(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"

cA9^ilLil^^i6 




S&'ik 



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 

LIBOR OR MANAGEMENT MELD 

EIGHTY-FIFTH CONGKESS 

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



SEPTEMBER 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, AND NOVEMBER 17, 1958 



PART 40 



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 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, AND NOVEMBER 17, 1958 



PART 40 



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 1 6 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 Young Watt, Chief Clerk 



CONTENTS 



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

Page 

Appendix 15313 

Testimony of — 

Adlerman, Jerome S 15304 

Bellino, Carmine S 14946, 14999, 15187, 15259, 15276 

Dranow, Benjamin 15295, 15305 

Findlay, John P 15281 

Gibbons, Harold J 14943 

Hoffa, James R 14995, 15041, 15176, 15207, 15247 

Kaplan, Arthur G 15148 

Mayerson, Allen 1 5260 

Mullins, Bernard 15099 

Mundie, James F 15136 

Pastor, Richard 15255 

Presser, William 15144, 15153 

Salinger, Pierre E 15120 

Schneiders, Joseph A 15111 

Sheridan, Walter J 15138, 15155, 15209 

Stein, Nate 14986 

Triscaro, Louis 15131 

Uhlmann, Martin S 15260, 15278 

Statement of David Previant 15285 

EXHIBITS 

Introduced Appear 
on page on page 

161. Affidavit of Samuel Feldman 14950 (*) 

162A. Check No. 4634, dated August 15, 1955, payable to El Al 
Israel Aviation Co. Ltd., in the amount of $883.90, 

signed by Samuel Feldman 14953 15313 

162B. Check No. 4635, dated August 15, 1955, payable to Nate 
Stein in the amount of $1,615.10, signed by Samuel 

Feldman 14953 15314 

162C. Check No. 4639, dated August 17, 1955, payable to "Cash" 

in the amount of $500, signed by Samuel Feldman 14953 15315 

162D. Check stub No. 4639, dated August 17, 1955, "Cash for 

Nate Stein" $500 14953 15316 

163. List of people directly or indirectly connected with the 

Teamsters with criminal records 14981 (*) 

164. Affidavit of Daniel R. Fitzpatrick with attached news- 

paper articles from St. Louis Post-Dispatch of Septem- 
ber 4, 1958 14985 (*) 

165. Check No. 8705, dated March 23, 1955, payable to Nate 

Stein, in the amount of $1,500, signed by Frank Collins 

and drawn by Truck Drivers Local Union No. 299 14987 15317 

166A. Check No. 754, with stub, dated October 10, 1955, payable 
to Nate Stein, in the amount of $500, drawn by Local 
Union No. 41, Kansas City, Mo 14991 15318 

166B. Check No. 867, with stub, dated November 4, 1955, pay- 
able to Hotel Bellerive, in the amount of $406.21, drawn 
bv Local Union No. 41, Kansas City, Mo 14991 15319 

166C. Check No. 974, with stub, dated November 23, 1955, pay- 
able to Nate Stein, in the amount of $500 drawn by 

Local Union No. 41, Kansas City, Mo 14991 15320 

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

Ill 



IV CONTENTS 

Introduced Appear 
on page on page 

166D. Check No. 1047, with stub, dated December 12, 1955, pay- 
able to Hotel Bellerive, in the amount of $016.19, drawn 
by Local Union No. 41, Kansas City, Mo 14991 15321 

167A. Check No. 000, dated February 24, 1950, payable to Joel 
Benton, in the amount of $1,000, signed bv Frank 
Collins, drawn by Local Union 299 14999 15322 

1G7B. Check No. 1358, dated April 20, 1950, payable to Joel 
Benton, in the amount of $1,000, signed bv Frank 
Collins, drawn by Local Union No. 299 14999 15323 

107C. Check No. 2000, dated June 21, 1950, payable to Joel 
Benton, in the amount of $1,500, signed bv Frank 
Collins, drawn by Local Union No. 299 14999 15324 

1G7D. Check No. 808, with stub, dated November 1, 1955, pay- 
able to Joel Benton Associates in the amount of 
$900, drawn bv Local Union No. 41, Kansas City, Mo_ 15000 15325 

108. Affidavit of Joel Benton 15001 (*) 

109 Summary of telephone calls made bv Nate Stein, January 

28, 1957, through February 24, 1958 15010 (*) 

170A. Invoice from Lipp man's Tool Shop Sporting Goods Co. to 
Bert Brennan, dated August 28, 1953, in the amount of 
$51.12 15035 15320-15327 

170B. Invoice from Lippman's Tool Sporting Goods Co. to Bert 
Brennan, local 299, dated November 18, 1952, in the 
amount of $112.41 15035 15328 

171. Check No. 21, dated February 10, 1955, payable to "Cash" 

in the amount of $5,000, signed by Bert Brennan, 
drawn by Teamsters Athletic Fund on Commonwealth 
Bank, Detroit, Mich 15036 15329 

172. Check No. 0013, dated July 20, 1954, payable to Common- 

wealth Bank, signed by Frank Collins, drawn by Local 

Union 299 " 15039 15330 

172A. Cashier's check No. 0-799, dated July 20, 1954, payable to 
Gene San Soucie, in the amount of $2,000, drawn on the 
Bank of the Commonwealth, Detroit 15039 15331 

172B. Application to the Bank of the Commonwealth for a 
'cashier's check payable to Gene San Soucie, in the 
amount of $2,000, signed bv Frank Collins 15039 15332 

172C. Check stub No. 6013, dated July 20, 1954, payable to 
Commonwealth Bank, in the amount of $2,000 "New 
car Plymouth" 15043 15333 

173. Check No. 3868, dated December 14, 1953, payable to 

local 299 in the amount of $11,000, signed by Frank 

Collins, drawn by local 299 15046 15334 

173A. Check stub No. 3868, dated December 14, 1953, payable 

to local 299, in the amount of $11,000, "cash on hand", 15048 15335 

174. Check No. 1154, dated September 11, 1953, payable to 

James R. Hoffa, in the amount of $5,000, drawn by 
Central States Conference of Teamsters, St. Louis, Mo., 
signed by James R. HofTa and H. J. Gibbons 15049 15330 

175. Certified copy of resolution of unincorporated society, 

dated September 29, 1953, relating to commercial deposit 
accounts, signed bv Frank Collins, secretary and James 

R. Hoffa 15052 15337 

175A. Signature card in the name of Central States Organization, 

with signature of James R. Hoffa, chairman 15052 15338 

176. Income tax return of James R. and Josephine Hoffa for the 

year 1953 15060 (*) 

177. Check dated December 30, 1953, payable to "Cash" in the 

amount of $4,900, drawn on Central States Organization, 

signed by James R. Hoffa 15060 15339 

177A. Ledger sheet of City Bank for Central States Organization 

showing withdrawals of $4,900 15060 (*) 

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



CONTENTS 



178A. Check No. 6813, dated March 12, 1952, payable to Joe 
Schneiders Associates, Inc., in the amount of $6,200, 
drawn bv Joint Council No. 43 

178B. Check No" 1026, dated December 1952, payable to Joe 
Schneiders Associates, Inc., in the amount of $15,601, 
drawn bv Local Union No. 299 (exact date illegible) 

178C. Check No" 1760, dated March 9, 1953, payable to Joe 
Schneiders Associates, Inc., in the amount of $868, 
drawn by Local Union No. 299, signed by Frank Collins - 

178D. Check stub No. 6813, dated March 12, 1953, payable to 
Joe Schneiders Associates, Inc., in the amount of $6,200, 
"Advertising" 

178E. Check stub No. 1760, dated March 9, 1953, payable to Joe 
Schneiders Associates, Inc., in the amount of $868, 
"Detroit Time, Free Press" 

179A. Check No. 1222, dated April 10, 1953, payable to Joseph A. 
Gillis, in the amount of $864.56, drawn by Joe Schneiders 
Associates, Inc 

179B. Check No. 1225, dated April 20, 1953, payable to J. S. 
Gillis in the amount of $277.35 drawn by Joe Schneiders 
Associates, Inc 

179C. Check No. 1226, dated Aoril 22, 1953, payable to J. A. 
Gillis, in the amount of $68.28, drawn by Joe Schneiders 
Associates, Inc 

180. Sample of questionnaire that was sent to all Teamsters 

locals 

181. Credentials, questionnaires, and all supporting documents 

regarding the election of James R. Hoffa as president of 
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, 
Warehousemen and Helpers of America 

182. Check No. 2929, with stub, dated August 22, 1958, payable 

to Ramode of Cleveland, in the amount of $1,500, drawn 
by Ohio Conference of Teamsters 

183. Minutes of quarterly meeting of the Ohio Conference of 

Teamsters, Saturday, November 13, 1954, Commodore 
Perry Hotel, Toledo, Ohio 

184. Invoice from Rudoloh Deutsch Industrial Sales Co., to 

Teamsters Joint Council No. 41, in the amount of $824, 
for "8 champagne masters" 

184A. Carbon invoice from Rudolph Deutsch Industrial Sales 
Co., to Teamsters Joint Council No. 41, in the amount 
of $824, for "8 champagne masters" 

184B. Copy of notes made at the time of examination of original 
invoice 

185. Minutes of the quarterly Ohio Conference of Teamsters 

meeting, September 30, 1955, Fort Hayes Hotel, 
ColunnVs, Ohio 

186. Minutes of executive boar 1 meeting, Joint Council No. 26, 

November 22, 1954 

187. Check No. 2923 with stub dated August 15. 1958, payable 

to G. H. Bender in the amount of $1,000 drawn by Ohio 
Conference of Teamsters 

188. Minutes of the executive board meeting of Teamsters Joint 

Council No. 41, August 14, 1958, Carter Hotel, Cleve- 
land, Ohio 

189. Minutes of the executive board meeting of the Ohio Con- 

ference of Teamsters held August 14, 1958, at the 
Carter Hotel, Cleveland, Ohio 

190. Check No. 3234 dated October 11, 1956, payable to John 

Wilson in the amount of $1,000, signed by Frank Collins, 

drawn by local union 299 

190A. Check stub No. 3234 dated October 11, 1956, payable to 
John Wilson in the amount of $1,000 "Legal services 
rendered" 

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



nlroduced 
on page 


Appear 
on page 


15085 


15340 


15085 


15341 


15085 


15342 


15089 


15343 


15089 


15344 


15117 


15345 


15117 


15346 


15117 


15347 


15121 


(*) 


15127 


(*) 


15142 


15348 


15156 


(*) 


15164 


15349 


15165 


15350 


15166 


(*) 


15167 


(*) 


15167 


(*) 


15169 


15351 


15171 


(*) 


15171 


(*) 


15176 


15352 


15176 


15353 



VI CONTENTS 

Introduced Appear 
on page on page 
191. Check No. 2063 dated June 19, 1956, payable to Florida 
National Bank in the amount of $300,000 signed by 

Frank Collins, drawn by local 299 15177 15354 

192A. Check No. 3595 dated November 13, 1956, payable to 
Florida National Bank in the amount of $100,000, 

signed by Frank Collins, drawn by local 299 15183 15355 

192B. Check No. 3605 dated November 14, 1956, pavable to 
Florida National Bank in the amount of $100,000 
signed by Frank Collins, drawn by local 299 15183 15356 

193. Note indicating a loan of $300,000 from the Florida 

National Bank to Sun Vallev, Inc., dated June 20, 1956- 15187 (*) 
193A. Note indicating a loan of $200,000 from the Florida 
National Bank to Sun Vallev, Inc., dated November 20, 
1956 - 15188 (*) 

194. Application of Sun Valley, Inc., for loan dated March 21, 

1955, at 4 percent 15200 (*) 

194A. Ledger account of Sun Valley, Inc., with the Bank of the 
Commonwealth, showing loan of $50,000 in the name of 
James R. Hoffa 15200 (*) 

194B. Renewed note dated October 26, 1955, of Sun Vallev, Inc., 

in the amount of $17,500. 15200 (*) 

194C. Check No. 10696 dated September 26, 1955, payable to 
local No. 376 in the amount of $10,000 signed by Frank 
Collins, drawn by local 299_._ 15200 15357 

194D. Check No. 813 dated September 26, 1955, payable to 
Henry Lower in the amount of $10,000, signed by Henry 
Lower and drawn by local union 376, Detroit 15201 15358 

194E. Check No. 11325 dated November 17, 1955, payable to 
Joint Council 43 in the amount of $6,800, signed by 
Frank Collins and drawn bv local 299 15201 15359 

194F. Check No. 8613 dated November 17, 1955, payable to 
Henry Lower in the amount of $13,600, drawn bv Joint 
Council No. 43 15201 15360 

194G. Application for loan of $500,000 bv Sun Vallev, Inc., from 

the Florida National Bank dated November 19, 1956. . 15205 (*) 

194H. Check No. 3830 dated November 26, 1956, payable to 
National Bank of Detroit in the amount of $200,000, 
signed bv Henrv Lower, drawn by Sun Valley, Inc 15206 15361 

195. Affidavit of Charles Valentine 15206 (*) 

196. Application of Henry Lower Associates, Inc., for loan of 

$25,000 from the Bank of the Commonwealth and note 

endorsed bv Henrv Lower and James R. Hoffa 15206 (*) 

197. Affidavit of William Soper 15211 (*) 

197 A. Affidavit of Marvin Pomerantz 1521 1 (*) 

198. Contract between Midwest Burlap & Bag Co. and Team- 

sters Union Local 10 dated September 3, 1956 15219 (*) 

199. Letter dated March 5, 1954, to James R. Hoffa from 

David Previant, and letter dated May 13, 1954, to 
Dave Previant from James R. Hoffa with proposed 
changes in bylaws of local 299 15238 (*) 

200. Summary of the history of the Central States, Southeast, 

and Southwest areas health and welfare fund 15243 (*) 

200A. History of the development of the Michigan Conference 

of Teamsters welfare fund 15244 (*) 

201. Affidavit of Ralph J. Walker 15262 (*) 

202. Telegram to James R. Hoffa from Ralph C. Wilson of Con- 

tinental Assurance re insurance plan 15271 (*) 

203. Letter dated February 1, 1950, to James R. Hoffa from 

Ralph C. Wilson of Continental Assurance with bids 

submitted 15272 (*) 

204 A. Letter dated February 2, 1950, addressed to Dr. Leo Perl- 
man, executive vice president, Union Casualty Co., from 
Allen M. Dorfman, president, Union Insurance Agency, 

Inc 15272 (*) 

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



CONTENTS VII 

Introduced Appear 
on page on page 

204B. Letter dated February 13, 1950, addressed to Dr. Leo Perl- 
man, executive vice president, Union Casualty Co., from 
Allen M. Dorfman, State general agent, Union Insur- 
ance Agencv, Inc 15272 (*) 

205A. Letter dated March 8, 1950, addressed to Dr. Leo Perlman, 
executive vice president, Union Casualty Co., from 
Allen M. Dorfman, State general agent, Union Insur- 
ance Agencv, Inc 15273 (*) 

205B. Letter dated March 13, 1950, addressed to Dr. Leo Perl- 
man, executive vice president, Union Casualty Co., from 
Allen Mayerson, assistant actuary, United States Life 
Insurance Co 15273 (*) 

206A. Letter dated January 26, 1949, addressed to Dr. Leo Perl- 
man, from James R. Hoffa, president, Michigan State 
Conference of Local Unions 15274 (*) 

206B. Letter dated February 2, 1949, addressed to James R. 
Hoffa, president, Michigan State Conference of Team- 
sters, from Dr. Leo Perlman, executive vice president, 
Union Casualty Co 15274 (*) 

206C. Letter dated February 23, 1949, addressed to Allen M. 

Dorfman, from Dr. Leo Perlman 15274 (*) 

206D. Letter dated March 17, 1950, addressed to Dr. Leo Perl- 
man, executive vice president, Union Casualty Co., from 
Allen M. Dorfman, State general agent, Union Insur- 
ance Agency, Inc 15275 (*) 

207A. Letter dated March 5, 1951, addressed to Michigan Con- 
ference of Teamsters welfare fund, from Ralph C. Wil- 
son, Ralph C. Wilson Associates, Inc 15277 (*) 

207B. Letter dated March 8, 1951, addressed to Ralph C. Wilson 
Associates, Inc., from James R. Hoffa, president, Michi- 
gan Conference of Teamsters 15277 (*) 

207C. Letter dated July 16, 1951, addressed to "Alfred" and 

signed "Leo" on Union Casualty Co. stationery 15277 (*) 

208. Memorandum dated October 17," 1956, to Herbert L. 

Hutner from William Smith re benefits that would be 

cut effective December 1, 1956 J 15280 (*) 

209. Letter dated July 25, 1952, addressed to Insurance De- 

partment, State of New York, attention: Mr. Sidney 
E. Gaines, from Dr. Leo Perlman, Union Casualty & 
Life Insurance Co., with attachments 15283 (*) 

210. Financial statement of Benjamin Dranow, dated January 

30, 1954, taken from records of the John W. Thomas 

Department Store 15304 (*) 

210A. Financial statement of Benjamin Dranow and Stella A. 

Dranow, as of May 23, 1957 15304 (*) 

Proceedings of — 

September 11, 1958 14943 

September 15, 1958 14995 

September 16, 1958 15041 

September 17, 1958 15119 

September 18, 1958 15207 

November 17, 1958 15295 

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



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1958 

U.S. Senate, 
Select Committee on Improper Activities 

in the Labor or Management Field, 

Washington, D. C. 

The select committee met at 11 a. m., pursuant to Senate Resolution 
221, agreed to January 29, 1958, in the caucus room, Senate Office 
Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select com- 
mittee) presiding. 

Present : Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas ; Senator 
Karl E. Mundt, Republican, 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, in- 
vestigator ; John Flanagan, investigator, GAO ; Alfred Vitarelli, in- 
vestigator, GAO ; and Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk. 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

(Members of the select committee present: Senators McClellan and 
Mundt.) 

The Chairman. Call the next witness, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Harold Gibbons, please. 

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

The Chairman. Let the record show the same counsel appears for 
Mr. Gibbons as appeared previously. 

Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Gibbons, when you were here last, we asked you 
about some checks from the Central Conference of Teamsters. In- 
cluded in that was this $1,000 check. 

The Chairman. This check has already been made on exhibit, No. 
115. The witness may refresh his memory about it. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Gibbons. What are the questions in connection with it? 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to know what the check was for. 

Mr. Gibbons. The check was sent or was used out of Detroit, given 
as an advance by this local union to a party to pay the expenses of a 
trip to California. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was the partv ? 

14943 



14944 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, I would just as soon write it down if you have 
no objection, because it happens to be a professional person not con- 
nected with the Teamsters, and 1 think we might just harm him un- 
necessarily. 

The Chairman. You may write it down, but you will be interro- 
gated about it, and the name of this professional will be made known. 

(The witness wrote the name.) 

Mr. Gibbon. I think that is the correct spelling of the name, if I 
am not mistaken. 

The Chairman. This name will be scaled and kept in a sealed enve- 
lope subject to being disclosed at any time the committee might de- 
termine it necessary to do so. 

Mr. Kennedy. I notice that he is a doctor ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What kind of a doctor '. 

Mr. Gibbons. I imagine he is a general practitioner, and I am not 
certain of any specialty. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the purpose of the trip ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, at that particular time, to the best of my knowl- 
edge, we had some heavy organizing activity going down there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Going down where ? 

Mr. Gibbons. In Florida, going on in Florida. 

Mr. Kennedy. This doctor is from Florida ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes; and it was a matter of seeking recognition, it 
was a matter of intense opposition on the part of the employers, even 
to a point where armed guards were riding trucks. 

In a discussion at that time, we were trying to establish or we felt 
it would be important, and it would be conducive to better labor re- 
lations and avoidance of strife if we could get located in Miami proper 
a branch or office of the NLRB. This person was active in the af- 
fairs of the Republican Party, and we merely asked him to go and 
consult with some officials to achieve this. He went to San Francisco, 
and I believe at that time the Republican convention was on. and he 
consulted with certain officials there. 

The Chairman. What kind of officials ( 

Mr. Gibbons. Again I would prefer to write it down, because it in- 
volves some high people. 

The Chairman. Now, if they are public officials, if contacts were 
made with public officials on public business, that is public infor- 
mation. 

Mr. Gibbons. All right. I believe he met with a member of the 
Cabinet, Secretary Mitchell, that is the report I have in an effort to 
convince them. His interest in it was as a citizen down there, a con- 
cern on his part for the community, and the avoidance of unnecessary 
industrial strife, and he agreed with us that if this were done there 
would be a good possibility that the strike situation especially in the 
case of recognition could be avoided, and recognition facilitated. 

The Chairman. Well now let us see. As I understand you, you got 
a doctor from Florida to go and confer with Secretary Mitchell; is 
that correct? 

Mr. Gibbons. That is correct. 

The Chairman. That is what the $1,000 was for? 

Mr. Gibbons. For expenses for this doctor's trip down there. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14945 

Mr. Kennedy. We have checked into the doctor and we find he is an 
osteopath. 

Mr. Gibbons. This is absolutely new to my knowledge and I under- 
stood he was a regular physician with staff appointments and every- 
thing else on hospitals down there. 

Mr. Kennedy. He might have staff appointments, but he is an 
osteopath. 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't believe if he is an osteopath he would have 
hospital appointments. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is his profession. 

Mr. Gibbons. Unless it was an osteopath hospital, but not a regular 
general hospital. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is an osteopath, and could you tell the committee 
why you would select or choose an osteopath and pay him $1,000 to 
go from Miami, Fla., to San Francisco, to confer with Secretary of 
Labor Mitchell % 

Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Kennedy, we did not choose an osteopath to go 
to San Francisco to confer with Secretary Mitchell. We chose a very 
active Republican personality in the city of Miami, quite different 
than an osteopath, and quite an honored man in his community, and 
he has a very fine standing down there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was this about the National Labor Relations 
Board \ 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why wouldn't you consult with the National Labor 
Relations Board rather than the Secretary of Labor about that 
matter ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I did consult with the NLRB about it, I sent a per- 
son, or I was instrumental in sending a person to talk with the Secre- 
tary of Labor on the assumption, this person's assumption at least, 
that the Secretary would have the kind of influence who could get 
the story at least, the story of the need for such an office told to the 
NLRB personnel, whoever was responsible for opening these offices. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you send an attorney here to confer with the 
National Labor Relations Board ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No ; because we have already had our experience with 
the NLRB. 

Mr. Kennedy. Here in Washington ? 

Mr. Gdjbons. Yes ; for 6 months I fought with them and conferred 
with them not on this issue, but on other issues, and I know their 
general attitude toward the Teamsters Union. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am trying to find out whether you had any attor- 
ney, or regular representative from the Teamsters Union consult with 
the National Labor Relations Board here in Washington, about this 
matter ? 

Mr. Gibbons. The reason we did not, and reason for it is we felt 
it would be an utterly hopeless task, and we weren't going to waste 
any money in that respect, to my knowledge, I don't believe we had 
anybody come in there. 

The Chairman. Who had jurisdiction of the subject matter? 

Mr. Gibbons. I wouldn't even know, Senator, for sure, but I im- 
agine it would be the Board. 

The Chairman. The National Labor Relations Board ? 



14946 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, and I am not certain in my own mind. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you select this man to go ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't believe I selected him, but I was one of the 
people consulted on it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who consulted with you ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I believe the person who recommended him to me and 
gave me his background and everything was Dick Kavner. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you consult with this doctor before he left ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't believe so, and I think that the fellow left 
right from Detroit, and I think we caught him in Detroit and reached 
him in Detroit, and I think he left directly from Detroit, if I am not 
mistaken. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was he doing in Detroit? 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, I don't know, and he may have been there 
visiting with President Hoffa, but I don't know. 

The Chaikman. Was it someone you knew personally ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I had met the man, Senator, and I had discussed I 
believe politics with him only at that stage, a matter of candidates. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why was this listed on the records as an advance 
to local 247? 

Mr. Gibbons. Because we told him to get it from Detroit, and 
probably President Hoffa arranged for him to get it from this local. 
We forwarded the money to reimburse the local. So it is logically 
and properly and correctly listed as repayment of an advance by that 
local union, made out to that local, and deposited in the fund of that 
local. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is not an advance ? 

Mr. Gibbons. It is a repayment, and it is marked ''repayment." It 
is a reimbursement. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is reimbursement of advance ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Given by 247. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is reimbursement of an advance by the Central 
Conference of Teamsters to local 247? 

Mr. Gibbons. No. Then somebody has made an error in connection 
with our records. It was to be listed as a repayment by central con- 
ference of an advancement made by 247. I believe that is the way you 
will find it, and otherwise it just doesn't add up or make sense.* 

Mr. Chairman, may I request again that we cease picturetaking 
while I am testifying, if you don't mind ? 

The Chairman. You gentlemen will desist from taking pictures, 
while the witness testifies. 

TESTIMONY OF CARMINE S. BELLINO 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you made an examination or somebody under 
your direction made an examination of the $1,000? 
Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 
Mr. Kennedy. What is it? 
Mr. Bellino. Could I have the check ? 
Mr. Kennedy. Here it is. 
(A document was handed to the witness.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14947 

Mr. Bellino. On the records of the Central Conference of Team- 
sters, in St. Louis, this check was recorded as a reimbursement of an 
advance. 

Now, that means in simple language that local 247 had given the 
Central Conference of Teamsters $1,000 and the Central Conference of 
Teamsters is returning that $1,000 to local 247. 

Those are the facts in this particular case. 

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

The Chairman. Let me see. This check, the records show, is a 
return 

Mr. Bellino. Of an advance. 

The Chairman. Of an advance of $1,000 that the central conference 
had received from local 247 ? 

Mr. Bellino. That is what it would mean, yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What is your explanation of it, Mr. Gibbons? 

Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Chairman, either Bellino or I do not understand 
the English language. 

The Chairman. Well, maybe both of you 

Mr. Gibbons. This is a repayment by central conference for an ad- 
vance made by this local on behalf of the central conference. We were 
the ones who sent him down there. 

The Chairman. In other words, at the time the man went out to 
California, he got his $1,000 from local 247. 

Mr. Gibbons. Correct, authorized by us. 

The Chairman. But because he went out there for you, then you, 
with this check, reimbursed the local. 

Mr. Gibbons. You are correct. 

The Chairman. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Correct. 

The Chairman. Now, do the records so reflect ? 

Air. Bellino. This is a concealment of the payment of $1,000 to this 
doctor. There is no question about that because if it was not a con- 
cealment, Mr. Gibbons would have been able to testify to this check 
the other day, especially since he had 

The Chairman. Have you checked the records of local 247 ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Is there any record there of any advance ? 

Mr. Bellino. No, sir, no advance, nor is there a record of the re- 
ceipt of this check on the books of local 247. 

The Chairman. You have checked the records both ways ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And there is no record of an advance in the first 
place in 247 ? 

Air. Bellino. That is correct, there is no record of any check from 
local 247. 

The Chairman. Is there any record of the check to this doctor ? 

Mr. Bellino. There is a record of their check to this doctor, but 
there is no record of the receipt of this check, even though it is en- 
dorsed "Deposit in the account of local 247." 

The Chairman. There is a record in 247 of the advance to the 
doctor ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 



14948 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. All right. Local 247 did advance the doctor 
$1 000 2 

Mr. Bellino. Local 247 paid $1,000 to the doctor. 

The Chairman. Did they mark it m advance ? 

Mr. Bellino. No, sir. They marked it exchange. 

The Chairman. They marked it exchange ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What did that indicate? _ 

Mr. Bellino. That means they had exchanged $1,000 with the doc- 
tor, that the doctor or someone had given them $1,000 and they ex- 
changed it. Thev did not disclose from whom. 

The Chairman. From the records of 247, though, was this check 
ever entered as being a reimbursement ? 

Mr. Bellino. From the records of 247 there is no entry reflecting 
that this check was the one that was exchanged with the check from 
Dr. Carney. 

The Chairman. Well, even if they marked it exchange at the time, 
what I am trying to clear up is whether there is any record that this 
money was ever paid back to that union. 

Mr. Bellino. No, sir, not on the books of local 247. 

The Chairman. What was the date of the record of local 247 is- 
suing the check for the $1,000 ? Give us that. 

Mr. Bellino. That was on August 15, 1956, at which time the local 
issued their check to this doctor. 

The Chairman. Is that the check they issued to the doctor ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Does it bear the doctor's name ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That check may be placed in the envelope with 
the doctor's name as the same exhibit. Now let me ask you : What is 
the date of this $1,000 check from the Central Conference of Team- 
sters ? 

Mr. Bellino. August 15, 1956. 

The Chairman. Could it be that they simply took this check there 
and got the local to issue a check and that the records of 247 would be 
correct, that it was simply an exchange ? 

Mr. Bellino. It would be correct if it were an exchange. However, 
the Central Conference of Teamsters reflect it as a return of an ad- 
vance which local 247 never had advanced. 

The Chairman. That would be kind of technical. But what ac- 
tually happened was they simply took a check and gave it to 247 on 
the same date and got 247 to issue the check to the doctor. That is 
what it amounts to ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. In other words, it seems to me instead of the Cen- 
tral Conference just issuing a check to the doctor, local 247 issued a 
check to him, and they issued a check to local 247. 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That is what it amounts to. 
Senator Mundt. Why did you do it that way, Senator ? 
Mr. Gibbons. I believe, Senator, this gentleman was in Detroit and 
I was in St. Louis. 

Senator Mundt. Is 247 in Detroit? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14949 

Mr. Gibbons. It is in Detroit, yes. 

Senator Mundt. I see. 

Mr. Gibbons. I believe what happened is probably he wanted to 
grab a plane right away. I understand he did not even pack a bag. 
He wanted to get the money and get going. There is probably a 
difference of a clay or 2 days in between those checks. But so that the 
record is clear, Mr. Kennedy, there was no effort at concealment. It 
is very disturbing to find on the part of the staff these obvious at- 
tempts to distort perfectly legitimate transactions. It is terribly 
disturbing. 

The Chairman. Wait a minute, now. We are trying to clear it up. 
We have run into all kinds of erroneous and false records in the course 
of our investigation. When we run into these things, we are going to 
clear them up, if we can. That is why you are here, to give explana- 
tion, if you can. If you want to put it on that basis, there has cer- 
tainly been enough revealed already to cause anybody to be sus- 
picious. Where was this check cashed ? 

Mr. Bellino. This check was cashed — well, it was actually cashed — 
I can tell you who cashed it for him, Senator. 

The Chairman. Do you know who cashed the check ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes. 

The Chairman. Who? 

Mr. Bellino. Tom Burke of Detroit who cashed the check, at a 
fish store owned by Victor Ventimiglia in Detroit. 

The Chairman"! It indicates that the doctor was in Detroit at that 
time ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the doctor see the Secretary of Labor ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I believe he did, if I am not mistaken. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it straightened out for Miami ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Xo, there is still no NLRB office in Miami, to my 
knowledge. 

The Chairman. Whom did the doctor report to when he got back? 

Mr. Gibbons. I believe he reported to Dick Kavner, if I am not mis- 
taken. It could have been Tom Burke. 

The Chairman. Did this happen at the same time Tom Burke was 
down there in Florida on a big expense account and so forth ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I believe it did. 

The Chairman. All right, 

Mr. Kennedy. If you made an examination, Mr. Gibbons, of the 
records of the Central Conference of Teamsters and looked at their 
records, made an examination of the records, you would never know 
about this transaction with Dr. Carney, with the doctor. 

Mr. Gibbons. I did not say I reconstructed my story on the basis of 
an examination. 

Mr. Kennedy. No, I am saying that anybody looking at the records 
would not know about this transaction. 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, I can appreciate that. It is possible. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then there is this other check of $3,000. 

The Chairman. I hand you another check which has been made 
exhibit 114 in the amount of $3,000 and ask you to examine that and 
see if it refreshes vour memory. 



14950 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Maybe you better look at both of these checks. 

The Chairman. Also, I will hand you another check for $3,000, 
which has been made exhibit 113. You might examine both of them 
together and refresh your memory. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Kennedy, have you got some specific questions 
on those checks ? 

The Chairman. I just wanted you to see them so you would know 
what you are going to testify on. All right, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. The first check of August 12, 1955, in the sum of 
$3,000, is made payable to the order of Ducker & Feldman. Could 
you tell us about that, what that was for? 

Mr. Gibbons. That was probably a check for $3,000 for legal serv- 
ices, either performed or to be performed. 

Mr. Kennedy. What were the legal services to be performed? 

Mr. Gibbons. I have not been able to check as I would like to on 
that transaction. We are currently waiting for a copy of an affidavit 
which he has filed with your committee. My attorney contacted him 
to get the facts on this as he knows thern, in an effort to refresh my 
memory. As of now, we have not been able to get that document, Mr. 
Kennedy. That may help. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then there is a second check. I understand this 
first $3,000 was returned to the treasury. 

Mr. Gibbons. That is what I understand from previous discussions 
with this committee; that this is merely an exchange, again, of checks ; 
that the check was initially made out wrong and returned. 

Mr. Kennedy. No. 

I understand that the check was issued and then there was no law 
business forthcoming, and a request was made that the money be 
returned. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the second check of August 15, 1955 ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Based on that exchange of checks, I would just as- 
sume that in making out the check we had made it out to a firm in- 
stead of to the individual member, and for that reason the guy wanted 
it changed. 

The Chairman. You say you have not received a copy of the affi- 
davit that the lawyer supplied the committee ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Gibbons. As of this morning when we checked our attorney's 
office, he was not in receipt of it, Senator. 

The Chairman. I have here the affidavit. 

It may be made exhibit No. 161. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 161" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. I will read the pertinent part of it. 

It may be printed in the record in full. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14951 

(The document referred to follows :) 

U.S. Courthouse, 
Foley Square, New York, N. Y. 
State of New York, 
County of New York, ss: 

Samuel Feldman, being duly sworn, deposes and says : 

I, Samuel Feldman, furnish the following statement to Walter R. May and 
John P. Constandy, who have identified themselves to me as staff members of 
the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Man- 
agement Field. 

I make this statement freely and voluntarily. No threats or promises have 
been made to me, and I realize that this statement may be used at public hear- 
ing before the committee. 

I reside at Old Yorktown Road, Yorktown Heights, N.Y., and I am an attorney 
associated with a law firm located in New York City. 

I have known Nate Stein, who resides in Beverly Hills, Calif., and who is self- 
employed in the public relations field, for over 35 years. 

About early August 1955, at LaGuardia Airport in New York City, Nate Stein 
introduced me to Harold Gibbons, an official of the Teamsters' Union. At that 
time the possibility of my law firm receiving some business through the Team- 
sters' Union was discussed and, upon my request, Mr. Gibbons agreed to for- 
ward $3,000 to the law firm as a retainer in advance of doing any work for the 
teamsters. 

Thereafter, my law firm received a check made out to the firm dated August 
12, 1955, in the amount of $3,000 from the Central States Conference of Team- 
sters as a retainer, which check was deposited in the law firm's escrow account 
which is called special account No. 2, in the Manufacturers Trust Co., New 
York City. It was intended that the money remain in the escrow account until 
such time as the law firm actually performed some work for the Teamsters' 
Union. 

Approximately 2 or 3 weeks thereafter, I received word from Mr. Gibbons 
telling me that the Teamsters' Union was not going to use our law firm and 
asking that the $3,000 be returned. Pursuant to his request, the law firm re- 
turned the $3,000 by check dated September 16, 1955, made payable to the Cen- 
tral States Conference of Teamsters. 

With the exception of the situation I have just described, neither I nor the 
law firm with which I am associated have ever performed any work or services 
for any local union, joint council, conference, organization, or official affiliated 
with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. 

I have read this 2-page statement. It is true and correct. 

/s/ Samuel Feldman. 

Sworn to before me this 24th day of July 1958. 

John J. Oleae, Jr., 
Notary Public for the State of New York, No. J f l-2952//00. 

Qualified in Queens County. Certificate filed in New York County. Term 
expires March 30, 1959. 
Witnesses : 

/s/ Walter R. May. 
/s/ John P. Constandy. 

The Chairman. You may refer to that affidavit, and you may ex- 
amine that affidavit if you care to. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Previant. I wonder if we might look at the two checks again, 
the exhibits, please? 

The Chairman. Yes, sir. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Gibbons. Does the staff have a record of when the $3,000 was 
returned, or deposited by the Central Conference, or redeposited ? 

21243— 59— pt. 40 2 



14952 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EN THE LABOR FIELD 

The. Chairman. No, but he saws in his affidavit that he did send you 
the check, and I don't know, I think the records show that the money 
was ret urned, that first $3,000 check. 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. There is no question about the money being re- 
turned, or the proceeds of the check being returned? 

Mr. Gibbons. The only explanation I have at the present time, 
Senator, is that upon return of the initial check we immediately, 3 
days later, issued a new check to the individual member of the firm. 

The Chairman. Now, it couldn't be that way, because he says in 
his affidavit it was in September when they returned the first $3,000. 
Isn't that what his affidavit says ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. 

The Chairman. So two checks were out ? 

Mr. Gibbons. He must have by telephone have called me and asked 
me to correct the check, the party I made it out to, because I immedi- 
ately sent him a check for $3,000 some 3 clays after I made out the 
first one, 

The Chairman. All right. Now then, you think that he said he 
didn't want it made out to the firm, although he said in his affidavit 
that he asked you to send it to the firm. You say he decided he didn't 
want it in the firm's name but as an individual check? 

Mr. Gibbons. That is the way I would reconstruct it at the moment. 

The Chairman. Now let us go a little further. If he is correct in 
his affidavit, there are two significant things. The first is they never 
did any work for you. 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And the second is that you called him and told him 
that you weren't going to have him do any work and to return the 
check, or return the money, which lie did. Now then in the meantime, 
if his statement is correct, there was another check outstanding, the 
second one there, for $3,000. 

What is your explanation of that ? 

Mr. Gibbons. The only explanation I have on this total transac- 
tion, Senator, is the case of sending a firm a retainer evidently, and 
probably based on the dates a telephone call asked me to change the 
way the check is made out and send him a new check, and I can re- 
construct the thing now as to exactly what happened. 

