. After all, this is not a legislative trial. At this time, I think 
I am entitled to give my testimony without interruption and be excused 
or recalled. If Mr. Kennedy has other testimony he should put it in 
in the proper way. 

After all, I have put up with this for 2 days in these constant inter- 
ruptions. I know the committee, through the chairman, runs these 
proceedings. But I don't think this is a legislative trial. 



14862 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LAEOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Mr. Bellino, take the stand. State what you found 
from a search of the records the loans to be — the amount of them. 

Mr. Bellino. In connection with the Union Square Agency, on June 
17, 1957, a loan of $135,000 was made to Benjamin Grosberg, the father 
of Herbert Grosberg, and an associate in this Union Square Agency 
venture. 

The Chairman. Is that the only loan to that company ? 

Mr. Bellino. To that company ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Now the other one. 

Mr. Bellino. On November 21, 1957, the Michigan Conference of 
Teamsters welfare fund loaned to the Marbury Construction Co., 
through the Abstract & Title Guarantee Co., $100,000. 

The Chairman. All right. Those are the only loans that you have 
reference to ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That you have found ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Fitzgerald, do those amounts sound about cor- 
rect to you ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. They sound about correct, and those are the only 
loans. 

The Chairman. Those are the only ones that you have received, you 
or any company association in which you have an interest have 
received ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. Both loans are current. I think 
about $55,000 or $60,000 has been repaid on one loan, and the payments 
are being made regularly with 6 percent interest on the other loan. 

The Chairman. What is on the other one ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I beg your pardon ? 

The Chairman. You said there was 6 percent interest on one loan. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I believe it is G percent on both. Now, that is only 
my judgment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just one other matter. Did you advise Mr. Gros- 
berg to destroy the net- worth statement of Mr. Hoffa ? 

Air. Fitzgerald. No ; I did not say destroy the net-worth statement. 
I told Mr. Grosberg when this matter came up and Mr. Hoffa was 
under investigation by the Internal Revenue Department and some 
of these accountants had some type of net- worth statement — I told him 
there was no requirement in law that Mr. Hoffa or any other taxpayer 
under auditor investigation of the Internal Revenue had the duty to 
make a net -worth statement to the Government. 

I told him to get rid of it because it had no place in it. And I would 
tell the same thing to anybody I represented. It is not up to the 
taxpayer to make a net- worth statement unless he so desires. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you representing him personally at the time, 
Mr. Fitzgerald ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes, I was representing Mr. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you being paid by him personally ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No ; I was not paid at the time ; do you mean have 
I been paid ? I will be paid. I expect to be paid. 

Air. Kennedy. When was this that you told him ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know that. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long ago ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I would not have any idea. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14863 

Mr. Kennedy. 1954, 1955, or when, 1957 ? _ 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know. I think it was during the course of 
this investigation. 

Mr. Kennedy. Since this committee started its investigation ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. 1956, then ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know the date. 

The Chairman. What investigation ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. This is an internal revenue investigation of Mr. 
Hoffa. It had no reference to this committee. I think, and you can't 
hold me to this — again I am on the off-the-cuff statements anyway, 
you see, you put me right into it again — I think it was even before 
this committee started. 

I am not sure of it, but I think it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were being retained by the Teamsters at that 
time? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. For my work for the Teamsters? Certainly. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you have never been paid by Mr. Hoffa for this 
advice to him ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I would look fine going down and asking Jimmie 
Hoffa to give me a special fee for advising him not to file a net- worth 
statement. What would I charge him ? $5 ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I don't know how much that would be worth. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. This investigation is still going on. 

Mr. Kennedy. O.K. 

That is all. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Senator Mundt ? 

Senator Mundt. No questions, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. All right. Thank you very much. 

Where we have indicated, if there is any correction or any informa- 
tion you wish to supply by memorandum, you may do so. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I would like the opportunity to check the transcript 
and then I will know where I am at. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could I see the statement you referred to ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Which statement? 

Mr. Kennedy. The one of the news service. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I wanted to put it in my scrapbook. But you can 
put it in yours. 

The Chairman. Just a moment. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I am sorry. That was said not 

The Chairman. The statement has been read into the record. I 
don't know whether he read all of it or not. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That was said facetiously, Mr. Chairman. Mr. 
Kennedy and I have indulged in that a lot. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hannan. 

The Chairman. Mr. Hannan, come forward, please. 

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

Mr. Hannan. I do. 



14864 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES P. HANNAN, ACCOMPANIED BY 
COUNSEL, JOHN J. SLAVIN 

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

Mr. Hannan. James P. Hannan, 1822 Prespwich, Grosse Point 
Woods, Mich. My occupation is business manager of a hospital. 

The Chairman. Business manager of a hospital ? 

Mr. Hannan. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Would you identify the hospital ? 

Mr. Hannan. Maybury Grand Medical. 

The Chairman. Where is that located ? 

Mr. Hannan. Detroit, Mich. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

You have counsel present ? 

Mr. Hannan. Yes, sir. 

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

Mr. Slavin. John J. Slavin, attorney, 2236 Guardian Building, 
Detroit, Mich. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hannan, you are an attorney, are you not ? 

Mr. Hannan. Yes, I am, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you are admitted to the bar of the State of 
Michigan ? 

Mr. Hannan. Yes, I am. 

Mr. Kennedy. And during one period of time, you were associated 
with Mr. George Fitzgerald ; is that right ? 

Mr. Hannan. Yes, I was. 

Mr. Kennedy. During approximately what time ? 

Mr. Hannan. Approximately 1949 to 1952 or 1953. 

Mr. Kennedy. This was shortly after you became a member of the 
bar? 

Mr. Hannan. I was admitted in 1949. 

Mr. Kennedy. You also had some business dealings with a Mr. 
Holmes, of the Teamsters Union ? 

Mr. Hannan. Yes, I have had some business dealings. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was approximately when ? 

Mr. Hannan. Approximately November 1954. 

Mr. Kennedy. He advanced you some money, did he? 

Mr. Hannan. He loaned me some money, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. For a package store ? 

Mr. Hannan. For a package liquor store which I owned on Van 
Dyke Avenue, in Detroit. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much did he advance you ? 

Mr. Hannan. I told you last night. Eoughly ten to twelve thousand 
dollars. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you repaid him that money ? 

Mr. Hannan. I have repaid him the greater percentage of that 
money. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much remains to be repaid ? 

Mr. Hannan. That I don't know. He has a note showing the un- 
paid balance. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14865 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't know, yourself ? 

Mr. Hannan. Not offhand, no. I don't have those records here. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was Mr. Holmes' position with the Teamsters 
Union at that time ? 

Mr. Hannan. I think he had the same position then he has now, 
which is secretary-treasurer of local 337. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is he also with the welfare fund ? Is he a trustee ? 

Mr. Hannan. He is a trustee of the welfare fund. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had been interested in establishing a hospital, 
is that correct, during the 1950's ? 

Mr. Hannan. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you relate your conversations and how you 
got into that, briefly ? 

Mr. Hannan. Do you mean my conversations 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to lead up to the financial transactions, which 
we are interested in. 

Mr. Hannan. Well, do you want me to get into the fact of having 
a friend that was the director of the Michigan Hospital Survey Con- 
struction Commission, appointed by Governor Williams? 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, if you want to go into that. 

Mr. Hannan. I don't particularly care about it. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you had been interested in this ? 

Mr. Hannan. I had been interested in this type of venture for quite 
some time. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you talked to Mr. McElroy ? 

Mr. Hannan. I had talked to Mr. McElroy on many occasions about 
this type of venture. 

Mr. Kennedy. And ultimately you went and talked to Mr. Brennan ; 
is that correct ? 

Mr. Hannan. Mr. McElroy and I, during the course of probably a 
year or 2 years, had looked at many prospective buildings for this 
type of venture, which is a very common venture in Detroit. Even- 
tually we found the building that we thought would be satisfactory 
for this purpose, at which time we went to the Teamsters and talked 
to Mr. Hoffa and Mr. Brennan. As I recall, it was on more than one 
occasion. This was a developing thing. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who owned the building at that time? 

Mr. Hannan. At that time, when we located the building — when I 
say located, it was advertised through a real-estate agent, and so on — 
the building was owned by a UAW-CIO local. 

Mr. Kennedy. So, you had these conversations with Mr. Brennan 
and Mr. Hoffa. What did they agree to ? 

Mr. Hannan. They agreed that local 299 and local 337 of the 
Teamsters Union would buy this building for the price which the CIO 
union was asking for it at the time, which was $36,500. We, in turn, 
bought the building from them on land contract, which is a conveyance 
of land in Michigan, for $40,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why were Mr. Brennan and Mr. Hoffa interested in 
making this transaction ? 

Mr. Hannan. Well, when we talked to Mr. Hoffa and Mr. Brennan 
about this thing, they apparently had had some information from 
other sources. They mentioned, I believe, a doctor, at that time — I 
don't recall his name — but they had some background in this type of 



14866 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

thing. They realized that there was a definite need for such a project 
in Detroit. Plus the fact that, as I recall it, they indicated that this 
was not too far afield from a medical program which the Teamsters 
themselves had been contemplating. In fact, I believe they have it in 
effect in some other parts of the country. So their position, as I recall 
it, was that if we weren't able to handle this thing, it would be bene- 
ficial for their union for the purpose that I have just indicated. 

Mr. Kennedy. So if it wasn't financially successful under your 
and Mr. McElroy's direction, the Teamsters would take it over? 

Mr. Hannan. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. What was the reason, Mr. Hannan, that you didn't 
buy the building direct from the CIO, where you could have gotten it 
$3,500 cheaper than from the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Hannan. Because, as I recall it, the CIO, this particular local, 
had built a new local hall and they wanted to get rid of this building 
for cash. They had an unpaid balance in their new building and they 
wanted cash. 

Senator Mundt. You didn't have the cash ? 

Mr. Hannan. We did not have the cash, sir. 

Senator Mundt. So what you actually paid, then, was $3,500 extra 
for the property so you could buy it on a long-term contract ? 

Mr. Hannan. That is correct, on a long-term contract. 

Mr. Kennedy. They purchased the building in July of 1955 ? 

Mr. Hannan. I beiieve that is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. I will put in all the checks and details on it later. 
But it was in July 1955 ? 

Mr. Hannan. I would say so. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then was it arranged for a contractor to repair the 
building? 

Mr. Hannan. Yes, it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who did you get to do that work ? 

Mr. Hannan. Some time after the building had been purchased, 
very shortly after the building had been purchased, Mr. McElroy and 
I talked to Mr. Brennan, and, as I recall it, to the best of my recol- 
lection, Mr. Brennan got ahold of Mr. Hixon, of the Hixon Construc- 
tion Co., and he came over and met with us and we went over the 
remodeling of the building. Mr. Brennan at that time said that he 
would stand in back of the construction remodeling costs on this 
building, because the Teamsters, if the building had to be repossessed, 
they would have a use for it. 

Mr. Kennedy. So Mr. Hixon agreed to remodel the building? 

Mr. Hannan. To go ahead. Mr. Hixon completely remodeled the 
building and never drew any construction money through the whole 
period that he was working on the building. 

Mr. Kennedy. Never drew any money from you whatsoever ? 

Mr. Hannan. Not a dime. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was doing other work for the Teamsters at that 
time? 

Mr. Hannan. I don't know that. 

Mr. Kennedy. But he agreed to do this? 

Mr. Hannan. Yes, he did. 

Mr. Kennedy. All right. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14867 

Then you were going to buy the building from the Teamsters. Did 
you obtain some money from someone to make that purchase? Or 
did you obtain some money during this period of time, some private 
loans ? 

Mr. Hannan. No, we did not. I don't understand the question. 

Mr. Kennedy. In October of 1955, did you obtain some money ? 

Mr. Hannan. Do you mean from the Teamsters? 

Mr. Kennedy. No. From anyone. Private loans. 

Mr. Hannan. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive any loans from Mr. Hoffa or Mr. 
Brennan ? 

Mr. Hannan. Yes, we did. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did you receive those loans ? 

Mr. Hannan. Well, I think it is probably October you are talking 
about. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. How much money did you receive at that time ? 

Mr. Hannan. That was either $15,000 or $16,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe it was $16,000. Is that right. You 
borrowed that money ? 

Mr. Hannan. We borrowed that money personally from Mr. Hoffa 
and Mr. Brennan. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was paid in cash to you ? 

Mr. Hannan. That was paid in cash. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you do with that money ? 

Mr. Hannan. That money was deposited in the bank in Detroit and 
subsequently checks were issued making down payments on the equip- 
ment for the hospital. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then in January of 1956, you received some more 
money from Mr. Hoffa and Mr. Brennan? 

Mr*. Hannan. That would be $15,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know where they got that money ? 

Mr. Hannan. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that cash again ? 

Mr. Hannan. That was cash again. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know where that money came from ? 

Mr. Hannan. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. So the two loans that you got from Mr. Hoffa and 
Mr. Brennan were $31,000 ? 

Mr. Hannan. They made a total of $31,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then did you apply for a loan from the Michigan 
Conference of Teamsters Welfare Fund ? 

Mr. Hannan. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you receive a loan from them? 

Mr. Hannan. Yes, I did. 

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

Mr. Hannan. $250,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that was on March 16, 1956 ? 

Mr. Hannan. That was in March of 1956. 

Mr. Kennedy. $184,719.84 went to Hixon? 

Mr. Hannan. Whatever the checks show. 

Mr. Kennedy. I mean approximately that. 

Mr. Hannan. Around $185,000, in round figures. 



14868 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. And the remaining went to the medical center itself ? 

Mr. Hannan. Well, then $40,000— $20,000 in round figures went to 
local 299, and $20,000, again in round figures, went to local 337, to pay 
off the land contract, at which time we got title to the property. 

Mr. Kennedy. The land was conveyed to you on March 16, 1956 ? 

Mr. Hannan. That would be correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. So all this money had gone into this property. As of 
this point, you hadn't invested any money of your own ? 

Mr. Hannan. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And all this money had gone into the property, and 
you didn't obtain title to the property until March 16, 1956 ? 

Mr. Hannan. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. The loan was made by the Michigan Conference of 
Teamsters welfare fund at a time when you didn't even own the 
property ? 

Mr. Hannan. We had a land contract to buy the property. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have a copy of the land contract ? 

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

Mr. Kennedy. There is no such contract in the Teamsters records 
that we could find. 

Mr. Hannan. I don't know about their records. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it recorded ? 

Mr. Hannan. Land contracts in Michigan, as a rule, are not re- 
corded. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know where it would be? Nobody seems 
to have it. 

Mr. Hannan. No, sir; I wouldn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. The property, according to the records, was con- 
veyed on March 16, 1956, and you issued two $20,000 checks. 

Mr. Hannan. As I recall, they weren't exactly $20,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. It seems to be $20,000 to 337 and 299 on March 27, 
1956. 

Mr. Hannan. Well, I don't recall. It seemed to me that one local 
got a few dollars more than the other one, to my recollection. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know when the mortgage from the May- 
bury Grand to the trustees of the Michigan Conference of Teamsters 
welfare fund was recorded ? 

Mr. Hannan. No, I don't. 

Mr. Kennedy. About May 13, 1956 ? 

Mr. Hannan. I would assume that would have been recorded by 
their attorney. I don't recall. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did you repay the money to Mr. Hoffa and 
Mr. Brennan ? 

Mr. Hannan. Their personal money that they loaned us was repaid 
to them roughly in July and August, or July, September, August, in 
that 3-month period, of 1956. 

Mr. Kennedy. The total amount of the $31,000 ? 

Mr. Hannan. The $31,000 was repaid to them. 

Senator Mundt. Where did you get the money to make that pay- 
ment? 

Mr. Hannan. Out of our business. 

Senator Mundt. You were operating by that time ? 

Mr. Hannan. We had started to operate as of February 1956. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR HELD 14869 

Senator Mundt. What is the status of the rest of the mortgage ? 

Mr. Hannan. The mortgage at the present time, all of the pay- 
ments are current. We pay 5 percent interest. Over the period of 
the 2 years we have paid the union back approximately $1,000 a month 
in interest plus the principal. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to call Mr. Bellino to put the figures in, 
Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Bellino. In connection with this project, on February 15, 1955, 
local 337 issued a check for $1,000 to Hubbard Associates. They were 
the real-estate firm handling the transaction for the sale of the 
property. 

That is check No. 6799, which they identify as coming from their 
records. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 146. 

(The check referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 146'' for reference, 
and will be found in the appendix on p. 14926. ) 

Mr. Bellino. On March 14, 1955, there was an agreement for the 
sale of the Maybury Grand property by the UAW Education Associa- 
tion to local 337, of the Teamsters, for $36,500. This agreement was 
signed by Burt Breiman as president of the Teamsters Union, and 
the appropriate representative of the UAW. 

The Chairman. That agreement may be made exhibit No. 147. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 147" for 
reference, and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Bellino. On July 5, 1955, local 299 issued a check for $18,247.91, 
to Hubbard Associates, for their share of the cost of this property, 
and at the same time local 337 issued their check for $17,247.91, which 
was the balance of their share for the cost of this property. 

The Chadrman. All right. Those 2 checks may be made exhibits 
148, AandB. 

(The checks referred to were marked "Exhibits 148-A and 148-B" 
for reference and will be found in the appendix on pp. 14927-14928.) 

Mr. Bellino. On September 19, 1955, there was an agreement, a 
building agreement, between the Detroit Teamsters Temple Associa- 
tion, Inc., signed by Robert Holmes, witnessed by James P. Hannan, 
with the A. N. Hickson, Inc., calling for the work on this property 
at Maybury Grand on a cost-plus 10 percent for supervision, and 5 
percent contractor's fee ; 10 percent overhead and a 5 percent contrac- 
tor's fee. 

The Chairman. In other words, over the actual cost there was 10 
percent of it to be the plus and, in addition to that, there was 5 per- 
cent more for profit ? 

Mr. Bellino. That is right. As I understand it, no effort was 
made to obtain any other contractors' bid on this project. It was done 
on the recommendation of Mr. Brennan. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Hannan. Mr. Kennedy, yes ; that is correct. 

The Chairman. That agreement may be made exhibit 149. 

(The agreement referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 149" for ref- 
erence and will be found in the appendix on p. 14929.) 

21243— 59— pt. 39 21 



14870 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Bellino. In ( )ctober, October 25, 1955, there was a $16,000 loan 
to Mr. Hannan and Mr. McElroy, which lie said came from Hoffa and 
Brennan, and was given to him in currency. 

Mr. Chairman. Where did that money come from? 

Mr. Bellino. We could find a portion of that money. There were 
2 checks : 1 issued to James Hoffa and 1 to Burt Brennan, on October 
25, 1955. 

Mr. Kennedy. We are not sure where the source of the money was, 
though. We will have to ask Mr. Hoffa. 

Mr. Bellino. For the balance. This equals the difference that he 
testified to. That is why we believe this is part of it, 

Mr. Kennedy. But Ave are not sure of that, We can ask him defi- 
nitely. We don't know. We just know he puts the money up. 

The Chairman. Well, you may testify to what you have there, so 
that we can get an explanation. 

Mr. Bellino. The reason why we believe these checks were part of 
the loan was that Mr. Hoffa in his testimony last year mentioned the 
repayment of a loan in the amount of $5,023.70, which he was reading 
from some memorandum he had in his hand. It so happens we don't 
know where this $5,023 came from, or where it is about but it does tie 
in with this which makes $8,000, and 2 $8,000, would be $16,000, and 
we believe this occurred around this date, and it is mentioned as a 
possibility. 

The Chairman. That will only be accepted for purposes of explana- 
tion later. 

Mr. Bellino. On January 5, 1956, there were 1,000 shares of stock 
issued by Maybury Grand Medical, Inc., 500 shares each to John 
McElroy, and James Hannan, each receiving certificates Nos. 1 and 2. 
The day before, on January 4, 1956, Herbert Grossberg borrowed from 
his uncle, Charles Grossberg, who is an official of the Wrigley Stores, 
or was an official of that company, the sum of $15,000. He, in turn, 
loaned $15,000 to Hoffa and Brennan, giving each of them $7,500. 
We have the check from Charles Grossberg to Herbert Grossberg. 

The Chairman. Those other checks may be made exhibits 150, A 
and B, and the check that you just referred to may be made exhibit 
151. 

(The checks referred to were marked "Exhibits 150, A, B, and 151," 
for reference and will be found in the appendix on pp. 11930-14932.) 

Senator Mundt. Is the assumption that that $7,500 was the subject 
of a loan to Mr. Hannan and Mr. McElroy ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Hannan. I don't know anything about this particular item. 

Senator Mundt. You got 500 shares, was it, or 1,000 shares? 

Mr. Hannan. No, we got cash money, if that is what you are talking 
about, 

Senator Mundt. You got cash money for your share of the stock? 

Mr. Hannan. No. The shares of stock that were issued to Mr. 
McElroy and I are completely unrelated to any cash transaction that 
Mr. Bellino might be talking about. 

Senator Mundt. That is what I was trying to ascertain. 

Mr. Hannan. There is no relation at all. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14871 

Senator Mundt. What did you get your shares of stock for ? Was 
it promoter's stock, or how did you get your stock, or did you pay 
for it? 

Mr. Hannan. We subsequently subscribed to the stock. 

Senator Mundt. You bought it? 

Mr. Hannan. We bought it ; yes. 

Senator Mundt. This 1,000 shares? 

Mr. Hannan. We paid our subscription. 

Senator Mundt. But this has no relation to this whatsoever? 

Mr. Hannan. None whatsoever. 

Mr. Bellino. The $15,000 that I am talking about does have a rela- 
tionship to the $15,000 that he received. 

Mr. Kennedy. He doesn't know about it. 

Mr. Hannan. No. 

The Chairman. You mean there is something here in his name he 
never knew about ? 