I have no knowledge at the moment of ever having called him or 
told him he wasn't going to do any work for us, No. 1, and so this is 
where it has to sit until such time as I can check it further. 

The Chairman. Were you not in New York at that time, with Nate 
Stein and staying together with him in the hotel there ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I wouldn't be able to testify to that with certainty as 
to now. 

The Chairman. You have been up there in New York and stayed 
at the same hotel ? 
Mr. Gibbons. Yes, I have. 

The Chairman. In the same suite with Mr. Stein, haven't you ? 
Mr. Gibbons. That is right. 

The Chairman. All right now, do you know what became of the 
proceeds of that second check? 

Mr. Gibbons. I only know what he has already informed my at- 
torney. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14953 

The Chairman. What did he inform your attorney \ 

Mr. Gibbons. That he broke that check up in a series of fashions 
and turned the thing over to Mr. Stein, I believe. 

The Chairman. Yes, sir. What reason was there for giving this 
money to Mr. Stein ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I understand that he claims that it was to be returned 
to us. 

The Chairman. Did you ever get it back? 

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

The Chairman. Did you try to get it back ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I have to confess I wasn't aware of the fact we sent 
$3,000 without any work having been performed, Senator. 

The Chairman. I think the hotel records reflect this, and we can put 
that in evidence, that you were in New York staying with Mr. Stein 
at the time this transaction was made on this second check, and maybe 
during the time of the first also, but on the second at least. Here are 
his checks ; I will let you see them. 

I am presenting you three checks of this same lawyer dated the 
same day of the second $3,000 check, August 15, 1955, one made to the 
L. L. Israel Airlines for $884.90, and another made to Nate Stein in 
the amount of $1,615.10, and another one made to cash in the amount 
of $500 2 days later, and cashed by him. 

Now, I don't know who got that money. But here are the two that 
I have referred to, made out one to the airlines and one to Nate Stein. 
These three checks total the $3,000 covering the check of $3,000 that 
you had given him. 

(Documents were handed to the witness.) 

The Chairman. Now, have you any explanation of why this second 
check was given, the $3,000 ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, sir, excepting that as I reconstruct it or can 
judge it from the basis of the checks which I have examined, there 
was a case of sending in a check, being asked to change the person to 
whom the check was made out, and this is what I did, as far as I can 
reconstruct as of now. 

The Chairman. Let me give you another suggestion, and let me 
have the first check, the first $3,000 check. The two checks I have pre- 
sented to the witness from Mr. Feldman, the one for $884.90 to the 
airline, and the one for $1,650.10 to Mr. Stein, together with this 
check, which I now present to you, made out to cash, endorsed by Mr. 
Feldman, the three checks making a total of $3,000, together with the 
check stub of the last check for $500 of August 17, which check stub 
says, "Cash for Nate Stein," all of those four documents, the three 
checks and the check stub, may be made exhibit 162, A, B, C, and D. 

(Documents referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 162, A, B, C, 
and D," for reference and will be found in the appendix on pp. 
15313-15316.) 

The Chairman. You may examine them before I interrogate you 
further if you care to. 

Mr. Gibbons. Thank you. 

(The documents were'handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Gibbons. I have examined them, Senator. 

The Chairman. Now, I will ask you if it is not true that the reason 
the first check of $3,000 was returned is that the other member of the 
law firm, Mr. Ducker, refused to be a party to this transaction. 



14954 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Therefore the first $3,000 check was returned, and since Mr. Feldman 
would accommodate you, you made out a second check for $3,000 just 
to him alone? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't know what motivated them, Senator, but to 
my knowledge this is not true. 

The Chairman. Isn't it a fact that Mr. Stein was staying with you 
there at that time, and that the whole purpose of this transaction was 
to channel out $3,000 to Nate Stein so he could go overseas and didn't 
he immediately buy a ticket and go overseas with this very check here 
that was made payable for that purpose? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't know what the purposes of this total trans- 
action were, Senator. But it was not done with my knowledge, con- 
sent or agreement. 

The Chairman. Well now he testifies there that the arrangements 
were made with you to get $3,000. 

Mr. Gibbons. No, I didn't read it in his testimony, but even if he 
testified to that effect 10 times 

The Chairman. Here is what the lawyer says : 

About early 1955, at LaGuardia Airport in New York City, Nate Stein intro- 
duced me to Harold Gibbons an official of the Teamsters' Union. At that time 
the possibility of my law firm receiving some business through the Teamsters' 
Union was discussed and upon my request Mr. Gibbons agreed to forward $3,000 
to the law firm as a retainer in advance of my doing any work for the 
Teamsters. 

Mr. Gibbons. I believe that was done. 

The Chairman. All right, the agreement was made with you \ 

Mr. Gibbons. That is right, for work. 

The Chairman. In other words, you were authorizing the trans- 
action, whatever it was ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Oh, no. I did not authorize any transaction. 

The Chairman. You authorized the checks? 

Mr. Gibbons. I authorized, and let us separate transactions, Sen- 
ator, and we are not talking about one. We are talking about several. 

The Chairman. We are not talking about several. I am talking 
about the transaction you had with this lawyer in which you first gave 
him a check made out to the law firm for $3,000. That money was 
returned, and then you got another check to him individually for 
$3,000, and on the same date the money went to Nate Stein. It is all 
one transaction. 

Mr. Gibbons. Oh, no. Somewhere along the line you lose me, Sen- 
ator. Somewhere along the line you lose me. 

The Chairman. Somewhere along the line the union lost $3,000. 

Mr. Gibbons. And I can assure you if this be the case, the union will 
get back the $3,000, or somebody is going to be sued for it. Now let 
me say 

The Chairman. Somebody certainly should. 

Mr. Gibbons. Now let me say one thing, Senator, in mitigation of 
the fact that I may have failed to process properly or follow-through 
properly on the payment of a $3,000 lawyer's fee. 

I authorize by my signature some $6 million a year, No. 1, and No. 
2, I hire dozens and dozens of lawyers and we spend hundreds and 
hundreds of thousands of dollars in lawyers' fees. Somewhere down 
the line in the course of my many activities a $3,000 payment got lost, 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14955 

that is possible, and I regret it and I will take all steps necessary to 
see to it that the union is reimbursed for it. 

The Chairman. Didn't you know that Stein was to get this money ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I certainly did not know that Mr. Stein was to get 
it, Senator. 

The Chairman. He put over a fast one on you, didn't he ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, I am not prepared to testify that he did, but I 
am saying to you that whatever happened beyond my engaging the 
service of a firm on a retainer basis for work done, I know nothing 
about it. 

The Chairman. How did you happen to engage this lawyer in the 
first place ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, I will tell you, we have one little note here, and 
I don't know exactly why we did it, but it would only be on the basis 
of Mr. Stein recommending him to us. And secondly we do have or 
we did have some work around that time, if I am not mistaken. 

The Chairman. Is it true that you called the lawyer and told him 
that you did not have any work for him to do, as he says ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't recall any such thing, because if I did I would 
have demanded my money back, and I certainly would not have sent 
out a $3,000 check payable to a man who has just told me, whom I 
have supposed to have just told that I did not have any work for him 
to do. 

The Chairman. Well, he says : 

Approximately 2 or 3 weeks thereafter, I received word from Mr. Gibbons 
telling me that the Teamsters' Union was not going to use our law firm and 
asking that the .$3,000 be returned. 

He says you are the one who called about it and said you weren't 
going to use him. 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, that automatically, I would suggest, Senator, 
precludes the possibility of him returning his check on the basis of 
this 3 weeks' period. 

The Chairman. He returned the first check on that basis. 

Mr. Gibbons. And 3 days later I sent him the other, and not 2 weeks 
or 3 weeks. 

The Chairman. Three days later you sent him the other one, yes ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Evidently because I had made out the first check 
wrong, and now in 3 weeks later he tells me that I told him I didn't 
have any work for him to do, why didn't he send me back my $3,000. 

The Chairman. Why did you give him two checks, then ? 

Mr. Gibbons. What is that ? 

The Chairman. For $3,000 each. One was 3 days after the other. 

Mr. Gibbons. Because apparently he telephoned me and said the 
check is made out wrong, and, "This is made out to the firm, and I am 
the one that you retained and I am the one who wants to do the work," 
and I changed it. 

There are all kinds of arrangements lawyers have, Senator, in rela- 
tionship to acceptance of their fees. 

The Chairman. There are some arrangements here that certainly 
need some explanation. 

Senator Mundt. I haven't seen the affidavit, but in the affidavit or 
subsequent testimony, has Mr. Feldman himself given any reason as 
to why he gave this money to Nate Stein ? 



14956 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Mr. Feldman has made a statement, but we do not 
have it under oath, as of yet. 

We found oul some of this since we had the original affidavit. 

Senator Mundt. Did .you know that Mr. Stein went to Israel at 
Teamsters' expense I 

Mr. Gibbons. No. 

Senator Mundt. You know he went \ 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. You don't know that you paid the freight? 

Mr. Gibbons. That is right. As a matter of fact, let me add this 
one thought which my attorney who contacted Mr. Feldman advises 
me now. In his telephone conversation with Mr. Feldman, Mr. Feld- 
man told him on the telephone that Mr. Gibbons had no knowledge of 
Mr. Stein getting this money. 

Xow. this is as of a few days ago. 

The Chairman. Now, let us see on that point. You had no knowl- 
edge, you say, of him getting the money. You knew you were out 
$3,000? 

Mr. Gibbons. No; I was not aware of the fact I was out $3,000, 
Senator. 

The Chairman. You had signed two checks for $3,000 each? 

Mr. Gibbons. One of them was returned, and the second was for 
exactly the same purpose as the first one. to retain him either for Avork 
done or for work to be done at this stage. 

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

The Chairman. Well, then, you have this lawyer saying you called 
him and told him you were not going to have him do any work. 

Mr. Gibbons. Senator, this is his testimony. I can't remember any 
such conversations with him, because had I had that conversation I 
would have expected the return of the $3,000 also, the second $3,000, 
which is now 3 weeks later. 

The Chairman. Have you ever seen this lawyer since? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't believe I have. 

The Chairman. Have you ever communicated with him since? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't believe I have, but I can't recollect any oc- 
casion that I did. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. I might just say that the records show that you 
were in the Shamrock Hotel, at Houston, Tex., on the 12th, 13th, and 
14th of August, 1955. Then you arrived in New York City and stayed 
at the Vanderbilt Hotel on August 15, the date of this check. You 
were there with Mr. Nate Stein. You stayed there on August 15 and 
August 16. with Mr. Nate Stein, at the hotel, and the union paid the 
bill. 

Mr. Gibbons. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was Room 1826. 

Mr. Gibbons. That was authorized and that was in order. 

The Chairman. What is this lawyer's real name? Is it Feldman or 
Seldman ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Judging from the indorsement, Senator, it is Feld- 
man. 

The Chairman. Although the check Avas made in the name of 
Seldman. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14957 

Mr. Gibbons. Apparently it is a clerical error on the part of one of 
our girls typing it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Gibbons, you were the trustee of local 245 ? 

Mr. Gibbons. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was put in trusteeship at what time, 1954? 

Mr. Gibbons. I believe it was in trusteeship twice, if I am not mis- 
taken, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mi-. Kennedy. 1 believe it Avas placed in trusteeship in 1954. 

Mr. Gibbons. Probably you are right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were made trustee at that time? 

Mr. Gibbons. To the best of my recollection I was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was a Mr. E. J. Barrett designated, amongst others, 
to work for the local ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I believe so. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he designated by you ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I believe so. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is local 245 in Springfield, Mo. Mr. Barrett, 
according to the Teamsters' records, had been removed for incompe- 
tency and mishandling of union funds, particularly the indebtedness 
of $25,000 and the dissipation of moneys collected for death assess- 
ments and contributions to the Boys' Club, and for having failed to 
pay per capita tax. withholding, and social security taxes. He had 
been removed by the Intel-national some 3 or 4 years prior to that time. 

Mr. Gibbons.' Prior to 1954? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes; 1950, I believe. He had been removed from 
the local for those reasons. The local had been placed in trusteeship 
at that time. Can you tell the committee why you designated this 
individual back in to help run the affairs of the local ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes: I will be very happy to tell the committee. I 
have checked this for the details. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Go ahead. 

Mr. Gibbons. He was removed for roughly the reasons you stated. 
He went to Joplin. He worked on a truck for 7 years. At all times 
in connection with his work in the union he was a very popular figure 
with the membership. He is a very nice person, a nice old man. He 
worked for 7 years on a truck, and came back and asked us at another 
point whether or not we would give him another chance to operate the 
local. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was removed in 1950. 

Mr. Gibbons. I think he spent 7 years — well, it was 5 years prob- 
ably. 

Mr. Kennedy. No; he was designated as the officer, or designated 
as one of those handling the locals' affairs in 1954. He could not have 
worked for 7 years in Joplin, Mo. 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, whatever it was. In the period in which he 
was removed as the secretary-treasurer of that local to the time he was 
put back — I thought it was 7, maybe 4 or 5 years — he worked on a 
truck out of Joplin. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Gibbons, does not the union have a right to 
better representation than to bring somebody who had this very bad 
record back in to run the affairs of the local ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Kennedy, the union is entitled to the very finest 
representation possible. There is, however, as in the entire world of 



14958 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

business, polii lcs, and every other human endeavor, difficulty in obtain- 
ing adequate leadership. 

This is a continuing, running problem that everyone in an organi- 
zation in business and politics faces. We don't have a wealth of ma- 
teria] available for this. This man had one thing to recommend him. 
He had an ability to work with people, an ability to get along with 
people, he had a background and experience of operating a local 
union. He had spent 4 years on the truck, and he came back and 
told me that he thought he could do the job, that he had learned his 
mistakes, and he was prepared to run that local union properly. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wouldn't there be other individuals in the hall of 
this local 245 who had not been found responsible for such mishan- 
dling and misappropriation of funds, or even in the Teamsters' Union 
in that area who had not been responsible for the misappropriation 
of funds, that could have been better designated to run the affairs of 
this local ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't believe there is any evidence that Barrett 
ever misappropriated any funds. 

Mr. Kennedy. Misused funds, incompetency, mishandling funds? 

Mr. Gibbons. That is a lot different than misappropriating. 

Mr. Kennedy. And indebtedness of $25,000 and dissipation of 
moneys collected for death assessments, contributions to the Boys' 
Club, and having failed to pay per capita taxes, withholding and 
security taxes? 

Mr. Gebbons. Just break those charges down for a moment, if we 
want to reason this out and get to the truth. 

Mr. Kennedy. These were the charges that were made 

Mr. Gibbons. Right. Let's reason them out but let's not just slander 
a person. In the first place, you took back already the matter of mis- 
appropriating funds. Now, let's take the question of failure to pay 
these taxes. It is an administrative oversight and it is 1,000 to 1 he 
never performed that task, that some little girl in his office had that 
responsibility. Now, in terms of the mishandling of funds and dis- 
sipation of funds, the only thing that happened in those instances 
was that the man overspent. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am reading this from the report. You removed 
him, placed the local in trusteeship. If there is any slandering being 
done to this individual, it is the international. 

Mr. Gibbons. But not for the reasons you set forth. We removed 
him because of his inability to properly conduct the affairs of that 
union. It had to do mostly 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Gibbons, I read the charges against him. All 
I say is in view of that kind of a record, wasn't there a better indi- 
vidual in the State of Missouri or in the International Brotherhood 
of Teamsters that could have come in and been placed over this local 
rather than Mr. Barrett? 

Mr. Gibbons. In the first place, you have to draw your leadership 
from that area. It is very difficult to get anyone to go down into that 
particular community, isolated as it is, relatively small as it is, as 
far as importing leadership. 

Secondly, imported leadership isn't too welcome. We have to use 
it at times because of our inability to get adequate leadership, but 
we try to avoid it. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14959 

Third, this man was being placed back in charge of the union under 
a trusteeship, where the assumption was he would be much closer 
supervised. Those are all the things, the reasons, why we replaced 
him. In retrospect, I will join with you and say maybe it was not 
the best decision. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Mr. Branch Wainwright? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, I know Mr. Branch Wainwright. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he placed in any position of authority in that 
local ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I believe Mr. Branch Wainwright worked on our 
organizing campaign and did an effective job in the Missouri-Kansas 
organizing campaign. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not answer the question. 

Mr. Gibbons. This is part of it. I will be happy to say u yes," he 
was put in a position and then explain to you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know when he was placed in the position 
that he had an extensive criminal record ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Would it be all right if I explained to you in connec- 
tion with my placing him there, Mr. Kennedy, in connection with 
your first question, before we go on to a second ? 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Gibbons. He was placed in there because we had an experience 
with Mr. Branch Wainwright as an organizer on the Missouri-Kansas 
Conference of Teamsters. He had demonstrated effectiveness in terms 
of being an organizer, he had demonstrated leadership ability, and 
when we needed staff for that local union, he was one of the people 
we put on. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know at the time you placed him in that 
position of authority that he was an individual with an extensive 
criminal record, including 13 arrests and 3 convictions ? 

Mr. Gibbons. At that time I had no knowledge, as I recollect it, of 
any criminal record on the part of this person. I have since found 
that out, and I have had an extensive investigation on it. I have had 
the man called in. He has been grilled by our attorney. His record 
has been checked. We visited Illinois. We found out among other 
things this extensive record you speak of consists of once as a young 
boy along with some other kids stealing a radio out of a YMCA, and, 
secondly, a charge and a conviction of armed robbery, for which the 
man spent 2 years in jail and paid his debt, 

This is all the criminal record that we can find on this person. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is burglary and larceny in 1948. 

Mr. Gibbons. Was he convicted of this ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Gibbons. Burglary and larceny ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Burglary and larceny. 

Mr. Gibbons. Where at, Mr. Kennedy, and where did you get this 
record ? 

Mr. Kennedy. November 16, 1948. 

Mr. Gibbons. "Where? 

Mr. Kennedy. Jefferson City, Mo. The State Highway Patrol, No. 
F-3922. 

Mr. Gibbons. We don't know of any such record, any such convic- 
tion on the part of this man's record. 



14960 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. When was the armed robbery conviction that he got 
2 years for? 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, I think it was around 1950, if I am not mis- 
taken, and he served time in the penitentiary on that. 

Mr. K i. \ n edt. That was in 1950 ? 

Mr. Gibbons. 1949, 1 think ; wasn't it \ 

Mr. Kennedy. 11-6-50. When did he get the job with the Mis- 
souri-Kansas Conference ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't know. But, in any event, when we hired 
those people, they were brought 

Mr. Kennedy. Let's try to answer that. 

Mr. Gibbons. I answered it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't have any idea ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I am now making a comment. You asked me what 
date he was put on. I don't know the date, but I will tell you roughly 
when it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. All right. 

Mr. Gibbons. I suspect it was around 1952, if I am not mistaken. 
I believe the campaign ran for 2 years, and in 1954, I think, he went 
on with the local union. But in those days we recruited our staff for 
that organizing campaign from the St. Louis Joint Council recom- 
mendations and from the Kansas City Joint Council. 

Upon receipt of these applications, they were immediately for- 
warded to the international office where they were passed upon for 
appointment. One of them was found not in order and that person 
was brought in there and examined by President Beck. That was the 
only one that was challenged in those days. And he went on the 
payroll. 

From that experience that I had with him for about 2 years, I had 
confidence in the man and I placed him on the payroll of the local 
union. I did it with the knowledge that at that — at that time no 
knowledge of the thing, but since then I found it and I have not 
removed him because I am convinced that a record in and of itself, 
standing alone, does not necessarily prevent a person's right to 
function. 

I believe this is your own philosophy and the philosophy of this 
committee. 

Mr. Kennedy. But not when somebody appears before a congres- 
sional committee and is asked to give information regarding his con- 
duct of his affairs, and refuses to do so on the grounds that an answer 
might tend to incriminate him. 

Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Kennedy, you and I have a disagreement on that. 
I believe in the right of a citizen to take the fifth if his conscience so 
dictates. I would like to preserve that for him. 

The Chairman. You may believe in the right, but do you mean that 
you will employ people to run your personal affairs or the affairs of 
the union who, when interrogated about the conduct of those affairs, 
his responsibilities, and his position of trust in connection with them, 
takes the fifth amendment? Would you continue to employ him? 

Mr. Gibbons. When I interrogate him, Senator, which I propose 
to do in connection with every question asked him, I don't expect he 
will take the fifth and I expect an answer from him. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14961 

The Chairman. In the event he does, are you going to keep him? 

Mr. Gibbons. If he can't explain to me any charges leveled by this 
committee, he is not going to be working for me. 

The Chairman. What is the difference? 

Senator Mundt. There is quite a difference, it seems to me, when a 
man is asked a question in front of a congressional committee, and 
tells a falsehood, he can go to jail for perjury. When you ask him a 
question and he tells a falsehood, you have to catch him at it. That 
is the difference. There is a lot of difference between a man conceal- 
ing his use of union authority and union funds before a congressional 
committee, and concealing it before you, private citizen A versus 
private citizen B. 

It seems to me that if you are going to engage in the employment 
of people who handle union affairs so unscrupulously that they have 
to conceal their use of their authority before a congressional commit- 
tee by the fifth amendment, that should cause you considerable con- 
cern, and you should be able to find better leadership than that. 

Mr. Gibbons. I view it from two other points of view, Senator. 
No. 1, his right to take the fifth amendment here, refuse to testify 
against himself, be a witness against himself, is a basic constitutional 
right of every American citizen. I have no authority, no right, nor 
any desire, to deprive any American citizen of this right. It happens 
every day in America in every courtroom, where a criminal trial goes 
on day in and day out, thousands of people in the last 150 years have 
taken the fifth, and nobody has paid any attention to it. I am certain 
there is not a bar association in this country that would deny a man's 
right in a criminal trial the right to do that. 

He is up here now exercising that same basic right. I have no 
right to do it and I have no desire to do it. 

However, when it comes to my calling in an employee of mine, 
where people have raised serious questions about his handling of 
union affairs, he has no constitutional right at that point. At that 
point, he will either answer to my satisfaction or he will be removed. 

Now, as far as him being 

Senator Mundt. But have you any authority ? He can lie to you 
by the clock. 

Mr. Gibbons. Now let's go to that point. That is what I am getting 
to. Now, as to whether or not he might get caught if he testifies up 
here or he may not get caught if he testifies before me, rather than 
take away any legal rights of any person I am associated with, or who 
is beholden to me in any fashion, I would much rather that 10 people 
who are guilty go free than that 1 person suffer. 

This, I think, is in the best tradition of American justice, Senator. 

Senator Mundt. Here is the difficulty. That is probably all right 
as far as you are concerned, because you don't get hurt. But all the 
members of the Teamsters who pay their dues, and who have to pay 
higher dues than they otherwise would have to pay because crooks 
are walking off with their money, what do you think about those 
innocent people? Have they any rights? 

Mr. Gibbons. This isn't so that I don't get hurt. I am a responsible 
officer of the trade union movement and I take my duties very se- 
riously, Senator. I am as much concerned about the welfare of our 
people, the operation of their unions, their funds, and the trust that 



14962 IMPROPKR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

they place in their officers as any member of our union. I get hurt 
when the trade union movement is besmirched in any way, shape or 
form. 

Senator Mundt. You may get embarassed, but they get hurt finan- 
cially, because they would have to pay dues higher than they would 
otherwise have to pay. 

Mr. Gibbons. I pay my dues as well as anybody else. I have as 
much a financial equity in this organization as any rank-and-file mem- 
ber has. 

Senator Mundt. I would assume, Mr. Gibbons, that your salary is 
such that you can atford to pay your dues more easily than a fellow r 
working on a truck. 

Mr. Gibbons. That happens to be as of recent date. But up to the 
time I was 43 years of age I never made more than $125 in my life, 
and I had every title that I have now, except one. Every man on my 
staff got exactly the same salary. I don't want to make any self- 
serving statements here, but you have raised the question. 

Senator Mundt. Indeed I raise the question, because this is one of 
the serious problems. 

Mr. Gibbons. I'm concerned about it, and I think as a Senator you 
should be concerned about it. I have no quarrel over your concern 
about it, Senator. 

Senator Mundt. We have to find some way to protect the rights 
of rank-and-file union members against unscrupulous acts. 

Mr. Gibbons. This I join you in heartily. 

Senator Mundt. If you are going to be a high official of the union 
and if you are going to hire people who handle the finances and such 
of the local union in such a fashion that in order to protect themselves 
they have to take the fifth amendment, which they have a constitu- 
tional right to do, then I think you should give more concern to the 
interests of the rank-and-file members, than this particular fellow 
who takes recourse in the fifth amendment to protect himself against 
perjury or against disclosing the fact that he has gone south with 
the money and the dues. 

Mr. Gibbons. Actually, one of the problems in the fifth, and I am 
sure you are well aware of this, Senator, is that while he may be very 
free to talk about certain aspects of his work or all the aspects of his 
work, once he opens the door by answering one question, he might 
very well lose the privilege. This is a very difficult problem when it 
faces any one here. I doubt whether there is a lawyer in America 
that can say to you that you can answer honestly any question 3^011 
want to but stay away from certain other areas and you can get 
away with it. 

I don't believe he can do that. The things he may want to dis- 
cuss may not have anything to do with the question of safeguarding 
of union funds. It is not a simple problem. This is the difficulty 
of the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, I have further questions. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was another conviction, if you want to know 
about it. Mr. Wainwright was convicted of burglary in 1934 and 
of burglary and larceny in 1948. He was convicted of assault with 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14963 

intent to harm in 1949. He was convicted of the one that you just 
mentioned, assault with intent to rob, in 1950. That was the one 
that he received the 2 years for. 

Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Kennedy, I would appreciate it if I might have 
a copy of that, if the committee would provide me with a copy of it, 
because I certainly intend to pursue this subject much further. 

The Chairman. Very well. 

Senator Mundt. Would it be a reasonable suggestion that our pro- 
viding you with this information, that you would then provide us 
what action, if any, you take against Mr. Wainwright ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I certainly will submit to the committee a report 
on my investigations and what actions I determine to take, and what 
the reasons for them were, in fact. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he tell you that he had only two convictions, 
Mr. Gibbons? 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, actually, I asked my attorney, and he is in a 
much better position, but I believe in the discussions I had with my 
attorney, the only convictions we were aware of w r ere simply two of 
them. 

One was — incidentally, the one up in Waukegan was a petty lar- 
ceny, a misdemeanor. It was not burglary or anything of that sort. 
Either we wrote up there to get this information 

Mr. Kennedy. That is 1934. 

Mr. Gibbons. Or we called — yes, as a child, a younger fellow. 

Mr. Kennedy. But he has had a long record since then, Mr. Gibbons. 

Mr. Gibbons. I can only say to you, and this is no passing the 
buck or anything like it. It so happens in those days our personnel 
in that organizing drive were approved by President Beck. I really 
did not give too much attention to it, as I properly should have — I 
probably should have. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he hired coming right from the penitentiary 
for this position ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't know, and I don't believe so. It certainly 
was not with any knowledge of mine and certainly not with any 
knowledge of President Beck, because President Beck would not 
have hired him. I know one person involved in this was called into 
Washington. 

Mr. Kennedy. If he was convicted in 1950, he was paroled on 
December 5, 1951. He must have been hired just out of the peni- 
tentiary. 

Mr. Gibbons. 1953, I think, was when this campaign started, Mr. 
Kennedy, if I am not mistaken. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you look into his background at all when you 
hired him? 

Mr. Gibbons. No; I say I did not. My function was to collect the 
applications and forward them to the international office. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why were all of the officers removed in local 245 ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I believe — generally speaking, in the operation of a 
local union, when the chief administrative officer goes, the rest of his 
staff resign with him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Even when they had been elected by the rank-and- 
file members and there were no charges against them ? 



14964 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. Incidentally, 1 might add for your further 
information, that they were submitted to the membership and they 
voted requesting this trusteeship, and they approved of the action. 

Mr. Kennedy. But these officers who were elected by the rank and 
lilc, Mr. Gibbons, why weren't they kept on when there were no 
charges against them, instead of bringing in people like Barrett and 
Wainwright \ 

Mr. Gibbons. 1 say to you, generally speaking, a staff works with 
the chief administrative person, and when he leaves, they generally 
leave with them. It is a very close-knit relationship when you are 
operating a trade union with a stall", at the staff level. 

Mr. Kennedy. We had the testimony before the committee that 
these officers then found it difficult to find jobs in there, around that 
area, and two of them at least had to leave town. Do you approve of 
that kind of operation ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I certainly don't approve of it, No. 1, and I certainly 
had no knowledge of it, No. 2, and I don't understand how people — I 
operated a union for 25 years. I never had that much influence, and 
it was a much bigger union than this one. I could never keep anyone 
out of a job in a given community by any conduct of me or my local 
union. 

Mr. Kennedy. We had the sworn testimony before the committee in 
connection with that, and you were the trustee of the local during the 
period of time that it was going on. 

Mr. Gibbons. He could" also testify to you that physically I never 
even visited that local, to my knowledge. But I still take responsi- 
bility for it. But I assure you that if I had known of any such 
efforts on the part of this local, no officer would have served under me 
and practiced that kind of a boycott. 

Mr. Kennedy. We had the testimony on the Allen Cab Co., that 
some of those people who worked for the Allen Cab Co. found it 
difficult. 

Mr. Gibbons. That is quite a different deal, Mr. Kennedy. Let's 
not just equate those two. 

Mr. Kennedy. They found it difficult to get jobs with other cab 
companies. 

Mr. Gibbons. No ; they found difficulty getting membership in 405 
because they had violated the basic principles of holding membership. 

Mr. Kennedy. You mean they had voted for another union ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No; this wasn't it. Well, incidentally now they gave 
up voluntarily any membership. But they did not do that. You 
belong to a lot of clubs. They have rules, Mr. Kennedy. Unless you 
observe the rules, they throw you out. One of the rules in a trade 
union is you don't work behind picket lines. Understand ? And until 
such time as he could straighten himself out on charges similar to that, 
he was not about to get a membership in our organization. 

Mr. Kennedy. But the membership, the people in that cab company, 
had voted 99 to 10 to have a different union rather than Teamsters. 

Mr. Gibbons. And this is their privilege. 

Mr. Kennedy. After that, when they wanted to switch over to 
another cab company, they were unable to get jobs. 

Mr. Gibbons. Fill in the whole details. After that he scabbed. 

Mr. Kennedy. He went to work because he went into a different 
union. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14965 

Mr. Gibbons. After that he scabbed. He knew when he scabbed this 
was a violation of a very basic tenet of unionism. 

He made his choice. It was a free choice. I did not quarrel with 
him when he decided to vote against our union. 

The Chairman. Did you quarrel with the vote they cast, 99 to 10? 

Mr. Gibbons. I didn't quarrel with him individually or with the 
company as a whole. 

The Chairman. In other words, how are the men going to get de- 
mocracy in their unions, where their will will be carried out ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I think in this instance this is an excellent demonstra- 
tion of the democracy that exists in a union when a group of our 
members of their own free will and volition cast a vote and walk out of 
the union. Now, of course, in terms of the rest of the movement, where 
the NLRB strictly applies, this is a God-given right of every American 
worker. All he has to do is get 30 percent, and not even a majority, 
and it can be tested, and in my local union it has been tested, and I 
have lost some shops. It has been tested in other situations and I won 
the decertification election. But there is no question of a lack of de- 
mocracy in terms of a worker having a problem with a union and not 
being able to get some relief from it. 

Mr. Kennedy. These people are no longer scabs. 

Mr. Gibbons. Aside from this one, there are many other channels. 

Mr. Kennedy. They voted not to have the Teamsters Union, and the 
Teamsters put a picket line up. The Teamsters opposed this, and 
they continued to go to work, and then do you call them scabs? They 
are called scabs then. Mr. Gibbons ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I am sorry I did not want to interrupt you at the point 
you were making, because it is actually what took place. We opposed 
that election and certainly we have a right to put forth the position 
of unionism and try to win that election. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is right. 

Mr. Gibbons. This we did. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is right. 

Mr. Gibbons. No. 1. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who did the National Labor Relations Board 
uphold ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Nobody ; they were not in it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not take any action with the National Labor 
Relations Board ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't believe we did, and I don't think that the 
NLRB was involved. This was an election conducted, perfectly legiti- 
mate election, and no question as to its correctness and being proper, 
and I think a university professor ran it. Now, at that point, we had 
built up in our organization in that industry certain conditions, and it 
was 100 percent organized to my knowledge in those days. Here 
comes an outfit now with a different union, and the only way it could 
get recognition from that company, because it had no resources, was 
some kind of a deal in which they would not maintain the standards 
of the rest of the industry. Now, we have a right to protect the stand- 
ards of our members, Mr. Kennedy, and we advertise the fact to the 
general public, who by and large want to support decent conditions for 
workers in any industry. We advertised merely the fact that the 
Allen Cab Co. was nonunion, and so that they would have a free choice 



14966 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

and not be in ignorance and support a bad situation which is not even 
to their own liking. 

Mr. Kennedy. These people continued to work there. 

Mr. Gibbons. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Subsequently they wanted to work for another cab 
company. 

Mr. Gibbons. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And become members of the Teamsters Union ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Now, that is something else; they wanted to become 
members of the Teamsters Union and they had deliberately and con- 
sciously and voluntarily made their choice of parting with the 
Teamsters. Now, then, they are not coming back into the Teamsters 
on this account. 

Mr. Kennedy. That means they cannot get a job with the other cab 
company. 

Mr. Gibbons. All I am concerned about, and what the facts are, this 
situation is that they cannot become members of 405 until they 
straighten themselves out. 

Mr. Kennedy. As a practical result, that means they cannot go to 
work for another cab company. 

Mr. Gibbons. That may very well be, Mr. Kennedy, but it is inci- 
dental to anything that our union did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Gibbons, they had an election in local 245 

Senator Mundt. Before we leave that point, you said something 
about "until they straighten themselves out." Now, will you dilate 
on that a little bit? You are quite an exponent of the concept of 
reformation, that you have indicated earlier, that people who have 
gone to jail need not necessarily be denied a right to earn a living. 
Now would you say that a man who had voted himself out of the 
Teamsters is dead then as far as any future chance to come back in 
the Teamsters is concerned, or what do you mean by "straighten 
himself out"? 

Mr. Gibbons. Actually one of the other factors, now, as I concen- 
trate more and more on this particular situation which Mr. Kennedy 
raised, was he lied in his application also. He gave us a fraudulent 
application. We didn't catch up with him for some 3 months after- 
ward. 

Senator Mundt. I was not here when he testified. Does this all 
involve one man ? 

Mr. Gibbons. One man, I think. 

Senator Mundt. I thought there were 99 people. 

Mr. Gibbons. There was only one man and the question you raised 
was how does he now become back in good standing. I actually don't 
know what those bylaws provide for, but again I will have to give 
you a report on that. 

Senator Mundt. You must have some procedure for a fellow who is 
out of the union, and then changes his mind 2 years from that and 
he should not be denied a right to earn a living for all time to 
come. 

Mr. Gibbons. I pointed out to Mr. Kennedy in a previous discus- 
sion on this that in 15 years that I have been an executive officer of 
local 688, I don't believe, and I cannot recall a single solitary in- 
stance in which we threw anvbodv out of our union. That is charges 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 14967 

or otherwise. I am very conscious of the importance of the trade union 
upon the matter of earning- a livelihood, for a worker. 

Senator Mundt. Were you here yesterday ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I think also just as well, that a union like any other 
organization has an inherent right to protect itself. 

Senator Mundt. There is no question about that. Were you here 
yesterday afternoon ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I left early, Senator. 

Senator Mundt. Were you here when the witness came in from 
Detroit, I think it was? 

Mr. Gibbons. I was here for the early part of his testimony, but I 
was in and out of the room, because I am not affected by that one. 

Senator Mundt. Except that he pointed out that people were thrown 
out of the union some place up there who were running for office, 
and denied the union membership, and they were ill, and could not 
pay dues and all of that, It did not sound very good. 

Mr. Gibbons. I am not familiar with that, and I prefer not to 
discuss it, Senator. 

Senator Mundt. I just wondered if you were here. 

Mr. Kennedy. They had an election in local 245, I believe, in May 
of 1958, in this year, Mr. Gibbons. 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, they did not hold it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Nominations for election. 

Mr. Gibbons. And the whole thing was canceled out at the request 
of the monitors. 

Mr. Kennedy. At that time, according to the testimony, out of the 
total membership of some 1,200 only 53 could run for office. The 
membership were not informed as to who was eligible until after the 
nominations. Were you aware of that ? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, but I don't know of its significance in terms of 
nominations. Was any person denied nomination because he was not 
in good standing ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No. 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, this has no particular significance in the demo- 
cratic processes of nominating for an election. 

Mr. Kennedy. It does not have any significance to you. I don't 
believe it has any significance in the actual working of an election. 

Mr. Gibbons. You call a meeting for nominations and everyone is 
free to nominate, and they can nominate anybody they want to, and 
at the point that arose, rules are checked, and this becomes a significant 
factor. 

Mr. Kennedy. So they nominate people, and for instance all but 
one of the opposition to Wainwright was eliminated, and all of the 
opposition to Round was eliminated. 

Mr. Gibbons. Now t , before you pursue it further, you might be in- 
terested to know 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you answer that question? That is what 
happened ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I thought you made a statement, and you told me what 
happened, and I will agree with you that this did probably happen, 
but I wanted to add one further factor. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you approve of that ? 

21243— 50— pt. 40 3 



14968 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Gibbons. X<>. I don't approve of it, and I wanted to add a factor 
which will tend to demonstrate it. It so happens I approve of the 
fact thai if these people arc not in good standing, they have no right 
to inn in our organization. That has been for 40 years now in our 
union. There has hern a clause in the contract which I oppose, which 
I opposed in the past, and which has to do with the business of keeping 
your dues paid up on or before the first day of the month, but it is 
there, and I have to live with it like every other officer of our union. 
Now, let me add this one fact, sir, for your further information. Two 
or three of those opposition guys who were nominated and who were 
declared ineligible have on the recommendation of our lawyers, they 
made a request and as soon as they made a request it was referred 
to our attorneys and our attorneys have ruled that they are ineligible 
to run for office. Now, this is long before there was any investigation 
of L'4f>. by the McClellan committee, and so it has no impact as far as 
we are concerned. I will send you a copy of the letter if you are 
interested in it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that after the monitors came into it \ 

Mr. Gibbons. But it has been resolved. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that after the monitors came into it ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I would not know. It was the first occasion that 
these workers took their pencil in their hands and wrote us a letter. 
It may very well have been. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Gibbons, you were the trustee, and you were 
the one who was controlling, and why didn't you waive the rules? 

Mr. Gibbons. Because I have no authority to waive the rules. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why didn't you petition to waive the rules, like the 
rules were waived for your election in St. Louis? 

Mr. Gibbons. There were no rules waived for my election in St. 
Louis, Mr. Kennedy, and you have no testimony to the fact that there 
were rules waived. 

Mr. Kennedy. Certainly the rules were waived. 

Mr. Gibbons. I wanted to discuss the issues in my election, but I 
never got the opportunity to discuss them. 

Mr. Kennedy. The provisions of the constitution were waived. 

Mr. Gibbons. Oh, no, they Avere never waived in my election, Mr. 
Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. They are waived now, and you are willing to dis- 
qualify those votes? 

Mr. Gibbons. No, I am not. I am perfectly willing to have another 
election. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the question. These votes are illegal just as 
these individuals are illegal. 

Mr. Gibbons. I have no authority to take away from local 247 their 
right to representation in that convention, in that election, but I will 
be very happy to submit myself again to the people in that community 
for leadership purposes. 

Mr. Kennedy. All I am asking you is why the rules were not 
waived for local 245 as they were waived for your election in Joint 
Council 13. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14969 

Mr. Gibbons. Your formulations are such that I can't answer those 
questions, because they aren't the same. There was no comparison be- 
tween what happened in my election and what happened in Spring- 
field. 

Mr. Kennedy. The delegates at your election were not legal dele- 
gates. 

Mr. Gibbons. There is a trusteeship there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Under the constitution the delegates were not legal 
delegates, and under the constitution you say these people nominated 
for office in local 245 are not legally nominated. 

Mr. Gibbons. You are always very conveniently forgetting certain 
facts, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not forgetting certain facts. 

Mr. Gibbons. I will supply one fact, Mr. Kennedy, which you ap- 
pear to have neglected. 

Mr. Kennedy. Oh, no, that is what the record shows, Mr. Gibbons. 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't know who makes your record, but I did not 
make it. The facts don't attest to that record being correct, if that 
is what the record shows. 

Senator Mundt. What is this mysterious forgotten fact you want 
us to know about ? 

Mr. Gibbons. One of the clauses in our constitution, Senator — and 
I suspect it is in a lot of constitutions when you deal with a tremen- 
dous organization like ours, with many thousands of problems that 
face a general president — one of the facts is that he has a right to 
interpret the constitution in between conventions. Now, under Presi- 
dent Hoffa that has been changed. At his request, it is changed so 
that the general president no longer can interpret the constitution, 
but this is now a function of the president and the general executive 
board. 

Mr. Kennedy. If I could just interrupt on this question, you asked 
who made the record about violating the constitution, and I would 
like to refer to your own testimony on page 3226. 

Senator Ives asked you : 

What I am driving at is that you probably violated the letter of the constitu- 
tion 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. 

Now that is your own testimony. 

Mr. Gibbons. I carefully qualified it, No. 1, and No. 2, on the basis 
of your interpretations, Mr. Kennedy, which were then the subject of 
debate, it could conceivably look very much like a violation, but you 
aren't the person who interprets our constitution. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not interpreting it. I am reading it to you. 
I am reading you : 

Temporary officers and trustees must be members in good standing of local 
unions in good standing — 

and then I am reading over here on page 38, what a member in good 
standing is: 

A member in good standing is one who has had his dues paid up on the first 
of the month. 

These people didn't have their dues paid up and it can't be any clearer. 



14970 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Gibbons. Let me advise, and this is so basic it should not be 
mentioned, anything you can write down, two people can interpret it 
differently. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Thou shalt not steal." 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, there is an awful lot of stealing goes on in this 
world of ours, Mr. Kennedy, and it is legal. It is so legal it isn't 
even funny. Now, if you want to know anything about interpreta- 
tions, I refer you to the Supreme Court. Time and again the very 
thing that the very words spoke about has been changed by exactly 
the same Court. Today a set of words mean one thing, and a few 
years later the same Court take those same words and they give it a 
considerably different meaning. 

Now, this is a debate which is endless and I don"t know how 
productive it is. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Gibbons, did you approve of the fact the 
membership was not informed as to who was eligible for office in 
this local % 

Mr. Gibbons. Did I approve or disapprove ? I say to you in terms 
of holding the meetings for the purposes of nomination, it is of little 
moment that I would know whether someone is in good standing or 
not in good standing. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't see there is any importance to know 
whether you nominate somebody, they are going to be declared 
illegal ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, I am talking now about the mechanics of that 
first meeting. If this meant that I might have plans laid to put some- 
one in, and I find he is not in good standing, I may welcome that 
information later on because I would say there is a good union man, 
and if he does not pay his dues, I would be happy to change my 
opinion. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you approve or disapprove of the membership 
having the information as to who is in good standing in local 245 at 
the time they were nominating them ? 

Mr. Gibbons. This disqualified certain people and if I were run- 
ning the show at that particular time 

Mr. Kennedy. You were trustee. 

Mr. Gibbons. Let us get back, and let me finish, if you will. If I 
were running that show, and if I were the person in charge, I probably 
would have handled it differently. These people handled it in exactly 
the fashion it has been handled in our international union and in 
every other international union through the years. Now, it also 
probably applies to the bar association, and every other association, 
Mr. Kennedy, and these technicalities are wonderful to look at in 
retrospect, but I am not so sure in the normal day-to-day affairs, that 
these are strictly observed to the letter. I don't believe these men ever 
even entered this meeting with the concept of a dissident group or an 
opposition crowd, or any rebels. So I don't think it was something 
plotted. 

Mr. Kennedy. It just seems to me that the membership should be 
allowed to know or permitted to know in this country who is eligible 
to run for office and who is not eligible to run for office in a labor 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14971 

Mr. Gibbons. It would seem to me if I was a member of a union 
and I was interested in running for an office, I would know whether 
I was eligible or not without any problem. But this is a question as 
I told you, if I were handling it on the spot, I may have handled it 
differently. 

The Chairman. Mr. Gibbons, we have found not in this instance but 
in others, cases where people are really disenfranchised from voting, 
and where they are disenfranchised in the sense of being declared 
ineligible to hold office in unions because their dues are not in the treas- 
ury of the union on the first day of the month. That is the dues of the 
members. Where the dues are withheld, and where you have a con- 
tractor withhold them, do you think it is fair and right to disenfran- 
chise those members whose dues are withheld just because the dues did 
not reach the treasury by the first of the month ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Senator, I do not believe that this is right and proper 
and good or fair or any other commendable adjective. I am opposed to 
this particular clause in our constitution, and I think it is ridiculous 
if a man enters into employment and he has a checkoff in his contract, 
and he has a legitimate right to assume he is in good standing every 
month. 

The Chairman. Don't you think he is in good standing, when you 
make the contract, and when you make the contract for the checkoff, 
and the man works and the employer checks off or withholds his dues? 
Don't you think he is in good standing and no rule to the contrary could 
keep him from being eligible ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, I personally am convinced that this is adequate 
to keep him in good standing, but I don't have the authority to say or 
do that. Now, at the last convention, Senator, I was one of those who 
advocated changing that, and I will certainly at a future convention 
continue. Now, there was a compromise arrived at and it is not a good 
compromise even. The best I could get out of the convention was we 
would alert everybody to pay 1 month in good standing when they are 
on checkoff. 

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

The Chairman. Let me ask you this : If you are having so much dif- 
ficulty getting a fair rule of eligibility established within the frame- 
work and authority of your own union, your international, would you 
object to a law requiring you to recognize them as eligible where their 
dues have been checked off ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes; I would object to a law, Senator. But I would 
certainly bend my own efforts in that direction. 

The Chairman. All right ; let's go a little further. 

Senator Mundt. Why would you object to the law ? That is, if you 
believe in the policy. 

Mr. Gibbons. I have a serious concern of too much interference on 
the part of governmental authorities in the internal affairs of volun- 
tary associations of Americans. It seems to me that one of the greatest 
guardians we have in this country against oppressive government is 
the freedom of men and women of this country to freely associate 
themselves in voluntary associations and stand up against govern- 
mental operations where they become oppressive. I think down 
through the years that is one of our safeguards. 



14972 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. We agree on that, but that is exactly what is not 
happening. 

Mr. Gibbons. That is where we disagree. I think in the trade-union 
movement it is happening, despite the evidence you have brought out. 

Senator Mundt. It is happening in a great many locals of all 
unions, perhaps, but there are a great many areas where it does not 
happen. How do you propose to protect that individual worker? 

Mr. Gibbons. I regret if it is happening in any individual spot, if 
there is a denial of any of these things we are discussing. But I would 
say to you that any kind of objective analysis of the operations of the 
American trade-union movement will find it to be far more demo- 
cratic than any of the business associations, 90 percent of the bar as- 
sociations, et cetera, et cetera, down through the land. I am not, by 
saying that, condoning for a moment the violation of one single demo- 
cratic principle in a trade union movement, necessarily. 

Senator Mundt. If you don't think this has happened rather gen- 
erally, you should read our mail. 

Mr. Gibbons. I also receive mail. I also investigate complaints. 
There isn't a day that goes by that I don't have a half dozen investi- 
gations taking place on complaints. Unfortunately in this world 
there are some people who seemingly just don't understand or some- 
thing, because when we investigate those things we find that every 
opportunity was given this person, every constitutional privilege was 
accorded to him, and yet he will say barefaced this did not happen 
or this did not happen. When an arbitration session takes place, in- 
volving one person's job, that one person ought to understand that an 
arbitration session took place. 

But I have investigated complaints where they said they never had 
arbitration. When I found out they had arbitration, they had a third 
party and everything, it is difficult, I think there may be some of 
that in your mail. I think there may be some legitimate complaints 
in your mail. 

Senator Mundt. I think that is right ; there are some legitimate and 
some not. You said you made a recommendation to the last conven- 
tion on how you would protect these democratic rights of your mem- 
bers, that you were opposed to the way it was now being done and you 
made a recommendation and you were voted down or some unsatis- 
factory compromise was agreed to. Am I not correct in that? 

Mr. Gibbons. No. All I said w T as I was one of the people in this 
international union who felt that the clause which requires a member 
to remain in good standing must pay his dues on or before the 1st day 
of the month — I was one of those who felt this was too restrictive. I 
was one of those who felt we should have it more liberal 

Senator Mundt. How did you propose to change it ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I wanted everyone who paid his dues currently in the 
course of the 30 days of the month, would remain in good standing. 

Senator Mundt. Would you follow T that, then, by including in the 
constitution that at your election meetings it is the right of every mem- 
ber to have a list of his associates who are eligible to vote and who are 
eligible to hold office ? 

Mr. Gibbons. This becomes not so easy. There is no use in making 
up a list, unless you post it ; right ? 
Senator Mundt. Yes. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14973 

Mr. Gibbons. There is no use in making up a list unless you draw 
it to the attention of every person, because if it is your intention to 
draw it to the attention of the membership, it becomes necessary that 
you certify it to each individual personally. 

Senator Mundt. We do that in our national elections and it works 
pretty well. 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't think we do that in a national election to my 
knowledge. 

Senator Mundt. Yes ; you have to register. 

Mr. Gibbons. But you don't bring it to my attention who is reg- 
istered. I have walked into polling booths and I have been told "Mr. 
Gibbons, you are not able to vote." I didn't know about it, nobody 
told me who was eligible. 

Senator Mundt. You ought to know. You had to register. 

Mr. Gibbons. This is my argument about a member. He should 
know whether he is in good standing or whether he isn't. 

Senator Mundt. He wants to know who he can vote for. When 
you have a candidate for office, then you have assurance there that 
this fellow is a legitimate candidate. You don't elect a candidate and 
say "You can't serve, because you are not a citizen." 

Mr. Gibbons. I think if I were interested enough in a person being 
president of my union to nominate him, I certainly would know 
enough about that person before I reached the point of liking him 
well enough to nominate him. I think I would like him enough to 
know whether he was in good standing. 

Senator Mundt. He can't tell, if the company is sending in his 
checkoff dues. 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, he can. He has a book in his pocket. The book 
indicates what date they were paid on. It is stamped on there, the 
date of the payment. 

Senator Mundt. It is checked off. He does not pay it. Would you 
like to eliminate the checkoff system, so he would have to pay it 
directly, and eliminate that ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Many of them 

Senator Mundt. Answer the question. My question is, would you 
like him to go in and pay his dues and get a receipt and then he knows? 

Mr. Gibbons. No; his place of finding out whether he is in good 
standing, whether his dues are properly 

Senator Mundt. I will ask the recorder to read my question again. 
Mr. Gibbons did not get it. 

Mr. Gibbons. Under the checkoff system, Senator 

Senator Mundt. Wait a minute. 

(The pending question was read by the reporter, as requested.) 

Mr. Gibbons. The answer, of course, is that I am strongly in favor 
of the checkoff system. There is nothing in the checkoff system which 
in any way handicaps a person from finding out whether or not he is 
in good standing. His union office is there, his produced postal card 
is open for inspection. He can go in and get stamps, even though he 
is on checkoff. And those stamps will indicate when he is in good 
standing and the dates received. 

Senator Mundt. The only disadvantage of a man who is under the 
checkoff system, the problem arose there because whoever checked off 
his dues at the company has to send it to the union hall. 



14974 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Two or three days elapse and lie was declared ineligible. That 
was not his fault. 

Mr. Gibbons. I am just saying that at any point along the way 
that he wants to find out if he is in good standing for an election, 
he can go in and check it. It is quite true that under the checkoff 
system it is conceivable that he might lose out. I face that in the 
local that I happen to be privileged to represent. We went around 
to every one of our shops and had them pass a resolution author- 
izing the additional checkoff of 1 month's dues in order that every- 
one would be paid up in advance. 

This didn't solve my problem. This is maybe 4 or 5 or 6 years 
ago. With the turnover of help this doesn't apply. 

So it is a continuing kind of problem. The actual solution has to 
do, in my estimation, with eliminating the provision in which you 
must pay our dues on or before the 1st day of the month in order 
to be in good standing. 

The Ci [airman. Is there anything further ? 

Let me suggest : I see no other way to do it unless you folks will 
straighten it out, except to require an eligible list to be published in 
advance of the nominating meeting. 

I see no other way, because the way it is operating now, in some 
places, in some instances, working people whose dues are withheld, 
and they have to be for the job, are declared ineligible to hold office 
and ineligible to vote. If you folks wouldn't straighten it out, I 
think it is incumbent upon the Congress to enact laws to protect 
the people who work. It is just that simple to me. 

All right, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Gibbons, in that local why didn't you waive 
the provisions of the constitution ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Why didn't we? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, and allow people under the checkoff system to 
vote. 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, I think what we did — today, you know, we 
work very closely with our attorneys. We have a set of monitors, 
as you know, court appointed. They observe everything we do. We 
have quite a large staff in the field. 

Mr. Kennedy. That does not answer it. I am asking why you did 
not do that in local 823 ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I am explaining. 

Mr. Kennedy. You want to make a speech first. Just give us the 
answer. 

Mr. Gibbons. I will give you the answer and then make the speech 
later. I think some times, Mr. Kennedy, the answer to those ques- 
tions cannot be found in yes and no. The reason why we did not is 
because our attorneys did not recommend that we do it. Our attor- 
neys did recommend, as an interpretation of our constitution, that 
people who did not pay their dues on or before the 1st day of the 
month be made eligible in a series of local unions, those who are on 
the checkoffs, who had not paid their dues on or before the 1st of 
the month, in a series of local unions, in order to facilitate their com- 
ing out of trusteeship. 

Our attorneys made such a ruling and we followed that ruling. 
But there was a deadline placed by the attorneys on that ruling, for 
reasons best known to them. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14975 

I am not a lawyer, and I don't believe it was available to us at that 
particular time. Whenever this question was raised, and it was raised 
m much more serious fashion than down there, because we did not 
know there were only 50 people in good standing in that local, wher- 
ever it was raised, we used that where it was available to us. 

Mr. Kennedy. They raised it in Pontiac, Mich., on April 28, 1958. 

Mr. Gibbons. When was the election ? 

Mr. Kennedy. This election was in May of 1958. 

Mr. Gibbons. This may have been exactly the months where the 
cutoff dates came. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who made the decision ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Edward Bennett Williams was the man who 
interpreted it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Made the decision about these other locals? 

Mr. Gibbons. I think he was the one who gave the cutoff dates. 

Mr. Kennedy. He did ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Which would provide in these locals which were 
going to have their elections, that the people under the checkoff sys- 
tem could not participate? 

Mr. Gibbons. No. 

The constitution automatically was applied after a certain cutoff 
date. 

Mr. Kennedy. Which meant that certain people under the cutoff 
system where their dues did not arrive by the 1st of the month could 
not participate? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. But in many other locals- 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the reason for that? 

Why did they change that ? 

Mr. Gibbons. You see, I am not a lawyer. I don't know why they 
put the cutoff date on. Why they initially made the ruling that you 
could vote, and run for office, even though you had not paid your 
dues on the 1st of the month, the purpose of that was to facilitate 
getting some of our locals out of trusteeship. We found instances 
where there were less than 7 men in good standing in a local of 2,000 
members. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say the rank and file member should be able to 
go and find out whether he is in good standing. You can see how 
difficult it would be if you as a vice president would not know about 
it, and the rank and file member did not know whether the inter- 
national was going to waive the constitution or not. 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't think you demonstrate your point too well in 
that, Mr. Kennedy. I am not interested in finding out, as a vice 
president, the details of that small moment. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is small moment for you, Mr. Gibbons, but it 
is a very big moment 

Mr. Gibbons. That is exactly why I did not 

Mr. Kennedy. But it is a very important matter to people in local 
245. 

Mr. Gibbons. That is right. That is why you can't pose these two 
as being the same thing. It is easy for them, it is of importance to 
them, it is easy for them to determine those facts. 



14976 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. What aboul local 823 \ Did you have anything to do 
with that? 

Mr. Gibb< ixs. Where is it located ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Tn Missouri, Joplin, Mo. 

Mr. Gibbons. No, to the best of my knowledge, about the only thing 
I had to do with that was one time literally by accident. T got into that 
town of Joplin when I was traveling with President Holla, making 
about four stops, as I recall it. One of them happened to be Joplin, 
when he had occasion to go in these. I think he was holding a meeting 
for nominations. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you make a speech at that meeting ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I made a speech at that meeting. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you make a speech in favor of Floyd "Webb ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I made a speech favoring Floyd Webb. 

Mr. Kennedy. At that time were you aware of the payment by the 
union of some $4,000 in connection with the assault on Mr. Clyde 
Buxton ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I was also aware of the fact that we were facing a 
$70,000 suit, a suit for $70,000 worth of damages, and it would cost 
us may be $10,000 

Mr. Kennedy. Answer the question. Were you aware of it \ 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Were you aware of the fact that some $4,000 had been 
paid out ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I approved, incidentally, of the decision to pay four, 
if I had been consulted, because it would have cost us $10,000 in attor- 
ney's fees. I thought it was smart of Webb. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were aware of that ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, sir : the $4,000 settlement. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were aware of the National Labor Relations 
Board findings in connection with Floyd "Webb ? 

Mr. Gibbons. You are getting into a great many details which I was 
not necessarily aware of. But I will tell you the basis on which I 
made my speech, if you are interested, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. I wanted to find out first whether you are aware of 
the National Labor Relations Board finding that Floyd "Webb had 
ordered the beating of these individuals. 

Mr. Gibbons. I am not even aware as of today that the Board made 
such a finding, Mr. Kennedy. But I don't recall having been aware 
of it at that moment, 

Mr. Kennedy. You are aware of the $4,000 being paid out I 

Mr. Gibbons. That is right. That was based on the business of being 
practical about, it. 

Mr. Kennedy. W'ere you also aware of some $4,000 of union funds 
being paid out for the wrongful firing of Buxton and Jess Hawthorne ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I could very well have been aware of it, but I am not 
certain. 

Mr. Kennedy. Some $4,800. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Gibbons. Under the NLRB, you know, there are all kinds of 
sums being paid out. Whether they are being paid out properly or 
not is a very serious question, because yon don't have a court situation 
there, and yon have a highly prejudiced Board at the moment as far 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14977 

as labor unions are concerned. If they stick us with a few settlements, 
it does not surprise inc. and neither does it impress me too much. 
Mr. Kennedy. They stated : 

And the trial examiner concludes and finds that Buxton was physically 
assaulted in reprisal for his action in appealing to the international and that 
the local must be held responsible under the act for the action of Kennison 
and Powell. 

The summary is concluded and found : 

That the union caused the company to discharge and that the company did 
discharge employee Buxton discriminately for the reasons other than his failure 
to pay dues and initiation fees. 

Mr. Floyd Webb was riming the local during that period of time? 

Mr. Gibbons. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you approve of this kind of activity on the part 
of a local official ? 

Mr. Gibbons. If this be true, as you point out, Mr. Kennedy, and I 
don't think you are quoting the best authority, I would not necessarily 
approve it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wait until I tell you what I am quoting. The United 
States of America, before the National Labor Relations Board, deci- 
sion and order. 

Mr. Gibbons. That is right. Now you want to discuss the makeup 
of the Board ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No ; that is the National Labor Relations Board, I am 
talking about 

Mr. Gibbons. Do you want to discuss some of the personnel that are 
on there and my own experiences ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I am talking about the fact that the union paid out 
the $4,000 for the wrongful firing, some $4,000 for the beating, and 
that after this finding, you came in and spoke in favor of Mr. Flovcl 
Webb. 

Mr. Gibbons. I am also quite aware of the fact that many and many 
a lawsuit is settled without any relationship to the justice on either 
side of the case, but only to avoid litigation. 

Mi-. Kennedy. Did you inquire into it ? 

Mr. Gibbons. At this particular time I doubt it because it w^as being 
competently handled by the staff guys. 

Mr. Kennedy. If you did not inquire into it, how did you know 
Floyd Webb was responsible for it ? 

Mr. Gibbons. 1 did not know he v\as responsible for it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you speak for him, in favor of him ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes. I will tell you why. You happened to pick out 
a short period of Floyd Webb, No. 1. No. 2, he was there for 22 years, 
in a difficult area. He built a union of 2,500 people, a complement 
which has to be very high in this particular case. Secondly, you heard 
the chief opposition of Mr. Webb here. He was your witness, you 
brought him up here, and he says the union did right in keeping Mr. 
Webb on the job, because Mi-. Webb is a competent person. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not asking you that, Mr. Gibbons. I am ask- 
ing you, in view of this record, why you then came in and spoke of 
Mr. Floyd Webb, just as I asked you why, in view of Mr. Barrett's 
record, he was placed in a position of authority in the other local, and 
in view of Mr. Waiirwright's record, why he was placed in his position 



14978 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

of authority. I am now asking you, in view of Mr. Floyd Webb's 
background, why you came and spoke in favor of him. 

Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Kennedy, I spoke in favor of Mr. Webb because 
in my work, and I am sure it applies to anyone else carrying any re- 
spons : bilities, one has constantly to evaluate and judge and test all 
acts of individuals against a broader background. Everyone is enti- 
tled to make mistakes. There are things you do that you don't neces- 
sarily approve of. There are things that they do which if I was per- 
sonally doing, I would do it differently. But on the overall factors 
of Mr. Webb, I made the speech then and would be happy to repeat it 
today, that he is a very competent trade unionist ; he has done a very 
fine job in a very difficult situation. 

If this w T ere true, and it is very questionable if this happened, then 
I would want to determine much more closely whether or not it was 
true before I would bluntly believe it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever inquire into it, Mr. Gibbons? 

Mr. Gibbons. No; I told you the situation was being adequately 
handled by stall' people, and my reports were that this thing was in 
good shape, and thai Mr. Webb was not responsible, or at least he was 
doing a good job, specifically not responsible for that job, but he was 
doing a very good job, and he should be kept in there. 

The best testimony comes from his strongest opponent. 

Mr. Kennedy. In the Central Conference of Teamsters, where there 
have been acts, criminal acts, on the part of some union officials, have 
you suggested that there be action taken to remove them, in your posi- 
tion as secretary-treasurer of the Central Conference of Teamsters? 
For instance, Mr. Jorgensen, who was up in Minneapolis, who was 
found guilty and appealed to the Supreme Court on taking money 
from an employer. Have you suggested that any action be taken to 
remove him ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I am one of those people who are currently actively 
reviewing the situation in Minneapolis. 

Mr. Kennedy. This happened some 2 years ago, and the appeal 
finally came to the Supreme Court. Had you taken any action before 
this, Mr. Gibbons? 

Mr. Gibbons. Actually, the people who have to do with taking ac- 
tion is the national organization. I have functioned at this level only 
some 8 months, along with President Hoffa. In those 8 months, Mr. 
Kennedy, you will appreciate the fact that Mr. Hoffa was tied up in 
New York for many months in the trials. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am talking about this in the Central Conference of 
Teamsters. 

Mr. Gibbons. In the Central Conference of Teamsters, it isn't our 
prerogative, necessarily, it isn't our responsibility, necessarily, to take 
action in those situations. It actually is a matter for the national 
office. We have been consulted on it. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about Mr. Syd Brennan, who is in the same 
situation? 

Mr. Gibbons. The same thing applies to Mr. Brennan. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever suggest any action against him ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, he is not a vice president now, but I did not 
take any action against him. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14979 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you approve of Mr. Hoffa taking in some of these 
individuals out of the penitentiary and placing them in positions of 
power and authority ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't know the instances you are citing. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. I Eerman Kierdorf, for instance ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I imagine if Mr. Hoffa did this, he exercised thorough- 
going investigation and good judgment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you approve of that ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Just as you approve, Mr. Kennedy, that a record, 
a criminal record, is not a bar to employment on this committee, I 
adhere to exactly the same philosophy when it comes to my union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you approve of Mr. Hoffa hiring Mr. Herman 
Kierdorf % 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't know Mr. Kierdorf. I would be very happy 
if I could — it is impossible to do now, because he is no longer with the 
organization. If I had an opportunity to check on his work, how 
he conducted himself since he came out of prison, I might very well 
applaud Mr. Hoffa for putt ing him on. 

The fact that he came out of prison I don't think has much to do 
with it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you approve of Mr. Frank Kierdorf coming out 
of the penitentiary for robbery and being given a position of authority 
over Teamster members ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Again, Mi-. Kennedy, it is wrong for you to sit here 
and ask if I approve of these acts. I have never met Mr. Frank 
Kierdorf. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just as a general proposition. 

Mr. Gibbons. You cannot generalize. As you said when you 
brought up these matters, you have to take up the individual factors, 
you have to examine the facts involved. 

The Chairman. Let the ( 'hair interject here. We are considering, 
and the Senate even passed a bill at the last session, which was not 
passed by the House, enacting laws to prohibit people who are fresh 
out of the penitentiary from holding such jobs. Do you approve of 
that? 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, I would not approve of it, Senator, on the same 
basis that I think each of those cases should be examined. But let 
me go on record so it is not a question of somebody hemming, hawing, 
or dodging, because I am not interested in doing that as I testify here 
today. 

If anyone wants to know 

The Chairman. I just want you to say yes you approve of such 
legislation or you don't. 

Mr. Gibbons. On this particular type of legislation, I would be 
opposed to it, Senator; but let me assure you, and I say it for very 
good reasons, which I think I have elaborated on, namely to the effect 
that you have to examine each of those cases, otherwise you are going 
to render some severe injustices to the individuals involved and you 
are going to endanger society itself. 

The Chairman. Bear in mind, now, we are not talking about keep- 
ing a man from working. But we are talking about putting him in an 
official position of authority, and where he becomes, in a sense, a 
trustee, a steward, with responsibility over the men and women that 
work. 



14980 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LAEOR FIELD 

Mr. Gibbons. Any job that is available to men in the trade union 
movement is of that nature. Every week, literally, 1 go to em- 
ployers, and I ask them, pursuant to the request of a Government 
official, pursuant to the request of a priest, or a minister, or a rabbi 
to put them on jobs. It is a little bit silly for me to advocate it in one 
instance and not in the other. I will say bluntly to you and plainly 
to you that I don't want any functioning, active, practicing criminals 
anywhere close to the labor movements, because I think we have 
responsibility. 

The Chairman. You have quite a job ahead of you, then, if you 
want to get them out. 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, now, look at the record, Senator. Mr. Hoffa 
has been in office but 8 months. There were 68 names that I have 
checked personally, not checked personally but had checked, that 
were mentioned here as supposedly criminals in the Teamsters. Forty 
of those are not connected with the Teamsters today. Twelve of 
them I don't know how you got their names, because they never had a 
card in the union from the beginning. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where did you get the list ? 
Mr. Gibbons. I will supply you with a copy of it. 
Mr. Kennedy. Don't be making a statement about a list. 
If you have a list of 68, let's have the list. 

Mr. Gibbons. You do it all the time, Mr. Kennedy. I don't happen 
to have that list with me. I did not intend to testify on this today. 
Mr. Kennedy. I don't believe there is a list of 68 that are not 
connected with Teamsters. 

Mr. Gibbons. Twelve of yours, I said. Twelve that you mentioned 
are not connected with the Teamsters. 

Mr. Kennedy. That we said were not connected with the Teamsters ? 
Mr. Gibbons. Well, you tied them in with the Teamsters. As an 
instance, Johnnie Dio, everyone thinks he was a teamster. I am saying 
to you that there were 12 names that you identified with the Team- 
sters. I will withdraw the statements, if it will make you happy. 
The Chairman. Don't withdraw it, Submit the list. 
Mr. Gibbons. I will do that. I will say that 40 of the 68 are gone. 
Of the remaining 28, 15, I think, are on charges at the present time. 
I think we are doing a pretty good job, Senator, in terms of trying 
to clean house, along with the many, many other pressing problems 
that we have had, including court appearances, preparing for court 
appearances, and trying to make ourselves available for the McClellan 
committee. This we have done without benefit of records, because you 
have taken thousands, tons of our records, almost, it would seem. I 
personally supplied, I think, 50 transfer cases to this committee. 

Mr. Kennedy. I can name a dozen teamster officials right now, 
Mr. Gibbons, with criminal records and who appeared before this 

committee and took the fifth amendment without looking 

Mr. Gibbons. You have not said anything about a person 

Mr. Kennedy. I will name a dozen for you. 

Mr. Gibbons. You have only said about a person who has a criminal 
record and who has every right to live and to work in this movement. 
You have said something else about that individual, that he has exer- 
cised the Democratic right of the Constitution. These things are not 
derogatory in my book. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14981 

Mr. Kennedy. If you are trying to find more than a dozen members 
of your union who have criminal records, I will give them to you. 

Mr. Gibbon. I didn't say anything about criminal records. I am 
talking about the people you mentioned. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yon say there are only a dozen left in the Teamsters 
Union ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I did not say that. If you want to listen to my testi- 
mony. 1 will be very hapy to repeat it, Mr. Kennedy. 

The Chairman. Let's proceed. You supply the list. 

Mr. Gibbons. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman \ 

The Chairman. Senator Mundt. 

Senator Mundt. Back to this legislation. The Senate enacted leg- 
islation which provided that in the handling of pension and welfare 
funds, no official 

Mr. Kennedy. Can we have the list ? 

Mr. Gibbons. We have no list have here. I have no list here. 

Mr. Kennedy. Excuse me, Senator. 

Senator Mundt. I would like to at least conclude my question be- 
fore being interrupted. 

The Chairman. Very well. Proceed. 

Mr. Gibbons. I will have the list over here this afternoon, Mr. Ken- 
nedy, if I possibly can, if I am off the stand. 

The Chairman. When the list appears, when it is filed it will be 
made exhibit No. 163. 

(The document referred to will be marked "Exhibit No. 163" for 
reference and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Gibbons, the Senate passed legislation, which 
I happened to be the author of an amendment to, that concerning the 
pension and welfare fund, it is provided that in the handling of those 
welfare funds no member of the union should be permitted to have 
a position of responsibility in the handling of these funds whose crimi- 
nal record was such that he was denied by the laws of his State the 
right to vote. I would like to know whether you favor or disapprove 
of legislation of that kind, because it would indicate your attitude 
toward the courts and toward the laws of our Republic. 

Mr. Gibbons. I would tend to agree with you. But I would again 
only have the reservation, I would like to look at some of these so- 
called criminal offenses, the date that they took place, Senator, and 
things like that. 

Senator Mundt. We did not say that a man who had been in jail 
could not hold an office. We said a man whose crime had been so 
felonious and reprehensible that in the State in which he lived he was 
denied the right to vote by the laws of that State, we certainly did not 
think he should have charge of pension and welfare funds. 

Before we leave that, would you agree with the wisdom of that kind 
of legislation? 

Mr. Gibbons. Let me first comment on that provision. The test is 
whether or not he has gotten back his voting rights; correct? 

Senator Mundt. That is correct. 

Mr. Gibbons. In most States, Senator, the return of your citizen 
rights or your civil right, is what they are, the right to vote and serve 
on a jury et cetera, is automatic. Here you are saying to me that a 



14982 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

man at a certain given day, week, or month, is ineligible to serve on 
that, but by the automatic passage of, say, 2 years' time, 1 year's time, 
6 months' time, this man gets his right back and he is a changed person. 

I would be a little more strict than that. This is difficult legislation. 

Senator Mundt. Just a minute. Please don't interrupt me every 
time I start to talk. 

I would like to be more strict. But we also wanted to be fair. "We 
wanted to recognize that some men had gone to jail and had served 
their time, had come back, maybe thej 7 had been pardoned, maybe they 
had their civil rights restored. 

But this is to give some small modicum of protection to the rank and 
file members whose future, old age, is dependent upon the integrity 
of these funds. For that we said that anybody whose crime was such 
that in the laws of his own State he was denied by his associates the 
right to vote, that certainly that man should not at that time be per- 
mitted to have charge of these funds. "Would you agree or disagree 
about the wisdom of that legislation ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Again, I would question the wisdom of it, but I would 
go on record, and I can speak for President Hoffa in this, that we will 
join you in putting on the utmost and the greatest possible protection 
around the operations of a welfare or a trust fund, a peiision fund. 
We will join you in that. 

Senator Mundt. Tell me if you object to that legislation. 

Mr. Gibboxs. I am only going back again to the automatic aspects 
of getting back your citizenship rights without necessarily having 
changed your habits at all. 

Senator Mundt. Would you make it so inclusive that everybody 
who has gone to jail should not do it? 

I thought that was too far. 

Mr. Gibbons. No; I am saying I don't know whether this is the 
answer to it. 

Senator Mundt. It may not be a complete answer, but it is a step 
in the right direction. "We will have to start doing something. 

Mr. Gibbons. If it can be demonstrated as a step looking toward 
greater and further protection for the funds, No. 1, and with the 
absence of tremendous injustices, and I am sure this is absent any 
injustices to an individual, I would be for it 100 percent. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Gibbons, in going back to Mr. Kierdorf, Frank 
Kierdorf and Herman Kierdorf, do you approve of the proposition of 
taking people out of the penitentiary and putting them into positions 
of authority with the union ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Kennedy, this I say to you, again, and I am 
sorry I have to say it, but this is not a question that can be answered 
"yes" or u no". I would like to examine the basis on which President 
Hoffa made his decision. 

I might very well agree with him. I would like to especially see 
how well that judgment worked out by finding out about the record 
of Frank Kierdorf and this other Kierdorf. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't know about it yet ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I am not in a position to say yes or no. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't know about their records yet \ 

Mr. Gibbons. Their records or police records before, I haven't 
bothered to inquire into it. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14983 

Mr. Kennedy. Since they came with the union, you are not familiar 
with that? 

Mr. Gibbons. The record of their performance, you are talking 
about ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Gibbons. I am not particularly familiar with it, but if he stayed 
on Hoffa"s staff, I want you to know he worked harder than any other 
guy in the labor movement and he did a pretty good job, because I 
have worked with Iloffa and I know what he does to people and you 
don't slouch around if you are working for Jimmy. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have seen that, and of course we had testimony 
on Herman Kierdorf mixed up with Shefferman, Frank Kierdorf the 
same thing. They appeared before the committee and took the fifth 
amendment. What I am trying to find out from you 

Mr. Gibbons. George Meany has probably some things from Shef- 
ferman, some things bought for him, and a lot of people that do this. 

Mr. Kennedy. You can't throw names in there. 

Mr. Gibbons. I am sorry and I apologize for having done it but I 
am demonstrating the fact that up and down the American labor 
movement — — 

Mr. Kennedy. That is not the question here. 

Mr. Gibbons. Shefferman bought things for people. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you disapprove of taking a man out of the peni- 
tentiary and putting him in a position of authority, or did you dis- 
approve of that? 

Mr. Gibbons. To complete the record, I have no knowledge that 
President Meany had any dealings with him in terms of buying, but 
I am just saying that up and down, general presidents included, they 
were all involved in buying things wholesale. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now the question. 

Mr. Gibbons. I will not tell you that I disapprove of a person com- 
ing out of the penitentiary and finding work in the labor movement. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not asking that. I am asking you, do you dis- 
approve of a man coming out of the penitentiary and being placed in 
a position of authority in your union, in the Teamsters Union? 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, now, in the first place, I question how much 
authority Kierdorf had in Jimmy's setup. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let us say as a business agent. 