Mr. Bellino. It is not in his name, but he eventually did pay back 
Mr. Hoffa and Mr. Brennan, and the checks which he issued were in 
turn given to Herbert Grosberg and then Herbert Grosberg in turn 
paid his uncle back. We have those checks where his check went to 
Herbert Grosberg eventually. 

Mr. Kennedy. In order to get the money to him. 

Senator Mundt. I am entirely lost, and could you give us an ex- 
planation. Why don't you give us a rundown of what you are trying 
to show and then show it because we are completely lost, or at least 
I am. 

Mr. Bellino. We are trying to show this $15,000 loaned to Mr. 
Hannan by Mr. Hoffa in cash, the money originally came from Charles 
Grosberg, the uncle of Herbert Grosberg, and it was borrowed by Mr. 
Hoffa and Mr. Brennan. 

Senator Mundt. And loaned to Hannan ? 

Mr. Bellino. That is right, and they went out of their way to do 
these people a favor and it was done the day before the stock was 
issued in the names of these two individuals. 

Senator Mundt. You show subsequently that the money they paid 
back to Mr. Brennan and Mr. Hoffa went back to pay the loan to Mr. 
Grosberg ? 

Mr. Bellino. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. What are the implications of that ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Could we find the situation first ? 

Senator Mundt. I am kind of lost on what it is all about. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have to get the facts in first, I believe. Will you 
proceed ? 

Mr. Bellino. These are the two checks from Herbert Grosberg, and 
one to James Hoffa, and one to Owen Brennan in the amount of $7,500 
each, dated January 9, 1956. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, the important document as far as the Team- 
sters are concerned, Mr. Chairman, is the next one. 

The Chairman. All right, these checks may be made exhibit 152, 
A and B. 

(Documents referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 152, A and B" 
for reference, and will be found in the appendix on pp. 14933-14934.) 



14872 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Belling. On January 16, 1956, one Fred E. Bigelow prepared 
an appraisal addressed to the Maybury Grand Medical, Inc., marked 
for the attention of James P. Hannan, which appraisal was furnished 
to the Michigan Conference of Teamsters welfare fund trustees in 
connection with their request for a loan in the amount of $250,000. 

This appraisal reflects the cost as $681,700. They show as original 
cost in 1954 of the building, $125,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the original cost? 

Mr. Bellino. $40,000. 

Mr. K 
they not ' 

Mr. Bi 

the trustees, signed the contract and certainly must have been con- 
versant, and he signed the checks for the purchase of the property. 

Mr. Kennedy. When they talk about the cost, the Teamsters were 
the ones, locals 337 and 299, who purchased the building? 

Mr. Bellino. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they purchased it for $35,000 ? 

Mr. Bellino. About $36,000, and in fact Mr. Hannan and Mr. 
McElroy did not purchase this property. At this point they didn't 
own the property. They were making a request for a loan, and they 
had an appraisal made, and they don't own the property. 

They have what they call a land contract, but no one has ever seen 
the contract nor have they put up a dime on that land contract. 

Mr. Kennedy. Legally at this time, the property was still in the 
name of the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Bellino. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the Teamsters had purchased it ? 

Mr. Bellino. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the appraisal — according to the appraisal there, 
it is three times over the value the Teamsters actually paid for it? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. The important thing as he goes through these figures, 
Mr. Chairman, is that it was based on this appraisal that the Team- 
sters loaned to this organization the $250,000 of welfare funds. 

Mr. Hannan. Mr. Kennedy, on this particular appraisal, I think 
the record should be set straight. First of all, I do not believe that 
Mr. Bigelow was the appraiser that made the appraisal. It was a 
man named Chester Martin, who had been an appraiser in Detroit 
for many years. Mr. Martin went through the building and his 
appraisal, as I understood it at the time, was not on actual cost but 
on replacement value of the property. 

I think that that was indicated by me at the time I appeared before 
the Michigan Conference of Teamsters Health and Welfare Fund. 

The Chairman. What document do you have in your hand ? 

Mr. Bellino. This is a copy of an appraisal furnished to use by 
the Michigan Conference of Teamsters Welfare Fund, and it doesn't 
have a handwritten signature, but it says, "Very truly yours, Fred 
E. Bigelow," and then on the left-hand side it says : 

I have participated in this appraisal with Mr. Bigelow, and I have examined 
the building with him and I have talked to Mr. James Hannan, secretary- 
treasurer, and I have gone over the cost items, and I have examined the 
equipment now being installed, and concur in this valuation. 

That is Chester M. Martin. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14873 

Mr. Hannan. That is the man I talked to, Mr. Martin. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is the document that the Teamsters used as a 
basis for this loan, as I understand it. 

Mr. Bellino. That is correct. 

Mr. Hannan. If I may correct one more thing, a land contract in 
Michigan is evidence of legal ownership of the property. 

Mr. Kennedy. The only trouble is we can't find any land contract. 

Mr. Hannan. There was such an instrument. 

The Chairman. This appraisal may be made Exhibit 153. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 153" for refer- 
ence, and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. There are some other figures. 

Mr. Bellino. The cost of remodeling they show is $300,000 and 
the Teamsters know, and in fact the Michigan conference welfare fund 
knew it was only $184,000 because they issued this check to the con- 
tractor in the amount of $184,000. 

The Chairman. They paid all of the costs of remodeling? 

Mr. Bellino. The entire costs. 

The Chairman. That is what they paid ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And they show the cost of remodeling, instead of 
showing it to be that amount, they show it to be $300,000 ? 

Mr. Bellino. That is correct. And the kitchen equipment, they 
show, is $24,000. According to a financial statement which they put 
out at the end of December 1956, they list kitchen equipment at a 
cost of $12,237.41. It seems any replacement value certainly wouldn't 
be three times $12,000 in a case of this nature. 

Hospital furniture in the same way. They show $100,000 in the 
appraisal, and their own figures show a cost of $34,854.02. Then 
surgical and medical supplies, they show on the appraisal $96,000, and 
the actual costs were only $15,993.50. In other words, the items we 
have selected that we could immediately identify, of the $681,700 in- 
cluded in the appraisal, we could select $645,000 of those items and 
the actual costs only $287,804.77. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you give that again, please ? 

Mr. Bellino. $645,000 of the items included in the appraisal act- 
ually cost only $287,804.77. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the loan was to be based on a 3-to-l proposition ? 

Mr. Bellino. And they have a policy of basing it on a 3 to 1 propo- 
sition, and so they have got to have an appraisal at least 3 times the 
value of the loan. 

The Chairman. How long after this money was invested in the 
property before this loan was secured, and this appraisal was made? 

Mr. Bellino. This appraisal was made in January of 1956, and 
they were almost complete in renovating the building and insofar as 
this company was concerned they had not paid any money at all on the 
property. 

The Chairman. I understand now, but you are getting an appraisal 
here. You know what has gone into the building, and what it has 
cost, and the remodeling of it, and the equipment bought for it. That 
comes to $287,000? 

Mr. Bellino. $284,000. 

The Chairman. That included the cost of remodeling? 



14874 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The cost of the equipment bought, and the fur- 
niture and the kitchen. 

Mr. Bellino. With the equipment, it is $287,000. 

The Chairman. That is what I said a moment ago. 

Mr. Bellino. That is correct. 

The Chairman. $287,000 is what it actually cost to buy the build- 
ing, to remodel it, and to equip it ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir, that is substantially right. I have left out 
some minor items like $900 for window shades, and $1,600 for new 
drapes, but that $287,000 is substantially what it cost. 

The Chairman. And then, in less than how many months after- 
wards, they get an appraisal on it so as to support this loan of $681,- 
700? 

Mr. Bellino. The appraisal is $681,000, yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How many months was the appraisal after the ex- 
penditures had been made ? 

Mr. Bellino. I would say all of the expenditures had not been 
made at the time this appraisal was made, but they were almost com- 
plete, and they were still working, and still buying more equipment 
in January of 1956, and the hospital was not really complete until 
the latter part of February or early March of 1956. 

Senator Mundt. How do you explain a discrepancy of that kind? 

Mr. Hannan. Senator, as I have just said for the record, as I recall, 
when Mr. Martin went through there, Mr. Martin was an appraiser 
in Detroit for probably 50 years, and he went through our building, 
and looking at it. We did not give him our figures. We wanted 
an independent appraisal of the building and the equipment. So as I 
recall it, he subsequently told me that he had contacted a number of 
other hospitals and he had had experience that appraising hospitals 
in Detroit, and these are the estimated costs that he arrived at. 

These are replacement costs, and costs that he thought it would be 
necessary to have in order to equip a kitchen and put the beds in and 
put the medical equipment in. These were not our figures, and he 
didn't even have a chance to appraise our figures. 

This was an independent appraisal on his part. 

Senator Mundt. One of three things must be true : Either Martin 
and Bigelow are bad appraisers, or No. 2, you and your partner drove 
a mighty good bargain in buying stuff cheaper than the appraisers 
thought it could be bought for, or No. 3, Martin and Bigelow made a 
phony appraisal. 

Which of those three is it ? 

Mr. Hannan. Senator, I don't think it is any of the three. 

Senator Mundt. I don't see what else is left. 

Mr. Hannan. I would say we played a good bargain, and we bought 
the equipment cheaper than it takes to equip the average hospital. 

Senator Mundt. Because either they are not reputable appraisers, 
which I claim they are 

Mr. Hannan. I think they are. 

Senator Mundt. Or the building and the equipment there, they 
estimated its cost a lot more than you paid for it, because we have the 
figures here which Mr. Bellino indicates was paid. Or it could be a 
phony appraisal built up to show an artificial value so you could get 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14875 

a loan on a three-to-one basis. It lias to be 1 of those 3 things, I think. 

Mr. Hannan. Then the thing is that we bought things at the right 
price, and we shopped, and we probably cut down here and there owr 
the average hospital. 

Senator Mundt. These fellows are friends of yours, Bigelow and 
Martin ? 

Mr. Hannan. I had probably met Mr. Martin 3 or 4 times in my 
life before this. It was very casually, and I had never met Mr. Bige- 
low, even up until the time that he wrote up the appraisal. 

Senator Mundt. Did they have any connection with the Teamsters 
or with Mr. Hoffa or Mr. Brennan ? 

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

The Chairman. Let me ask you a question. What did you pay for 
this building originally ? 

Mr. Hannan. What did we pay for the building originally? 
$40,000. 

The Chairman. $40,000? 

Mr. Hannan. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How can you explain that this appraisal would 
have, and I quote, "Original cost in 1954 of building, $125,000." 

Mr. Hannan. I think that that figure, if I can explain that, was a 
figure that Mr. Martin got from the UAW-CIO during the course of 
his making the appraisal, because that was an assessed valuation or 
something like that. 

The Chairman. This says "original cost." 

Mr. Hannan. I am telling you, sir, to the best of my recollection, 
how he arrived at that figure. 

The Chairman. Well, the Teamsters bought it, and then they sold 
it to you ? 

Mr. Hannan. That is correct. 

The Chairman. You knew, and the Teamsters certainly knew, that 
it hadn't cost $125,000, that it had cost only $40,000. 

Mr. Hannan. That is right. 