Mr. Gibbons. That gives you very little authority. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just answer the question, do you disapprove of 
a man being taken out of the penitentiary and coming out of the 
penitentiary and immediately being placed in a position of authority 
even to the extent of business agent ? 

Mr. Gibbons. At the risk, Mr. Kennedy, of appearing to be diffi- 
cult in this situation, I again have to say to you that I am not going 
to pass judgment on individual people. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not asking you to do that. I am not asking 
as an individual. Now let us not take Herman Kierdorf. Are you 
ready to state that you disapprove of a man coming out of the peni- 
tentiary and immediately being placed in a position of authority 
with the union? 

Mr. Gibbons. I say to you, it is a matter of individual examina- 
tion. Someone may have gone to prison for failure to pay his 

21243— 59— pt. 40 4 



14984 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

alimony, and I can assure yon if he was a good solid citizen when 
he came in and he had background experience and devotion to the 
labor movement, I would be the first one to suggest that he be put 
in a position of responsibility. 

Now, it is not what you are talking about, and I appreciate that, 
but it demonstrates the difficulties of answering your kind of a formu- 
lation. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you are not prepared to answer it i 
Mr. Gibbons. No, I certainly am not. You have my answer. 
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Gibbons, do you approve of Mr. Hoffa's re- 
lationship with some of the hoodlums and gangsters in Detroit ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I would question the relevancy of this kind of a 
question. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think it is very relevant. 
Mr. Gibbons. As far as the legislative inquiry is concerned. 
Mr. Kennedy. I think it is very relevant. Do you approve? 
Mr. Gibbons. I would ask the Chair to please rule on it. 
The Chairman. You don't want to comment on it ? 
Mr. Gibbons. It isn't a question even of not wanting to comment 
on it, Mr. Chairman. I would like to have the question withdrawn, 
because it is not pertinent, but it isn't a reluctance on my part. I 
will be very happy to discuss it but I don't think it is pertinent to 
this inquiry. 

The Chairman. I am going to leave it to you. If you don't want 
to comment on it, I will leave it to you. 
Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the way I feel. 

Mr. Gibbons. So the record is complete, it is such a generalized 
question it w T ould be difficult for me. 
The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. When you were here the last time, Mr. Gibbons, 
you testified regarding giving of guns or allowing some of your 
business agents to carry guns. 
Mr. Gibbons. Yes, sir. 
Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember that? 
Mr. Gibbons. Yes, sir. 
Mr. Kennedy. At that time you made a statement that — 

I did not want it to be a deep dark secret, however. I called in the editor of 
the Post-Dispatch and Fitzpatrick, the cartoonist, 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 them the problem we were facing 
in fighting gangsters and some of the people would be armed. 

Question. Who was that? 

Mr. Gibbons. A guy named Willy Dilliard. 

Was that testimony correct? 

Mr. Gibbons. I have since learned, Mr. Kennedy, that there has 
been some ducking and dodging on the part of those individuals. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have sworn affidavits, Mr. Gibbons, on that. 

Mr. Gibbons. I gave it to you on the best of my recollection, and I 
don't want to walk away from that testimony, and some people were 
there at the time. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say the editor of the Post-Dispatch is ducking 
and dodging, Mr. Irving billiard ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14985 

Mr. Gibbons. I don't know whether I would say Irving Dilliard is 
ducking and dodging. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Fitzpatrick of the Post-Dispatch? 

Mr. Gibbons. If there is any question in his mind of being there, I 
will withdraw the testimony, or I will simply say that I had ap- 
parently made an error or some such thing. 

Mr. Kennedy. First you said they were ducking and dodging and 
now what do you say ? You made an error ? 

Mr. Gibbons. I said some people, and I didn't say that these people 
were. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was ducking and dodging ? 

Mr. Gibbons. Well, this is what I heard, that there is some question 
in some people's minds about being identified in the thing. 

Mr. Kennedy. You stated the editor of the Post-Dispatch, and we 
have an affidavit from him to the contrary. 

Mr. Gibbons. Let me say this, Mr. Kennedy, on this testimony that 
I gave previously, this is to the best of my recollection, and my recol- 
lection in this instance, I don't believe, is bad. 

Now, some people may want to question whether they were there 
on purpose. That is their business and I don't believe they are lying, 
but I want to assure you that my recollection is pretty good in this 
case, and I am giving you this best story to the very best of my 
recollection. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you talked also about a Captain Daugherty — 

and he assured me we did not have to carry guns. All we had to do was pick 
up the phone and call. I told Captain Daugherty if he had been doing his job 
for 20 years we would not be faced with this problem, and we could not depend 
on the police to take care of the situation. 

He also denies this statement by you. Mr. Wilier, Mr. Irving 
Dilliard, and Mr. Fitzpatrick deny it although we don't have an 
affidavit from Mr. Fitzpatrick and Mr. Daugherty. 

Mr. Gibbons. I would like to see the affidavits of the people who 
deny it. We will find out whether they actually deny it. 

The Chairman. The affidavit of Mr. Irving Dilliard 

Mr. Gibbons. I just wanted the record to show, I don't want to make 
any statement on their credibility. 

I will withdraw any statement to that effect. 

The Chairman. This is Mr. Dilliard, and this statement from Mr. 
Daugherty. That statement is not sworn to. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is a report. 

The Chairman. Is it attached here as a part of these affidavits? 

Mr. Kennedy. We will have to get it sworn, too. 

The Chairman. When sworn to we will take it. Mr. Herman 
Wilier, together with the exhibits they attach, have the news articles 
which grew out of the conference may be made exhibit No. 164 for 
reference and the witness, Mr. Gibbons, will be permitted to inspect it. 

(Documents referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 164" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Gibbons. 

Call the next witness. 

"We have one more witness and we are going to conclude with that, 
and after we conclude with him, I think we will take a recess. 

We will take a short recess at this time. 



14986 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

(A brief recess was taken.) 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

(At this point, the following members were present: Senators 
McCleUanandMundt.) 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Previant. Mr. Chairman, 1 wonder if before the next witness 
is called I might read two excerpts from this affidavit into the record 
as a matter of fairness to Mr. Gibbons ? 

The Chairman. The Chair will read them, if yon will tell me which 
they are. 

Mr. Previant. The second to the last paragraph of Mr. Dilliard's 
affidavit and the last sentence of Mr. Willard's statement. 

The Chairman. The last sentence of Mr. Willard's affidavit states 
[reading] : 

I was a member of the St. Louis Police Board from January 29, 1053, to February 
1. 1957. During that time I do not recall Mr. Harold Gibbons' ever contacting 
me or notifying me that his associates wovdd be carrying guns to protect them- 
selves. 

Which was the other ? 

Mr. Previant. The second to the last paragraph, I believe, of Mr. 
Dilliard's affidavit. 

The Chairman [reading] : 

If anything had ever been said by Mr. Gibobns about carrying guns on any 
occasion in my presence I would have relayed it to the city editor's desk as news. 

On this point I say positively that to the very best of my recollection, no refer- 
ence to carrying guns was ever made by Mr. Gibbons for me to hear on any 
occasion. 

Mr. Previant. We just wanted to emphasize that there was no 
flat denial. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Previant. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Who is the next witness ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Thank you for reading them in. 

The Chairmax. Ordinarily, I would have read it in, but we are 
trying to move along. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Nate Stein. 

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. Stein. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF NATE STEIN 

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

Mr. Stein. Nate Stein, 9346 Olympic Boulevard, Beverly Hills, 
Calif. 

The ( Ihairman. What is your business or occupation, Mr. Stein? 

Mr. Stein. Public relations. 

The ■ Chairman. You waive counsel, do you? 

VI • Stei x. Yes, sir. 

The < i ■ \ RMAN. All right, Mr. Kennedy, proceed. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14987 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been in the public-relations 
work, Mr. Stein ? 

Mr. Stein. I decline to answer and assert the privilege not to be 
a witness against myself under the Constitution. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you done some work for the Teamsters, Mr. 
Stein? 

Mr. Stein. I decline to answer and assert the privilege not to be 
a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have him examine 
that check. 

The Chairman. I hand you a photostatic copy of a check made 
payable to Nate Stein, dated March 23, 1955, in the amount of $1,500, 
from Truck Drivers' Local Union, No. 299. The check is signed by 
Frank Collins. I ask you to examine it and state if you identify it, 
please. 

(The document w r as handed to the witness.) 

The Chairman. Do you recognize the check ? 

Mr. Stein. I honestly believe 

The Chairman. Have you examined the check ? 

Mr. Stein. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you recognize it ? 

Mr. Stein. I honestly believe if I answer I will be forced to be a 
witness against myself. 

The Chairman. In other words, you think you cannot testify about 
the check without incriminating yourself ; is that what you are saying ? 

Mr. Stein. I honestly believe that if I answer this question, I will 
be forced to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. The question is : Do you honestly believe it will 
incriminate you ? 

Mr. Stein. I honestly believe that if I answer this question I will 
be forced to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Do you consider that ill-gotten gain ? 

Mr. Stein. I honestly believe that if I answer I would be forced 
to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Have you anything else, Mr. Kennedy? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

That is a check for $1,500. 

The Chairman. That check may be made exhibit 165. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 165" for 
reference and will be found in the appendix on p. 15317.) 

Mr. Kennedy. This is a check for $1,500 from local 299 in Detroit 
to Mr. Nate Stein on March 23, 1955. 

The check is signed by Mr. Frank Collins of local 299, and counter- 
signed by James R. Hoffa. 

Can you tell us what local 299, Mr. Hoffa and Mr. Collins, were 
paying you this money for ? 

Mr. Stein. I honestly believe that if I answer I will be forced to be 
a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Do you operate under the name of Nate Stein 
Enterprises ? 

Mr. Stein. I honestly believe if I answer I will be forced to be a 
witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Are you a lawyer ? 



14988 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Stein. I honestly believe that if I answer this question I will 
be forced to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. You carry your advertisements, your invoice state- 
ments, you say "Nate Stein Enterprises, Public Relations Counselor." 
What kind of a counselor are you ? 

Mr. Stein. I honestly believe that if I answer this question I will 
be forced to be a witness against myself. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Gibbons indicated, Mr. Stein, that he was 
very curious about $3,000 that you got hold of of the Teamsters' 
money, and he wanted to interrogate you pretty carefully and perhaps 
instigate a lawsuit against you or Mr. Feldman for the misuse of this 
$3,000; that he recognized your right to take the fifth amendment 
before this committee but he was going to insist upon honest answers 
and complete disclosures when he talks to you, and he is going to 
report back to us what he finds out. My question to you is : Are you 
going to take the fifth amendment when Mr. Gibbons asks you? 

Mr. Stein. I honestly believe that if I answer I will be forced to 
be a witness against myself. 

Senator Mundt. Can't you tell me whether you are going to talk 
to Mr. Gibbons or not ? 

Let me ask you this. I know you are going to talk to him, because 
he thinks you have $3,000 of his money that you are not entitled to. 
He wants it back. He thinks it financed your trip to Israel. He 
wants it back. He thinks you got $5,000 in cash. He wants it back. 
When you do talk to Mr. Gibbons, are you going to tell him the truth 
or are you going to lie to him ? 

Mr. Stein. I honestly believe that if I am forced to answer, I will 
be forced to be a witness against myself. 

Senator Mundt. You ought to think that over pretty carefully, Mr. 
Stein. When lie asks you questions, are you going to tell him the 
truth, or are you going to lie to him ? 

Mr. Stein. The same thing, I honestly believe that if I answer, I 
will be forced to be a witness against myself. 

Senator Mundt. If Mr. Gibbons is still in the room, I call his atten- 
tion to the fact that this is the difficulty I related a little while ago. 
I see his attorney is still in the room. This is one reason it seems to 
me that Teamster officials and other union officials should begin getting 
rid of fifth amendment people handling the funds of the union 
workers. They have not any way to force the witnesses to tell the 
truth when they talk to them privately. Here we have a witness 
unwilling even to state under oath that when Gibbons asks him 
questions he is going to answer them honestly. 

He knows, of course, he can lie to Mr. Gibbons, with no penalty, 
no perjury. This points out the vicious feature of union leaders 
insisting to continue to employ people taking the fifth amendment for 
concealment. 

I have no other questions. 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you three checks and a check 
stub. The three checks and the stub have been made exhibits 162 A, 
B, C, and D. The first check, the one on top, is to El Al Israel Air- 
lines, Ltd., in the amount of $484.90, dated August 15, 1955. It is 
from Samuel Feldman. The next one is for $1,615.10, dated the same 
date, from the same person, to Nate Stein. The next one is dated 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14989 

August 17, 1955, in the amount of $500, from the same person, made 
payable to cash. The stub of that check shows that it was for $500 
cash, one Nate Stein. I ask you to examine the exhibits and state 
if you recognize the checks. 

(The documents were handed to the witness.) 

The Chairman. Do you recognize the checks ? 

Mr. Stein. I honestly believe that if I answer I will be forced to 
be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Did they buy your railroad ticket up there when 
you were staying with Mr. Gibbons that night? 

Mr. Stein. I honestly believe if I answer I will be forced to be a 
witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Did you stay with Mr. Gibbons in the same room or 
the same suite at a hotel in New York at that time, on that date? 

Mr. Stein. I honestly believe if I answered I will be forced to be 
a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Did you leave for Israel a few days later ? 

Mr. Stein. I honestly believe if I answer I will be forced to be a 
witness against myself. 

The Chairman. What did you do to earn this $3,000? These 
checks add up to $3,000. What kind of work did you do to earn 
that money ? 

Mr. Stein. I honestly believe if I answer I will be forced to be a 
witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Did you pull a fast deal on Mr. Gibbons, and de- 
ceive him when you introduced him to Feldman and told him that 
Feldman would make him a good lawyer? 

Mr. Stein. I honestly believe if I would answer this question I 
would be forced to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Did Mr. Gibbons know what this money was 
going for? 

Mr. Stein. I honestly believe if I answered I will be forced to be 
a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Thai would be a witness for Mr. Gibbons, if he 
didn't know. You wouldn't be a witness against yourself, and you 
would be testifying favorably to him. Can you do that under oath? 

Mr. Stein. I honestly believe if I answer I will be forced to be a 
witness against myself. 

The Chairman. You never did any work for that money, did you? 

Mr. Stein. I honestly believe if I answer I will be forced to be a 
witness against myself. 

The Chairman. You are going to pay it back ? 

Mr. Stein. I honestly believe if I answered this question I will be 
a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Mr. Gibbons says if he finds this to be a fact, he 
is going to get it back if he has to sue somebody. Do you know 
who he would sue besides you and Feldman ? 

Mr. Stein. I honestly believe if I answered I will be forced to 
be a witness against myself. 

Senator Mtjndt. Mr. Gibbons said he was going to report back to 
this committee whether or not you repay the $3,000, whether or not 
the dues-paying members of the Teamsters will have their treasury 
reimbursed or whether you are permitted to keep this $3,000 of loot 



14990 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

which quite obviously he believes and the committee believes you were 
not entitled to. 

Why don't you save us all a lot of time by telling us what you 
did with the money ( 

Mr. Stein. I honestly believe if I answered I will be forced to be a 
witness against myself. 

Senator Mundt. Are you unwilling to say now you are going to give 
it back to these Teamsters whose dues you have robbed that way? 

Mr. Stein. I honestly believe if I answered I will be forced to be 
a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you also covering up for Mr. Gibbons in this 
matter? 

Mr. Stein. I honestly believe if I answered I will be forced to 
be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Stein, can you explain, you were at the hotel 
room, staying with Mr. Gibbons in New York on that very day that 
the check was brought over to the Feldmans, and can you explain how 
Mr. Gibbons couldn't know about this situation ? 

Mr. Stein. I honestly believe if I answered I will be forced to 
be a witness against myself. 

Senator Muxm. Do you know Mr. Gibbons ? 

Mr. Stein. I honestly believe if I answered I w 7 ill be forced to be a 
witness against myself. 

Senator Mundt. He isn't as bad as that. He was before us and he 
testified, and he didn't take the fifth amendment and he has been elected 
to a high position in the Teamsters and he can't be that kind of a fellow, 
that your recognition of knowing him would be incriminating against 
you and destroy your high reputation. Think that one over pretty 
carefully before you read the Western Union telegram to us. 

Do 3 7 ou really think admitting knowing Mr. Gibbons would incrimi- 
nate you? 

Mr. Stein. I honestly believe if I answered I will be forced to be a 
witness against myself. 

Senator Mundt. You are not a very good character witness for him. 
You got $3,000 of his money and you are his old roommate and you 
go up and stay at the hotel together, and it is all in the record. Do you 
think if you told this congressional committee that you know Harold 
Gibbons this would incriminate you and tend to degrade you and tend 
to tear down your fine reputation — a man who has been here and testi- 
fied and didn't duck and didn't dodge, and didn't take the fifth 
amendment ? 

Let me ask you that question again. Do you know Harold Gibbons 
of the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Stein. I honestly believe that if I answered I will be forced to 
be a witness against myself. 

Senator Mundt. O.K. 

The Chairman. The Chair hands you four photostatic copies of 
checks, and the first one is dated October 10, 1955, in the amount of 
$500, and the next is November 4, 1955, in the amount of $406.21, and 
the next is November 23, 1955, in the amount of $500, and the next in 
the amount of $616.19, dated December 12, 1955. 

On the face of them, they show, the first one is made payable to you 
and the next one is made payable to Hotel Bellereede, and the next is 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14991 

made payable to Nate Stein, and the next payable to Hotel Bellereede. 
The two made to the hotel state on the stub, "Room for Nate Stein, pub- 
lic relations." 

Each of the checks made to the hotel say that, and the others are made 
payable to you. 

Will you examine these four photostatic copies of checks and state 
if you identify them. 

(The documents were handed to the witness.) 

The Chairman. Have you examined the checks ? 

Mr. Stein. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. They may be made exhibit 166, A, B, C, and D. 

(Documents referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 166, A, B, C, and 
D," for reference and will be found in the appendix on pp. 15318- 
15321.) 

The Chairman. Do you identify the checks ? 

Mr. Stein. I refuse to answer on the ground I might be forced to be a 
witness against myself. 

The Chairman. This together with the other $3,000 you got, runs to 
a total of $5,022.40 you got from September to December out of the 
union. Do you want to make any explanation of it ? 

Mr. Stein. I refuse to answer on the ground that 

The Chairman. Do you w y ant to tell the dues-paying members you 
actually did some work for it ? 

Mr. Stein. I refuse to answer on the ground I don't want to be a 
witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Did you enter into a conspiracy to defraud the 
union, these working people? 

Mr. Stein. I honestly believe if I answered I will be forced to be 
a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions? 

Mr. Kennedy. I might summarize. He received from local 299, 
the Hoffa local, the $1,500. Then the $3,000 was put in, which went 
to Sam Feldman for legal fees, and then joint council 41 in Kansas 
City paid $500, on October 10, 1955, and then November 4, 1955, 
$406.21 to the hotel there, and then again paid by joint council 41, 
and then joint council 41 paid the $500 to Nate Stein on November 
23, 1955, and then December 12, 1955, $616.19 to the Hotel Belle- 
reede. 

Then on April 23, 1956, $1,295 from local 299 to Nate Stein. 

Then Nate Stein on May 7, 1956, a bill paid by local 299, Mr. 
Hoffa's local, for $451.48. Then 6-21, local 299 paid $156. 

Then 11-5, $90.98 from local 299, and then November 6, $2,476.63. 

That is all for Nate Stein from local 299, making a total of just 
over $11,000. 

That is a little over $11,000. Can you tell us what you did for 
the union for all of that money ? 

Mr. Stein. I honestly believe if I answer I will be forced to be a 
witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions? 

Senator Mtjndt. I would like to say, Mr. Stein, that since Harold 
Gibbons under oath proudly proclaims his friendship for you, and 
his acquaintanceship with you, and since you deny knowing him 
for fear that it will incriminate you, and since you have taken this 
money from the dues-paying members of the Teamsters, and Gibbons 



14992 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

has said they are going to get it back and put it in the treasury, I 
am afraid you are apt to wind up as name No. 69 in Jimmy Hoffa's 
list of most unwanted men. 

Mr. Stein. I honestly believe if I answered this question, I will 
be forced to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further? 

All right, stand aside. 

The Chair is going to make a brief announcement, and then a brief 
summary, and a statement of observation. 

Because of the death of a member of his family Senator Ives couldn't 
be here today, and can't be here tomorrow, and Senator Mundt must 
return to South Dakota this afternoon. That means we could not 
have a quorum here tomorrow, so we have continued on working here 
today to try to find one aspect at least of these hearings. 

For that reason, and in addition to that reason, both the Chair 
and the staff are pretty tired. For those reasons, when we recess 
today, we will go over until 2 o'clock Monday afternoon. 

There is a statement here about the doctor, and you may make a 
brief memorandum there and place it in the record with that file. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was 31 in 1956, graduated from the Philadelphia, 
Pa,, College of Osteopathy, as a doctor of osteopathy in 1951. He 
comes from Massachusetts, Mr. Chairman, and he has been living in 
North Miami Beach. 

Senator Mundt. I just want to add so we don't all get in a lot of 
difficulty with the American Professional Society of Osteopathy that I 
don't think that this committee is choosing up sides in the controversy 
which exists between the American Medical Society and the 
osteopaths. 

Consequently we don't want any implication to go out because this 
particular doctor is a doctor of osteopathy, it either adds or detracts 
from whatever service he may have rendered the Teamsters. 

The Chairman. The Chair makes this closing statement : 

In addition to exploring the activities of Mr. James R. Hoffa dur- 
ing the past few weeks, the committee has also been looking into the 
practices of his chief lieutenant, Mr. Harold J. Gibbons. 

From the evidence the committee has received, it appears there is 
very little to differentiate between Mr. Gibbons and his mentor, Mr. 
Hoffa. The record before this committee clearly demonstrates that 
Mr. Gibbons has encouraged and condoned violence ; that he has ig- 
nored the plain mandates of the International Teamsters constitution 
by the undemocratic processes he has followed in the joint council 
which he heads in St. Louis, as well as in a number of locals which 
have been placed in his trusteeship ; that he has used the funds of the 
union in an arbitrary and improper manner and without the knowl- 
edge and consent of the members; that he has participated in the sign- 
ing of top-down contracts; and that he has consorted and associated 
with gangsters and hoodlums, and used their services within the 
Teamsters' movement. 

Mr. Gibbons would not today be the president of joint council 13 
in St. Louis had the election of the president been carried out as pro- 
vided in the international constitution. 

The evidence clearly shows that Mr. Gibbons used Harry Karsh, a 
labor official of ill repute who had been going about the country or- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14993 

ganizing carnival and circus workers by coercion and intimidation. 
From this source was provided the extra and controlling votes needed 
for his election as president of joint council 13. 

By way of parentheses, it may be said that the Karsh-appointed 
delegates from Tampa, Fla., did not even know what a joint council 
was — according to their own testimony — when they arrived in St. 
Louis to cast what proved to be the deciding votes for Mr. Gibbons 
in that joint council election. 

It will also be noted that Mr. Gibbons' handling of the St. Louis 
joint council's election is in marked contrast to his actions in respect 
to elections in the Teamsters' locals in Springfield and Joplin, Mo. In 
those instances, the Teamsters' constitution was interpreted in the nar- 
rowest possible context to eliminate opposition by declaring most 
members ineligible to hold office, and thus to entrench in office, accord- 
ing to the testimony, corrupt incumbent officials. 

A review and impartial evaluation of Mr. Gibbons' testimony and 
the remainder of the record will reveal that he has engaged in the 
following improper practices and policies : 

(1) He used $78,000 in union funds to buy out the officers of Team- 
sters Local 688. While calling this money severance pay, instead of 
purchase price, no such severance pay is provided for or authorized 
by the Teamsters' constitution. 

(;2) He has allowed a pattern of criminal infiltration, violence, and 
misuse of funds to take place in St, Louis. The testimony shows, and 
he did not deny, that he was present and assisted in the planning of 
specific acts of violence, and that he used his position and power to 
protect and actually to reward those individuals who engaged in such 
violence. The violence I refer to included the beating of taxicab 
drivers, tipping over of cabs, and the pushing of one cab into the 
Mississippi River. 

(3) He evidenced complete disregard and flagrant contempt for the 
duly authorized law-enforcement agencies in the St. Louis area, and 
I might add by way of parenthesis again, that he showed about the 
same regard today for the National Labor Relations Board, and in- 
structed his lieutenants and employees not to cooperate with the police 
when they were arrested. He either armed or permitted his top as- 
sistants and business agents to carry guns, and provided holsters for 
same out of union funds, without permits having been obtained for 
such weapons, and he took this step against the advice of the St. 
Louis police. 

(4) He brought Robert "Barney'' Baker, twice-convicted labor 
hoodlum and associate of some of the top mobsters in America, to St. 
Louis as his aide, or one of his assistants, and kept him at work in the 
Central Conference of Teamsters with full knowledge of Baker's 
criminal record and background. 

(5) He used Teamsters Union funds to defend Louis Berra, a 
Teamsters official, charged with embezzling funds from the union. 
He also used and approved the use of Teamsters' Union funds to 
defend convicted extortionist Gerald P. Connelly, on charges that he 
conspired to dynamite the homes and automobiles of two Minnesota 
teamsters. 



14994 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Many of Mr. Gibbons' answers and explanations to questions pro- 
pounded to him by the committee are clearly inconsistent with other 
established facts. 

We can only conclude from this record that, if Mr. Gibbons started 
out his career dedicated solely to the betterment of the lot of the 
workingman — as I am confident he did — somewhere along the line 
those ideals have disintegrated. The actions and practices to which 
I have referred, and his acceptance of hoodlumism and the use of 
known criminals and disreputable characters in the Teamsters move- 
ment, are to be gravely deplored. 

The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock next Monday. 

(Whereupon, at 1 : 45 p.m., the committee adjourned to reconvene 
at 2 p.m., Monday, September 15, 1958.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 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 recess, in the caucus 
room, Senate Office Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman 
of the select committee) presiding. 

Members of the select committee present : Senator John L. McClel- 
lan, Democrat, Arkansas; Senator Frank Church, Democrat, Idaho; 
Senator Irving M. Ives, Republican, New York. 

Also present : Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel ; Paul Tierney, as- 
sistant counsel ; John J. McGovern, assistant counsel ; Carmine S. Bel- 
lino, accountant; Pierre E. Salinger, investigator; Leo C. Nulty, in- 
vestigator ; James P. Kelly, investigator ; James Mundie, investigator ; 
John Flanagan, investigator, GAO; Alfred Vitarelli, investigator, 
GAO ; Ruth Y. Watt, chief clerk. 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

(Members of the select committee present : Senators McClellan, Ives, 
and Church.) 

The Chairman. Mr. Hoffa, you have been recalled and you will re- 
main under the same oath. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, how long have you known Nate Stein? 

Mr. Hoffa. Probably 5 years or so. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was doing some work for the Teamsters Union, 
was he ? 

Mr. Hoffa. He was doing work for myself in some instances, and 
in other instances he had individuals doing work, which he was send- 
ing back to me. 

Mr. Kennedy. What sort of work was he doing for you ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Public relations work, and work in regard to checking 
trucks at certain areas on the west coast, in regard to so-called piggy- 
back movement of equipment. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say he was checking trucks. How was he 
checking trucks ? 

14995 



14996 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. IIoffa. I don't know exactly how they check their trucks. I 
received some reports from him concerning the checking of the trucks, 
and in regard to a program that he thought might fit into our opera- 
tion. How it was actually performed I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have some of those reports ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No, I don't have any of them. After I read them, there 
was no reason to keep them. 

Mr. Kennedy. What sort of reports were they on the trucks ? 

Mr. Hoffa. He sent me in a memorandum of the number of trucks, 
and this is a while back, and I don't recall exactly but 1 believe that it 
was the number of trucks passing over certain routes in regard to the 
volume that could be necessarily moved from road transportation to 
rail, piggyback transportation. Also I had him check on some other 
situations in regard to the public relations angle of discussing matters 
with newspapers and giving me information he could pick up on the 
west coast. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ask him to make a check on these trucks I 

Mr. Hoffa. Did I ask him ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Exactly what did you ask him to do, Mr. Hoffa \ 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, as you probably know, the piggyback question 
in the railroad industry — — 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you explain that term "piggyback"? 

Air. Hoffa. In regards to hauling trailers that normally go over 
the highway, but travel by flatcar between two points, was being sur- 
veyed not only by ourselves but by railroads, trucklines, and every- 
body concerned, to see what effect it would have on our membership 
if piggyback became a prominent type of operation in moving freight 
by rail, instead of common carrier, contract or private carrier over 
the road. 

The Chairman. Let me see if I understand what this piggyback 
means. You mean where they have a trailer and they just handle 
it like a boxcar ( 

Mr. Hoffa. It fits on top of a flatcar, two of them to a flatcar. 

The Chairman. The purpose of it is for transfer, it saves unload- 
ing and reloading? 

Mr. Hoffa. No, sir; it saves the use of a tractor pulling two trailers 
where necessarily it would have taken two tractors to move the same 
two units. 

The Chairman. In other words, where they put it on a flatcar in- 
stead of a trailer? 

Air. Hoffa. Yes, sir. No, they are trailers, but those trailers are on 
a flatcar, and tractors are used at each end instead of over the road 
moving the same units. 

The Chairman. In other words, you put two trailers, what we call 
trailers, on one flatcar and therefore it takes only one driver to move 
two instead of two drivers? 

Mr. Hoffa. No, sir; for instance, between Los Angeles and San 
Francisco, which is a direct route, there are a number of tractor- 
trailer units hauling straight loads, primarily. So the railroads hav- 
ing trains running by direct route between those two points solicit busi- 
ne s f •om common carriers or from shippers direct and have the 
':. 'lers loaded as they normally would for road delivery. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14997 

The Chairman. On a freight flatcar ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes. 

The Chairman. Now I understand. I thought it all related to 
trucks. 

Mr. Hoffa. Only at the loading in and at the end where we deliver 
the merchandise. The en route tractor isn't used. 

The Chairman. Now I know what you mean. 

Mr. Kennedy. What would he be doing, Mr. Hoffsi ( Would he be 
counting the trucks or what ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, I had him make an investigation as to the num- 
ber of loads that lie could find, whether or not they were straight loads 
or mixed loads and the possibility of the number of drivers that could 
be displaced by this type of an operation. 

Mr. Kennedy. Plow would he go about doing that? Would he 
count the trucks, or what ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I would assume that he would have to necessarily check 
the number of units that were delivered by boxcar and a number of 
units that normally go between the two different points of delivery 
and pickup. lie could go to a junction point where they come into a 
main central highway, and very easily determine the number of units 
that would go through in a 24-hour period, and he could do that. 

Mr. Kennedy. As I understand it, he would be counting the box- 
cars and the railroad cars and also the trucks? 

Mr. Hoffa. Not necessarily the boxcars, the number of units that 
were delivered by rail which would normally have been delivered by 
truck. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then he would have to count the number of trucks 
that were coming off the railroad. 

Mr. Hoffa. Both, the number of units that travel over the highway, 
which could be displaced and placed onto the piggyback operation, 
and, in addition, the number of units that had already been taken 
off the highway traveling by rail. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was it in his background, particularly as a 
public relations man, that made him equipped to be checking infor- 
mation like this? 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, almost anybody could check trucks, and it doesn't 
take too much ability to go to a designated point and count the number 
of units, or go to a railhead and count the number of units. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that the type of thing that Mr. Stein was doing? 

Mr. Hoffa. In addition to public relations, and I understood he 
had somebody working with him, primarily doing the work for him, 
and he was more or less laying out the groundwork. 

Senator Ives. I would like to ask Mr. Hoffa about the piggyback 
business. All I know is the general idea of it, and I do not know 
much about it at all. I know they tried to save one railroad by using 
piggyback methods of transportation, and that was the New York, 
Ontario & Western, and that did not work; there was not enough 
business for it to make it work. So that went down. 

Now, tell me. this, if you will, please, Mr. Hoffa : When they reached 
their destinations, and these trucks are taken off from the flatcars, 
who does the driving then ? 

Mr. Hoffa. The Teamsters, city delivery drivers. 

Senator Ives. You have to have two sets of drivers, one to get them 
on, and one to get them off? 



14998 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right; and we normally have the same drivers, 
even if you had a highway tractor delivering those loads over the road 
to the destination point, the road driver would not make the city de- 
liveries but a city man would make the deliveries, and so actually the 
only driver being displaced is the road driver. 

Senator Ives. Thank you very much. I was just curious about who 
took care of those trucks at both ends of the ride. 

Mr. Hoffa. They are our members. 

Senator Ives. You think there is some advantage, do you not, in 
this piggyback business ? 

Mr. Hoffa. We have entered into an agreement, I think 5 years ago, 
with the rail units saying that overflow freight or loads normally 
traveled by what we call gypsies or one-way haulers, that the truck- 
lines could place it on flatcars instead of using trucks. 

Senator Ives. Well, then, that takes care of it to that extent, does 
it not? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes. But where they start first instituting this type of 
service, we have to determine whether or not we will be affected by 
private carriers because recently the ICC authorized a new type of 
operation where they used 40-foot trailers on 80-foot flatcars deliver- 
ing two loads, and running east- west on a transcontinental basis, which 
is affecting our drivers tremendously. 

Senator Ives. I think you realize, of course, what some of us do, 
that have lived in areas of the country where it has occurred, that one 
of the things that has caused the railroads trouble is the competition 
with the trucking business. It isn't so much the bus business as it is 
the trucking business, and this does help the railroads to the extent 
that it offsets some of it ; is that not true? 

Mr. Hoffa. To a degree, but primarily we find that the freight 
ultimately stays on piggyback is freight that comes out of car- 
loading companies, out of the railroads on platforms. Common car- 
riers are not likely, unless they are out of their mind — and not too 
many of them are — to release their regular flow of freight to railroads 
but merely use them as a substitute for what we call, as I said before, 
gypsy operators. 

Senator Ives. Well, I won't take too much time at this stage of the 
inquiry in asking questions about this matter. I may bring it up 
later. Perhaps you will recall, do you not, that a year ago you went 
to some extent into this question of consolidating the activities of the 
transportation agencies in the country, that is, the various and sundry 
means of transportation in the country from the standpoint of the 
workers ? 

I think you remember our dissertation on it. I think you carried 
out a lot of that idea since, as I recall, and I will say this for you : In 
what you have done since that time you have carried out substantially 
what you said you had in mind doing. 

Mr. Hoffa. It isn't completed as far as we would like to get it. 

Senator Ives. I know it isn't yet, but you more or less kept your 
word on the thing, and you have not succeeded so far. Do you 
remember our dissertation ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I remember. 

Senator Ives. I may read some of it later. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who did Mr. Stein use in connection with this? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 14999 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't recall the fellow's name. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was just one man? 

Mr. Hoefa. As far as I know, I think we made checks out to one 
man, and I am not quite sure. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that Mr. Joel Benton ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't really remember. It could be. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you examine these, please. 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you three photostatic copies 
of checks with invoices attached. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember if it was Joel Benton ? 

Mr. IIoffa. I couldn't tell you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know a Joel Benton ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No ; I do not. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't know the name ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No ; I do not. I never met the man. 

Mr. Kennedy. There is another check here, I think. 

The Chairman. I present you three checks made payable to Joel 
Benton, and the first one is dated February 24, 1956, in the amount 
of $1,000, and the next one, April 20, 1956, in the amount of $1,000, 
and the next one, June 21, 1956, in the amount of $1,500, all three 
checks drawn on local 299, truck drivers local, and I will ask you 
to examine them. They have invoices attached. 

I will ask you to examine them, and state if you can identify them. 

(Documents handed to the witness.) 

The Chairman. Have you examined them ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir ; I have. 

The Chairman. Do you identify them ? 

Mr. Hoffa. They are 299 checks on the 299 Truck Drivers Local 
299. 

The Chairman. They may be made exhibit No. 167-A, B, and C. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits 167-A, 167-B, 
and 167-C" for reference and will be found in the appendix on 
pp.15322— 15324.) 

The Chairman. I hand you another check, a photostatic copy and 
original — the photostatic copy will serve as the exhibit — payable to 
Joel Benton on November 1, 1955. It is payable to Joel Benton & 
Associates. 

This check appears to be from another local, out of local 41 of 
Kansas City, in the amount of $900. You may not know about this, 
but I present it to you and ask you if you can identify it or have 
any information about it. 

Mr. Hoffa. It is a check from local union 41. I am not familiar 
with it. 

The Chairman. You are not familiar with it ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Do we have someone here who can verify that 
check ? 

All right, Mr. Bellino. 

TESTIMONY OF CARMINE S. BELLINO— Resumed 

The Chairman. Mr. Bellino, have you examined this check which 
1 have just presented to the witness ? 

21243 — 59 — pt. 40 5 



15000 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Bellixo. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Where did you procure the original ? 

Mr. Bellino. It was procured under my supervision from local 41, 
Kansas City, Mo. 

The Chairman. Out of the records of the local I 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That check may be made exhibit 167-D. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 167-D" for 
reference and will be found in the appendix on p. 15325.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, what was Mr. Joel Benton doing for this 
money? There is this check for $1,000 on April 20, 1956, f 1,000 on 
February 24, 1956, and June 21, 1956, $1,500, plus this last one of $900 
from Kansas City local No. 41. 

Mr. Hoffa. So far as Kansas City, I don't want to discuss that, 
because I am not in a position to. 

The Chairman. The witness says he knows nothing about the $900 

Mr. Kennedy. From local 299, these three checks of $1,000, $1,000, 
and $1,500. What did Mr. Joel do for that ? 

Mr. Hoffa. As I stated, Nate Stein was to handle public relations 
and to arrange to have the truck check made. Apparently from the 
checks, he also included work that he did in regard to the testimonial 
dinner for myself, where we raised considerable money for a home in 
Israel for children. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was in Mr. Nate Stein's background, Mr. 
Hoffa, that made you select him to check trucks on the west coast ? 

Mr. Hoffa. As I stated before, almost anybody could have per- 
formed the task. Nate being on the west coast, and I having known 
him for a number of years, I probably selected him to do the job because 
of the west coast nature of the work. 

Mr. Kennedy. Don't you have some Teamsters on the west coast that 
could count trucks, Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. Hoffa. A few of them ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did you not get him to check the trucks rather 
than the public relations man for the Sands Hotel in Las Vegas ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I think I can reserve the right as president of local 299 
to hire who I want. I think I reserve the right to do as I see fit, with 
the approval of my executive board, to be able to operate the union the 
way I think, not the way somebody else may think it is. 

Mr. Kennedy. Again, what was it in the background of either Mr. 
Joel Benton or Mr. Nate Stein that made you select them and pay them 
this quite generous fee to count trucks on the west coast? 

Mr. Hoffa. I told you before I don't ever remember, and I am 
quite sure I never met Joel — what is his name again ? 

Air. Kennedy. Benton. 

Mr. Hoffa. Benton; Stein arranged for it, handled it, and that is 
all I can tell you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have his reports ? 

Mr. Hoffa. There was no need to have his reports, once I had 
read his reports, so I don't have his reports. 

Mr. Kennedy. If this was a matter that needed to be done, that 
was helpful, Mr. Hoffa, I would have thought the least thing you 
could have done was to keep his reports and place them in the file 



improper activities in the labor field 15001 

for possible study at a later time, if you really wanted to find out 
how many trucks there were running up and down the west coast. 

Mr. Hoffa. Mr. Kennedy, I am not in the habit of keeping rec- 
ords. I have a memory sufficient, able, to take care of my duties and 
obligations as president of this Teamsters Union, and as president 
of my own local union at that time. So I saw no reason to have 
those records kept in a tile. 

The Chairman. Mr. Hoffa, you say there is no reason to keep 
records, when you pay out money for surveys, no reason to keep 
them after you see them. Who else sees them ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I imagine I am the only one that saw the records. 

The Chairman. Suppose something happened to you the next day 
and your lights went out? What benefit would the union get out 
of it? 

Mr. Hoffa. Probably none, sir, except the fact that the operation 
from the time that it happened in this particular moment up to 
now, the lights didn't go out, and I was able to handle the situation 
sufficiently, in my opinion, and I believe for my member's' satisfac- 
tion insofar as piggyback was concerned, and so far as public rela- 
tions are concerned. 

The Chairman. That is true, Mr. Hoffa, your lights have not gone 
out, but we all live at the dispensation of providence. 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. 

The Chairman. If this had any value, if it was paid for out of 
union dues, that record, it seems to me, should be a part of the files 
of that union, unless this is just another one of those things, where 
you say it is your business and nobody else sees it. 

Mr. Hoffa. I believe, sir, as president of local 299, with the confi- 
dence of my membership, my executive board, that I have to be the 
judge of necessarily how to operate that local union in behalf of 
the members and its officers. 

The Chairman. All right, if that is your explanation. 

Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have an affidavit here from Mr. 
Joel Benton, who states that he received the money for the counting of 
the trucks. He also incorporates in there a statement, Mr. Chair- 
man, in which he states how much work he did for this money. 

The Chairman. The affidavit may be inserted in the record at this 
point in full. The affidavit and the statement attached may be made 
exhibit 168 thereto. 

(The affidavit and statement attached were marked "Exhibit No. 
168" for reference, and may be found in the files of the select com- 
mittee.) 

The Chairman. The pertinent part of the affidavit is that from the 
latter part of 1955 to June 1956, he received the total sum of $4,400 — 

from the Teamsters Union for a survey, personally made by me, of the commercial 
trucking operations between Los Angeles and San Francisco, Calif. The above 
sum was paid by check in the amount of $900, $1,000, $1,000, and $1,500, respec- 
tively. All the above checks except the one in the amount of $000 was either 
typewritten or machine printed. The check in the amount of $900 was believed 
to have been prepared in pen and ink and on green paper stock, issued by Local 
119 of the Teamsters Union in Detroit, Mich., sometime in the fall of 1955. 

I further swear that none of the amount noted above was shared with any 
person connected in any way with the Teamsters Union. I further swear that 



15002 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

I made no promise that any part of the same in question would be paid to anyone 
connected with the Teamsters Union. I further swear that I have read this 
statement — 

Et cetera. 

Mr. IIoffa. That should be 299, 1 believe. 
Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 299 instead of 119. 
Air. Hoi fa. That is correct. Yes, sir. 
(The affidavit follows:) 

State of California, 
Count ij of Los Angeles: 

I, Joel Benton, being duly sworn on my oath state that during the period from 
the latter part of 1955 to June 1956, I received the total sum of $4,400 from the 
Teamsters Union for a survey personally made by me of the commercial truck- 
ing operation between Los Angeles and San Francisco, Calif. The above sum was 
paid by checks in the amount of $900, $1,000, $1,000, and $1,500, respectively. 
All the above checks except the one in the amount of $900 was either typewritten 
or machine printed. The check in the mount of $900 was believed to have been 
prepared in pen and ink and on green paper stock issued by Local 119 of the 
Teamsters Union, Detroit, Mich., sometime in the fall of 1955. I further swear 
that none of the amount noted above was shared with any person connected 
in any way with the Teamsters Union. I further swear that I made no promise 
that any part of the sum in question would be paid to anyone connected with the 
Teamsters Union. 

I further swear that I have read the attached copy of a statement made by me 
under date of June 8, 195S, to Mr. Walter L. Malone, an investigator with the 
U.S. General Accounting Office, Los Angeles Regional Office, and that all state- 
ments made therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 

/s/ Joel Benton. 

Subscribed and sworn before me this 27th day of June 195S. 

[seal] /s/ Ethel M. Anderson. 

My commission expires November 2S, 1959. 

Mr. Kennedy. He also incorporates a statement that he made to the 
General Accounting Office in California into this statement. Could 
I read some excerpts from that \ 

The Chairman. I have made it an exhibit. Is this the original? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is handwritten. 

The Chairman. Did Benton write this himself ? 

Well, is that an exact copy of it ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. 

The Chairman. This original may be made the exhibit, the one in 
his own handwriting, instead of the copy, but you may read the copy. 

Mr. Williams. May we see one of them ? 

The Chairman. Yes. You may see the original while he reads from 
the copy. 

Air. Kennedy. He was asked, ""When did you meet Nate Stein?" 
and the answer was, "Sometime in 1954." And "How did you meet 
Nate Stein?" 

The answer : 

The office of the advertising agency by which I was employed was in the 
same building as that of one of our clients — the Sands Hotel. At that time 
I was doing the creative work on that account and met Nate in the Sands 
office on several occasions and in the cafeteria next door. I assumed he was 
in the employ of the Sands although I never asked him nor did he ever tell me 
he was. I liked Nate and he liked me. As I got better acquainted with him 
I discovered he was an extremely warmhearted person who would go out of his 
way to help people. He had what almost amounted to an obsession about helping 
orphans and once told me he was arranging a dinner for James Hoffa with the 
proceeds to be given to the homeless children in Israel. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15003 

Sometime in 1955 I told Nate my wife was going to have a baby. He knew 
I was paying relatively heavy alimony and child support and when I told him 
of my wife's pregnancy he asked me how I was fixed for money. I told him 
I was, as usual, just barely getting by. He told me he'd try to figure out some 
way I could make some extra money on the outside. I thanked him and forgot 
about it. But one day, sometime later, when, I can't recall, he told me his 
friend Jimmy Hoffa wanted a confidential count made of trucks operating 
between San Francisco and Los Angeles on both the coast and inland routes. 
The purpose, I believe, was either to determine how Teamsters Union members 
would be affected if trucks were "piggy-backed" on trains or if shipments were 
diverted from trucks to water. I accepted the assignment. 

Presumably I was to have gotten someone to help me make a 24-hour-a-day 
count on both routes simultaneously but instead I did it by myself. I spent 2 
Friday nights and 2 Saturday days at both Gorman and Santa Barbara. As 
I recall, the combined number of trucks going each way every 24 hours was 
approximately 800. I made my report to Nate and sometime later he gave me 
a check in the amount of $000. I do not recall the date of the check nor the 
signature on it but I am reasonably certain it was a Teamster Union check 
drawn on a Detroit bank. 

Very early in 1956, either January or February I think, I was commissioned 
to repeat my truck counting. I did this exactly as I had done before in both 
Gorman and Santa Barbara. On completion of my assignment I received a 
check through the mail at my office for $1,000. No letter, note, or other material 
was enclosed. Who signed this and the two subsequent checks I received, I 
haven't the vaguest idea nor do I recall for sure that they were in fact Team- 
sters' Union checks although there is no question in my mind that they were. 
Approximately 2 months later I received another check for $1,000 in exactly the 
same way for doing exactly the same work. 

Meanwhile Nate asked me if I could dream up 

Would you read this ? 
Mr. Salinger (reading) : 

Meanwhile, Nate asked me if I could dream up some type of public-relations 
program which would create a more favorable union image in the public's 
mind. After thinking about it for a few days I came up with an idea for a 
weekly ^-hour television show. The show was to be filmed, using top writers 
and "name" cast. I tentatively titled the show "The History of American 
Labor Unions." The format of the show was both simple and obvious. The 
show was intended to depict the birth and struggle of the unions, their victories 
and defeats, their faults and their virtues, and the part they have played in 
giving the workingman a better way of life in America. I felt that such a 
show, if properly done, would be as dramatic as any series on the air. I pre- 
sented this idea just about as sketchily as I have here to Nate in handwritten 
form as I do not type and did not want to use one of the secretaries in my 
employer's office as he had no knowledge of any dealings I had ever had with 
Nate and I didn't want him to know as he might feel, though erroneously, that 
I was making outside money on his time. Nate read over the idea and said it 
might have some merit and that's the last I heard of it till he handed me a 
check for $1,500 in June of 1956 with the remark that "maybe somebody liked 
your show idea." I took that to mean the extra $500 because I had again 
counted trucks exactly as before the latter part of May. This was the last 
work I did for Nate and the last check I received. You asked if I had ever 
made any trips with Nate. The answer is no. The only trip I ever made with 
him was when I drove him from his Beverly Hills apartment to the airport to 
catch a plane. 

The Chairman. All right, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, did you feel that it was worth $1,000 
to the union to have these trucks counted over a period of a weekend ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Mr. Kennedy, I don't believe that the question of count- 
ing the trucks was the only situation involved. There was a question 
of having some public relations at the same time carried on by Stein, 
who apparently felt rather than have the money for himself he would 
have this Benton get paid for it. I think you must take into con- 



15004 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

sideration the overall question, not just the question of whether or 
not a certain few trucks were counted. 

Likewise, you must look at the checks and the invoice with the 
checks. You will note that the invoices on the checks there state that 
part of the work performed, which 1 believe was actually performed 
by Stein and not Benton, was in regard also to the testimonial dinner. 
* Mr. Kennedy. But it says in here, Mr. Hoffa — and there is nothing 
in here to connect it with' Nate Stein — it says $1,000, and the check 
stub says : 

Advertising and publicity expenses in connection with the James Hoffa 
testimonial dinner. 

We find now that the reason that this money was paid was to count 
trucks over a weekend. 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, I say that it isn't true. I say that the very billing 
doesn't verify your statements. 

Mr. Kennedy. Excuse me. 

Mr. Hoffa. The very invoice that you are reading from doesn't 
state what you are trying to state the checks amounted to. I am 
saying to you that I never talked to the Denton — Benton — but I talked 
to Stein ; told him what I wanted to do. Pie apparently had Benton 
do the work, and rather than he be paid, for some reason he had 
Benton paid. But public relations is a problem which can't very 
many times be reduced to writing. It may be the fact that he knows 
some newspaper people, he is able to find out information, or other 
such conditions surrounding the necessity of paying the money for 
the operation. 

The Chairman. Mr. Hoffa, what did you say about what is 
incorrect ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Mr. Kennedy is trying to imply that the only work 
that was performed for the checks was the question of counting trucks 
on certain highways, and I contend that it was public relations as 
well as a question of trucks. 

The Chairman. Well, these bills reflect, and I read from the first 
one, the amount of $1,000, as submitted according to this photostatic 
copy, signed by Joel Benton and marked "Paid," April 20, 1955 : 

Services rendered, $1,000, advertising and publicity expense in connection with 
the James R. Hoffa testimonial dinner. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. Hoffa. As I say, I don't know exactly what work Stein did, 
but I am saying that is the way they billed the union, and it wasn't 
as you see therein and just read, it wasn't for the question of checking 
the number of trucks between two given points. But other work 
was performed. 

The Chairman. Well, now. let us see, the next one was paid Feb- 
ruary 4, 1050, in the amount of $1,000, and it says : 

Services rendered for advertising, James R. Hoffa dinner. 

Is that accurate ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I wouldn't believe that there was any advertising on 
the west coast concerning the dinner. 1 would believe rather that there 
was probably stories placed into newspapers about the question of the 
dinner and what it was for and so forth. Rather than we, they say 
"advertising." I don't recall any advertising that I know of. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15005 

The Chairman. The next one is dated June 21, 1050, says : 

Advertising and services rendered, $1,500. 

Was there in fact any advertising done ? 

Mr. IIoffa. I don't know of any, sir. 

Unless they considered the fact that placing stories into papers and 
being able to'attempt to get proper publicity for the union on the west 
coast, unless they considered that advertising, I wouldn't know of 
any advertising. 

The Chairman. You got no bills for advertising, did you ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't recall. They would be sent to the secretary and 
I doubt if there was. 

The Chairman. If the money was actually paid this man, as he 
testifies, for checking trucks, or counting trucks, can you understand 
why a voucher would be made out for advertising and expenses in 
connection with the James R. Hoffa dinner ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No, sir: I don't understand why the voucher was made 
out. As I say, it was for checking trucks and public relations, and as 
I likewise stated, I didn't hire Benton, but Stein must have handled the 
situation and apparently he is the one who hired Benton and what in- 
structions he gave Benton I don't know. 

The Chairman. All right, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. These checks are not made payable to Nate Stein. 

Mr. Hoffa. I didn't say they were. 

Mr. Kennedy. These checks are made payable directly to Joel Ben- 
ton, and these vouchers give a description of what the money is sup- 
posed to have been used for. 

Mr. Hoffa. I said that. 

Mr. Kennedy. And there is nothing in the checks or in the vouchers 
that show that the money was to be used for counting any trucks. 
There is no mention at all of counting trucks. 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, Mr. Kennedy, the checks will have to speak for 
themselves, and so will the voucher. I was satisfied with the explana- 
tion that I received from Stein, and the information I received from 
him. I had the authority to draft the check, and whether or not you 
will agree with me or not in what I did, the checks will speak for them- 
selves and I believe my organization is perfectly satisfied with my 
activities because they approved of the 1)90 form filed with the Gov- 
ernment insofar as compliance with Taft-Hartley is concerned. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you will agree that these vouchers attached to 
the checks are not accurate, will you not ? 

Mr. Hoffa. As I told you, Senator McClellan, I don't recall any 
bills that came in for advertising, and I don't recall any advertising, 
and in that event I would have to say that the statements, unless there 
was something that I don't know anything about, could be misleading. 
That is the best I can tell you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now you say your membership approved. Did your 
membership know you were spending this money for the counting of 
trucks out in California ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't go to any membership with each and every re- 
quest or each and every expenditure because I have authority to run 
the organization from the executive board and the members, and I 
am quite sure that you are familiar with the minutes that we turned 
over to you where the membership gives me that authority. 



15006 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. What about this check that we have discussed with 
Mr. Gibbons, of $3,000 that went to Samuel Feldman, Mr. Hoffa? 
Could you explain your part in that? 

Mr. Hoffa. My part ; what part did I have with the check ? Would 
you mind telling me? That is because my signature is on the check, 
that is what you are referring to ? 

Mr. Kennedy. We cannot find the check right now, but your sig- 
nature does appear on the check for $3,000. 

Mr. Hoffa. I understand that. 

Mr. Kennedy. To Samuel Feldman on August 15, 1955. 

Now, could you tell us why that money was paid to Mr. Feldman ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I can't tell you why the money was paid. Gibbons 
has the authority as secretary-treasurer to fill in the necessary checks 
for expenditures that he thinks are required for the benefit of our 
organization, and I signed the checkbooks in blank, and returned this 
receipt for vouchers for the checks he issued, and after issuing the 
checks I sign the vouchers. If there is any question concerning the 
expenditure, I take it up prior to signing the voucher with Gibbons. 

In this instance, I suppose it was a routine voucher that came 
through, and I simply signed it and sent it back to Gibbons, and that 
is all there would be about it so far as I was concerned. 

Mr. Kennedy. So this is Mr. Gibbons' responsibility ; is that right ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, I would assume that it is. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know that the money was going from Mr. 
Feldman immediately to Mr. Nate Stein ? 

Mr. Hoffa. As I tell you, I didn't know anything about the check, 
and it passed through the routine vouchers, and so I can't give you any 
explanation concerning that check. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, what other work was there? Was Mr. Stein 
doing some work for you personally, Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. Hoffa. You mean outside of my union capacity ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, describe what work Mr. Stein was doing. 

Mr. Hoffa. I told you what he did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Public relations work ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there any other kind of work ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't know, and I can't recall. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the nature of the public relations work 
he was doing ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I just told you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, no, I didn't understand you then. 

Mr. Hoffa. I will tell you again. 

Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Mr. Hoffa, I believe you stated in the beginning 
that Mr. Stein did some work for you and for the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Hoffa. When I say "myself," I mean in my official capacity at 
the directions from the Teamsters. 

Mr. Kennedy. Any work like that would be for the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. You might personally employ him to work for the 
Teamsters ; is that what you meant ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15007 

Mr. Kennedy. No personal work for you outside of the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't recall at any time he did any work for me per- 
sonally, and I don't believe there was any such time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell the committee what he was doing 
for the Teamsters, then, or for you in that capacity ? 

Mr. Hoffa. As I told you, he was requested by myself to check on 
the number of trucks. 

Mr. Kennedy. I mean beyond that. 

Mr. Hoffa. Just a moment, please. And in conjunction with that 
to do whatever public relations he could do on the west coast in behalf 
of the Teamsters Union, in whatever capacity he thought was neces- 
sary for good public relations. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the Teamsters on the west coast understand that 
he was working for the Teamsters in connection with public relations? 

Mr. Hoffa. I did not consult anybody on the west coast, because 
it was being paid for out of my local union, and it didn't concern the 
west coast because it was for the good of the Teamsters as such in 
my opinion. 

The Chairman. Would your local union have jurisdiction out 
there? 

Mr. Hoffa. No, sir; but transcontinental trucks running from the 
west coast to the east coast interexchange freight with our trucks and 
we are affected by any operational changes that may take place on the 
west coast, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about local 41 in Kansas City, the money 
received from them ; what was he doing for them ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I just told told you that I can only identify the check, 
and I couldn't tell you what it was for. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not asking about Joel Benton, but he was doing 
other work, and he got other bills paid by local 41 in Kansas City. 
I am asking what work he was doing for local 41 in Kansas City. 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't know how I could tell you, Senator. 

The Chairman. We are talking about Nate Stein. 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't see how I can answer such a question. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't have any idea ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the local speak to you prior to the time they re- 
tained him ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Speak to me ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, about Stein. 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't know why they would. They may have, and I 
don't know why they would. 

Mr. Kennedy. When lie was in Kansas City ? 

Mr. Hoffa. After all, I am very friendly with local 41 as well as 
I am with the rest of the Teamsters in the United States, Mr. Kennedy, 
and they consult with me pretty regularly in almost everything they 
do. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they talk to you about retaining Nate Stein? 

Mr. Hoffa. No, they did not, 

Mr. Kennedy. They did not ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Not that I recall. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had they known Nate Stein prior to that time? 

Mr. Hoffa. I am quite sure that they knew Nate Stein about the 
same time that I did. 



15008 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Air. Kennedy. Why would that be ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I met Stein, I believe, the first time, was at our con- 
vention in Los Angeles in 1952. The same representatives from 41 
that are there today were at that convention. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was Mr. Stein doing at that convention ? 

Mr. Hoffa. What was he doing there ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Hoffa. Mr. Stein was just there, some one of our representa- 
tives must have known him prior to that time and invited him to the 
convention as a spectator, and we became acquainted with him at that 
time. I am quite sure, almost positive, that was the first time I met 
Stein. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was he there with ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I wouldn't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have no idea ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand that he was the public relations 
man for the Sands Hotel in Los Angeles ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Never directly, but I understood, or nobody ever told 
me he was, and I never asked him and it was none of my business, 
but I assumed that he was, from some of his activities. 

Mr. Kennedy. When he was in Kansas City, he had quite a number 
of calls to the Sands Hotel in Las Vegas, and the Sands Hotel office 
in Los Angeles, and generally to friends around the country, all of 
which were paid out of Teamster funds. Did you know that? 

Mr. Hoffa. By 41? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Hoffa. No, I wouldn't know about that. 

Mr. Kennedy. You would not know anything about their relation- 
ship or arrangement with Mr. Stein ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I wouldn't know why 41 was paying Stein's telephone 
bills, but I assume they would have good reasons, and were using Stein 
for some purpose. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wasn't Mr. Stein in touch with you when he was in 
Kansas City ? 

Mr. Hoffa. What did you say ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Wasn't Mr. Stein in touch with you when he was in 
Kansas City? 

Mr. Hoffa. Stein is in touch with me quite often and he could very 
easily be. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he keep you advised as to what he was doing in 
Kansas City for the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Not that I recall. As a matter of fact, I don't know 
what he was doing in Kansas City. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Hoffa, Mr. Stein was in touch with you 
quite frequently in October of 1957, was he not ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Stein is in touch with me quite often. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was he in touch with you about in October of 
1957, starting October 15, 1957, or October 16, 1957 ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I wouldn't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. He called you October 19, 1957 ? 

Mr. Hoffa. He could have called me a dozen times in one week, and 
it wouldn't surprise me, and it wouldn't surprise me if he called me 
once a month. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15009 

Mr. Kennedy. October 21, 1957, he called you, and October 27, 1957, 
and October 28, 1957, and October 31, 1957. A number of these calls 
are to your own home. The call that was made on October 19, 1957, 
there was a call made on October 19, 1957, from Nate Stein, that was 
made from your home ? 

Mr. Hoffa. It is not surprising, he visits my home. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us what he was doing there ? 

Mr. Williams. Would you further identify those calls, from where 
they were made. 

Mr. Kennedy. A call from Mr. Hoffa from his home to Stein at 
Crestview 4-2757 in Beverly Hills. 

On October 16, 1957, Stein called Mr. Hoffa collect at local 299 from 
Beverly Hills. 

October 19, 1957, Nate Stein made a call from HoftVs home to Los 
Angeles. 

On October 21, 1957, Nate Stein called Mr. Hoffa collect, local 299, 
from New York. At that time he was at Circle 5-7195. That number 
is listed to the law office of Ducker & Feldman, the same lawyers who 
received this $3,000 payment. 

The Chairman. How does that date relate to the time they received 
the check. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is some time afterwards. This is October 21, 1957, 
and I believe the check was in 1955, August of 1955. 

The Chairman. All right. 

(Members present: Senators McClellan, Ives, and Church.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember what that was about, Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Mr. Kennedy, I told you that I know Stein. Stein may 
have called me to ask me about my health, my family, he may have 
been relaying some information about something he picked up on the 
west coast or something he picked up concerning the Teamsters that 
he thought may have been of some value to me. I don't remember what 
the individual conversations were, because I had no reason to remember 
them. 

The Chairman. What kind of work was he doing for the Teamsters 
in 1957? That is, at this time, at the time of these calls? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't believe he was doing any work, Senator. I don't 
think there is any checks issued out of any of our organizations at 
that time for Stein, in as far as 299 or our joint council was concerned. 

The Chairman. It appears from the records of telephone calls 
that beginning on January 28, 1957, up to February 24, 1958, he placed 
some 19 long-distance telephone calls collect from different places and 
the Teamsters paid for them. Now, can you tell us why ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No, I can't tell you why. 

The Chairman. These calls were to you. 

Mr. Hoffa. As I say, Senator, he may have been relaying some in- 
formation he had picked up concerning the Teamsters or picked up 
some information he thought may have been of concern to the Team- 
sters Union. He may have been simply calling up to inquire about 
the situation concerning our unions 

The Chairman. You said about the health of your family a while 
ago. 

Mr. Hoffa. It could be very easily, sir. 

The Chairman. He would not be calling you collect on the Team- 
sters' pay to find out about the health of your family, would he? 



15010 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Hoffa. He may add that into some other information he sub- 
mitted to me ; yes, it could happen. 

The Chairman. I am talking about the primary purpose of the call. 
Of course, you call a fellow and you say: "How are you, Jim," or 
"Jack," or "Tom," and "how is your family?" Then you go into 
your business. 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. Now, what was the business ? That is what I am 
trying to find out. 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't know what it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. A lot of these calls were in January and February 
of this year. 

Mr. Hoffa. You will find a lot of calls. You will find some recent- 
ly, even, if you will just check. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could we put this in ? 

The Chairman. Mr. Bellino, have you compiled these calls from 
the records of the telephone company ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. This sheet may be made exhibit No. 169. 

(The sheet referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 169" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, continuing this discussion of the use 
of union funds, I would like to ask you about another matter. 

Senator Ives. Before you get to that other matter, there is some- 
thing I would like to ask Mr. Hoffa. 

The Chairman. All right, Senator Ives. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Hoffa, on the obituary page of the New York 
Times today, page 21, appears an article — you have probably seen it. 

Mr. Hoffa. No, I have not seen it. 

Senator Ives. If you have not seen it, undoubtedly you know about 
it. It is headed, "Teamsters Here Back McNamara." 

Mr. Hoffa. I am familiar with it. I have read the article. 

Senator Ives. I assumed you had. 

There is one thing here that I want to read to you, because it bears 
out some of the testimony you have given over a period of time. 

I think it is in your favor. Maybe you would like to hear some- 
thing from us now and then in your favor. 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, it would be an exception. I certainly would. 

Senator Ives. Bear in mind we are fair. 

Mr. Hoffa. I appreciate that. 

Senator Ives. This is what it says : 

It was disclosed that the executive board of local 808 had turned down two 
requests last month from James R. Hoffa, international president of the union. 
They refused to carry out his order that an audit of the local's finances be 
turned over to the monitors and that McNamara take a leave of absence. 

Mr. Hoffa. I am familiar with both of them and I can give you 
an answer on both of them. 

Senator Ives. I am not asking you anything. I am reading the 
newspaper story. 

Mr. Hoffa. I think they deserve an explanation, because the print 
is incorrect. 

Senator Ives. This is why I am bringing it up, and I may read 
your testimony during last year's hearings. You promised me per- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15011 

sonally — do you remember the promise you gave me — that you were 
going to run a good union, you were going to clean house? 

Mr. Hoffa. I very well recall it. 

Senator Ives. It still stands, does it not ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I think I can verify the fact that I have. 

Senator Ives. Is this part of the way in which you have been carry- 
ing it out — your promise i 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, but I think that the answer to the questions raised 
in the paper and the suspicions that it arouses, that there is some 
kind of defiance against my instructions, should be clarified now that 
it has been placed in the record. 

Senator Ives. You are not going to put yourself in the same cate- 
gory as McNamara, are you ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I think McNamara's position ought to be clarified in 
all fairness to McNamara and to his executive board, Senator. 

Senator Ives. All right, you clarify it. But for heaven's sake, do 
not get in bed with him. 

Mr. Hoffa. The problem is this: McNamara's local union has a 
certified public accountant statement. That statement, at my request, 
was submitted to the international office. I in turn made that avail- 
able to the monitors. The certified public accountant's statement was 
in compliance with the constitution and bylaws of the international 
union. 

When the monitors insisted upon Price, Waterhouse going in and 
auditing the books of 808, 808 took the position that they had 
already complied with the constitution in submitting a CPA report 
concerning their funds, and felt that the monitors had no right to 
put their local union to the added burden of expenses necessary for a 
second audit, but first they should go over the audit submitted by that 
local union to determine if there was anything wrong with the audit 
and, if so, they agreed to have their CPA discuss the matter with those 
who were complaining about the report. That took care of that one. 

The second request was that McNamara make up his mind in regards 
to either resigning from 808 or 295, that he couldn't be an officer of 
both local unions. 

It became a legal question, much to my surprise, and two lawyers 
took a different view concerning the interpretation of the international 
constitution as to whether or not an individual member could be an 
officer of two local unions. 

I requested and instructed McNamara to resign from one of the 
two local unions. 

McNamara, in turn, replied to my request that he would leave 808 
and remain an officer of 295 only. He submitted his resignation to 
808, which is the express drivers of New York. 

The express drivers, at a special called meeting refused to accept 
his resignation, and requested that he remain an officer of their 
organization and also 295, I am informed, requested that he remain 
an officer of that organization. It is now up for determination be- 
tween our lawyers, who are in disagreement, by the way, as to whether 
or not a member can, under our constitution, be an officer of more 
than one local union. 

Senator Ives. Just a minute. 

I thought you said they could not be. 



15012 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Hoffa. 1 said the question was raised by myself. 

Senator Ives. As to whether they could or could not? I see. I 
thought you said the constitution prohibited it. 

Mr. Hoffa. No, sir, it isn't clear, and the lawyers, generally, when 
they read it, read it for whatever they can find in it, and they are in 
dispute. 

When that question is resolved, then I will make a decision, based 
upon their interpretation as to whether or not he can remain in both 
locals or one local union. 

I have been assured by the officers of both local unions that they will 
comply with the final order from my office as to whether or not he 
cannot remain an officer of one or two local unions. 

Senator Ives. I appreciate that explanation, but I just want to ask 
you one question in connection with it, or maybe two. 

In the first place, this article in the New York Times, which is 
reputed to be a pretty honest paper, one that we can usually rely on 
is apparently misleading, is it not ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, they probably got secondhand information, not 
firsthand information, and printed what they thought was the truth. 

Senator Ives. The article would lead one to believe that you were 
taking issue with the local there on this matter, taking issue with 
the members of the local, taking your own position in the matter and 
defying the members of the local that voted the way they voted. That 
is what I get out of the article itself, the general purport of it. 

Now, there are 400 members present at that meeting out of some- 
thing of a membership like 1,300. You know the membership. 

Mr. Hoffa. It is roughly 1,300. 

Senator Ives. And it says about three-quarters of those that voted 
were for McNamara, is that right ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is correct. 

Senator Ives. Well, do not be so defensive in your answers. Just 
answer openly and freely, if you will, please. 

Now, in line with our conversation of a year ago, it occurs to me 
that Mr. McNamara is one of those people who should be removed 
from this union. 

Mr. Hoffa. That, I don't agree with you on, and I don't place 
McNamara in any connection with the individuals you discussed, 
because McNamara's case is up on an appeal. 

Senator Ives. He has been convicted of extortion. He is appeal- 
ing it, yes. You want to take the position that you are going to wait 
until the appeal is through ? 

(Witness confers with his counsel.) 

Mr. Hoffa. He received a writ of reasonable doubt from the ap- 
peal courts. His case will come up in the fall, I understand. Until 
such time as he has had an opportunity to exhaust his legal rights, 
I do not believe that he can be classified in a position other than an 
individual who has not exhausted his appeal. 

I will not, and I state it publicly and I have stated it before, I 
will not take action against anybody until such time as they have had 
their final appeal, all the way up to the courts. 

Senator Ives. I realize that is your position, and I am not going 
to argue with you about it. You have a perfect right to that position. 

I think, fundamentally, you probably are accurate. But I want 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15013 

to ask you the next question, which is a very natural question. If his 
conviction stands, are you going to make him get out then ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Probably, if his conviction stands, I will have no 
decision to make because the decision will have been made by the 
courts and McNamara will be 

Senator Ives. He will be in jail. 

Mr. Hoffa. Will be out of the local union. 

Senator Ives. You believe he will be out of the local union? 

Mr. Hoffa. He would be out of the local union. 

Senator Ives. He would be in jail, probably. 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ives. That takes him out automatically. 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ives. Tell me this while we are on this subject. Are you 
still going to keep paying his salary ? Are you going to keep paying 
his wife his salary after he is in jail ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, I say to you, Senator, seriously 

Senator Ives. These are far-reaching questions I am asking you. 

Mr. Hoffa. And I will answer you, publicly and for the record. I 
say to you that problem will be left up to his membership to make 
the decision. 

Senator Ives. In other words, you are going along with the mem- 
bership ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ives. Well, they had 400 that voted yesterday, or whenever 
this was, out of 1,300. Do you think if the whole 1,300 were present 
the vote would be of the same proportion, 3 to 1 ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator, I say to you I happen to know something 
about this meeting, and on the windshield of the trucks, the Kailway 
Express drivers, was placed a letter that I wrote to the monitors of 
this international union, by some clever individual, and I have my 
suspicions who it is, which should have brought about the full at- 
tendance of this local union of all of its members. 

If only 400 members saw fit to show up, then the balance of the 
local union must abide by the decision of those who attended the meet- 
ing, the same as they do when they elect a Senator, a Congressman, or 
any other elective officer. And, likewise, I may say that any Senator 
or Congressman who is absent from a session of Congress certainly 
ought not to have any right to complain about the action those pres- 
ent were able to have voted on by a majority of the people. 

Senator Ives. I cannot argue with you about that at all, and I can- 
not argue with you about a minority showing up at a meeting. That 
is one of the things we have been concerned about. 

You will remember we went into that in some detail last year. 

Mr. Hoffa. I remember that. 

Senator Ives. It was how to get the members to show up. 

Your union, as I understand, has secret ballots. I think you told 
us about that last year? 

Mr. Hoffa. For election of officers and for strike votes. 

Senator Ives. For election of officers you have secret ballots ? 

Mr. Hoffa. And for strike votes. 

Senator Ives. And for strike votes? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes. 



15014 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Ives. That is my recollection. 

You still have that? 

Mr. 1 Ioffa. In the constitution ; yes. 

Senator Ives. Tell me this, and I will not hold this up too much 
longer, but in line with that pledge you gave me a year ago, and I 
have enough faith in you to think that you meant it, what have you 
done in the meantime to help clean house with some of your local 
unions? You know as well as I do that one of your troubles is the 
fact that you have so blamed many bums, racketeers, gangsters and 
the Lord knows what in your organization, ex-criminals, criminals 
and I don't know what. That is one of your troubles. 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't like to take the time up of this committee, but 
you have asked me this, I think, twice. 

Senator Ives. I think this is important. 

Mr. Hoffa. I would like to give a resume, if I may, of something 
that may interest you and this committee. 

May I, Mr. Chairman, take a few minutes to do it ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Hoffa. The following analysis relates to individuals, directly 
or indirectly connected with the Teamsters, who have been accused by 
the McClellan committee of criminal activity. This analysis is based 
on the transcripts of testimony, the interim report, and information 
supplied to the international union from various sources. 

1. Not now and never were members, officers — 
Senator Ives. Have you a copy of that ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No, sir; I am sorry. I only have one. The reason 
I only have one, if I may say, Mr. Chairman, is that we run it off just 
before we came here. We will have copies and will be happy to give 
them to you, once we are able to get them run off. 

Senator Ives. Thank you. 

Mr. Hoffa (reading) : 

Not now and never were members, officers, agents, or representatives of the 
Teamsters Union : John Dio Guardi, Angelo Meli, Paul Dorfman, John Bitonti, 
Anthony Doria, Ben Lapensohn, Lou Farrell, Charles Kaminetsky, Harry 
Friedman, Carmen Tramunti, Sam Berger, Herman Prujansky, Burle Michaelson, 
Max Stern, A. Harvill, and W. Harvill. 

2. Members of Teamsters Union as required by union-shop agreement, but not 
officers or employees: Jack Ballard, Tom Shoulders, Jr., Barney Sandridge, 
Joseph Grosscup, Basil Webb, Cbarlie Clure, Joe Ferrara, John Poule, Carl Cotez. 

3. Former officers or employees but no longer associated with the Teamsters in 
any capacity : Gerald Connelly, Dan Keating, Sam Morosso, Louis Berra, Joe 
Curcio, Sidney Hodes, Nathan Carmel, Milton Levine, Max Chester, Jack Priore, 
Phillip Goldberg, Abraham Goldberg, Lester Stickles, Herman Kierdorf, Frank 
Kierdorf, Louis Shoulders, Byron Flick, Eugene James, Ziggy Snyder, Mike 
Nicoletti, Lewis Linteau, Ernie Bellas, Harry Davidoff, Nat Gordon, Aaron 
Kleinman, Dan Marvin, Sam Zaber, Abe Brier, Sam Goldstein, Phillip Massiello, 
John Myhasuk ; Shorty Feldman, under suspension ; Reddin and Lattin. 

4. Officers or employees of Teamsters who have been arrested but never con- 
victed of any crime, and they are still on the payroll : Frank Fitzsimmons, Abe 
Gordon, William Buffalino. Saltzman is no longer with the Teamsters. That 
belongs in the other classification. That is why we didn't give it. We are still 
checking some of these — Cecil Watts, Clyde Crosby, Gene San Soucie, Joe 
Bommarito. 

5. Officers, agents or employees who were convicted of misdemeanors or 
felonies before employment by or election to office of Teamsters Union. Date of 
conviction preceding employment follows each name. Barney Baker, 1935; Wil- 
liam Presser, 1953 ; Al Vignalli, 1935 ; Larry Welch, court martial ; Albert New- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15015 

man, 1954 ; Antonio Corallo, 1941 ; Gus Zappas, 1938 ; Ed Walker ; Joseph 
Cendrowski, 1940 ; Arthur Freese, Nick Frank, John EIco, Sam Cutillo, 1937 ; 
Louis Trisearo, 1933; William Hoffa, 1942; Roland McMasters, 1936; Joseph 
Glimco, 1923 ; Branch Wainwright, 1950 ; Jack Thompson, 1937 ; Theodore Cozza ; 
Raymond Cohen is incorrect. He was never convicted, to my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes ; he was. 