The Chairman. But yet, this rather indicates that maybe you didn't 
get such a bargain as this appraisal would indicate. I don't under- 
stand, if you actually buy land, and you pay $40,000 for it, how you 
can within a year's time, or a few months afterward, certify that the 
original cost of it was $125,000. 

Now, you didn't certify that, but these appraisers did. I am not 
blaming you. 

Mr. Hannan. That is right. 

The Chairman. But here obviously is a misstatement of fact. It 
isn't true. It is known to both you, who bought the building, and to 
the union officials who purchased it for you. 

Mr. Hannan. The only thing that I ever talked about with the union 
officials was the actual cost to us of everything that went into the 
building. 

The Chairman. That is correct, and I understand it, but certainly 
the $125,000 is not accurate. 

Mr. Hannan. That would be up to the appraisers to explain that, 
sir. 

The Chairman. I understand, but if the facts are, and they are 
undisputed here, that the only cost at most was $40,000, then that figure 
cannot possibly be true. 



14876 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Hannan. That is correct. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the same thing for the cost of the remodeling, 
which it has down here, $300,000. The Teamsters knew that it had 
not cost $300,000, because they paid the bill. Isn't that correct? 

The Chairman. You have one payment, and is that the check for 
the payment of it ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

The Chairman. Mr. Bellino, is this the check that you found ? 

Mr. Beleino. A. N. Hickson, Inc., for $184,718.84. 

The Chairman. Did you understand that to be the total cost ? 

Mr. Hannan. That was the total cost. 

The Chairman. You know that to be a fact ? 

Mr. Hannan. Yes. We went over that with the builder many times. 

The Chairman. Then you know also that the $300,000 charged there 
to remodeling couldn't be true ? 

Mr. Hannan. Again, sir, as I understand, they were working on a 
replacement cost. 

The Chairman. You weren't replacing it; you were actually put- 
ting it in there at the time. 

Mr. Hannan. I don't think that that is what their appraisal is try- 
ing to cover. 

The Chairman. I don't know what else it could be trying to cover. 
This check will be made exhibit No. 154. 

(The check referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 154" for reference 
and will be found in the appendix on p. 14935.) 

The Chairman. I can't understand this. This is a transaction 
where you bought the property and you are just remodeling it. You 
know what it cost, the costs of both the original price you paid for 
the property and (lie amount you paid the contractor for the overall job 
of remodeling it. If it could be bought and the building could be 
remodeled at that price, I don't see how you can say it costs more to 
replace it. 

Senator Mundt. I think 3 7 ou testified that you appeared before this 
Michigan Conference of Teamsters yourself in solicitation of this loan. 
Am I right about that ? 

Mr. Hannan. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Mundt. When you appeared before this group or board or 
committee, or whatever it was, what did you tell them about the value 
of the building? Did you tell them that you had spent three-hun- 
dred-and-some-thousand dollars repairing it, or that you had spent 
$182,000 ? 

Mr. Hannan. No, sir; I gave them the cost, and they knew from 
their own records that local 337 and local 299 had purchased the build- 
ing for $36,500. 

Senator Mundt. The group that made you the loan, they knew that ? 

Mr. Hannan. That is right. They also knew, I am sure, and, if 
not, we apprised them at this time, that the remodeling costs were 
$184,000. 

Senator Mundt. So the people who loaned you the money knew how 
much you paid for the building and how much you had put in on re- 
pairs ? 

Mr. Hannan. That is correct, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14877 

Senator Mundt. What use did they make of this appraisal of Bige- 
low and Martin ? 

Mr. Hannan. I was not even at the meeting when the loan was ap- 
proved, and so I couldn't say. 

Mr. Bellino. We have the checks for the purchase of the property 
from Maybury Grand, dated March 27, 1956, each in the amount of 
$20,000, locals 337 and 299. 

The Chairman. They may be made exhibit 155, A and B. 
(The checks referred to were marked "Exhibit 155, A and B" for 
reference and will be found in the appendix on pp. 14936-14937.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that the first information or record existing that 
the property was transferred ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes ; the first evidence of any payment. 

Mr. Kennedy. In March of 1956 ? 

Mr. Bellino. There is a mortgage of March 6, 1956. 
. Mr. Kennedy. But this was after the loan was granted ? 

Mr. Bellino. After they received the money, they were able to go 
ahead with it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is there anything else that we need to put in ? 

Mr. Bellino. We have the return of the $15,000 to Brennan and 
Hoffa from Maybury Grand Medical, and on July 9, 1956, which is 
endorsed by Brennan and Hoffa, and deposited by Herbert Grosberg. 

The Chairman. That check may be made exhibit 156. 

(The check referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 156" for reference 
and will be found in the appendix on p. 14938.) 

Mr. Bellino. We have another check, $16,000, payable to Bert 
Brennan and James Hoffa on August 17, 1956. That was endorsed 
by them and cashed. 

The Chairman. It may be made exhibit 157. 

(The check referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 157" for reference 
and will be found in the appendix on p. 14939.) 

Mr. Bellino. We also have a check paid to the architect, Charles 
Hannan, of Farmington, Mich., on March 27, 1957, of $1,027. How- 
ever, other than to make the initial plans, Mr. Hannan did not super- 
vise any of the work nor did he approve any of the bills. It was all 
done directly between Mr. Hickson and the Teamsters. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit 158. 

(The check referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 158" for reference 
and will be found in the appendix on p. 14940.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Hoffa or Mr. Brennan have an option to 
purchase or receive any of the interests that you might obtain out of 
this hospital ? 

Mr. Hannan. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. None at all ? 

Mr. Hannan. None whatsoever. 

Mr. Kennedy. They had no financial interest directly or indirectly \ 

Mr. Hannan. They had no financial interest. 

Mr. Kennedy. Directly or indirectly ? 

Mr. Hannan. Directly or indirectly. 

Mr. Kennedy. But at this stage, you were able to obtain this hos- 
pital, Mr. Hannan, you and Mr. McElroy, without putting up any 
money of your own ; isn't that correct ? 

Mr. Hannan. That is correct. 

21243 O— 59— pt. 39 22 



14878 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Again, not being a reflection upon yourself, but it 
indicates, Mr. Chairman, that the friendship of individuals with the 
Teamsters can be very advantageous. The Teamsters put up the 
original money for the purchase of this property, and the purchase 
of the building, and then Mr. Hannan and Mr. McElroy, according 
to Mr. Hannan's testimony, were told that if it failed the Teamsters 
would take it over, and that if it was successful it would remain in 
their hands, which is a great advantage. And, the third thing, they 
put up all of the money by a $250,000 loan for the establishment and 
the operation of this hospital. It was all without these individuals 
putting up any money of their own, and on a $250,000 loan made on 
an appraisal that they knew was patently false. 

Mr. Hannan. Mr. Chairman, just to set the record straight on that. 
I am sure that the reason that the Teamsters made the loan to us was 
that, first of all, Mr. Hoffa and Mr. Brennan were aware of this type 
of operation in Detroit and knew that it was a sound business project, 
and also they had known me for about 10 years and Mr. McElroy for 
a great many more years, and they had quite a bit of confidence in our 
ability to succeed in this enterprise. 

The Chairman. They had faith in you, that you would make good ; 
is that what you are saying? 

Mr. Hannan. That is right. 

The Chairman. While that is a fine thing, when you are dealing 
with trust funds, that is not the best way to manage them. 

We do have other examples where such confidence was not well 
justified in the ultimate success of the project. It is a matter of deal- 
ing with trust funds that are paid in for the purpose of the relief 
and benefit and welfare of people who work. It is actually, in a sense, 
a part of their wages, a part of their earnings, and it is set aside for 
them at a later time. 

We again refer back to the field of legislation. What should be 
done to protect those funds ? 

In this instance your project may succeed, and this money may be 
repaid. We have found other such ventures, not in the same par- 
ticular enterprise, but other ventures where trust funds have been 
advanced apparently on confidence or to do favors. They haven't 
been returned, and I don't think they will ever be. It is a matter of 
finding what practices are going on so we can legislate to protect 
these funds. 

This is no reflection on you. If you go down there and buy it and 
somebody puts up the money, that is what you want to do there, and 
it is to your credit that you are making a success of it. 

All right. 

Mr. Bellino. I want to point out, Mr. Chairman, in connection with 
the $16,000 loan that he received from Mr. Hoffa about November 1, 
1955, or the latter part of October of 1955, there was an entry made on 
the books of Maybury Grand showing $16,000 cash in the City Bank, 
and the offsetting credit was a notes payable to the City Bank. The 
notes payable ledger account shows that they owed to the City Bank 
$16,000, and we understand from the City Bank that this is not true, 
and they had not borrowed that amount of money from the bank. 

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



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14879 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Hannan. This is when, Mr. Bellino ? 

Mr. Bellino. November 1, 1955. 

Mr. Hannan. And this is carried how ? 

I don't exactly understand it. 

Mr. Bellino. It is shown as a notes payable to the City Bank. 

The Chairman. That is the way it is carried on the books of the 
hospital ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. It should have been shown as to Brennan and 
Hoffa? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes. 

Mr. Hannan. I think it probably should have been carried as a 
notes payable, but the money was deposited in the City Bank. 

I would have to get the accountant. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was carried as notes payable to the City Bank. 

Mr. Hannan. It should not have been carried that way. I don't 
recall. That has never come up in the last 2y 2 years. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further? If not, call the next 
witness. 

Mr. Hannan. Thank you, Senator. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could we have a brief recess, Mr. Chairman, for a 
few minutes ? 

The Chairman. The committee will take a 5-minute recess. 

(Brief recess taken, with the following members present at the 
taking of the recess : Senators McClellan and Mundt.) 

(At the reconvening of the session, the following members were 
present : Senators McClellan and Mundt.) 

The Chairman. The hearing will come to order. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Frank Bryant. 

Mr. Chairman, this is a matter dealing more with what we dis- 
cussed yesterday afternoon, which we could not get into yesterday 
because of time limitations. It deals with democracy in unions. 

The Chairman. Be sworn, please. You do solemnly swear the evi- 
dence you shall give before this Senate select committee shall be the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Bryant. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF FRANK BRYANT 

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

Mr. Bryant. Frank Bryant, 248 West Hopkins Street, Pontiac, 
Mich. I am a truckdriver, a truckowner. 

The Chairman. You waive counsel, do you, Mr. Bryant ? 

Mr. Bryant. No, I have not any. 

The Chairman. Sir? 

Mr. Bryant. Yes. 

The Chairman. I said you waive counsel, do you ? 

Mr. Bryant. Yes, I do. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Salinger will question the witness. 



14880 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Salinger. You are a member of local 614 of Pontiac, Mich. ? 

Mr. Bryant. Yes. 

Mr. Salinger. You have been a member of that local how long? 

Mr. Bryant. In November it will be 20 years. 

Mr. Salinger. A member of the local for 20 years ? 

Mr. Bryant. That is right. 

Mr. Salinger. Since you joined the local, have you been active in the 
affairs of that local, taking part in the meetings, and in the affairs of 
the union ? 

Mr. Bryant. Yes ; I do. 

Mr. Salinger. Was the local placed in trusteeship sometime in 1954 ? 