Mr. Hoffa. He was convicted? 

Abe Berman, 1951 ; Peter Luscko ; Michael Sobolewski, 1940; Harry 
Lindsay, 1923 ; Charles Amoroso, 1957, for trespassing-. 

Senator Ives. May I interrupt you there a moment, Mr. Hoffa? 
Those people you have just named now, as I understand it, have been 
convicted ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ives. And are on appeal ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No, sir. 

Senator Ives. They have just been convicted and not sentenced? 

Mr. Hoffa. They have been convicted; their sentence has been 
either fines, probation, or if they served time, they have been out a 
considerable number of years, as you will see here from the report. 

Senator Ives. Those convicted of felonies have they had their citi- 
zenship restored ? 

Mr. Williams. Senator, all these convictions, to clear up this mat- 
ter, antedated their employment or their election to office by the 
Teamsters. That is the significance. 

Senator Ives. They do not hold any office now ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir; they do, but their convictions were prior to 
the time that they were officers of our organization. I may say that 
there is 12 people here. Senator, on this list, out of the list I just 
named, that are now being investigated by our committee as to what 
action we should take against those 12 individuals. 

When the 12 individuals are investigated, we will then investigate 
the balance of them to determine what recommendations our commit- 
tee believes are necessary to correct this situation. 

Senator Ives. Let me ask you a question I started to when you 
started this. 

How large a number of that group that you just named, and I do 
not know how many there were in it, have had their citizenship 
restored ? 

I think some of those people have been convicted of felonies. 

Mr. Hoffa. There isn't an individual here that we can find, Sena- 
tor, that have lost any of their civil rights. 

Senator Ives. They are all full citizens? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ives. Even though they have been convicted of felonies? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ives. Their civil rights have been restored ? 

Mr. Hoffa. From the best we can find out from the quick check 
we made, that is correct. We will have it in more detail shortly. 

Senator Ives. You are going into it shortly to check the whole 
thing? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir ; our committee is going into it. 

Senator Ives. Do you have more to read yet ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes. 

21243— 59— pt. 40 6 



15016 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Ives. 1 do not want to interrupt your reading because I 
think what you are saying is very important, But I want to ask 
you this while we are at it: How many of these people who have 
lost their positions as officials in your union have lost that position 
or their position because of action taken by yourself ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator, let me say this to you, and I want to refer 
to Mr. Kennedy's remark 

Senator Ives. I am trying to help you. 

Mr. Hoffa. I am trying to help you, if you will let me answer. 

Senator Ives. I do not need any help. 

Mr. Hoffa. I mean by answering. 

In answer to Senator Kennedy the other day about being tough, 
I found out a long time ago that only kids are tough, very few 
adults are tough. I don't propose to remove people from office. I 
think if you have any way, any persuasive way at all, that you can 
talk to individuals who will take care of their own problems. I 
haven't directly told anybody here to resign, and I don't think I will 
have to tell anybody in the future to resign. I think by a matter 
of discussion and commonsense they, themselves, will relieve them- 
selves from the payroll, and we will correct the situation within 
the Teamsters Union without taking any drastic action. 

Senator Ives. Are you sure they will not relieve the union of the 
payroll ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I am very sure, Senator, and I will say that I am 
capable of being able to handle the situations that deal with the 
Teamsters International Union. 

Senator Ives. I think you are, if you will do it. 

Mr. Hoffa. I think this record will have to speak for itself. 

Senator Ives. Well, go on ahead and go on with your record, 
please, and I did not mean to interrupt you. 

Mr. Hoffa (reading) : 

6. Convictions while officers or representatives and still official of union : 

W. A. Smith : Arrest record consists almost entirely of pleas of guilty to 
violations of city ordinances relating to such things as disorderly conduct and 
traffic violations which are neither misdemeanors nor felonies. Recent convic- 
tion for assault in labor dispute — on appeal. 

Glenn Smith ; Since his employment by local Teamsters union, had one 
conviction for assault and battery in 1948 in connection with a labor dispute. 
Fined $100. Earlier arrest record antedated his employment by the Teamsters 
by some years. Since last offense he had worked regularly as a truckdriver 
for over 10 years before the executive board of his local union hired him as a 
business agent in 1946. Recently charged and tried— just a moment, and I will 
give you all the information and I am not hiding anything. He was recently 
charged with making improper contributions of union money. He is now 
under indictment for tax violations growing out of same matter. Found not 
guilty by trial board and verdict sustained by unanimous vote of his member- 
ship at special meeting. International union restrained from proceeding against 
him by court order. That comes up October 1. 

H. H. Boiling — Convicted of illegal transportation of alcohol before becom- 
ing union officer. Now under indictment for tax matters with Glenn Smith, 
concerning which above comments also apply, including union acquittal and 
court order restraining international union. Comes up October 1 and our 
lawyers will be there to handle that case. 

Mr. Kennedy. I do not believe you gave the full story on Glenn 
W. Smith as far as his convictions are concerned. 
Mr. Hoffa. Will you tell me what I left out ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15017 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you put in the two convictions that he had had 
during the 1930's, convictions, I believe, for armed robbery, or for 
burglary ? He had been convicted twice prior to becoming a Team- 
ster official. 

Mr. Hoffa. Just a moment. 

Mr. Kennedy. He had been convicted in 1949 in Kentucky. 

Mr. Hoffa. I will find it, if it is here. As I say, we got this 
together in kind of a hurry. 

As pointed out by Attorney Previant, we say he had some viola- 
tions of law prior to becoming a Teamster, and they could con- 
ceivably be the incidents. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were two very serious ones, and then, of 
course, he had the other conviction while a Teamster in 1949, and 
then the payment of the $20,000 in 1952, so he has had quite a record. 

Mr. Hoffa (reading) : 

Sidney Brennan — convicted in November 1956 for misdemeanor in accepting 
money from an employer. Payment had nothing to do with collective bar- 
gaining unit or contract of Teamsters Union. The case was a test case of 
definitions under Taft-Hartley Act. Membership has repeatedly voted con- 
fidence in Brennan since this conviction. He stands for election in his local 
union this fall. This was not an extortion. Court imposed fine and probation 
as first offense. He is no longer a vice president of the international union. 

Eugene Williams — same as above. 

Jack Jorgenson — same as above. 

Milton Holt- 
Mr. Kennedy. Those were all appealed to the Supreme Court? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were all appealed to the Supreme Court, and 
the court sustained the verdict and these people still hold their 
positions ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is correct. 

As I stated here in the record, their membership are aware of the 
convictions, and the membership has taken action on the question, 
and they have to stand election this fall, to get whether or not the 
membership will want them to remain in the local union. 

Senator Ives. May I raise a question there, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to make a suggestion to your organization, Mr. Hoffa. I 
do not know whether you realize it or not, but I am interested in 
making the Teamsters a great organization. I really am. 

Mr. Hoffa. We are a great organization. 

Senator Ives. I know, but you are not as great as you could be, and 
I am interested in making the Teamsters the greatest one it can be. 

Mr. Hoffa. We accept your help. 

Senator Ives. I am glad to give it any time. 

Now I want to make this suggestion, here is where the help comes 
in : I suggest that if you have a convention, and you may be having 
one judging from the newspaper reports I am reading, in February ; 
is that right? When you have a convention, I suggest you amend 
your constitution or your bylaws, adding a provision which will pro- 
hibit the holding of office by people who have been convicted of felonies 
and have not had their full citizenship restored. 

Now you have gentlemen that have been convicted and you are 
going to leave it up to the membership. I do not believe in that. 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator, there isn't anybody 



15018 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Ives. There are certain things you cannot do under our 
own Constitution of the United States, you know. 

Mr. Hoffa. There isn't a person on here, I am trying to tell you, 
there isn't anybody here that we can find who has lost their civil lib- 
erties or civil rights. 

Senator Ives. If you have people convicted of felonies, you have 
people there that have lost their civil rights at one time or another. 

Mr. Hoffa. They have a right to have them restored. 

Senator Ives. Exactly. When they are restored, then they should 
be able to hold office again, but until that time they should not be 
eligible for office. 

Mr. Hoffa. I apparently am not making it clear. 

Senator Ives. You are going to leave it to the members ? 

Mr. Hoffa. It isn't true ; I am talking about Sidney Brennan. 

Senator Ives. You are talking about somebody else now. 

Mr. Hoffa. I was talking about Smith a moment ago, Jorgenson, 
and Williams, and they have not at any time, so far as Williams, 
Jorgenson, or Brennan were concerned, lost their rights. They did 
not have to go out and get anybody to give them back any rights they 
were entitled to as American citizens. 

Senator Ives. They were not convicted of felonies, you mean ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No, sir ; it was a misdemeanor. [Reading :] 

Milton Holt — violation of Federal Antitrust Act in connection with alleged 
illegal contract between union and employers association. Now tinder indict- 
ment for perjury, and hasn't been brought to trial, and that will depend purely 
upon evidence once it goes to trial. 

McNamara — convicted but appeal pending, and released on bond on certificate 
of reasonable doubt. 

Alfred Reger — convicted but appeal pending and released on bond on certifi- 
cate of reasonable doubt. 

Frank Matula — convicted but appeal pending. 

Herman Hendricks — picket line scuffle. 

Bernie Adelstein — under indictment. Case hasn't come up yet. 

Charles A. Amarosa — trespassing during strike. 

Of the total of this operation, 106 persons named on the attached list above : 

Sixteen were never members, agents, or officers of the Teamsters Union. 

Nine were members only who, upon employment, are admitted to membership 
in the local union. 

Thirty-four are no longer connected with the Teamsters Union. 

Eight have been arrested on records only followed by acquittals or no prose- 
cution. 

Twenty-six were convicted of misdemeanors or felonies for varying periods 
of time prior to their assumption of office in or employment by Teamsters 
Union. 

Thirteen were arrested and convicted while in official capacity. Their cases 
are now being reviewed by the international union. 

The list does not include the many witnesses and others referred to in the 
testimony regarding whom there is no claim or basis for charge of criminal 
activity. It clearly appears that the committee is talking about a mere handful 
of union officers and agents out of the more than 3,000 full-time officers of the 
Teamsters Union, and about arrests and offenses which in the main do not of 
themselves indicate a lack of capability to represent workingmen or demon- 
strate a tendency to injure or prejudice the interests of those whom they 
represent. 

So in response to what I told you last year, I believe we have, in my 
opinion, and I think the record will speak for itself, did more to 
correct this situation in a short period of time I have been in office 
than the officers prior to my time did in the entire history of this 
international union. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15019 

Senator Ives. I think you have made great strides in that direc- 
tion. I will commend you for what you have done. I don't think 
that you have gone the whole route and I think you have a long way to 
go, and I want to ask questions of our counsel before I get through. 

But I do want to get this out of you, Mr. Hoffa : You have not given 
any reply to that question about your changing your constitution with 
respect to officeholders. I think that you should do that. In the eyes 
of the public, and after all is said and done, the strength of a labor 
organization in the final analysis rests with the opinion of the 
American people regarding it. 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator, I don't disagree with your last statement, but 
the question of changing this constitution will be subject to the will 
of the delegates to our next convention. 

Senator Ives. That is right. 

Mr. Hoffa. And we will submit in due time to our convention what 
we believe will be a correction of some of the problems that have 
arisen during the period of time that I have been the administrative 
officer of this international union. 

Senator Ives. I am mighty glad to know that. 

What I am saying I think is rather far reaching in respect to other 
labor organizations as well as with respect to the Teamsters. These 
reforms — let us call them that — have got to be made and preferably 
made within the labor organizations themselves. I am here to tell 
you if they are not made that way, they will be made by government. 

Mr. Hoffa. We recognize that, Senator. 

Senator Ives. When they are made by government, the law you are 
apt to get will be no Kennedy-Ives bill. It is something that will go 
a great deal further and may in the end destroy labor organizations, 
at least temporarily, and cause a great deal of trouble in the country. 
That is something that everybody should be careful about. That is 
why I am thinking about that, too. 

Now, Mr. Counsel, I have a question I would like to ask you. 

You heard the list of names that Mr. Hoffa called out there. Can 
you speak for their accuracy with respect to our own records or the 
inaccuracy of our records. I will admit we sometimes make mistakes. 

Mr. Hoffa. This came from your records, out of the daily reports, 
this record was built. 

Senator Ives. If they did come from our records, do you agree with 
what you read, insofar as that is concerned ? You say a great deal 
of it you have to check into further. 

Mr. Hoffa. I didn't say a great deal. I think that there are 13 
people that I haven't already assigned committees to check into, and 
those 13 people that are not assigned will have committees assigned to 
them, to investigate them and make reports back to our organization. 

Senator Ives. Then my only comment on that is that the committee, 
I think, has done a great deal of good, and a great service in this con- 
nection. You have been enabled to present that record you have read 
this afternoon by following up what the committee has done. We 
have not been out trying to get you, and not one of us has been trying 
to get you. We have all been trying to help you. 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't want to take issue with that statement, while I 
don't agree with it. 

Senator Ives. Just exactly where have I been trying to get you ? 



15020 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Hoffa. I would say to you, with all due respect to the Senators 
conducting this hearing, that it is my considered opinion, for what- 
ever it is worth, that our Teamsters Union has been under attack 
unnecessarily, publicly and in stories that are for one purpose only, 
and that is "to destroy the Teamsters Union. I don't say this out 
of disrespect, but it is'my personal opinion, and I believe the working 
people of our international union driving trucks and working in 
warehouses and factories are in many instances of the same opinion 
that I am, and no later than yesterday I held a meeting of over 1,000 
people and expressed my views to them in Louisville, Ky. 

I may say to you that I expect to attend meetings all over this 
United States as rapidly as I am released from the hearings here, and 
airplanes can get me to those meetings, and I don't want to mislead 
anybody, because I certainly am going to tell the members in my 
opinion it has been in many instances unnecessary for this committee 
to attack the Teamsters Union the way they have, and in my opinion 
it was deliberately influenced to destroy the position of the Teamsters 
Union. 

Senator Ives. I can assure you anything I had to do with it, with 
this affair, has not been in any way, shape, or manner connected with 
any thought of destroying the Teamsters Union. I am sure that is 
true of all of the members. 

What we have been trying to do is help you clean house, and the 
list you read there shows that you have been on the job trying to 
clean house. 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator 

Senator Ives. It vindicates what we have been doing. 

Mr. Hoffa. I know only one way to clean house, and I have been 
handling this situation the only way I know how. and that is to call 
individuals in and discuss the problem with them, and as I stated 
before, have them recognize the Teamsters International Union is 
bigger than Jimmy Hoifa or any single individual in the Teamsters 
Union, and if it takes any one of us out of the picture to keep this 
a great international union, you will find in my opinion in every 
instance Teamsters officials will, without anybody commanding them 
or holding trials, accept their responsibility of leaving office and 
maintaining this a great international union. 

(Present in the hearing room: Senators McClellan, Ives, and 
Church.) 

Senator Ives. You can do one more thing, Mr. Hoffa, in that con- 
nection. I think it is very fine if you do that. I am in favor of that 
kind of approach myself. 

But you can do one more thing. You can impress upon the mem- 
bership their responsibilities in the selection of their officials. 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ives. That is most important, too. 

Mr. Hoffa. We are writing an article in our magazine. I will be 
very happy to supply it to you. It goes to 1.250,000 members regu- 
larly every month, from what I am told by the printer. 

We are writing an article concerning this very same problem you 
are talking about. I am not ducking the issue. I will be involved 
in the article, too. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15021 

Then we are going to have an opportunity in the early period of time 
to determine whether or not the administration, since I have been in 
office, is satisfactory to our representatives or not, throughout the 
country. 

Senator Ives. I am not stopping with the administration. I think 
the good that you have done already should be commended and I think 
you have done good, following our last year's hearing. 

While you may have shortcomings that are being revealed at the 
present time, the shortcomings, apparently, are becoming fewer in 
number. 

What I am talking about on approaching your membership, is to 
have them realize their responsibility for having the type of official 
that they should have. 

Mr. Hoffa. We are writing that article, sir. 

Senator Ives. Is that exactly what is in the article ? 

Mr. Hoffa. It is going to the members to alert them to the necessity 
of electing officials who may represent them properly and who are 
above approach. 

Senator Ives. In other words, it is not trying to vindicate any 
officials now holding office ? 

Mr. Hoffa. We are not trying to cover up anything and don't 
intend to use our magazine for that purpose, Senator. 

Senator Ives. All right. As long as you do that, you are on the 
right track. 

Mr. Hoffa. You will be able to read the article and so will the 
general public, and 1,250,000 members of the Teamsters. 

Senator Ives. Thanks for that. 

I am sorry to have taken all of this time. 

Senator Church. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Church. 

Senator Church. Mr. Hoffa, in reading over this list of Teamster 
officers who have been convicted at one time or another of criminal 
offenses, some of whom are no longer officers and some of whom remain 
officers, I think that the very list indicates the need for a cleanup in 
the Teamsters Union, the remaining and continuing need. 

In that connection, it seems to me that the most important factor 
is the attitude of the leadership in the Teamsters Union, and, more 
paricularly, your own attitude. 

So let us take the case of Mr. McNamara, because I would like to 
know and understand just exactly what your attitude and approach 
will be because I think basically the job will be done if you see to it. 

It is very likely not to be done if you do not see to it. 

Now, let's take this McNamara case and review it. I understand 
that Mr. McNamara is presently an officer of the Teamsters local ; is 
that correct ? 

Mi-. Hoffa. Yes, sir. 

Senator Church. And he has been duly convicted in a trial court of 
extortion ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Hoffa. The lower court ; yes, sir. 

Senator Church. And the matter is now on appeal to a higher court 
for review ? 

Mr. Hoffa. And he has been given a writ — I believe they call it — 



15022 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Church. He has been given whatever is necessary to ap- 
peal the case to a higher court to review the trial court's decision? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is correct. 

Senator Church. You have testified that in your opinion, as presi- 
dent of the international, you should take no action against a man 
who has been convicted by a trial court of extortion as long as the 
matter has not been finally adjudicated on appeal ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Church. And if I understand your testimony correctly, 
you said that in the event that the appeal court were to confirm the 
conviction of the trial court, that then you would assume that in the 
sentence that would follow, the action of the court would have the 
effect of removing Mr. McNamara as an officer of the local; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Church. So that in the full process of the law, then, in 
this instance, it is the action of the courts and ultimately the sentence 
of the court that removes Mr. McNamara from office and not the action 
of the international leadership of the Teamsters Union; is that cor- 
rect ? Does that not follow ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I would say it would necessarily follow, because an 
American citizen has a right, in my opinion, not to be judged guilty 
nor relieved of his responsibility until such time as he has exhausted 
final appeal. 

Otherwise, he would find himself in a position, Senator 

Senator Church. In other words, that does follow, does it not? 

Mr. Hoffa. I think it is necessary, Senator, in all fairness to explain 
why it would follow that way. 

Senator Church. I understand your reasoning being that until a 
man has gone through the entire process of having his case adjudicated 
in court, and until a final appeal has been taken, and a final ruling has 
been made, his case has not been disposed of judiciously. 

Mr. Hoffa. No, sir; that isn't the only reason. 

Senator Church. And, therefore, you ought not to take action until 
that full review has been given ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No, sir ; that isn't the only reason. 

Senator Church. Then what other reason is there ? 

Mr. Hoffa. An elective position to a union is no different from an 
elective position to the Senate or the Congress of the United States. It 
depends on the question of your ability to secure sufficient votes to be 
able to be elected. If I was to remove upon indictment or upon a lower 
court of appeal, an individual from his office if it was for an offense 
other than an offense directly involving the union and the funds, I 
would, in my opinion, create a situation to where, if that individual 
was found innocent, he would have lost his position in the union, 
and Avould be unable to regain his position even though he was found 
to be innocent, because an election taking place to fill his vacancy upon 
removal would have elected to office an individual who would have 
from 3 to 5 years, under our constitution, to remain in office. 

So even though he was found innocent, he would actually have 
been found guilty and relieved of his position prior to having his final 
opportunity to have his case appealed to the highest tribunal in this 
country. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15023 

Senator Church. I understand your reason that you have given. I 
have heard you give it before, before this committee. 

I don't agree with your reasoning. I don't agree for a great many 
reasons. I think that anyone convicted of a felony is convicted of a 
grievous offense against society, and I think that in the interest of 
protecting the membership of the union, in view of the responsibility 
and power that an officer of a local has, that in the very least, he ought 
to be suspended until a final determination in his case is made. 

What if a bank teller were convicted of stealing funds. Do you 
think that it is in the interest of wise business practice for the bank 
to retain him in the cage until the supreme court of the State has 
passed upon the case ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator, I have read some stories in my life where 
bank tellers were falsely accused, and their life was ruined because 
of their inability to maintain a position that they had chosen to make 
a livelihood out of, and after being found innocent the damage had 
already been caused. 

I don't propose to be one of those individuals. 

Senator Church. Do you not think, Mr. Hoffa, that it would be 
impossible within the Teamsters Union, to provide for a method of 
procedure which would make it possible for anyone who is accused, 
so seriously accused, that in the processes of law, a trial court after 
due consideration of the evidence has found him guilty, that at that 
point he could be suspended under an arrangement that would take him 
out of his position of power until such time as a review had been 
completed, and then if upon the review the conviction were reversed, 
he could be reinstated ? 

This attitude that a man should stay in office until the courts remove 
him, in effect, does not seem to me to be an attitude that it calculated 
to do the job that obviously needs doing in the Teamsters Union. 

Now, in connection with Mr. McNamara, you went on to say a few 
minutes ago that, in response to a question from the senator you 
said even if after the full process of the courts, if the court on final 
adjudication, on appeal, were to confirm the conviction, and even if 
then he were to be sent to prison, and sentenced for the crime that he 
was found guilty of committing, that you would leave the matter of 
whether or not union money should be paid to him while he was in 
prison or to his wife while he was in prison, up to the membership. 

Mr. Hoffa, it seems to me that what we are confronted with here 
is a question of right and wrong. I do not care if 100 bishops vote 
in favor of a position that is wrong, that does not make the position 
right. 

And T do not care if membership for one reason or another within 
a local by vote cast, votes to retain a man who is a convicted extor- 
tionist, or votes to pay him money while in prison, I do not think that 
such action is either right or conducive ot the job that obviously needs 
to be done in the Teamsters Union. 

Voting does not determine what is right and wrong; not in our 
society, not in our government, nowhere. 

We do not let a man's sentence in a community depend upon his 
popularity, if he lias been convicted of wrongdoing. The law 
governs. 



15024 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Nfow, it seems to me that if yon are going to get this job done in the 
Teamsters Union, it is going to take a very different attitude than the 
one that yon displayed here before this committee. 

Mr. Hoffa. May I answer you, Senator? 

Senator Church. Surely. 

Mr. IIoffa. Senator, I don't agree with you. If you will look back 
over the history of this country, on the question of elected officials to 
public office, you will find that the voting procedure of the history of 
this country will determine and has determined the question of 
whether or not an individual may or may not hold an office after 
a conviction. 

I don't think it is beyond reasoning to believe that an individual 
could make a mistake and an honest mistake. 

I don't believe it is beyond reasoning that an individual who is an 
officer of the Teamsters International Union or a local union is con- 
victed of a crime, and after a period of years if that individual decides 
to run for a public office, or he decides to run for a Federal office, I 
don't know of any law in this country, and I don't think you know of 
any law in this country, that keeps him from having a right as 
an American citizen from running for public office. 

Neither do I believe, and neither will you be able to prove, that the 
citizens, the voting citizens of a community, the same as the voting 
members of a union, do not have the right, the sole right, in my 
opinion, of determining who represents them and how they are 
represented. 

If you will look at the history of the United States Congress, you 
will rind that there have been individuals 

Senator Church. Now, Mr. Hoffa. 

Mr. Hoffa. That there have been individuals served here after 
a conviction 

Senator Church. Just a minute. I understand. You have given 
your reasons. I told you why I disagreed with the attitude yon are 
taking. 

I have sat here in this committee and I have listened to the most 
flagrant cases of abuse, of manhandling, of violence, of crime. 

You yourself have read a long list of people who have been officers 
at one time or another, and many of whom remained officers, who still 
are officers, some of whom have been convicted by the courts. 

Mr. Hoffa, I am saying that the attitude that you are taking, in 
my opinion, is not an attitude of the kind that is required to get the 
cleanup job done in the Teamsters Union. 

That is my opinion, and I think that it is one that is well substan- 
tiated on the evidence that lias been before this committee. 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator — excuse me. 

Senator Church. I do not need to have a lecture from you on 
morals or on the history of the United States. I know the history 
of the United States and I do not regard you as an authority on 
morals. 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator, may I say to you that you have never expelled 
a man from the Congress of the United States until he has exhausted 
his final appeal. I don't know where you get the right to lecture me 
on anything other than the rules that you have. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out a few mat- 
ters to Mr. Hoffa. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15025 

The Chairman. All right, gentlemen, if you are going to argue 

politics 

Senator Ives. This isn't polities. "We are getting back now to some 
fundamentals. 

I would like to remind Mr. Hoffa of his record to date, which is not 
what one would call exceedingly impressive. 

Mr. Hoffa. My personal record, Senator? 

Senator Eves. Wait a minute. You have not heard what I have 
to say. 

While I have commended him, in some ways, for what he has been 
endeavoring to do to straighten his situation out, I want to remind 
him of the following : 

Mr. Hotl'a tried to fix this committee staff. 

Mr. Hoffa. I beg your pardon ? 

Senator Ives. You heard it. 

Mr. Hoffa. What did you say ? 

Senator Ives. I said you tried to fix the committee staff. You got 
off, but you had no business getting off. 

Mr. Hoffa. Would you explain ? 

Senator Ives. Yes. One of our own staff members. You remem- 
ber it as well as I do. You have two convictions in your background. 
You misused union funds, according to the records we have. You 
have supported, you have been supporting convicted crooks for years. 
You have hired convicted burglars, robbers, and narcotics pushers. 
You know that as well as I do. 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't know anything about narcotics pushers. 

Senator Ives. They have been in the union anyway. 

Mr. Hoffa. They have not been in my union. 

Senator Ives. They have been in the Teamsters. I don't know if 
it is yours or somebody else's local. There are individuals on the 
Teamsters officers lists who have exhausted their appeal, who are 
still on the list. You read them this afternoon, some of them. 

Mr. Hoffa. Excuse me. 

Senator Ives. All you do is make excuses. Now, really, I listened 
to you. You have not done, really one effective thing to clean up 
this mess. 

I admit, that what you have been doing turns in that direction and 
is helpful. That I commend you on, to the extent you have done it. 

But to actually do something to clean it up, you have not. 

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

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, this was not a question that Senator 
Ives posed to the witness, but he did make a statement. 

The Chairman. Just a moment. Would you care to say anything, 
Mr. Hoffa? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir, if I may, please. 

I would like to say to Senator Ives that I don't deny that I have two 
convictions. But likewise, I would like to have the record clear that 
both of those convictions arose out of labor disputes, one an assault 
and battery case, where a 6-foot individual thought he could whip 
Hoffa, and attempted to do it, and found out he could not do it. 

In another instance where I was involved in a violation of a State 
labor law that had never been clarified by the courts, and, finally, out 
of the court case came a misdemeanor trial, which developed purely 
and simply out of labor. 



15026 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

I have not been convicted of any of the questions involving 
misappropriation of funds. 

In an antitrust case, an antitrust case arising also out of the ques- 
tion of union activities by Mr. Thurman Arnold, which was in my 
opinion, the decision was the nolo contendere plea, and in addition to 
that, I may say that I don't have any narcotic pushers. 

I want the record clear from my local union on my payroll, in 
1929, which I was the chief officer of. 

I don't agree with you, Senator, that I don't have a right as an 
American citizen to be found innocent by a jury, because it doesn't 
please certain people in the country. 

I have a perfect right to be found innocent, I hope, as an American 
citizen of this country, and I should not be criticized, in my opinion, 
for doing whatever was necessary during the course of that trial to be 
able to prove that I was not guilty, even though certain individuals on 
this committe, one individual, did his utmost to convict me of some- 
thing that the jury found me innocent of. 

(At this point Senator Church retired from the committee room.) 

The Chairman. Mr. Hoffa, if you are referring to the chairman- 
Mr. Hoffa. No, sir ; I am not. I distinctly 

Senator Ives. If you are referring to me, the same thing stands. 

Mr. Hoffa. No, sir ; I am referring to Robert Kennedy. 

Senator Ives. Robert Kennedy is not the committee. 

The Chairman. Just a moment. I take the responsibility for what 
he did, all of it. I make no apology. 

Senator Ives. And I stand back of it. 

The Chairman. Whenever anyone undertakes to tamper with a 
member of this staff, we are going to use the processes of law to try 
to protect the committee. Make no mistake about that. 

All right, Mr. Kennedy, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just in connection with that, Mr. Hoffa, where did 
you get the money that you paid to Mr. Cheasty ? 

Mr. Williams. Just a minute. 

Mr. Hoffa. May I talk to my counsel, please ? 

Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. We will go into that. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not going into the merits of the case. I want 
to find out where he got the money. 

If lie paid money for a legal fee, or whatver reason he paid him, 
I would like to find out where he got the money. We couldn't find 
it in any of the books and records. 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, I don't think this witness has to 
sit here and hear verdicts of guilty pronounced upon him by a regu- 
lative committee when a court has fully tried this case and a jury 
acquitted him. I don't think it is proper to retry that case here. 
I object to this line of inquiry. I object to the last question pro- 
pounded. 

The Chairman. Just a moment. The last question propounded 
would be strictly within the purview of this committe, if it came out 
of union funds. 

The Chair will direct the witness to answer the question. 

Mr. Hoffa. The question sir ? Wha t was it ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15027 

Mr. Kennedy. Where the money came from that was paid to Mr. 
Cheasty ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I said in my testimony that it came out of a drawer 
in my office, and Mr. Cheasty said that it came out of a drawer in my 
office. 

The Chairman. That is not the question 

Mr. Hoffa. Just a moment, sir. I will answer it. 
The Chairman. Answer this : Whose money was it ? 
Mr. Hoffa. I was going to answer that. I made a statement that 
it came out of — I believe I said a revolving fund. 
The Chairman. Belonging to the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Moneys that had been accumulated out of expense ac- 
counts that I had had, that I had not used, and I kept in my office. 
I believe that is my testimony. That is the best of my recollection. 
The Chairman. The only question is : Is it the Teamsters money ? 
Mr. Hoffa. It could have been ; yes, sir. 
The Chairman. Well, could it not have been ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't believe so, sir, because it was, in my opinion, 
money that had not been used which was originally intended for 
expense money, but had not been returned, but kept as a cash revolving 
fund, I believe, sir. 
The Chairman. Was any of it ever entered on the books ? 
Mr. Hoffa. I believe — do you mean how did it get there to the 
revolving fund, sir ? 

The Chairman. Yes. As an expenditure of union money. 

Mr. Hoffa. I believe you will find from time to time that in the 

union books there are checks 

The Chairman. I am not talking about whether the union books 
are collected. 

Mr. Hoffa. I said checks 

The Chairman. Was this payment to Cheasty entered on the books 
of the union ? 
Mr. Hoffa. No, sir. 
The Chairman. Thank you. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman, I have a question there. I have al- 
ways been interested in the answer to this question. 

I would like to know who paid Joe Louis' expenses when he stayed 
at the Woodner during the trial? Does anybody know that? 

Mr. Hoffa. I think you will have to ask Joe, but I believe from 
the newspaper accounts that one of our fellows advanced some money 
to him. I don't know whether he paid them back or not. 

And Joe Louis didn't receive, to my knowledge, any money for being 
in Washington. He was here on other business and dropped in to see 
me as a friend. 

Mr. Williams. Senator, I will be glad to give you some informa- 
tion on that, because I would like to lay that old chestnut to rest once 
and for all. 

Senator Ives. I wish you would. 

Mr. Williams. If you would feel it would serve some legislative 
purpose to know that, I will be glad to tell you what the fact is. 
m Senator Ives. I think all of this serves a legislative purpose, every 
single bit of it. 



15028 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Just a moment now. If we are going into that, Mr. 
Williams will have to be sworn. I had not thought of this question 
coming up, but when counsel asks the question and there was objection 
to it, the ('hair had to rule, as to whether this committee had any 
jurisdiction or whether it was pertinent to the inquiry- The question 
would be that money came out of union funds. That is all the commit- 
tee is interested in, and he said that it did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the money came from local 743 of the Teamsters, 
of Chicago. 

Senator Ives. Thank you. 

The ( Jhaikman. All right, proceed with your inquiry. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, just on this list, there is a number of names 
that are missing from it. Your own name is not here, for one. 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't consider myself in the class of placing it on that 
paper, because I am here to answer the questions in person. I an- 
swered Senator Ives. It is a matter of record. So it isn't deleted from 
that statement. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Owen Bert Brennaivs name is not on this list. 

Mr. Hoffa. Where was Mr. Owen Bert Brennan convicted ? Would 
you tell me ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I have it here. 

Mr. Hoffa. Tell me where. I want the conviction, if you please. 

Mr. Kennedy. The violation of the antitrust law T in 1940, December 
26. 

Mr. Hoffa. What was the plea, may I ask ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I don't know. He was fined $1,000 in 1949, con- 
spiracy — 1946 conspiracy, and he was placed on 2 years' probation by 
the judge. 

Mr. Hoffa. I will be very happy to place it there, Mr. Kennedy, 
and I will include it in the list we are making an investigation on, and 
I will likewise 

Mr. Kennedy. Place your own name on the list ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I will place my own name in the record, under oath, as 
I have a few minutes ago. It is a matter of record. 

Mr. Kennedy. It wasn't on this list, 

Mr. Hoffa. And I don't intend to put it there. 

Mr. Kennedy. You just put other people's names ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I put them there because they do not happen to be here 
present to answer personally the questions. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have here quite a few others, for instance, from 
local 107, they are not contained on this list as organizers. 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't know of any, Senator McClellan, from 107 that 
was in the record we didn't place there, If there is, we will place them 
there, if you will give up the names, sir. 

The Chairman. I will tell you what we will do in order to ex- 
pedite it, The staff will check this list against our records, whatever 
we have, and we can make the comparison and put it in the record. 

Mr. Hoffa. I wonder if we can have that list, sir, so Ave can bring 
you back a copy. It is the only one we have at this moment. 

The Chairman. You may. 

Mr. Kennedy. I have four just from Philadelphia alone, 

Mr. Hoffa. If you will give them to us, Senator, we will likewise 
check that out. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15029 

The Chairman. I will have the staff check the whole thing and 
make a comparison. You may have the benefit of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. As far as this list of 16 names that not now or never 
were members, officers, representatives, or agents of the Teamsters 
Union, I don't believe the staff of the committee stated that any of 
these individuals were members of the Teamsters Union. 

Mr. Hoffa. You tried to insinuate, and if you will read the record 
it will speak for itself, that they had some influence or control over 
the Teamsters Unions, and they were associates. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes; I agree with that. 

Mr. Hoffa. And they were associates of the Teamsters Unions, 
trying to infer to the general public that we were a controlled or- 
ganization. 

Mr. Kennedy. No; I agree that they had some relation with the 
Teamsters. For instance, A. Harvill and W. Harvill that you have 
down here were hired down in St. Louis. I think we developed that, 
You have Herman Prujansky, John Dioguardi, Angelo Meli. We 
have gone through these people's connections with the Teamsters 
Union. If you want to clarify it; that is correct, 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator McClellan, that isn't a correct statement, ac- 
cording to the record. It just isn't fair to place that into the record. 

Mr. Kennedy. Place what in ? 

Mr. Hoffa. The statement that they were hired. You show me, 
if you will, where John Dioguardi was hired by the Teamsters Union 
in any capacity. 

Mr. Kennedy. I didn't say that. I said A. Harvill and W. Har- 
vill were hired down in St. Louis by the Teamsters Union. 

Mr. Hoffa. That likewise isn't correct. If I remember the testi- 
mony correct, and I was here, they were hired by the taxicab in- 
dustry. 

Mr. Kennedy. And paid by the Teamsters Union. 

Mr. Hoffa. And reimbursed by the Teamsters Union— just a 
moment, please — to the taxicab company, not to the individuals. 

Mr. Kennedy. The individuals were paid out of Teamsters Union 
funds. They were hired through Mr. Joe Costello, the taxicab owner 
in St. Louis, Mo., and paid out of Teamsters Union funds. And that 
is in connection with the Teamsters Union. 

Mr. Hoffa. The record that is being built here is built on what 
somebody would like to think, not upon the evidence. 

The Chairman. The record is already made under oath. We can 
examine it and determine about these matters. 

Mr. Hoffa. Thank you, sir. 

May I have the privilege of going through the record and correct- 
ing the statement of Mr. Kennedy from the record % 

Mr. Kennedy. There is nothing to correct. 

The Chairman. Mr. Kennedy says they were hired by the head of 
the cab company, and the cab company was reimbursed out of union 
funds; is that incorrect? 

Mr. Hoffa. No, sir; but it isn't the story, and that is why I would 
like to have the privilege, if I may, of being able to go through the 
record and give you a correct interpretation of the record of actually 
what transpired in that situation, and not leave the record on the basis 
that the Teamsters Union hired these individuals or had any way of 



15030 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

knowing- that these particular individuals were the ones going to be 
reimbursed by the Ace Cab Co. 

The Chairman. I didn't know that you knew that they were hiring 
this particular individual beforehand — I mean the Teamsters Union — 
but obviously they were reimbursed or the Teamsters Union was pay- 
ing whoever was hired in that instance. 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't disagree with you that we reimbursed the cab 
company. I would like to have the privilege of putting in the record 
what actually transpired. 

The Chairman. You review the record then and we will go into 
it further if necessary, and proper, but in the meantime let us proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then do you know on this list any other individuals, 
Angelo Meli, Paul Dorfman, John Bitonti, who received a loan from 
the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Hoffa. May I ask, Senator, in what connection, by a man hav- 
ing a loan from the Teamsters Union, how it can be inferred he has 
control of the Teamsters Union ? 

The Chairman. I am not going on with this all afternon. Let me 
say this to you: Whenever you go to lending money to people who 
may be known thugs, crooks, and criminals and so forth, it raises 
eyebrows. You know it and I know it. 

Mr. Hoffa. It may very easily. 

The Chairman. All right, 

Mr. Kennedy. Officers and employees, but no longer associated with 
the Teamsters in any capacity. There are some 32 individuals here, 
Mr. Hoffa, and I find, looking over quickly, that all but five of these 
individuals were people that you brought in, either into the Central 
Conference of Teamsters or, through your efforts and the efforts of 
Mr. McNamara, into the Eastern Conference ; namely, the people that 
were brought into the so-called paper locals. 

That, Mr. Hoffa, is the reason that you are not going to get rid of 
these people. It is not what you have said to the committee. You 
cannot get rid of these people. 

Mr. Whliams. I object to further lectures, and I think he should 
ask the question. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't that correct ? Isn't that the main reason that 
you are not going to be able to get rid of these people, Mr. Hoffa, 
because you brought them in and you are dependent on them in the 
Teamsters Union, you are dependent on their support ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, I will not agree that that is correct. You cannot 
prove that it is correct, and you never will prove it is correct, and you 
haven't proved now that it is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think these records, and these hearings that we 
have had in the Teamsters Union, prove that unequivocally it is correct 
and that is why you haven't moved against one person. 

Mr. Hoffa. That is your opinion and I have mine. 

The Chairman. I have one question. 

Mr. Williams. May I for the record say that I object to this form 
of colloquy, and obviously it has no purpose here legislative in nature, 
for counsel to undertake to castigate the witness. If he has any ques- 
tions, he ought to put the question, and let the witness answer if it is 
germane to a legislative purpose. But it serves no useful purpose to 
listen to this kind of a colloquy and argument. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15031 

The Chairman. We will undertake to ask questions and to ask ques- 
tions we have to sometimes predicate them upon what we think or 
what the interrogator thinks the records reflect. Now, that, of course, 
is quite proper, as counsel knows. Certainly it is a pertinent question 
to ask him if that is the reason why you do not get rid of these people, 
because you brought them in. 

Mr. Hoffa. The answer is, "No, that is not correct." 

The Chairman. You have answered "No." All right- 
Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, the list of course, Mr. Chairman, is incomplete 
and we hope they are going to correct it. 

The Chairman. That will be returned and I have directed the staff 
to make comparisons with the record and show what it lacks being 
complete, if it lacks completeness. Let us proceed. 

Mr. Hoffa. May I say that I will be happy to report back to this 
committee in writing or otherwise, the classification we would place 
those individuals in if we have left them off the list, and what we 
intend to do about it. 

The Chairman. There is one thing, Mr. Hoffa, the only thing I 
thought of asking you about. I am not familiar with it enough to 
interrogate you about the whole list, but you mentioned the Kierdorfs 
on the list. They didn't get out of the union on account of any union 
action against them, did they ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Herman Kierdorf resigned from this union, and as I 
told Senator Ives, it doesn't make any difference how a man gets off the 
payroll. The question is, Did he get off ? 

The Chairman. Wait a minute. 

Mr. Hoffa. I think we got him to resign from this union. 

The Chairman. I think it makes a lot of difference. He was re- 
tained until this tragic incident happened. 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator, I think it isn't correct. He had tendered his 
resignation prior to the problem that arose in Flint, 

The Chairman. It had not been accepted ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir; it had been accepted. 

The Chairman. You may be correct^ and I am just recalling the 
record. 

Mr. Hoffa. Details were being worked out in regard to relieving 
him from his responsibilities. He had already been relieved of re- 
sponsibilities, but the money problems involving his pension and in- 
volving his automobile were being worked out prior to the incident 
which took place in Flint. 

The Chairman. You may be correct, but my recollection is that he 
was still with the union, and the union had taken no action against 
him. 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't want you to think, Senator, I had taken action 
against him. I did not file charges. I simply called him in and dis- 
cussed the matter after his appearance here, and he relieved himself 
of any official capacity with our international union. I know that 
happens all of the way down the list, because again I must say to you, 
Senator, and I know you are sincere in trying to clean up the labor 
movement, that if individuals are removed I don't think that you are 
concerned how they are removed, I think that you are concerned with 
the fact they are not here any longer. 

21243— 59— pt. 40 7 



15032 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Primarily we are concerned about their being re- 
moved where they are in a position of trust, and where there is every 
indication they are unworthy of that position, and we think the pri- 
mary responsibility rests upon the union itself. 

Mr. Hoffa. I will accept it. I will accept the responsibility. 

The Chairman. To give it the attention that it deserves to clean up. 

Mr. Hoffa. You will have to leave that to my judgment, Senator. 

The Chairman. Well, I don't necessarily have to, to form my own 
opinion. 

Mr. Hoffa. I am not saying that, I want to withdraw that and say 
if you want me to be responsible you will have to leave it to my dis- 
cretion to be able to do it in such a way that it doesn't disrupt any part 
of the Teamsters Union. I certainly am not trying to infer that 
other. 

The Chairman. I think that you will agree with me, Mr. Hoffa, 
that there is a cleanup job needed in the Teamsters Union. 

Mr. Hoffa. I think we are doing an excellent job. 

The Chairman. You think there is one needed? From the time 
this committee started and its revelations, don't you agree that a 
cleanup job is needed ? 

Mr. Hoffa. It would have come about without this committee. 

The Chairman. Well, now, that is a self-serving statement, pos- 
sibly. 

Mr. Hoffa. I think it is. 

The Chairman. But do you agree that one was needed when this 
committee started to work ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I believe that certain individuals should have been re- 
lieved of certain responsibilities regardless of whether the committee 
was here or not. 

The Chairman. Then do you admit there was a need at the time 
it began, whether you give the committee any credit or not for helping 
you? 

Mr. Hoffa. I think we will all have to agree that there was a need 
to do certain things in this international union, which I hope that all 
of us together can do, Senator. 

The Chairman. Now, then, you are getting to where we see eye to 
eye on the thing. 

All right, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, have you taken any action against any 
individual yourself so far ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I have filed charges and sent a committee into Philadel- 
phia to make an investigation, as I told Senator Ives I would do in 
circumstances like this, and I have also removed Feldman from the 
payroll according to the request of the monitors, based upon sugges- 
tions from them. I have removed him from the payroll, and I at- 
tempted to remove Boiling and Smith, and was restrained by the court, 
and I am going to attempt to follow out the necessary actions to do 
what is for the best of this international union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you taken any action where you were not re- 
quested to take action by the monitors ? Have you initiated any action 
on your own I 

Mr. Hoffa. I will leave the record speak for itself, and you draw 
your conclusions as to how these people got off. 



IMPKOPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15033 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not going to draw a conclusion, and just want 
the facts from you. Have you taken any action in any area against 
any individual where you were not requested to do so by the monitors ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I have taken the necessary action that I think is proper 
under the constitutional provisions of our constitution, and I don't 
have the right to just remove people from the payroll at will. 

Mr. Kennedy. The answer is "no" ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No, the answer isn't "no", and the record will speak for 
itself, and the names I submitted to you. 

Mr. Kennedy. All right, just tell me, or answer the question, have 
you taken any action against any individual ? 

Mr. Hoffa. The answer is "Yes". 

Mr. Kennedy. Where 'i 

Mr. Hoffa. I told you, Feldman, Cohen, Smith, and Boiling. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where you were not requested or where it was not 
suggested that you do so by the monitors ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't necessarily need the monitors to tell me how to 
run my business. I have here a list which I submitted to this com- 
mittee, sir, and No. 3 is former employees or officers but no longer 
associated with the Teamsters in any capacity, and now those individ- 
uals left the Teamsters. That isn't necessarily that I filed charges but 
they left the Teamsters, and more will leave the Teamsters. 

The Chairman. Mr. Hoffa, the question is now, Have you taken any 
action against any of these people without your first having been re- 
quested to do so, or such recommendations having come from the 
monitors ( 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator, I can't say that I have for this reason: The 
monitors knowing my action try to capitalize on it by writing letters 
as rapidly as I try to do things, to accept what they think is their job 
of running this international union. 

The Chairman. In other words, they get the letters to you before 
any action is taken ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. 

The Chairman. After they think you have initiated it ? 

Mr. Williams. I think we may be dealing with semantics here. If 
counsel means legal action within the purview of the constitution, 
that means one thing. 

The Chairman. I do not mean legal action. I mean action within 
the union. That is within the union's power and authority, and 
within his power and authority as president of the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Under section 5(a). 

Mr. Whliams. That is my point, Mr. Chairman, whether he means, 
or whether he has called these people in and asked them to resign, 
of course, that is action. Whether it is legal action within the pur- 
view of the constitution is another thing and I am not sure whether 
the question means action of any character, whether it is the filing of 
charges, or the inviting of the people in to discuss resignation. I con- 
strue that to be action. 

The Chairman. The Chair has in mind, and I assume that is what 
counsel has in mind, that is my impression, any action that is within 
his power, his authority, and the purview of responsibility in the posi- 
tion he occupies. I was not talking about going down swearing out 



15034 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

a warrant for them. I am talking about within the framework of 
the union constitution and his responsibilities thereunder. 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed. 

I believe you answered that you start things and then the monitors 
recommend ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. After they find out that you started it; that is 
your testimony ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is it not correct that in all the recommendations 
of the monitors so far that the Teamsters representative on the moni- 
tors' board has voted contrary ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I will have to let Mr. Williams answer that, Senator 
McClellan, because our counsel handles the problems between the 
monitors and our international union. I don't associate with the 
monitors as a general rule, becan=^ T>©st of the questions are legal 
questions, and we have compet y. ,o handle those problems. _ 

The Chairman. That question can be determined if we find it 
pertinent, from the record of the monitors themselves or from one 
of their member witnesses, which we may have at some time before 
we close. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to go ahead now and discuss some of 
the uses of union funds, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed. 

When was it, Mr. Hoffa, that you and Mr. Brennan entered the 
arrangement with a fellow named Davidson, promoting him as a 
professional boxer ? When was that, do you recall ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I think I have the information, if I can check it. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. It is already in the record. I was trying to be 
accurate. 

Mr. Hoffa. I have it here somewhere. If you can give it to me, it 
would save me looking up the record. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think it is the end of 1952. 

The Chairman. I am not sure of that. That is why I thought you 
might recall. 

Mr. Hoffa. I have it here somewhere, but I can't locate it offhand. 

The C hairman. The record will reflect it. 

When was it that locals 299 and 337 set up a Teamsters athletic fund ? 
Do you recall that ? 

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

The Chairman. How did you set it up ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, I wouldn't know, offhand. I will tell you why, 
Senator. 

Bert Brennan handled the end of the athletic fund. He wanted me 
to agree to put, I believe, $5,000 into the fund. I agreed that local 299 
should put $5,000 in. Brennan — Brennan and I were, either one or 
both of us could sign the checks. I believe it only took one signature. 
Brennan handled the situation from start to finish. I can't tell you 
about it, Senator. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15035 

The Chairman. What was his position at that time ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Brennan? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Hoffa. President of local 299. 

Just a moment, excuse me, sir — 337. 

The Chairman. You were president of 299 ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Was this action taken with the approval of the 
executive boards of the two unions t 

Mr. Hoffa. The executive board has given me the authority to 
expend the money of our local union for the good and welfare of our 
union, and I would have to say that they did agree to it by giving me 
the authority to carry out that action. 

The Chairman. In the broad, general terms, but not specifically % 

Mr. Hoffa. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. Now, when you set up that fund, did you use any 
of it for this private enterprise of promoting Davidson ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator, I can't answer that, because I haven't the 
knowledge to give you the ti 1 "'' tfml ■ nswer. 

The Chairman. We ha-' . i bills that possibly need some 

explanation. I think you would agree that it would hardly be proper 
to take union Teamster funds and promote a fighter for the benefit of 
Mr. Brennan and you. 

Mr. Hoffa. Unless he was working with some of the amateurs that 
I believe Brennan was working with in promotion of boxing and some 
other sports activities. If it was tied in there, I wouldn't think so, but 
if it was specifically, I would have to agree with you. 

The Chairman. I don't recall any of his testimony about working 
with amateurs, do you ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I think you will find that there was some amateur shows, 
I am not sure, but I believe in Mr. Kennedy's statements there was 
some thinking to that effect. 

The Chairman. I present to you two bills here, apparently paid 
by the union out of this fund, one in the amount of $112.41, dated 
November 18, 1952, and the other dated August 28, 1953, in the amount 
of $51.12. I will ask you to examine those bills and state if you know 
anything about them. 

( Documents handed witness. ) 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator, I can't help you, sir. This is made out to 
Bert Brennan. He apparently handled the situation and I can't help 
you. 

Mr. Williams. The bill, I think, is helpful, Senator, in that each 
of the items is for a considerable quantity of articles. 

The Chairman. Well, let us see them. 

Mr. Williams. Such as 12 T-shirts and 3 headgears. 

The Chairman. These invoices may be made exhibit 170, A and B. 

(Documents referred to were marked "Exhibits 170-A and 170-B" 
for reference and will be found in the appendix on pp. 15326-15328.) 

The Chairman. The first item on the first bill, November 18, 1952, 
is two pairs of training gloves, totaling $27. 

Next is three headgear, totaling $29.58. 

Next is three bag gloves, totaling $13.50. 



15036 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Next is speed bags, two, totaling $22.06, and four skip ropes, at 
$6.32 ; two swivels at $5.32. 

Later there is another headgear at $5.36. The bill, with tax, totals 
$112.41. 

The second one, dated August 28, 1953, the first item is 3 headgear, 
$35; 12 T-shirts, $4.70; 6 sweat socks, $2.70; hand rope, $3.35; 6 cans 
of tape, $3.35 ; 1 hand rope, 95 cents. The total, less the percentage, 
is $51.12. 

The question is : Were you spending union money for these items ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, I would assume, Senator, from the billing, that 
the Teamsters must have paid the bill, but I believe also the committee 
has the canceled checks of the athletic fund, which could reflect 
whether or not it was paid out of that fund. 

The Chairman. So do we have the canceled checks ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes. I don't have them right here available but they 
were paid out of joint council 43. On that particular one, joint coun- 
cil 43 Teamsters athletic fund. 

Mr. Hoffa. Very conceivably it could be, and it could be likewise 
for what I stated, Senator. But I am quite sure you will find in the 
record that there was some question about amateur fighters. 

The Chairman. You do not know whether you have checks for 
these items or not, do you ? 

Mr. Bellino. They never produced any, but we have the bank state- 
ments and we find the items charged on the bank statements. 

The Chairman. Now, I present to you a check dated February 10, 
1955, an original check signed by Bert Brennan, made out on the 
Teamsters athletic fund in the amount of $5,000, to cash. I present 
this check to you and ask you if you know anything about it. 

(Documents handed witness.) 

Mr. Kennedy. And here are the bank statements. 

(Documents handed witness.) 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator, I believe Mr. Bellino, or one of his assistants, 
checked the safe deposit box of 337, and I believe there was $5,000 
cash in that box which probably was the result of cashing this check. 

The Chairman. In whose name was the box ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Local 337, 1 believe, sir. I am quite positive. 

The Chairman. In the name of local 337 ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Just a moment, sir. May I check with the counsel? 
Somebody mentioned something else to me. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. The check may be made exhibit 171. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 171" for reference 
and will be found in the appendix on p. 15329.) 

Mr. Hoffa. I am quite certain, Senator, and the record will have to 
be checked, I think Mr. Bellino knows that it was in 337's box, cash 
money. 

The Chairman. Is that Mr. Brennan's box ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir. 

Well, it would be the local's box. Mr. Brennan is president, yes. 

The Chairman. It was under his local ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Local. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15037 

The Chairman. Is there anything further, Mr. Kennedy ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. This is a $5,000 check taken from the athletic 
fund February 10, 1955. What was the reason for that, Mr. Hoffa? 

Mr. Hoffa. You will have to ask the individual who drew the check, 
Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is Mr. Owen Bert Brennan and we do not have 
much luck with him. 

Mr. Hoffa. You will have to ask him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Locals 337 and 299 put up the money from which 
$5,000 was taken. I am trying to get an explanation as to why $5,000 
was taken out of this fund. 

Mr. Hoffa. You wouldn't get the explanation from me, because I 
don't have it. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is part of your money, local 299's money, Mr. 
Hoffa. 

Mr. Hoffa. I have- every confidence in the world that the money is 
secure, it is in a safe deposit box, and if I have any share of it coming 
back, local union 299 will get its share of the money. 

Mr. Kennedy. There is $5,000 in the safe deposit box in 1958, but 
what was the reason for taking it out on February 10, 1955, $5,000 
in cash by Owen Bert Brennan ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I think you will have to ask Mr. Brennan. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have asked Mr. Brennan and he takes the fifth 
amendment on all matters so far. 

Mr. Hoffa. Then I can't help you. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is some money over which you have some 
authority, Mr. Hoffa, $5,000 of union funds. Would you not give us 
any explanation for this ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Mr. Kennedy, I think the explanation is that the money 
is secure, it is in a safe deposit box if my information is correct, and 
I believe Mr. Bellino can verify it out of his investigator's report. 

Therefore, I see nothing unusual about the fact that a check was 
cashed and the money was secured for the local union in a box. 

Mr. Kennedy. We do not know. There is $5,000 in 1958. If there 
was going to be $5,000 put in the box when this check was cashed 
some 3 years before, there would be no reason to take it out of a 
bank account and put it in a box at that time. This transaction does 
not make any sense. 

Mr. Hoffa. Many things 

Mr. Kennedy. Don't make any sense ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Looking backward may not make sense to you. But I 
imagine that Mr. Brennan had some reason for placing it in the box. 
That reason I cannot give you. 

The Chaerman. Mr. Hoffa, let me ask you : According to our rec- 
ords, or what we have been able to find from the records, $2,805.29 
out of this fund was transferred back to the general account of the 
Teamsters in November 1957. 

Mr. Hoffa. To both local unions, Senator ? 

The Chairman. All I have here is transferred back to the general 
account. Which account? 

Mr. Bellino. I think it was 299, but I am not certain. It was one 
of them. 

The Chairman. It was transferred back to one of the locals. I am 
really not sure which one. 



15038 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

I wish you would check the records and be able to supply that 
information. 

That apparently was the balance out of one of the $5,000. Now, if 
this particular fund was being liquidated and the money repaid at 
that time, the balance that was left of it, why would this $5,000 still 
be retained in the safe deposit box somewhere? 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator, I don't have the answer for you. 

The Chairman. Is there no one we can get that answer from, so 
far as you know, except Mr. Brennan ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I would question whether anyone except Mr. Brennan 
would have the information, sir. 

The Chairman. Has this $5,000 been returned to general account? 

Mr. Kennedy. We don't know what has happened to this $5,000, 
Mr. Chairman. 

Going into the safe deposit box in the last 3 weeks, there is $5,000 
in the safe deposit box. But we don't know if it is connected with this 
or some other matter. This is a $5,000 check of 3 years ago. 

The Chairman. Whose safe deposit box is the $5,000 in now ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe 337. 

The Chairman. That is Mr. Brennan's union ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What I did not understand about it, assuming that 
you had started this enterprise, as you say, and then it folded up, and 
apparently it did because in November 1957 there was transferred 
back to the general account of 299 the $2,805.29, the balance of that 
$5,000, or of $5,000. But this $5,000 still remains, so far as the union 
records are concerned, unaccounted for. 

Mr. Hoffa. Apparently, Senator, the only thing I can gather from 
. hat you are reading is that they spent a little better than $2,000, 
charged it to 299, refunded the balance of our $5,000 to our general 
fund, and Brennan apparently — I don't know if he closed the account 
or not, but he certainly must have drawn a check for $5,000, and placed 
the money in their box. I can't give you the reason why. I don't 
have it, Senator. 

The Chairman. If it was a joint enterprise between the two locals, 
you should only have to bear one-half of the expenditure, your local. 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. I better talk to Brennan. I will. 

The Chairman. Yes, you have a little problem here. 

Mr. Hoffa. About a thousand and some dollars coming. 

The Chairman. If you can get him to talk. 

Mr. Hoffa. I will. 

The Chairman. You can make him ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I will. 

The Chairman. I wish you would give him a good going over and 
tell us about it. 

Mr. Hoffa. I will attempt to find out where 299's money went, if 
there is some question about it. 

The Chairman. It seems to us that your local was shortchanged, as 
it stands now. 

Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have some more transactions to ask Mr. Hoffa 
about. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15039 

The Chairman. Mr. Holla, I have a photostatic copy of a check in 
the amount of $2,000, dated July 26, 1954, drawn on the International 
Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 299, payable to the Com- 
monwealth Bank, $2,000. It bears your countersignature of approval. 
Can you examine that check and identify it, please, sir? 
(Document handed witness.) 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Hoffa. Mr. Chairman, it is a check of 299, but I would have 
to check the ledger book to determine what the $2,000 was for. I 
would have no way of knowing, offhand. 

The Chairman. You would not know about it ? It is a photostatic 
copy of one of your checks ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, it certainly seems to be 299. 
The Chairman. That check will be made exhibit 172. 
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 172" for refer- 
ence will be found in the appendix on p. 15330.) 

Mr. Hoffa. I think m all fairness, Senator, Mr. Bellino must 
have checked the check. I would like the ledger page number to 
save me going through all the thousands of pages. 

The Chairman. I wanted to get the check identified. Then we 
will get the explanation. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was to the Commonwealth Bank for $2,000, 
Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Hoffa. What was the date again, Senator? 
The Chairman. The date of the check is July 26, 1954. On the 
same date, the bank issued its check to Gene San Soucie in the amount 
of $2,000. I present this check to you for observation and ask you 
if you can state whether you have any knowledge of the connection 
between the two transactions. 
(Document handed witness.) 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator, I would have to again check the ledger. I 
can't recall from memory the transaction. 

The Chairman. I hand you a signature, apparently. Who is Mr. 
F.Collins? 

Mr. Hoffa. Secretary-treasurer of local union 299. 
The Chairman. I hand you here an application to the bank for 
a bank money order, check No. 6799. 

Is that the check number ? Apparently it identifies that same check. 
This order for the check is apparently signed by Mr. Collins on the 
same date, and is in order to get the check from the bank. Would 
you examine that and state if you recognize that as Mr. Collins' 
signature on the order to the bank to write the check. 
(Document handed witness.) 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Hoffa. I believe that is Frank Collins' signature. Again I 
say I can't determine what the $2,000 was used for without check- 
ing the book of our union. 

The Chairman. We probably will have some information about 
it. But this is just to get these before you so we will know v. hat we 
are talking about. The check may be made exhibit 172-A, and the 
order for it 172-B. 

(Documents referred to were marked "Exhibits 172-A and 172-B" 
for reference and will be found in the appendix on pp. 15331-15332.) 



15040 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were there any transactions with Mr. San Soucie 
during this period of time, Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't know this particular time, but I imagine we 
had several transactions with San Soucie over a period of years. 

The Chairman. The thing about this is why, if you had a transac- 
tion with San Soucie, wouldn't the check just be made to San Soucie 
instead of following this devious way of getting money into some- 
body's hands ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I can't explain it at this moment. I am sure our books 
following through would explain it, but I can't explain it at the 
moment. 

The Chairman. That is the trouble we run into in a number of 
places. We find these transactions running circuitous routes to 
get money into somebody's hands and the books do not give the 
explanation. 

Mr. Hoffa. I recognize that. 

The Chairman. That is one of the problems that we think may 
require legislative attention, to require accurate and truthful ac- 
counts to be checked. 

Mr. Hoffa. I think we can find an answer to this problem by check- 
ing the books all the way through the transaction. 

The Chairman. Well, we will look into it, and you give it some 
thought in the morning. 

Mr. Hoffa. We will try to find out tonight. 

The Chairman. Is Mr. Collins here as a witness ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No, but we will need him. 

Mr. Hoffa. I would say that any check that Collins drafted would 
only be drawn if I told him to do so. 

The Chairman. You call Mr. Collins and have him come in so we 
can interrogate him. 

The committee will stand in recess until 10 : 30 in the morning. 

(Whereupon, at 4:35 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene 
at 10 : 30 a. m., Tuesday, September 16, 1958.) 

(Members present at the taking of the recess were Senators McClel- 
lan and Ives.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1958 

United States Senate, 
Select Committee on Improper Activities 

in the Labor or Management Field, 

Washington, D.G. 
The select committee met at 10 :30 a.m., pursuant to recess, in the 
caucus room, Senate Office Building, Senator John L. McClellan 
(chairman of the select committee) presiding : 

Present : Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas ; Senator 
Frank Church, Democrat, Idaho; Senator Irving M. Ives, Kepub- 
lican, New York. 

Also present: Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel; Paul Tierney, 
assistant counsel; John J. McGovern, assistant counsel; Carmine S. 
Bellino, accountant; Pierre E. Salinger, investigator; Leo C. Nulty, 
investigator; James P. Kelly, investigator; James Mundie, investiga- 
tor; John Flanagan, investigator, GAO; Alfred Vitarelli, investiga- 
tor, GAO ; Ruth Y. Watt, chief clerk. 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 
All right, Mr. Kennedy, you may resume. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, we were talking yesterday first about 
the $2,000 check made payable to the Commonwealth Bank, 
signed by Frank Collins, and then I believe a cashier's check in the 
same amount, $2,000 from the Commonwealth Bank to Gene San 
Soucie. I do not have all of the documents here, but those are the 
documents I believe that were placed in the record, and we were ask- 
ing you the explanation of that transaction. 

Mr. Hoffa. Since yesterday we have had an opportunity to check 
the books and they reflect the following : 

Check 6013, July 26, 1954, payable to Commonwealth Bank, new 
car Plymouth, amount $2,000, in cash book column, telephone car and 
transportation. 

Account No. 11, automobile account, cashier's check was No. 6799. 
This automobile was bought, if you want the explanation of why it 
was bought I can give it to you. 

Mr. Kennedy. In summary, what does that mean, there was a car 
bought? 

15041 



15042 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Hoffa. There was an automobile apparently purchased for 
$2,000, which was a Plymouth automobile, and placed into the records 
of the union showing- that it was a purchase of a Plymouth automo- 
bile. This is the notation that Mr. Bellino had in his possession. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why was an automobile purchased for Gene San 
Soucie ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I will tell you. This wasn't purchased for San Soucie, 
now that I can think about it. I checked Gene last night and he was 
kind of sketchy on it, but I think I can give you the background very 
quickly. 

Certain car manufacturers had decided to deliver automobiles by 
the dealers coming in and driving their own automobiles out, rather 
than delivering them by truck with union drivers as they previously 
had delivered the automobiles. We discussed it at great length, and 
I recommended to our membership that I be permitted to use my own 
discretion as to how to whip this situation. So, I decided to get a 
movie camera and follow an automobile from Detroit to Indianapolis, 
taking a picture that registered the amount of speed, and by having 
the picture show the way the automobiles were driven, with the inten- 
tions of having the picture made and a house trailer parked in front 
of the dealer, and open it to the public and have the public have an 
opportunity to view the driving of the automobile that had been 
driven by the dealer, and then to go on TV and radio and announce 
that the public were buying used automobiles and not new 
automobiles. 

We then decided to purchase one of the automobiles that was driven 
down to Indiana so that we could use that as an automobile on display 
for that purpose. We had San Soucie, from what I can gather now 
from piecing- it together, and pieced together pretty rapidly, we had 
the automobile purchased by cash so that if we became involved in a 
lawsuit we could probably become involved in the dealer trying to 
show that he had a right to drive these cars and trying to probably 
prevent us from showing the picture. So we bought the car in cash. 
That apparently pieces together what happened. 

We would have the car in such a way that we would have been able 
to own it and yet not show a check that purchased the car until we 
got through with the lawsuit. That is apDarently the explanation. 

The Chairman. A lawsuit was contemplated ? 

Mr. Hofea. We expected one. 

The Chairman. For what reason ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Because we were going to advertise in front of the 
dealer, Senator, that the automobiles driven from Detroit to Indian- 
apolis constituted a used automobile and not a new car, and that the 
public was being defrauded on the basis that a supposedly new car, 
which had over 300 miles on it already, was nothing more than a used 
car. 

The Chairman. What impact would that have, whether you paid 
cash or paid by check for the car? What impact would that have on 
a lawsuit? 

Mr. Hoffa. We wanted to have San Soucie to be in a position, 
from what I can gather from San Soucie and talking to our office about 
this question, of being able to say that he went in and personally 
purchased this car as a normal buyer would purchase a car. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15043 

The Chairman. He wasn't going to disclose that he purchased it 
as an agent for you ; that was a part of the scheme ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I see. All right. 

Mr. Hoffa. Then he would be a private citizen, in a lawsuit. 

The Chairman. Who is Gene Soucie ? 

Mr. Hoffa. He is the president of the Indiana Conference of 
Teamsters, and I believe the president or secretary of 135, and I 
don't know which it is. 

The Chairman. Who took title to the car % 

Mr. Hoffa. Well now, that I don't know. I think, from what I 
can gather now — we are having it checked in the secretary of state's 
office— I believe the car was bought in his name and later transferred, 
after our trouble was over, to 299, and I think that is what hap- 
pened. 

The Chairman. How did you enter it on your checkbook ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Under the column dealing with the telephone, car, and 
transportation account No. 11, automobile account. 

The Chairman. How did you enter it on the stub of the check 
when you bought it ? 

Mr. Hoffa. The stub of the check says "Purchase of a Plymouth 
car." 

The Chairman. Do you recall how you first entered it on the books ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No. What I am stating now, Senator, is what I gath- 
ered from Grosberg who came here this morning to look at the check 
stub. I haven't seen the stub myself, but he said eventually, there 
may have been organizational expense at first, but eventually it came 
into the question of an automobile or a Plymouth. 

The Chairman. I hand you here a photostatic copy of the original 
check stub, and you can see if you identify it. 

(A document was handed to the witness. ) 

Mr. Hoffa. I identify as check No. 6013, an originally listed check 
as original expense $2,000, and then "New car Plymouth," and ap- 
parently the "New car Plymouth" was placed there after the poten- 
tial lawsuit was over and we had adjusted our differences, and re- 
ceived the title to the car in our own local union's name. 

The Chairman. That check stub may be made exhibit 172-c. The 
check and application have been made 172-a and b and this may be 
172-c so that they can be retained together. 

(Document referred to was marked "172-C" for reference and will 
be found in the appendix on p. 15333.) 

Mr. Hoffa. We were able to maintain the employment for the truck- 
drivers by the method that we used in convincing the dealer that the 
public wouldn't generally like to know that they were buyino- use d cars 
instead of new cars. 

The Chairman. Were you ever threatened with a lawsuit about it 2 

Mr. Hoffa. It didn't get that far, Senator. Once they realized 
what we were doing, and it got back to the factory and the dealer was 
called in and it was adjusted and there was no problem. 

The Chairman. Do we have any record of a car being purchased at 
that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. We are checking the cars now. You say the car 
definitely was returned to local 299 ? 



15044 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, I understand it was returned to 299 after being 
in the name of San Soucie, and he don't know whether he put it in 
his name or some other name, but eventually it went in to 299 and 
then was resold. 

The Chairman-. I would think if you were trying to make a coverup 
there of the transaction, you would put the title in his name. 

Mr. Hoffa. I think we would, too, and I think it would be there> 
Senator. 

The Chairman. I think that that is what we will find. 

Mr. Hoffa. As a private citizen ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long afterward did that happen ? Did Mr. San 
Soucie say he transferred it to local 199 ? 

Mr. Hoffa. He said it was his belief he had transferred it to 299, 
and I talked to our office, and they in return told me that the car had 
been transferred. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who in your office told you that ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I talked to Frank Collins. 

Mr. Kennedy. He told you that ? 

Mr. Hoffa. It is his belief that the car was transferred, and the un- 
fortunate part about it, when I say "he believed," the records are here 
and we don't have copies, so we have to go from memory on the entire 
transaction because Mr. Bellino has our records. 

The Chairman. Do you have any records of this car transaction ? 

Mr. Bellino. We have no records of that nature, and there never 
were turned over to us any records of car purchases. 

Mr. Hoffa. That is correct. The check itself shows there was a 
car purchased by the check number that is there, and I think if Mr. 
Bellino will take time, he will find in the books that the automobile was 
sold, and it was sold and the money that was gained from the sale was 
placed back into the local's books. I am quite sure you will find that. 

The Chairman. We will direct the staff to search the records. 

Mr. Hoffa. I think the car was sold to Raymond Watson, Senator. 

The Chairman. I don't know whether the books are here. The rec- 
ords will show the title. 

Mr. Hoffa. If we can get the day the car was sold, we can check 
with the secretary of state in Michigan and be able to run back the 
title to the car to the present owner. I think you will find that the car 
presently is owned by Raymond Watson. 

The Chairman. The records we have here would not show that, and 
it would take further investigation. 

Mr. Hoffa. But the entry of the money that was placed in the 
books for the resale of the car will show that, Senator. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was the car ever used for this purpose? 

Mr. Hoffa. It wasn't necessary. We gained our point by the prep- 
aration we had planned, and the publicity that was attracted to it,, 
and we gained our point of keeping the automobiles on trucks rather 
than be driven by the employer by scab labor. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you make public the fact that you were going 
to do this? 

Mr. Hoffa. Certainly, that is part of the operation. 

(Present in the hearing room: Senators McClellan, Ives, and 
Church.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15045 

Mr. Kennedy. That you were going to do this ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is part of the operation. That is how you gain 
the point you are trying to make. 

Mr. Kennedy. I thought you explained that the reason you did 
it through a cashier's check was that you wanted to keep it secret. 

Mr. Hoffa. We don't have to say we are going to do it, Mr. Ken- 
nedy. You have individuals make comment and it gets into the news- 
papers and it serves the purpose of the Teamsters Union getting into 
the picture. 

Mr. Kennedy. What good does it do going through the cashier's 
check and hiding the transaction in your own record, if it was made 
public and everybody knew about it? 

Mr. Hoffa. I didn't say that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Everybody knew it and that is why you did not 
have to follow through on it ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is correct. 

Senator 

Mr. Kennedy. Could we have the record read back please? 

Mr. Hoffa. Read it back and see what I told you. It is all right 
with me. You will see that I didn't say it. 

If you want me to straighten the record out, I will do it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you read back 

Mr. Hoffa. Read all the way back, if you will, please, since we 
started the discussion. You will find in there that I said that it was 
placed in San Soucie's name. The manufacturer finally straightened 
it out, and that we ourselves let it be known to the public as to what 
was going to be done. 

When I say we, I don't mean the Teamsters Union, but people we 
had who put the information out the way we wanted it. 

You will find I made the statement in the record. Check it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, wouldn't it have been easy to trace this 
back, as you say ? If it is going to be publicly known that this was 
going to be done by the Teamsters and Mr. Gene San Soucie was a 
Teamster official, wouldn't that be easily traced back to the Teamsters? 

Mr. Hoffa. It could be traced back, but it would be a lawsuit 
against San Soucie and would not be a lawsuit against the Teamsters 
local union or myself or an official of the Teamsters. 

It would be an individual citizen. ^ 

The Chairman. The only thing in this is if Mr. San Soucie was 
a high official in the union, and he was acting in any capacity in dem- 
onstrating cars or what might happen to union members under certain 
operations, it seems that all of his accounts would be imputed to the 
union anyhow. 

Mr. Hoffa. Our attorneys are part of it, and many times they have 
ways of arranging things which when they finally get into court 
seems to work out. 

The answer to it was that we were instructed that this was the way 
to do it and we did. 

The Chairman. O.K. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just on that, Mr. Hoffa, if he was questioned about 
it, he was going to say this was his own car. 

Mr. Hoffa. It was a purchase as an individual car, for himself. 

Mr. Kennedy. And with his own money ? 



15046 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't know whal he would say about that. He would 
probably say lie borrowed the money. I don't know what he would 
say. 

The Chairman. That he borrowed it? 

Mr. Hoffa. And it could be worked out. 

Mr. Kennedy. You mean just a little lie, a little white lie? 

Mr. Hoffa. A little lie. Just like the committee or anything else, 
you try to get information to accomplish the purpose you are after 
on the basis of what is right and wrong. 

Mr. Kennedy. You mean you could tell this lie ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No lie. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is what you were going to do ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No; it isn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was Mr. San Soucie going to say this was union 
funds used to purchase this car for this purpose ? 

Mr. Hoffa. He could very easily have said that it was a loan and 
he borrowed the money. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he ? 

Mr. Hoffa. The books show it was made out to him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he borrow the money ? 

Mr. Hoffa. He had the money. I could have made thfrloan to him, 
if it became a question. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am asking you whether you set up the 

Mr. Hoffa. I set it up deliberately to avoid a lawsuit. Let's put it 
on the basis of where it belongs. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, in the last 5 minutes, you have unveiled 
exactly what you are. 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't care what you think we are. I am telling you 
what we did. The record will show what we did, and then it doesn't 
bother me what you think. 

The Chairman. Let's proceed. The record is made. 

I present you another check, Mr. Hoffa, a photostatic copy of the 
check, made payable to local 299 in the amount of $11,000, dated De- 
cember 14, 1953. It seems to be drawn on local 299. 

Will you examine this check and see if you identify it, please ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. Hoffa. It is a 299 check, sir, and I identify it as such, 299's 
check. 

The Chairman. It may be made exhibit 173. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 173" and will be 
found in the appendix on p. 15334. )_ 

The Chairman. I do not know just what the significance of it is, 
but why is the check made out from local 299 to local 299 ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I believe the check was drawn on cash and cash money. 

The Chairman. You drew it out and made it payable that way, and 
drew out $11,000 out of the treasury ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I believe so. It looks like it from the check, Senator. 