Mr. Bryant. Yes ; it was. 

Mr. Salinger. When was that, sir ? 

Mr. Bryant. Well, it was sometime along the fall. It was along 
the last part of 1954. 

Mr. Salinger. What were the circumstances that brought about its 
being placed in trusteeship ? 

Mr. Bryant. The business agent, and the representatives that we 
had at that time, they were under indictment, and James R. Hoffa 
come out and he taken over the local at that time. 

Mr. Salinger. This was Mr. Keating and Mr. Lintau ? 

Mr. Bryant. Lintau ; that is right. 

Mr. Salinger. They had been indicted for extortion ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Bryant. That is right. 

Mr. Salinger. And Mr. Hoffa became a trustee of this local ? 

Mr. Bryant. That is right, 

Mr. Salinger. Who were appointed by Mr. Hoffa as business agents 
to run the local for him ? 

Mr. Bryant. Well, at the present time 

Mr. Salinger. No ; at that time. 

Mr. Bryant. Right at the present time ; Dan Keating was business 
agent for a while. He appointed him. 

Mr. Salinger. In other words, the man who had been indicted, and 
the reason for the placing of the local in trusteeship, after Mr. Hoffa 
took over this local, he placed Mr. Keating back in the local as a 
business agent ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Bryant. For some time. 

Mr. Salinger. For some time. Until he went to prison ? 

Mr. Bryant. That is right. 

Mr. Salinger. You remained in trusteeship until May of 1958; is 
that right, sir? 

Mr. Bryant. That is right. 

Mr. Salinger. Prior to coming out of trusteeship, was there an 
election called by the international ? 

Mr. Bryant. Yes ; there was. 

Mr. Salinger. This was to select the officers who were to run the 
local when it came out of trusteeship; is that right? 

Mr. Bryant. That is right. 

Mr. Salinger. Were you nominated for an office at the nominating 
meeting ? 

Mr. Bryant. I was. 

Mr. Salinger. What office were you nominated for ? 

Mr. Bryant. President, 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14881 

Mr. Salinger. You were nominated for president. Did you have 
a slate of officers who were nominated with you for the other offices ? 

Mr. Bryant. Yes; I had a slate that was nominated, but on one 
circumstance there was two of the fellows that was ineligible. 

Mr. Salinger. Actually, someone was nominated along with you 
for the office of vice president, secretary-treasurer, recording secretary, 
and you then had three candidates for trustees ; is that right ? 

Mr. Bryant. That is right. 

Mr. Salinger. The secretary-treasurer who had been acting in the 
trusteeship and who was running for reelection was a man named 
Floyd Harmon ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Bryant. That is right. 

Mr. Salinger. And two men were nominated to oppose Mr. Har- 
mon? 

Mr. Bryant. Yes. 

Mr. Salinger. Two men were nominated to oppose Mr. Harmon ; is 
that right? 

Mr. Bryant. That is right. 

Mr. Salinger. What happened to the men who were nominated to 
oppose Mr. Harmon ? 

Mr. Bryant. Well, they claimed that they wasn't eligible to run 
for office. 

Mr. Salinger. They were declared ineligible ? 

Mr. Bryant. That is right. 

Mr. Salinger. Who declared them ineligible ? 

Mr. Bryant. Eobert Holmes. 

Mr. Salinger. Robert Holmes representing Joint Council No. 43 ? 

Mr. Bryant. That is right. 

Mr. Salinger. Your candidate was Mr. Fetherland ; is that right ? 

Mr. Bryant. That is right. 

Mr. Salinger. What reason did they give Mr. Fetherland for de- 
claring him ineligible? 

Mr. Bryant. They claimed his dues had not been paid. 

The Chairman. For what time ? 

Mr. Bryant. I don't remember just the dates that he was in the 
hospital, but he was in a TB sanitorium for quite some time. 

Mr. Salinger. He was in a sanitorium during the time that they 
claim his dues were not paid ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Bryant. That is right. 

Mr. Salinger. What is the normal practice, as you know from your 
20 years with local 614, with someone who is in the hospital who is a 
member of the local ? 

Mr. Bryant. As far as the certain contract that this Fetherland 
was working under, any time that someone goes into the hospital, the 
union is to pay their dues. 

Mr. Salinger. The union pays their dues? 

Mr. Bryant. That is right. 

Mr. Salinger. So if Mr. Fetherland's dues were not paid, it was 
the responsibility of the union itself? 

Mr. Bryant. That is right. 

Mr. Salinger. And not Mr. Fetherland's responsibility. 

Mr. Bryant. Because Mr. Fetherland did go and pay — his or his 
wife taken care of it while he was in the hospital, went and paid his 



14882 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

health and welfare benefits, and without your dues being paid they 
will not accept the health and welfare benefits, because those dues do 
have to be paid in order for them to accept that. 

Mr. Salinger. When Mr. Fetherland went to the local headquar- 
ters — you had a discussion with Mr. Fetherland before you came down 
here? 

Mr. Bryant. Yes, I talked to him. 

Mr. Salinger. When Mr. Fetherland went to the local headquarters 
after he had been declared ineligible, to find out what it was all about, 
did he have some conversation with the girls who take care of the 
dues there ? 

Mr. Bryant. Well, at the time, he was rushed right to the hospital. 
Bufl when he come out, he went to the local to go and find out when 
he would have to start paying dues. They looked it up. They had 
a withdrawal card in his file, but it had never been wrote up and he 
never did pay for it, the withdrawal card. 

Mr. Salinger. He did not have any knowledge of this withdrawal 
card and nobody had ever sent it to him ? 

Mr. Bryant. No ; that is right. 

Mr. Salinger. He had not requested a withdrawal card ? 

Mr. Bryant. No. 

Mr. Salinger. In fact, he was taken out of withdrawal; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Bryant. That is right. 

Mr. Salinger. The other candidate against Mr. Harmon was also 
ineligible ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Bryant. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. On the same grounds ? 

Mr. Bryant. No ; he was not in the hospital. 

Senator Mundt. Why did they declare him ineligible ? 

Mr. Bryant. He was laid off. He was also called in to work ; he 
was working at Motor Car Transport, and he come in, I believe it 
was, the 17th day of April. They called him in to take a load out 
of town, and at the time when come in, the dispatcher went and told 
him, he said "You are laid off. But I already called you. I wrote 
you up on the dispatch sheet that you was laid off." 

Well, the time goes in on the 20th, but he did not get back into 
town until after the 20th day of April. When he drawed his pay the 
5th day of May they refused to take out that month's dues out of him. 
So he did not know that until later on, I think it was the 20th, that on 
about that last pay when he was working. So even Up to the time 
he did not even know whether he was going to be able to vote or not. 
Because they had taken it out. 

Senator Mundt. What right did they have to take it out ? 

Mr. Bryant. Because he did drive in April. 

Senator Mundt. Because he did not drive ? 

Mr. Bryant. Because he did drive in April. He did not got laid 
off until April 21 or 22. 

Senator Mundt. If he was driving and working, what right would 
they have to take his card out as a union member? 

Mr. Bryant. The Motor Car Transport, after they laid him off, they 
did not take out the month's dues, where they should have. They did 
not take out for the month of April. He worked in the month of 
April, but they just did not take out the dues. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14883 

Senator Mundt. What is the general practice of the union in a case 
like that? 

Mr. Bryant. Well, that could be interpreted quite a number of ways. 

Senator Mundt. This would not be the fault of the union member. 

He wouldn't know that, I suppose, would he? 

Mr. Bryant. No. 

Senator Mundt. This would be the fault of the employer. 

Mr. Bryant. Well, yes, it would be the fault of the employer. But 
also, it could be that they had orders from the union hall to not take 
those dues out. Now, I don't know. 

Senator Mundt. It seems to me a member of a union must have some 
vested right to continue in the union. It just can't be that somebody 
will pick up a phone and say, "You are not a union member this week, 
or this month." 

If you are a union member, don't you have protection ? Don't you 
have union rights? Isn't there a continuation of your union mem- 
bership ? 

Mr. Bryant. Well, to a certain extent, yes. The reason why I say 
this, and another thing that I would like to go and get straight on this, 
is that anything I may say here today, I don't mean to run the union 
down. I am a union member. I believe in it. 

But I don't go along with the way our local is being run in Pontiac, 
and for a number of years I have not. You can take it on up. You 
can go out and you may talk to the president and all. He may tell 
you one thing, you may write out a grievance and all, and the next day 
it is a different proposition. 

Senator Mundt. Is the reason you don't go along with the way your 
union is running Pontiac the fact that as a union member you feel 
that you and other union members can't control your own union; that 
it is run from on top instead of from the ground up ? 

Mr. Bryant. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. There is a breakdown of the democratic pro- 
cedures, in other words ? 

Mr. Bryant. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. What is the reason that that breakdown takes 
place? Do you lack secret ballots, opportunities to vote? Do you 
lack adequate opportunities to nominate candidates? 

Do you lack the mechanism for having a fair count after you have 
had a vote ? Where do the democratic procedures break down ? 

Mr. Bryant. It was only in May, the first election we have had in 
Pontiac for a number of years. 

Senator Mundt. Don't you have regular elections? 

Mr. Bryant. No. 

Senator Mundt. Why not? 

Mr. Bryant. In 1948 they had one; we were supposed to have an 
election, but there was no opposition. Before you got on the floor, 
you was overruled. 

Senator Mundt. By the existing officers ? 

Mr. Bryant. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. And they were running for reelection ? 

Mr. Bryant. That is right. You was out of order if you wanted 
to take the floor. 

Senator Mundt. That is 1948 ? 



14884 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Bryant. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. Our committee is very much interested in trying 
to find a way to legislate the authority to run a union back into the 
hands of the union members. We think that that is the crux of most 
of the difficulties we are disclosing. We tried in the last Congress to 
work out some suitable formula which has not been adopted. We will 
have to refer it again to the next Congress. 

You have been in this business for 20 years. You are a good union 
member. You believe in unionism. ^1 believe in unionism. 

What type of sugestions could you make to us as to how we can be 
sure that fellows in the union run their own union, have elections when 
they are supposed to have elections, have a right to nominate, cast their 
votes in secret and get them counted ? How can they be counted ? 

Mr. Bryant. That would take quite a bit, to go into that, because 
I have seen it tried so many times. We have tried to go and get elec- 
tions in Pontiac for the past. I would say for the past 15 years. 
Shortly after Dan Keating came to Pontiac, one of the members 
could walk into him, you could talk to him, and after that man was in 
Pontiac 2 years you would never go and hear the men say "This is 
our union." 

Or say "This is my union or my hall,"' and things like that. Things 
like this I don't go along with. I never have. I say the men that is 
paying the dues that is part of the union, he should have a voice in 
it. 

Senator Mundt. We agree, our commitee agrees, there, 100 per- 
cent with that. We are trying to find the legislative formula to bring 
it about. Obviously, you fellows in the union alone can't do that. 
You need some kind of law, some kind of regulation, something, for 
protection. What do you think, from your standpoint, at the operat- 
ing end — you have been the victim of this bad arrangement — what 
do you think we could do from our side of the table to make demo- 
cratic procedures function in the union? 

Mr. Bryant. Well, for one thing if we could just only go and run 
our own local. When we had this election here in Pontiac, we did not 
need -Mr. Baker and we did not need all of these fellows that was 
sent out from Detroit and joint council 43 to come up there and give 
us an election. 

There is no use in that. 

Senator Mundt. In other words one of the difficulties, if I under- 
stand you correctly, is that when you have a local election, they send 
in people from the international headquarters, or from some central 
"headquarters, to come in and try to control your elections, is that 
right? 

Mr. Bryant. That is right, And one more thing that they try to 
stress on. I think you have heard a lot of people here at this table 
say it. In order to run for office, you have to be a member and in good 
standing for a period of 2 years, paid in advance at all times. That 
might be all right. But I would like to have somebody explain to me 
hofw Leon Harleson went and got in there for president now, and 
tljat is where he is at now. 

That man never did drive a truck. We have lots of them the same 
way. And from what I heard on the news before, on television, on 
radio, I have read it in the papers, there is some of these follows that 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14885 

is coming out of the pen. Had their dues been paid for 2 years in 
advance ? I don't think they need to pay their dues in advance where 
they have been. I don't think they have even been driving a truck. 

The Chairman. You are talking about the people in a penitentiary ? 

Mr. Bryant. That is right. When they come out, they go to work. 

The Chairman. They may have been driving a truck, but they 
weren't driving it as a union member. It is a different kind of a 
union. 

Mr. Bryant. Who is paying their dues ? 

The Chairman. I don't know. The union has been paying every- 
thing else they could think of for them. I suppose it has that, too. 

Mr. Bryant. Well, sir 

The Chairman. I agree with you that it is wrong for them to pay 
the dues of somebody in prison or to pay other things for them. I 
don't know whether they have paid these dues or not. But the point 
I am making is that they have paid many other things for them. If 
they are gangster enough, crook enough, or something, and they want 
to use them, they seem to find a way to take care of them and get them 
back in their organization. That is what you complain about? 

Mr. Bryant. That is right. Here is one thing that I would like 
to bring up, too. I don't know how this is going to fit, or anything 
at all like that. But there is something that I have to go and bring 
out. This is why I don't go along with the way things have been 
done. You go and take Dan Keating. I knew the fellow for a 
number of years. The l?st meeting that he sat in on, before we sat 
down to the table, he told me, he said, "Frank, I am clean." He said, 
"I haven't got a thing in the world to worry about." 

The next meeting that we had, the man was gone up. 

The Chairman. The man was what ? 

Mr. Bryant. He was gone. They had had the trial and they sent 
him on up to the pen. 

Senator Mundt. Do you mean Keating had gone to the pen ? 

Mr. Bryant. That is right. And at the time that this local went 
under the hands of the trustees, Mr. HofTa, he came to Pontiac, and 
he went and give some meetings. 

Senator Mundt. He would not what ? 

Mr. Bryant. He had some meetings there. He would let it out. 
That is the first time we had had meetings in the union hall for a 
number of years. 

Mr. Hoffa went and told us right there in Pontiac, he said, "Until 
these fellows is proven guilty," he said, "They are free to go," and 
he said, "I am not criticizing nobody until proven "guilty." 

But, he said, "If they are proven guilty, their books will be" torn 
up and thrown away until they can't drive a truck, much less hold 
an office in a local union." 

From what I hear on television and all, they was paid all the time 
they was up there. I don't like for my 5 bucks a month to go for 
things like that. 

The Chairman. You don't like for your dues to go to pay these 
criminals while they are in the pen ? 

Mr. Bryant. That is right. 

The Chairman. I think those people would agree with you. 



14886 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. Have you ever reported on this very unsavory 
arrangement to the monitors that the Federal court have set up to try 
to straighten out the Teamsters Union? 

Mr. Bryant. Yes; I have. 

Senator Mundt. You have given them this information so that they 
are in possession of it ? 

Mr. Bryant. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. It is a very great problem. You operate on the 
theory that a trade union is run by the members, is good for the work- 
ingmen, good for the employer, and good for the country. 

Congress passes labor union's tax-free status, freedom from anti- 
monopoly laws, and so forth, on the theory that the members of it 
run the union. Then we get a witness like you, and many others like 
you, where we find out the members don't run the union, that they are 
run from on top. We had a case of a union in Chicago where they 
had not had an election for 26 years. What we are trying to find out 
is what kind of legislation we should write, and try to induce our col- 
leagues to pass, which would correct it. I think you would agree that 
the less Federal interference with a union the better, provided you 
could work it out to the extent that the union members can run it. 

Mr. Bryant. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. But, frankly, we just don't know how to approach 
a problem of this kind. I would like to get your suggestions as to 
what kind of legislation or what kind of changes you would like to 
see brought about. If you could stroke an Aladdin's lamp and have 
the situation as you think it ought to be, how would you have it ? 

Mr. Bryant. Well, I would like to go and speak, too, a little bit on 
one more thing. They say on the conventions there is no member 
unless it is the officers that has anything at all to say, or at least we 
have not for years, on the convention coming up, or whenever they do 
come up we don't have nothing to say. I know the other unions in 
Pontiac and around different places — in the fact of the business is I 
belong to two unions, because I have to. 

I have a Ford tractor that I operate at times, and I have to belong 
to the engineers. But different unions that I know, they have a meet- 
ing, and there will be 1, 2, maybe 3 appointed to go to these conven- 
tions. We don't have the authority, we don't have the right to say 
things like that. Who is going to go or anything at all. I remember 
the last one that they had in Atlantic City. It was for all unions, I 
guess. The trade council they had. One fellow told me that they 
was different unions went, and the carpenters sent a man, the laborers 
sent 2, the Teamsters was to send 2, the bricklayers was to send 1. 
One of the fellows from one of the other unions told me that our two 
that was appointed to go didn't even get there. So local 614 was left 
out. We had no representative at all at this place at the time. 

Senator Mundt. Why don't you elect your delegates to a con- 
vention? 

Mr. Bryant. Well, you tell me how, how you are going to get at it. 

Senator Mundt. Doesn't it provide for that in your constitution ? 

Mr. Bryant. Yes; it should. 

Senator Mundt. But they simply ignore the constitution ? 

Mr. Bryant. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. And the president of the local union picks out two 
of his buddies and sends them down ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14887 

Mr. Bryant. But I am aware of one thing. 1 always have said 
this and I believe it, too. I do believe that Jimmie Hoffa is the 
fellow for that job and he can do it, if he will. 

Senator Mundt. I think I concur in that, with the words "If he 
will." Do you think he will ? 

Mr. Bryant. I don't know. At the present time I don't know if 
he will have time or not. 

Senator Mundt. He is going to have to start doing it pretty quickly 
if he is going to have time, I would assume. But you do agree that 
under present circumstances you are not able to run your own unions? 

Mr. Bryant. No. 

Mr. Salinger. Mr. Bryant, while we are on the subject of people 
from the outside coming in to run the affairs of the local, who came 
in to supervise this election? Who was on the election committee 
that came in ? 

Mr. Bryant. Well, joint council 43 come in, Robert Holmes. 

Mr. Salinger. Who were some of these people they appointed to 
supervise your election? 

Mr. Bryant. Robert Holmes was out there. 

Mr. Salinger. Who else? 

Mr. Bryant. Robert Holmes' son came out. 

Mr. Salinger. Maybe it might be easier if I read this off. 

Is this the certificate of election of officers that you received at the 
time they counted the ballots ? 

Mr. Bryant. Yes, it is. 

The Chairman. Can you identify it? 

Mr. Bryant. Yes. 

The Chairman. All right. It may be made exhibit No. 159. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 159" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Salinger. Did you read the names on the back, the election 
committee ? 

Mr. Bryant. Yes. 

Mr. Salinger. Do you know Mr. Barney Baker ? 

Mr. Bryant. Yes ; I do. 

Mr. Salinger. Was he on the election committee ? 

Mr. Bryant. Yes ; he was. 

Mr. Salinger. Mr. Barney Baker, who was an associate of major 
hoodlums all over the country and who has a long police record, was 
on the committee ? 

Mr. Bryant. Yes ; he was on the committee. 

Mr. Salinger. Do you know Mr. Otto Windell ? Was he on this 
committee ? 

Mr. Bryant. I don't know him personally. I probably met him at 
the election at the time. 

Mr. Salinger. Do you know T what Mr. Windell was doing up until 
September of last year ? 

Mr. Bryant. No. 

Mr. Salinger. He was an officer of a local of the Retail Clerks' 
Union in Detroit. Do you know that ? 

Mr. Bryant. No ; I did not know that. 

Mr. Salinger. And Mr. Steve Riddel, do you know him ? 

Mr. Bryant. Yes : I know Steve. 



14888 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Salinger. Do you know his connection with Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. Bryant. No. 

Mr. Salinger. He is a relative of Mr. Hoffa, and he was also on the 
payroll of the Retail Clerks' X T nion ? 

Mr. Bryant. No ; I did not know that. 

Mr. Salinger. Mr. Harry Campbell, do you know him ? 

Mr. Bryant. Yes ; I know Harry. 

Mr. Salinger. He was a partner of Sigmund Snyder's in the opera- 
tion of a nonunion car wash in Detroit ? 

These are some of the people, Mr. Chairman, who were on the elec- 
tion committee up in Pontiac. 

Mr. Bryant, before you came down here to testify, did you talk to 
Mr. Fetherland and get from him a letter that was sent to him by 
Mr. Holmes at the time he was declared ineligible ? 

Mr. Bryant. Yes ; I did. 

Mr. Salinger. I wonder if you can identify the letter, please. 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you a letter dated April 28, 
1948j addressed to Mr. Fetherland, from Mr. Robert Holmes, vice 
president of joint council No. 43. 

(The document was handed to the witness. ) 

The Chairman. Can you identify that letter ? 

Mr. Bryant. Yes. 

The Chairman. The letter may be made exhibit 160. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 160" for ref- 
erence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Salinger. Mr. Chairman, yesterday we had some testimony 
about the way elections were handled in Springfield and Joplin, Mo. 
We previously had some testimony on how Mr. Gibbons handled an 
election in joint council 13 in St. Louis. I will read a section of this 
letter. It shows how the Teamsters constitution is interpreted in vary- 
ing manners in various locals, depending on what the officials feel 
should be the interpretation at that particular time. 

The Chairman. It depends upon what the particular urgency is. 

Mr. Salinger. Or circumstance. Yesterday we had the testimony 
of Mr. Rogers, from Springfield, Mo., on page 3466. He was talking 
about all the people who were disqualified and declared ineligible from 
running for office in that local. You asked the question : 

They have the checkoff in some places, do they not? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Some of these people did not pay their dues? They were 
withheld from their wages by their employers? 

Mr. Rogers. That is right. 

The Chairman. Under contract, is that right? 

Mr. Rogers. That is right. 

The Chairman. In other words, the paydays are on the first of the month, 
and it takes several days to get to the union headquarters? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. Several days sometimes. 

The Chairman. Those people were declared ineligible? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Even though their dues had been checked off. If 
they had not gotten into the treasury, as it takes a few days, they are 
declared ineligible. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14889 

Mr. Salinger. This is a general president's ruling on article 10, 
section 5, subsection C, of the international constitution. 

In conducting the nominations and elections you will apply the provisions of 
article 2, section 4, and article 10, section 5, subsection C, to determine whether 
a member is in good standing. 

However, in the case of members under checkoff, you will rule those members 
eligible if they otherwise met the qualifications, even though under such check- 
off their dues arrive at union headquarters later than the first day of the current 
month. 

So we see in this particular instance they changed the ruling that 
they used in Springfield and Joplin, Mo., Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Bryant, did you and other members of your slate go to various 
large employers in the Pontiac area and request permission to cam- 
paign for office on their premises ? 

Mr. Bryant. Yes, we did. 

Mr. Salinger. Particularly did you go to the Fleet Carrier Corp. ? 

Mr. Bryant. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Salinger. Did you have a conversation with the owner of that 
company ? 

Mr. Bryant. Yes, I went in and talked to Mr. Kabcenel and he said 
there would be no union campaigning on the premises. He said I 
would have to stay out. He said I could go over to the restaurant, but 
I did not think that was a very good place, inside of a restaurant, be- 
cause it is a small place, or he said "You could go out on the sidewalk 
and do your campaigning there, but not inside." 

Mr. Salinger. He said you and your people could not campaign ? 

Mr. Bryant. That is right. 

Mr. Salinger. Did you subsequently find out that Mr. Harleson, 
running for president against you, Mr. Harmon and other members 
of his particular ticket, were campaigning on the premises of the 
Fleet Carrier Corp. ? 

Mr. Bryant. Yes, they were. 

Mr. Salinger. Through these employers, the incumbents were get- 
ting an advantage that you were not getting in running against these 
people ; is that right ? 

Mr. Bryant. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. Why do you think this particular employer would 
want to choose up sides between you and your opponent ? 

Mr. Bryant. Well, he pretty well covered that. He told me, he said 
"You can't campaign on the property here, and I don't aim to let them 
in to start campaigning in here either." 

But, nevertheless, they could go and say they had agreements to 
settle or some driver to talk to, and they could do their campaigning 
while in there. It happened the same way at the gravel pits. Mr. 
Holmes, he did, he went and got out a letter that if they wanted to do 
any campaigning they would have to do it on their own time. Well, 
I don't know if they all taken 3 weeks off at the union hall before this 
election come up, but they done plenty of campaigning. 

There was 1 or 2 of them. They did not personally tell me but they 
told other drivers that they had it in the bag before the election come 
out. 

Mr. Salinger. Senator, there might be one explanation in the con- 
nection between Mr. Harleson and Mr. Kabcenel, something we had 
previously in the testimony. They were very close friends, and in fact 



14890 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Harleson took a round-trip vacation to Miami at the expense of 
Mr. Kabcenel at the time he was an official of that local in Pontiac, 
Mich. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Kabcenel is the employer ? 

Mr. Salinger. That is correct. Did you also make repeated efforts 
to get an eligibility list of the members so you could get your message 
to these members about your ticket ? 

Mr. Bryant. Yes; but that was one mistake I did make. I went 
and called Mr. Holmes and asked him for it. He said "Frank, that is 
out. I could not go and get that for you." 

Also, I went and asked him about a writein candidate where we had 
no opposition against Harmon, and he said "You could do that if you 
wanted to, but the international would not recognize it." 

So what happened there, I called him up and talked to him on the 
phone. I did not send a letter and send it registered. A couple of the 
other fellows did, and there was two people that went and got an 
eligibility list of the people that could vote, the members that was 
eligible to go and vote. 

Mr. Salinger. Those people, however, got those lists just before 
the election ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Bryant. That is right. 

Mr. Salinger. You were unable to get a list, yourself ? 

Mr. Bryant. That is right. 

Mr. Salinger. In addition to that, you were told that even though 
Mr. Harmon had no opposition because his two opponents had been 
declared ineligible, you could not have a writein candidate? 

Mr. Bryant. That is right. He told me the international would not 
accept a writein candidate. 

Mr. Salinger. Who won the election ? 

Mr. Bryant. Well, for president, Leon Harleson won it. 

Mr. Salinger. You were defeated ? 

Mr. Bryant. That is right. 

Mr. Salinger. And Mr. Harmon was reelected? Mr. Harleson's 
entire slate was actually elected ? 

Mr. Bryant. That is right. 

Mr. Salinger. They are now in office for 5 years ? 

Mr. Bryant. Until December, the last day of December in 1962. 

Mr. Salinger. And during the entire period you made a number of 
protests not only to the monitors but also to Mr. Hoffa, and you re- 
ceived no satisfaction from these protests ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Bryant. That is right. 

Mr. Salinger. You asked that the election be postponed so that you 
would have a chance to get to the other members and tell them your 
story and they refused to do that ; is that right ? 

Mr. Bryant. That is right. There were some of the other fellows, 
too, who went to get the eligibility list and did not get it until shortly 
before the election. 

We asked if we could get the election postponed, and they said no, 
it was set up, and it was going through now. 

Senator Mundt. Do you think it would be good or bad if the law 
provided that upon request of either party to a union election, it would 
be supervised by the XLRB ? 

Mr. Bryant. Certainly it would. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14891 

Senator Mundt. It would be good? 

Mr. Bryant. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. That would eliminate the prejudice from one side 
to another and provide for a fair count ? 

Mr. Bryant. I talked to one fellow in New York on the telephone. 
He called me. 

He told me, he said, "Frank, you have got a very poor chance of 
winning that election. If you could get a .private organization to 
walk in and seize all books, all records, and everything, you have a 
chance then. This way you haven't." 

Senator Mundt. Did you have representatives from your side at 
the counting of the ballots, when they were being counted ? 

Mr. Bryant. Yes, I did. 

Senator Mundt. So they did not rig the counting on you. 

Mr. Bryant. On the counting of the votes, I don't know how they 
all went. You could not go and keep up with that, as far as myself. 
But the fellow that did go and count my votes, you will see on the list 
there where there was 41 of the secret ballots votes that was returned. 
Those was the one if a driver had to go out of town, he goes down to 
the hall, they give him a ballot, he votes the way he wants to, even 
at home, he puts it in an envelope, he registers it, and he sends it in, 
mails it in, that way. There was 41. I pulled 37 votes out of the 41. 

Senator Mundt. What do you think is the significance of that? 

Mr. Bryant. I would not know. But on the other, all told I got 
344, I believe it was, or 344, and he got 470. He beat me by a little 
over 100 votes. 

Senator Mundt. How did you do with this particular ballot box 
where the Fleet Carrier would not let you campaign and the other 
fellow campaigned ? 

Mr. Bryant. Well, I just walked out. 

Senator Mundt. I understand that. But how did you run ? 

How did those ballots come in ? 

Mr. Bryant. We did not have a ballot box there. We was just 
campaigning. This was probably 2 weeks before the election. I 
walked in and asked him if I could talk to the drivers and do a little 
campaigning. He said "No"; he said that was out. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? Is there anything fur- 
ther you wish to say ? 

Mr. Bryant. No ; not that I know of. That is all. 

The Chairman. All right. Thank you very much. 

I am sure the committee members all sympathize with your situa- 
tion up there. If more men would have the courage that Mr. Bryant 
has to come in here and cooperate with the committee and give us this 
testimony, I think public sentiment would demand corrective action. 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to call Mr. Salinger. 

TESTIMONY OF PIERRE SALINGER— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Salinger, in this connection, have you made a 
study of the situation down in Nashville, Tenn. ? 
Mr. Salinger. I have. 

Mr. Kennedy. In connection with the union election there ? 
Mr. Salinger. I have. 



14892 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you briefly summarize what happened down 
there? • 

Mr. Salinger. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is a review of the files ? 

Mr. Salinger. From the files. 

Mr. Kennedy. And from conversations and conferences you have 
had with individuals ? 

Mr. Salinger. Right. 

The Chairman. What you are doing is giving us a report on the 
interviews you had, and the investigation you made ? 

Mr. Salinger. That is correct. In November of 1956 an election 
was scheduled in local 327 in Nashville, Tenn. The president of that 
local at that time was Don Vestal, who appeared here before the com- 
mittee and took the fifth amendment. Chief of the opposition in 
1956 was a man named Leon Medlin. Medlin had been president of 
this local prior to its being put in trusteeship in 1949. When the local 
came out of trusteeship in 1952, Medlin ran against Vestal for presi- 
dent and was defeated. However, the election we are concerned with 
is the 1956 election. At that election, a nominating meeting was held 
under the direction of one Frank Murtha, an international organizer 
of the Teamsters, who at that time was working out of Memphis, 
Tenn. He opened this meeting by announcing that out of some 3,300 
members of this local, only 11 members of the local were eligible to 
run for office. Included among this 11 were the 7 incumbents, which 
meant that the total possible opposition to these 7 incumbents was 
4 individuals, who could run for 4 offices, and one of these 4 did not 
want to run, so actually they got 3 oppopents up out of a whole local 
of 3,300 members. They were only able to find 3 people who were 
eligible to run against 7 incumbents and only 11 members were declared 
eligible to run. 

It is interesting that among the 11 who were declared eligible to run 
was Mr. Vestel, and another gentleman we had before this committee, 
W. A. "Hard of Hearing" Smith, who has been convicted in Tennessee 
of assault and who has been sentenced to a 2- to 10-year term in the 
Tennessee Penitentiary. 

And Mr. Ralph Vaughn, who also took the fifth amendment before 
the committee. The election was held and the candidate against 
Vestel, whose name was Browning Moore, was defeated by 60 votes. 
Even with this lack of opportunity to find opponents, however, W. H. 
Smith was defeated in his effort to be elected vice president. However, 
Mr. Vestel retained him as a business agent after he had been defeated 
in the election. Mr. Moore filed charges against Mr. Vestel following 
the election and charged that he had acted improperly during the 
election, particularly in his campaigning near the ballot boxes. A 
committee was appointed by Mr. Vestel which investigated these 
charges and found they were without foundation. Mr. Moore then 
appealed to the executive board, of which Mr. Vestel was the chair- 
man, and three members of the executive board were hired business 
agents who were dependent on their jobs for Mr. Vestel and they 
also exonerated Mr. Vestel of having done anything wrong. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14893 

Mr. Moore finally took his appeal to the international where it was 
turned down. 

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

The Chairman. Do you have any questions, Senator Mundt ? 

Senator Mundt. No. 

The Chairman. The committee will stand in recess until 10 : 30 in 
the morning. 

(Whereupon, at 4 : 50 the hearing recessed, to reconvene at 10 : 30 
a. m., Thursday, September 11, 1958, with the following members 
present : Senators McClellan and Mundt.) 



21243 O— 59— pt. 39 23 



APPENDIX 



Exhibit No. 105A 





Exhibit No. 105B 

Teamsters Local & 

STRIKE EXPENDITURE 



tSsUJLsS* £%&- 



hk 



p*kl out in th» proMoiHon of th. «bov« ttrilw. 
FOR * 




/V////J-J 



AMOUNT >^> 







W^ 



/^ 



Z^ /y ^^ ^/^ , (9 



WHJPAKf COMNHTTIfc 



it 



14895 



14896 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 105C 

. ■ - -» Teamsters Local 688 Q> 

STRIKE EXPENDITURE / , 




-JU, 



DATE. 



/>/'//^3 



following «um wot paid out in *♦» pro»»eu«on of ffc« «bov« rtriU. 






TOTAL /^J- 




RECEIVED BY: 



WELFARE COMMITTEE: •♦•<] 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14897 

Exhibit No. 106A 

ST. LOUIS 3. MO August 23, \^% 

M Teansters local lin?An »in. ],nc; 

" S 7 P ?p? Stre et 



St. Louis I, Missouri 



IN ACCOUNT WfTH 



ACE CAB CO. 

1839 WASHINGTON AVE. 
Office: MAin 1-8485 <4tB*> <«» Cab Service: MAin 1-5678 



For taxi cab service / .$2925.00 



>J-±L 










14898 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 106B 




IMPROPER ACTIVITIES. IN THE LABOR FIELD 14 899 

Exhibit No. 113 




14900 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 114 




IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14901 

Exhibit No. 115 



;? 



£2 



§33 



•HP.- 



:.a.» 



:Sf 




14902 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 117 




IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 
Exhibit No. 122 



14903 



otomoz • riT*ot*Ai 





Novemfctr 11, 1955 






Abstract and Title Guaranty Company 
735 Griswold Street 
Detroit 2o, Michigan 

Attention: William J, Schultr 



Escrow Agreement governing the disbursement 
of the proceed* of Mortgage Loan or Winchester 

Village ■ . 



Dear Mr. Schulte. 

It ha* come to my attention that the aforementioned escrow agreement 
is not sufficiently inclusive to allow you to pay certain expense* of 
Winchester Village Land Company (sometimes billed to Winahali 
Associates), incident to the improvement* therein contemplated. 
Since our agreement with them i* such that all monies received by 
virtue of sale* of any part of the/mortgaged premlsesjbe placed in 
escrow, it was our intention that ail expenses incurred incident to 
the improvement of eald premises be paid from the escrow fund, 

Please accept this as your authority and direction to pay said expenses 
upon presentation of an invoice therefore or an engineer's certificate 
authorising said payment, 



14904 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 122A 




»«•*«« • «T»««WAW» 




9, 1953 



AVttroot m$ tltls (KMTttti Co. 
735 Orisoold 
Detroit 86, men. 

Ittmttwt Mr. SoUsUs, Assistant Sse rutary 
•Irt 



P*r«u*nt to our Ul«phooi eonirorsotioo of yostoroay routing 

to tho ftf> mniogo c«rtifi«stss m citnton Township, nssos* 

County, mehl«*n, you oro hsroby swthorissa to nImn to tho 
slnsholl AMMUt«i 1100,000.00 for tholr us* In ploklnf up 
thoso Sap FriTil*** Cortlflsotoo. It 1* uadorstoo* thftt «h*t 
»»«h«Aies yoawiuMla «ow»o*tio» vim tho ptyasnt of tho 
wxt*y to th« or to th* propor rooololag Sfonay uo whot 
s*i*u«t woy oo usod for tho ropoyosmt of this snoop U**o tho 
Pwrfis ltf t to you as th« *ssro» sfont as* tho tfinohootor 



fills* U*A Cospoay, 

X h*v« ulsousood this aottor vltH sv ollont* mtHUw 

1. That sinoo tho oser«» sosovnt «o* srootoo: and til* wnwoy 
lofooC ho* Mm oots1 opi* »b % of Ylaohootor nuip, tho ato of 
tola sxwoy for anything whiah will proswto this proports/, not 
o»l» ilrootly hut Utfirootly, ahoul« oo loft to tho tlssrotion 
«fW Wlwohostor Vlllof* Urn* Cospany; 




IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 
Exhibit No. 123 



14905 



1 


■OBHAM J. MOlfflO 
atto#m*y at law 

MffUCMT M 


Marah 19, 1954 





Jack I. Wlnafaall 
k053 Penobaeot Building 
Detroit 26, Klehigan 

Daar Sift 

Mr. Goldman's prinoiplaa would like to know whan 
you •!•• going to antar into • Land C ontrast to ra -pur abase 
th« ton aerea In Oanaaaa County"; ThSy axpaolad you to 
o»ll thaw and arranga a closing In this mattar bafora 
this. 



trill ba apprac 



la tad. 



Toura vary truly, 



(CM^-A-A-^—^y- 



£o,c*>o 
/ o<ro 



DP 






14906 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit ,No. 125 



i^ier- ma :*<■!»! 




M1"«T«A<H 



w 



&m?wia*m r«m*»r 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14907 

Exhibit No. 126 




SQNfti M083S3 



14908 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 126A 



* •* ,\ BALANCE 



1935 






/ WO F.N OF ' / 



FOR 





TOTAI 

AMOCNT THIS CHECK * 



flop* $} 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14909 

Exhibit No. 127A 





21243 O— 59— pt. 39 24 



14910 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 127B 




•I* 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14911 

Exhibit No. 128A 







■'& 






14912 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 128B 



-r- r —« 



r 



i a 
s • 



3 
I §„ : S 

I ** .-' .= .. • VS 



5 4 






/ 

1 I 



fe_l _ i-i 



fail**' T**d 



I - 



r--\ 



^ <iii£: 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14913 

Exhibit No. 128C 



| 
£1 






1 



Bfe 






Jj 






7 v.j; 



•; .: 



. ii 



14914 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Kxhibit No. 128D 



f : ' 


/ 


" ' i: 


en 


2 




1 s 


s 


, > 


o • 




i 


J * i i. 




r . ;, 


1 * 




' 


M 




1 


< 1 




\ 


i? : 


>'; 




w 


• .$ 




5 rl 


^5i 


\ 


j*i J. # « v 


•c* 


p 


1 $Z% ~ ^"\* 


c: 




J 5 - * ■ 

ll f *•« 


i i7 


i 

1 


.j fit.- •"'•••' 


r -'" 


y > 
v l 


II f ' H: ' 




Z \ 


< 2 ' 

1 ai 


S3 




III s 




2 

Z i 


. 




mm 


\ ±z 




ft » 


Pa 




> 


ft, "* 







TVfV ■■ M 



>i. 



V 



•^JwCT'V 



-v/. 



£2 ::. hc 



"3 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14915 

Exhibit No. 128E 



/ 



a 
s 

3 






*•* 






? - 






S 



L/ _£ 



u 






3-^ 



• • • • 

• • • • 



14916 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 128F 



£ CO 

S <2 



2"? I 






6 

o 

o 



■! o 






8 

PBj 



fe'j w: 



s 

ii 






• • • • 



• •?•* 



• •••• ... 

• . * • 





\ 




















J j | 


'• 








v. , 




!/ 




4*-> 


• f l 


fl 




1* » 


■:>- 


N T 1 ^ 


en - 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14917 

Exhibit No. 129 



August 17, 1956 

Mr. Manny Harris 

Office of Che Guardian liulLdlng 

5uG Grlswold 

Detroit 2o, Michigan 

Dear Sir: , - x J> 

In consideration of the sun of $500,00*».u0 advanced to North American Devel- 
opment Company or Its subsidiaries far the purpose of completing the installation 
of improvements of 500 lots in Winchester Village Subdivision, Gaines Township, 
Genesee County, Michigan, 

The undersigned is willing to arrange for the repayment of the above along with 
a bonus of $150,000.00, which bonus wil be 9©^ arranged or to be in the for* of 
a capital gain. v 

The capital gain will be arranged through the purchase, by you, of 7u acres of 
land for $26,000.00 and the subsequent repurchase of this land by our corporatlor 
for the sua of $176,000.00 within one year - - the 70 acres of land are adjacent 
to our property aad are the site of our proposed epartaent sice development and 
is well worth the purchase price. 

security for the $500,000.00 will be ia the for* of a second mortgage on 500 
partially developed sites. The mortgage release price of $1,000.00 per site 
will be paid yon as the lot* ere released from our contracts by the builder. 
These contracts are for a. period of one year and to date 200 lots are under 
contract end 300 more are committed. Models have been open for 45 days and 
170 homes have been sold to date. 

Sewers and the disposal plant have been completed and work has started on the 
installation of water lines, with roads to follow. 

The sites In the subdivision have been sold for $3,000.00 each and F.R.A. has 
placed a Value of $3,500.00 on each site. 

We would like you to inspect the property at your convenience to see the extent 
of work dona to date. 

Sincerely yours, 

NORTH AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT CO. 



Jack 1. Wlnshail 



14918 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 141A 




I >J 






5 






9 






6 






z 






a 






<3 






} 








U 






o 


o 




o 






*s» 




> 




<.-qr 


■^ * ■** 


in; 


"33: 


U'i 


f^p? 


1? 


•;I|K 





?||§®j 


u* 


^•^^Pi' ! 





















?-< . - 

■-■ :*'h 

ms* m - 
BIS 



Z z 




IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14919 

Exhibit No. 141B 




14920 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 142A 




IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 
Exhibit No. 142B 



14921 







14922 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 



Kxhibit No. 143 




IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14923 

Exhibit No. 144 



S m 
S cy 

IT) 



(Tfrvnt^ ggZ^ 




14924 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Kxhibit No. 144A 




IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14925 

Exhibit No. 145 




21243 O— 59 — pt. 



14926 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 146 




ff£&ftT of* 

"£»Jt> MAY* **t64M£P 

*%&> TO THE ACCOUNT* 

"-.ANTowNOFriCE 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14927 

Exhibit No. 148A 



TBRWfl WWW wr 




•tact o« iA¥ TMHMntu. i»t» 



14928 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 148B 



W" 






o 
z 

z 

§2 



5 O 



i 

00 2 



vj 



f2 
< 

CD 



U 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14929 

Exhibit No. 149 




14930 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 150A 



0)W 

QC DC 

>h 

a. ui 

D I 
Ui eg 

So 

Q UJ 

Oo: 



mi 



/Qi<f/3<u^ 



<?V*<VtHs 



p-*f£ 


1 


B 

3D 
H 

• 
... 


i~- — — 





IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 
Exhibit No. 150B 



14931 




14932 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 151 

5~" ■ ^^■■1 




IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14933 

Exhibit No. 152A 



N f- 2 5 






6 av.-Ml! 






1 




14934 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 152B 



~ 




IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14935 

P^xhibit No. 154 



^ 1'^ V 



mt 



S • I 



A K 



-•-*-» 












s 

X 



& 



,.:;... 



J 



jf J? '^ X^ j^ in 






14936 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 155A 



2.7*0 #4Y6v Ay 6-AA/vP. 




IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14937 

Exhibit No. 155 B 







14938 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 156 



~~2 — ~*T 




IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14939 

Exhibit No. 157 




14940 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 158 




BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 



3 9999 06352 027 2 






;-:;i&&p?mH! 1