The Chairman. Who is this Frank — is that Frank Collins, secre- 
tary-treasurer, who endorsed it ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir, secretary-treasurer. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is dated December 14, 1953, $11,000. Did you 
give the instructions to draw this check ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15047 

Mr. Hoffa. It was drawn ; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, 1 believe it was drawn, don't you, from an 
examination of the check \ 

Mr. Hoffa. Every check that is drafted, I approve. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did yon give instructions for the drawing of this 
check ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I probably did. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you do with the $11,000 ? Was it turned 
over to you \ 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't know if it was, or not. I can't recall that far 
back. The only thing, the only check I can remember of any large 
amount of money that we had to cash was a loan to Jerry Connelly. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much was that for ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Either eleven or fifteen thousand dollars. I don't know 
which. One of the two. 

Mr. Kennedy. That would not have been this check; would it? 

Mr. Hoffa. It could have been. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wouldn't that have been listed in the records as a 
loan to Jerry Connelly ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Not necessarily. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was the money that you gave to Jerry Connelly a 
loan to him ? 

Mr. Hoffa. The only large amount of money that I can recall that 
a check was drawn to cash was upon my instructions, and it was for 
the purpose of making a loan to Jerry Connelly. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that what this was for ? 

Mr. Hoffa. If that is the check, and I can only remember one 
check of that size that was drawn to cash, except the one that was 
drawn to the attorneys and put in the box. 

I think the check stub would reflect what it was for, Senator, if 
you had a check stub. 

The Chairman. Mr. Hoffa, if that was a loan to Jerry Connelly — 
Connelly was secretary -treasurer of the local; was he? 

Mr. Hoffa. Connelly was secretary-treasurer of a local union in 
Minneapolis. 

The Chairman. Secretary -treasurer of another local? 

Mr. Hoffa. In Minneapolis. 

The Chairman. And your local was making him a loan of $11,000? 

Mr. Hoffa. For organizational purposes. 

I am quite positive, Senator, that this would be the check, because 
I can only remember two large checks made to cash out of 299 during 
the period of time back that I can recall. 

So I would assume, since I know what the last check was, that 
this would probably be the check dealing with the question of a cash 
advancement to Connelly in Minneapolis. 

Mr. Kennedy. That doesn't say anything on the stub. It doesn't 
mention Jerry Connelly. 

Mr. Hoffa. If I could see it, maybe we would know what we are 
talking about. 

The Chairman. I present you the stub of the check, a photostatic 
copy of it, for your identification, please. 

(Witness conferred with counsel.) 

Mr. Hoffa. Wasn't the check in 1954, sir ? 

21243— 59— pt. 40 8 



15048 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. You may compare them. 

(Document handed to witness; the witness conferred with his 
counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. That doesn't say 

The Chairman. That photostatic copy of the stub may he made ex- 
hibit 173-A. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit 173-A" and will be 
found in the appendix on p. 15335.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, that makes no mention of Gerald Con- 
nelly ; does it ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Very conceivably it doesn't. But there is a little OK 
on there. You will note that it states J. R. Hoffa OK'd it. Do you 
know that? 

Mr. Kennedy. Examine it again. 

The Chairman. He said it doesn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. He said very conceivably it doesn't. 

Mr. Hoffa. I said that it doesn't. There is nothing on here ex- 
cept — let's get it real clear, if you want it that way — "OK J. R. 
Hoffa." 

Mr. Kennedy. Right. 

Mr. Hoffa. And then it says "Cash on hand." 

The Chairman. Mr. Hoffa, that is what gives us concern, the pro- 
tection of union money, union dues, and the way it is handled, as 
well as welfare and pension funds. This committee has arduously 
examined many, many accounts, union records, and so forth. 

Too frequently we find these coverup transactions, where the rec- 
ord does not reflect the true transaction. 

It does give us concern. I think the records of a union should be 
kept, the financial records, so that those who examine them may be 
enlightened as to what the expenditures are made for. 

We have two right here m front of us this morning. You may 
have your own ideas about it, and think that that is the way to run a 
union. Some of us think that is not a very good way. We have 
one check here for $2,000. You issued it so that the fellow later could 
swear it was a loan if he needed to, although it was not, and accord- 
ing to your testimony it was actually to purchase a car for the union. 

Now, we have this transaction of $11,000 advanced from your union 
to the individual secretary of another union. 

What does this say ? 

Mr. Kennedy. "Cash on hand." 

The Chairman. This shows "cash on hand." What does "cash on 
hand" mean ? 

Mr. Hoffa. It means that the secretary-treasurer cashed the check 
and had the cash in the possession of 299 until such time as I directed 
him what to do with the cash, Senator. 

The Chairman. Did this money ever go to Connelly ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Jerry Connelly, sir ; yes, sir ; it did. 

The Chairman. Where was it entered on the books as going to 
Connelly ? 

Mr. Hoffa. If Mr. Bellino will take a little patience and time, and 
I am sure he has a lot of both, he will find that the Internal Reve- 
nue — and he talked to the Internal Revenue people — the Internal 
Revenue people went into this very carefully, and they found out that 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15049 

the money did go to Jerry Connelly, the money did come back to local 
299, and the money did go back into the accounts of 299, and is so 
inserted into the books, showing the return of that money. 

The Chairman. I think so, some 3 years later; is that right? 

Mr. Hoffa. It could be possibly that. No, I think 2 years. Wasn't 
it 2 years ? Two years, I think. 

The Chairman. During that time there was a false record with 
respect to that money on your accounts. 

Mr. Hoffa. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Well, it doesn't show anywhere during that time 
that Connelly had the money, does it ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is correct ; it does not. 

The Chairman. All right. So one examining the records would 
not know that your union had advanced to Connelly $11,000? 

Mr. Hoffa. You are right, sir, but by the same token the reason it 
was put in our cash on hand was to make us responsible to produce the 
money. 

The Chairman. You show it as cash on hand and carried it that 
way, when, in fact, it is not cash on hand ; it is a loan ? 

Mr. Hoffa. You are correct, sir, but the reason we put it there was 
so that we would be responsible for the $11,000. 

If Connelly did not pay it back, we would have to reimburse local 
299 for the $11,000. 

The Chairman. We? Who? 

Mr. Hoffa. Myself and Collins. I am the president; Collins is 
secretary-treasurer, and we signed the check and we would be respon- 
sible under the constitution for that money. 

The Chairman. I hand you another photostatic copy of a check 
dated September 11 or 1 ; the 11th, I believe, 1953, in the amount of 
$5,000, made payable to you. 

That is on the Central States Conference. Will you examine that 
photostatic copy and see if you identify it ? 

( Document handed to witness ; the witness conferred with counsel. ) 

Mr. Hoffa. I identify the check, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank you. That may be made exhibit No. 174.. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 174" for reference 
and will be found in the appendix on p. 15336.) 

Mr. Kennedy. This is a check dated September 11, 1953, $5,000, 
from the Central States Conference of Teamsters, to James E. Hoffa, 
and the check is signed James R. Hoffa, and H. J. Gibbons. What 
happened to this check ? 

Mr. Hoffa. The money was deposited into a bank account in 
Detroit. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the name of that bank? 

Mr. Hoffa. Maybe it was Commonwealth or City Bank, and I 
believe it was Commonwealth. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the bank account it was deposited in ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I believe the Central Conference Organizing Fund. 
Mr. Bellino has it there, and he knows what it is. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the purpose of the check ? 

Mr. Hoffa. It was money placed in the Detroit bank for me to use 
as I saw fit for organizational purposes, and later on I withdrew the 
money in cash from the bank, and I used it for organizational pur- 



15050 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

poses, and when I went to make out my income tax I mentioned 
it to Herb Grosberg and he wanted me to produce bills, and I could 
not produce any bills, and he told me I should pay income tax on it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You kept this money, then, did you ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I used the money for organizational expense, and be- 
cause I didn't keep any bills, I paid income tax on it. 

The Chairman. Did you deduct enough out of it to pay your in- 
come tax ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Unfortunately no, I got stuck pretty good. 

The Chairman. You are getting stuck the way you are handling 
this thing, are you not ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Occasionally. I found the $5,000 last night that you 
are talking about. It is in 299's safety deposit box, and not 337. 

The Chairman. Then you had gotten it back ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I got it and it was there all of the time. 

The Chairman. We are helping you a little bit. 

Mr. Hoffa. Mr. Bellino's staff went over there 3 weeks ago and 
checked the books, and found the money in the books, with an envelope 
listed "Athletic Fund," and so it was within the knowledge of Mr. 
Bellino all of the time yesterday when we were trying to figure it 
out, and he knew where the money was. 

The Chairman. We knew the money was in the box and there was 
not any question about it. We may have made a mistake as to which 
box it was in, but the point was, and is, that you paid, or one of the 
locals paid, all of the expense, and did not get anything back. 

Mr. Hoffa. 337 paid the expense, and they have the balance of the 
money that went into the council and not back into 299, and it is in 
the council today. 

Mr. Kennedy. How could you have $5,000 in your safety deposit 
box without knowing about it ? 

The Chairman. How would it go to the council when the local 
owned the money ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Because I understand that we decided to put it into 
the council, and use it in the council for any purpose we deemed 
necessary as a community interest. 

The Chairman. O. K., proceed. I do not think that you would find 
any financial institution in the world run in that fashion. Do you ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, I do. 

The Chairman. The Teamsters? 

Mr. Hoffa. Business generally. 

The Chairman. I do not think so. 
" Mr. Hoffa. Business generally. 

The Chairman. I do not think so, Mr. Hoffa, and I do not think 
that you can convince anyone else that that has happened. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, you had $5,000 in your box that you did 
not know about ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't go to the box, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. But there was $5,000 in there that you had no 
knowledge about? 

Mr. Hoffa. I found out about it last night, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. For the first time ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15051 

M r. iloFFA. No, not for the first time. I knew Mr. Bellino had had 
Mr. Bailey go there about 3 weeks ago, and I paid no attention to it, 
because I believed they went to both boxes. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you did not know that you had $5,000 in the 
box? 

Mr. Hoefa. It isn't my business to know, and it is the secretary- 
treasurer's business to keep track of the money, and he knew where 
it was all of the time, and he took Mr. Bailey right to where the 
money was. 

The Chairman. This is not another afterthought like the $2,000 
check, so that you could claim it either way, is it ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, Senator, the money is there. 

The Chairman. I am just taking your own words. 

Mr. Hoffa. It is accounted for and if it was an afterthought or 
not, the union didn't suffer any loss. In my opinion, it was not an 
afterthought. 

The Chairman. All right, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. What were you going to do with this $5,000 ? 

Mr. Hoffa. What $5,000? 

Mr. Kennedy. The $5,000 that you got from the Central States 
Conference. 

Mr. Hoffa. I used it for organizing expense, an out-of-pocket 
organizing expense. 

Mr. Kennedy. For the Central States? 

Mr. Hoffa. Or Central Conference, and all of the locals in the 
Middle West are a part of the Central Conference, and so whatever 
I used it for, and used it over a period of time, that is what it was 
for. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could we trace this check through, Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Do you have the documents? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

The Chairman. Do you have the documents with respect to the 
$5,000 check that has been made exhibit No. 174 ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Where did you procure the documents ? 

Mr. Bellino. These are from the City Bank in Detroit, 

The Chairman. All right, you may testify regarding it. 

Mr. Bellino. First is a certified copy or resolution reading: 

I hereby certify that I am secretary of Central States Organization, an un- 
incorporated society, that the following is a true and correct copy of resolutions 
duly adopted at a meeting of the society held on the 29th day of September 
1953. 

The Chairman. Go ahead and let me see. I do not understand 
this "society" business. 

Mr. Bellino (continuing) : 

A quorum of the members being present, and that the same are now in full 
force and a copy of the resolution, be it resolved that the City Bank, Detroit, 
Mich., be, and it hereby is, designated a depository of this society. Be it 
further resolved that any one or more of the persons authorized hereby to 
withdraw funds deposited hereunder be, and they hereby are, authorized to 
enter into in behalf of the society with said bank the contract set forth and 
the specimen signature cards provided by said bank for use with respect to any 
account or accounts of this society provided for hereunder. 

Be it further resolved that the funds of this society deposited in said bank 
may be withdrawn upon checks, drafts, notes, or other orders of this society 
when signed. 



15052 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The only signature is that of James R. Hoffa, chairman. This 
resolution is dated September 30, 1953, and it is signed by Frank Col- 
lins as secretary. 

It is further certified to by Mr. Hoffa saying that : 

I, the undersigned, an officer of said society, hereby certify that the foregoing 
is a correct copy of resolutions adopted as above set forth. 

According to this it is Central States Organization. 

The Chairman. Central States Organization ? 

Mr. Bellino. Central States Organization, that is the full name of 
the unincorporated society. 

The Chairman. Is it termed a "society" in that document ? 

Mr. Bellino. No, it just says, "Central States Organization," that 
is the full name of it. 

The Chairman. Of what society? You used the word "society." 

Mr. Bellino. In the resolution, this is a resolution of an unincorpo- 
rated society. 

The Chairman. The resolution used the term "society," the resolu- 
tion authorizing the depository, and also the withdrawals from it? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Now, that document and the signature document 
that you have may be made exhibit 175 and 175-A. 

(Documents referred to were marked "Exhibits 175 and 175-A" for 
reference and will be found in the appendix on pp. 15337-15338.) 

The Chairman. Now, Mr. Hoffa, what is this society ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator, after discussing this with counsel, I think he 
can answer it better than I can. 

Mr. Williams. This is just a standard form issued by banks for 
resolutions of unincorporated societies. 

The Chairman. Let me get this from the witness. I do not mind 
counsel advising the witness, and explaining to him the aspects of it. 

Was there any such thing as a society, Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator, I don't know what the word is doing there. 
It is probably a form, but it was our organization, part of the Team- 
sters, and there was no society. 

The Chairman. In other words, this is a form that the bank uses, is 
that correct? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is correct. 

The Chairman. For unorganized societies, where it is just an asso- 
ciation of people ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That apparently is what it is for. 

The Chairman. So you put this money in there not as Teamsters' 
money, but as an unorganized society money ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No, sir; that isn't correct. The money went in as a 
Teamsters' Union, but because of the form it is pointed out it was a 
society, an unincorporated society, and we simply followed the proce- 
dure of the bank. 

The Chairman. Why could you not put that in the regular union 
account and draw out the money as you needed it? Why did you 
have to take it out and put it in a separate account ? 

Mr. Hoffa. This money here, Senator, this was not local 299 money ; 
this was Central Conference money and it came to Detroit. Instead 
of placing the money into local 299's normal and regular bank account, 
we established a new bank account and deposited the $5,000 in that 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15053 

bank account, keeping it separate from the general funds of local 299, 
under the name of Central States Organization. It is listed here at 
the top. 

The Chairman. Proceed. I do not understand all of the ramifica- 
tions of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was in the Central States Organization? 

Mr. Hoffa. The local unions that are chartered in the Middle West. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are they all members of the Central States Organi- 
zation? 

Mr. Hoffa. I am talking about the Central States Conference of 
Teamsters. 

Just a moment now, and you asked a question and let me answer it. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am asking you what the Central States Organiza- 
tion is, and not the Central States Conference, I know what that is. 

Mr. Hoffa. It speaks for itself. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the Central States Organization? 

Mr. Hoffa. What it talks about. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who are members of that ? 

Mr. Hoffa. The Central States Organization, that is it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is there anybody in it except Mr. Hoffa and Mr. 
Collins? 

Mr. Hoffa. The Central States Organization was a bank account 
that came about by a $5,000 check being drawn on the Central States 
Conference of Teamsters, and sent to Detroit, to myself, to be de- 
posited and be used for organizational expense as I saw fit to use the 
same. So it was placed in the bank under the title "Central States 
Organization," so that we could have a designated name to be able to 
draw a check on that account. 

Mr. Kennedy. There is no such organization as the Central States 
Organization, except as this bank account exists ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is correct, 

Mr. Kennedy. And the only people that were members of it or sub- 
scribe to it were yourself and Frank Collins? 

Mr. Hoffa. Of course that isn't correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tell me who else was in there? I am just talking 
about the Central States Organization, Mr. Hoffa. 

Mr. Hoffa. I am saying to you that as the chairman of the Central 
Conference of Teamsters, when this bank deposit was made, it 
was made by myself as Central States Conference chairman, and I 
put it into this title, "Central States Organization" account so that I 
could draw checks, and it represented all of the local unions and in 
fact the Central States Conference of Teamsters. 

The Chairman. Mr. Hoffa, what was your official position with 
the Central States Conference at that time? 

Mr. Hoffa. Chairman, sir. 

The Chairman. You were chairman ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Why could it not have been put in the Central 
States Conference account ? 

Mr. Hoffa. We had a Central States Conference account in St. 
Louis, sir. 

The Chairman. You could have a Central States Conference ac- 
count in a bank in any city ? 



15054 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Hoffa. We didn't want it that way. 

The Chairman. I know it, but I said, "Why V 

Mr. Hoffa. There isn't any reason except we wanted to isolate the 
$5,000 from the normal and regular account of Central Conference 
of Teamsters. 

The Chairman. Since you had no other Central Conference of 
Teamsters account in that bank, would this not isolate it and it 
would be in a separate bank ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes. 

The Chairman. It would be isolated ? 

Mr. Hoffa. But there would have been a confusion. 

The Chairman. It would not have been mixed with other funds? 

Mr. Hoffa. There could have been a confusion created by having 
a Central States Conference bank account in Detroit and one in St. 
Louis, because Harold Gibbons is the authorized secretary-treasurer 
of Central Conference of Teamsters, and in this instance, because the 
check was issued to myself to be deposited, I used Frank Collins as 
the secretary and the second signature to the check, if necessary. 

Senator Ives. I would like to ask a question about that. 

What you apparently have here is a special account, is it not ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is exactly what it amounts to. 

Senator Ives. I was wondering why you did not call it the Central 
Conference of Teamsters special account, and the effect would have 
been just the same and you would not have had another organization. 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator, I imagine we could have called it almost any- 
thing. 

Senator Ives. I guess you could have. 

Mr. Hoffa. And I don't think there would be any problem of 
calling it that. But we just unfortunately probably did not do it 

Senator Ives. Ordinarily, when those things are set up, they are 
set up as special accounts. 

Mr. Hoffa. We very rarely do that, Senator. 

Mr. Williams. Senator, may I interject here in the interest of 
fairness ? 

This account bore the title, Senator, Central States Organization 
account. That in normal, standard practice. When an account is 
opened, the bank indicates on the resolution of withdrawal author- 
izing people to withdraw, the name of the account. That is why all 
this confusion has been engineered here, because the account was 
captioned "Central States Organization account." 

Senator Ives. May I bring to the attention of the distinguished 
counsel that these are frequently set up as special accounts, and it 
would prevent all of th is. 

It would have been a much simpler way of doing it. 

Mr. Kennedy. The point is not just the fact that this was set up in 
this fashion. It is what happened to the money subsequently, which 
we will follow through. If it had just been set up like this, theri we 
could trace the money to a source other than we did, and then perhaps 
this question would not have been raised. 

Mr. Hoffa. You trace it. I want to see it. 

Mr. Ives. O.K. They talk in there about a resolution ? 

Mr. Hoffa. This resolution — are you talking to me ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. Who was present when the resolution was 
passed ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15055 

Mr. Hoffa. This resolution — there wasn't anybody present . 
Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

Mr. Hoffa. This resolution here is a standard form, apparent i v. by 
the bank, and when you open an account such as this, you accept their 
form so you will be able to draw the money out under the authorized 
signature of the individual authorized to do so. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed to trace the money. 

Mr. Kennedy. Go ahead. 

Mr. Bellino. The minutes of the Central States Conference of 
Teamsters, the Central Conference 

Mr. Kennedy. The one that issued the original check ? 

Mr. Bellino. Which originally issued the check. You must recall 
the check is payable to James R. Hoffa. It is not payable to the 
Central States Organization; it is to James R. Hoffa. No meeting 
was held on September 29. Therefore, no resolution could have been 
prepared by the Central States to which Mr. Gibbons, who is secretary 
of that organization and not Mr. Collins, should have certified. 

In other words, this whole resolution is a complete phoney, without 
any question. 

Mr. Hoffa. Now, Mr. Senator 

The Chairman. This came from the Central States Conference, 
this check? 

Mr. Bellino. This check was issued by the Central Conference of 
Teamsters to James R. Hoffa, charged as an expense, and organization 
expense on their records. It was not set up as an asset, to indicate that 
a special account was opened in Detroit. 

The Chairman. But it was just a check to Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And charged to organizational expense? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. On the books of the Central Conference? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. So it was not a special account. 

The Chairman. He could put it in the bank as a special account of 
his own when he got the check. 

Mr. Bellino. That is what we say. 

The Chairman. In other words, the check was originally issued as 
a final conclusion charged to organizational expense? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And it was Mr. Hoffa's money and Mr. Hoffa's 
check ? 

Mr. Bellino. It was given to him ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. He sets it up down here under Central States 
Organization ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And spends the money ? 

Mr. Bellino. He takes the money. 

The Chairman. Well, proceed. You say he takes the money. Let's 
see how it happened. 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator, may I clear up one thing? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Hoffa. The statement Mr. Bellino made is absolutely incor- 
rect and is absolutely incorrect according to the testimony of Harold 
Gibbons. Harold Gibbons is authorized, and I am authorized by the 



15056 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

executive board of the Central Conference of Teamsters to draw 
checks from the account of Central Conference of Teamsters as we 
deem necessary. 

The Chairman. I understand that is correct, and these things are 
done under that general delegation of authority. 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Hoffa. There wasn't anything hid here. 

The Chairman. There wasn't any special resolution about it? 

Mr. Hoffa. It wasn't necessary. 

The Chairman. According to your contention and Mr. Gibbons' 
contention, no such resolution is necessary because you have the gen- 
eral authority to act as you see fit ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir. 

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

The Chairman. Senator Ives. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Hoffa, as I understand this $5,000 about which 
we are talking is the $5,000 on which you paid the tax ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I paid tax, yes, sir. 

Senator Ives. Well, if I understand the law correctly on the matter 
of union funds, they are not taxable. Is that not true? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is correct. 

Senator Ives. One of the great advantages, you know, that unions 
have is that the money is not taxable. 

Mr. Hoffa. When you spend it and account for it in bills, yes, sir. 

Senator Ives. It does not make any difference what the union 
spends it for. Of course, if it starts a business, the income from the 
business is taxable. We all know that. 

Mr. Hoffa. I wish that was true, Senator. The Internal Revenue 
don't agree at all unless you produce the bills for the money you 
spend. They are just likely to disallow it and you take it as a per- 
sonal expenditure. 

Senator Ives. I don't know. But if this money had been spent 
as a union expense, actually would it have been taxable? 

Mr. Hoffa. If I had produced the bills for the money I spent out 
of this account, it would not have been taxable. You are correct in 
that. 

Senator Ives. Well, why did you not? 

Mr. Hoffa. I am not in the habit of keeping bills, Senator, un- 
fortunately. 

Senator Ives. I know, but it has been an unfortunate proposition 
for you, apparently. I do not understand it, when you can easily 
do it that way and avoid taxes. It just does not make very much 
sense, does it? I know you are very bright. I learned that last 
year. You are terrifically capable of keeping books and keeping ac- 
counts. It just takes a little trouble. 

The Chairman. Well, we are going to trace this money. Before 
we do, I want to ask you, Mr. Hoffa, about this. This resolution of 
unincorporated society, the certified copy, which you say is the bank's 
document, has certain blanks that have to be filled, in." Mr. Collins 
and you certified this resolution. You start off by saying : 

I am secretary of Central States Organization. 
That is Collins, I assume. Now you say there is no such organization. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15057 

Mr. Hoffa. There is no such organization as Central States Or- 
ganization. 

The Chairman. As Central States Organization. All right. 

An unincorporated society, that the following is a true and correct copy of 
resolution duly adopted at a meeting of the society held on the 29th day of 
September 1953, a quorum of members being present, and that the same are now 
in full force. 

As I understand you now, there was no such meeting. 

Mr. Hoffa. Only of Collins and myself, and that is all that could 
be represented by Central States Organization, Senator. 

The Chairman. And you and Collins constituted what is termed 
here "Central States Organization?" 

Mr. Hoffa. That is what it would amount to, Senator. 

The Chairman. You two only. Did you and Collins have a meet- 
ing and decide to handle it this way ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Collins and I both signed this document. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Now trace the money. 

Mr. Bellino. On December 30, 3 months later 

The Chairman. When ? 

Mr. Bellino. December 30, 1953. The check was deposited on 
September 30. It was indicated the 29th and deposited to this ac- 
count on the 30th. 

On December 30, a check in the amount of $4,900 was drawn to cash 
and signed by James R. Hoffa, and endorsed by Frank Collins. 

The Chairman. On December 30 ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What happened to the other hundred dollars ? 

Mr. Bellino. The account was charged with services charges con- 
tinuously from February 15, 1954, through April 10, 1957, for a total 
of $27.25 services charges made against the account. 

The Chairman. Wait a minute. This was September 1953, when 
it was deposited. Was it drawn out December 30, 1953 ? 

Mr. Bellino. $4,900 was drawn out December 30, leaving a balance 
of $100 in the account. Starting February 15, the bank began to 
charge 70 cents a month service charges. 

The Chairman. That is because of the smallness of the balance, 
I assume? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Some of them do that. 

Mr. Bellino. There was a total of $27.25 charged against this ac- 
count. The balance of $72.75 was withdrawn on April 17, 1957. 

The Chairman. By whom ? 

Mr. Bellino. We didn't check that item further, Senator. I be- 
lieve Mr. Hoffa could tell us what he did with the $72.75. 

The Chairman. Did you withdraw the balance, Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I imagine I did. 

The Chairman. Do you remember ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't remember, but I imagine I did, though. I must 
have closed the account out. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman, I still don't understand this service 
charge. 

The Chairman. I think I do. 



15058 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Hoffa. It is one of those things, a small account. 

Senator Ives. Was that an active account? Were you drawing 
checks on it all the time ? 

The Chairman. You have never had small accounts, Senator. I 
have. 

Senator Ives. But your accounts were active. I have had small 
accounts and had service charges on them, but they were active. Were 
any checks drawn on this at all ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I think the fact remains as Senator McClellan said. 
If you have a certain amount of money in the account, they charge 
you a service charge on the money and deduct it from the surplus 
in the bank each month. 

Senator Ives. Do you mean the bank charges you to put money 
in it? 

Mr. Hoffa. When you have a certain amount of money in the bank 
in certain accounts. 

Senator Ives. And it is left there all the time just as is? 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator, I am sure that is right. 

Senator Ives. That is new banking to me. 

Mr. Hoffa. I think you will find it pretty standard. 

The Chairman. I think you will find if there were no checks 
drawn, they are not entitled to make a charge against the account, 
if it was not active. I guess they started making the charge, antici- 
pating it would be active, and just continued to make it. 

Senator Ives. But there were no checks drawn, apparently. 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, you declared this $4,900 on your 1953 
income tax returns? 

Mr. Hoffa. One of the years. It must have beeen 1953, 1 imagine. 

Mr. Kennedy. If you withdrew the money on December 29 or De- 
cember 30, and actually spent it on organizational work or spent it 
on matters dealing with the union, certainly you would know in 
the period of one day how you had spent it. 

Mr. Hoffa. It would be between December and February, I 
imagine. 

( The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. Hoffa. Wait. There is a technical point brought up here. It 
may have been listed in the 1954 income tax. 

Mr. Bellino. It was reported in the 1953 income tax which should 
have been filed on or before March 15, 1954. 

The Chairman. If Mr. Hoffa paid income tax on it, it wouldn't 
matter when he spent it or whether he ever spent it. It wouldn't be 
a question of when he spent it but a question of when it became his 
money, as when the tax was due. 

Mr. Hoffa. It would be December 30, 

The Chairman. December 30, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am raising the question about this Teamster money 
that was charged to organizational expenses, charged to expenses 
being declared by you on your income tax return as your own personal 
money, money that belonged to the Teamsters and was supposed to be 
used for these other purposes. 

The Chairman. The witness says the reason he did it was because 
he operates that way. He takes in receipts. He gets no invoices. Is 
that right? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15059 

Mr. Hoffa. That was the answer. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can I ask yon again, how did yon spend the money 
between December 30 and December 31 ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, it didn't happen that way. The money was spent 
in organizational expense. Exactly for what, I don't remember. 
When it came time to make out the tax, we talked to the accountant 
about it, and he told me I should pay tax on it or produce receipts. 
I had no receipts. I paid tax on it. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was also declared in your 1953 income tax re- 
turn? 

Mr. Hoffa. That would be in February, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. But it would be income that you earned during that 
period of time, which would have been between December 30 and 
December 31. This is Teamster money. 

Mr. Hoffa. What is the problem ? 

Mr. Kennedy. The problem is of your declaring this money on 
your income tax return. 

Mr. Hoffa. I explained it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Your explanation is that you couldn't come up with 
how you spent the money, you couldn't give any explanation on how 
you spent the money between December 30 and December 31 ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I said that I didn't have any receipts and the account- 
ant advised me to pay tax, and I paid the tax. 

Mr. Williams. May we have the date on which that return was 
filed, Mr. Kennedy ? 

Mr. Bellino. The date does not show on this copy that we have. 

Mr. Kennedy. May we have the date on which it was paid out ? 

Mr. Bellino. Well, it is a 1953 return, but there is no date as to 
when it was made out or when it was filed. 

Mr. Kennedy. There is no notice on it that it was a late return ? 

Mr. Bellino. This was produced by Mr. Grosberg, his accountant. 

Mr. Williams. May we see it ? 

The Chairman. Yes ; you may see it. 

Let the counsel look at the income tax return. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Could I ask Mr. Bellino another question? 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Based on your experience as an accountant, Mr. 
Bellino, would the way this transaction was handled indicate any 
material matter to you ? 

Mr. Bellino. The way this was handled I would say that he cer- 
tainly could have, at March 15, estimated and given the accountant 
certain expenditures if he had made those expenditures, and in the 
absence of being able to, in that short period of time, to explain how 
even $100 or $1,000 was spent, I would say that he took that money 
and for that reason was willing to pay taxes on it. That would be 
the only reason. I, as an accountant, would have recommended that 
he do that also, if he could not explain in that short period of time 
how the money was spent. 

The Chairman. It seems that is what the accountant did. The ac- 
countant told him unless he could produce receipts or evidence of ex- 
penditure for union purposes, he would have to pay income taxes on it. 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was, therefore, an admission on his part? 



15060 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Bellino. This would be an admission on his part that he used 
the money. 

Senator Ives. How is that reported in the return? 

Mr. Hoffa. Just exactly how the check was drafted. 

Senator Ives. Just read* how it was reported there, do you mind ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Just a moment, sir. "Central States Conference." 

Senator Ives. Where is that reported on the return ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Right here in the income tax. 

Senator Ives. May I see the income tax return? I would like to 
see it. 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. This income tax return, since it has been identified, 
may be made exhibit No. 176. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 176" for ref- 
erence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Could I ask a question ? 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, do you keep records or bills on your other 
union expenses, or do you declare them all as income ? 

Mr. Hoffa. If it is a hotel bill, hotel bills are turned in by the 
hotels, charged and turned in by the hotel, and the union pays them. 
If it is out-of-pocket expense, I don't keep any bills. I sign a voucher 
and that is all there is to it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you declare it all as income, then ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I do not. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is the only transaction you handled in this 
fashion ? 

Mr. Hoffa. The only transaction I handled in this fashion because 
the balance I sign vouchers for and then is drawn on regular 299 
checks or central conference checks. 

The Chairman. Mr. Bellino, you spoke about the $4,900 with- 
drawal. Do you have a photostatic copy of the check showing that 
withdrawal ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. It may be made exhibit No. 177. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 177" for ref- 
erence and will be found in the appendix on p. 15339.) 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman, before we go any further on this 
return, I would like to ask Mr. Hoffa a question. 

Was this the $5,000 which you listed on page 1 of form 1040 in 
1953? 

Mr. Hoffa. No, sir; it is on the second page, I believe, at the bot- 
tom, where it says "Central States Conference." 

Senator Ives/ $4,900 ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is it. 

Senator Ives. $4,900. There are no deductions there at all, are 
there? 

Mr. Hoffa. No. 

The Chairman. Mr. Bellino, are these the bank statements or bank 
ledger sheets showing the handling of this account at the bank ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. They may be made exhibit 177-A. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibit 177-A" for ref- 
erence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15061 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there anything else in connection with this 
transaction ? 

Mr. Bellino. The only thing is that this item of $5,000 was an asset 
of the Central Conference of Teamsters. 

Mr. Hoffa. Was a what? 

Mr. Bellino. Was an asset. In other words, it was a special ac- 
count put in another bank. Then at the end of the year they would 
have been required to have listed it as cash in bank and it should 
have so been reported on any financial statement they issued. 

The Chairman. They have issued a check to Mr. Hoffa showing 
it as organizational expense, and that they paid it out for that 
purpose ? 

Mr. Bellino. That is correct. 

The Chairman. So they would not carry it as an asset after show- 
ing it as an expense. 

Mr. Bellino. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Did they carry it as an asset ? 

Mr. Bellino. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, I have some other matters that I want 
to ask you about. I want to ask you about the purchase of property 
that belonged to Mr. 

Mr. Hoffa. Excuse me a moment. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. All right, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. In the purchase of Mr. Paul DeLucia's home outside 
of Chicago, how long had you been interested in making a purchase 
of this kind prior to the time this home was purchased ? 

Mr. Hoffa. We had looked around quite a while, and thought about 
it. Even decided at one time we must use Jack O' Lantern for that 
purpose. 

Mr. Kennedy. What other homes did you look at? 

The Chairman. What was the Jack O' Lantern for? 

Mr. Hoffa. It was a girl's camp, Senator, and we thought that 
maybe we would even use that for a while. But we found out that 
the transportation facilities were not proper, and it was too far away. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the Jack O' Lantern that was owned by you 
and Dor f man n and Mr. Bert Brennan ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You looked at other pieces of property ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No; I didn't. This was principally a project as I 
stated before, handled by Brennan, with my approval. 

Mr. Kennedy. What other pieces of property did he look at? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. He looked at this piece of property, down there? 

Mr. Hoffa. He apparently did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Outside of Chicago? 

Mr. Hoffa. He apparently did. 

Mr. Kennedy. The property was appraised, was it? 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, I imagine it was, and I couldn't tell you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have a copy of the appraisal ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I say I imagine it was, and I can't tell you, until I talk 
to Brennan. 



15062 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Should we get Mr. Brennan in so that even time 
you turn to him 

Senator Ives. 1 object to the way the witness is answering these 
questions. After all, when he answers our counsel, he is answering 
the committee in effect. 

Mr. Kennedy. I don't mind at all. 

Senator Ives. You may not, but I do. I do not mind how people 
answer me personally, either; but after all, you have to show some 
respect to these Senate committees, and I do not think that you do. 

Mr. Hoffa. lie asked the question, should he bring Brennan in. 

Senator Ives. It is your tone of voice, Mr. Hoffa, and your whole 
attitude that I do not like. 

The Chairman. Here is the thing about it, Mr. Hoffa : We have had 
Mr. Brennan, have we not ? 

Mr. Hoffa. You have, twice, I think. 

The Chairman. And he persisted in declining to answer questions. 

Mr. Hoffa. That is correct, sir. 

The ( 1 h airman. How are we to get the information ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, Senator, as I stated before 

The Chairman. If you cannot give it to us, and he will not talk, 
how are we to make this record speak the truth ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator, if you will take Mr. Adlerman's testimony, 
which he put into the record after very careful investigations, you will 
find that, in volume 4 of August 8, Mr. Adlerman put into the record a 
complete statement concerning the question of the estate there, and 
he placed into the record the complete purchase of the property. 

So the committee has in effect all of the information that anybody 
could gain concerning this transaction, Senator. 

The Chairman. Well, is our version of the transaction correct ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No; your version was incorrect only in one instance, 
and your version was incorrect to this extent : 

There w T as a statement made here recently that all of the property 
that had been originally purchased wasn't in the name of the 
Teamsters Union. Since the testimony was placed into the record, 
we checked and found that it was incorrect, and that Mr. Bellino 
knew it was incorrect, and he has today in his possession all of the 
documents to prove that his statement was incorrect, sir. 

The Chairman. Well, if we make an error here we want to correct 
it. 

Mr. Hoffa. But it hasn't been placed in the record as a correction ? 

The Chairman. I do not know yet that an error has been made, 
but the point, I say, is this : 

If we make an error in trying to check these records without the 
cooperation of the man who ought to be giving us the information, and 
he is unwilling to correct it, we will try to correct it if we find we have 
made an error, but we do need his help. 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator, we produced, or at that time when you ques- 
tioned Brennan, I don't think you had the documents concerning this 
transaction. 

Since then we have turned over the complete file on this transaction, 
and the committee has all of the information that can be gained from 
anybody concerning this transaction. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15063 

I understand, sir, that they brought into Washington a man by the 
name of Joseph Bolger, who made a statement concerning this trans- 
action and how he handled it with Brennan. 

Now, taking the statement of Mr. Adlerman, Mr. Bolger, and the 
documents we presented, I don't think that there could be a more 
complete picture on this question regardless of who came in here to 
try and answer questions and clear up the situation. 

The Chairman. Whether he could be helpful or not, you do not 
think it would be worthwhile to have him come back at the expense of 
the Government to interrogate Mr. Brennan ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator, Mr. Brennan has some very positive ideas of 
his own, and I think one of them is that he does not care to try and 
match wits with a situation which he feels is one which is trying to 
incriminate him from the outset, and therefore he feels that it would 
be better if there is anything wrong with any transaction that he has, 
to meet it in a court. 

The Chairman. He would rather not meet it before the committee ? 

Mr. Hoffa. He doesn't believe he has a way of placing it before the 
committee which would give him the benefit of any answers he may 
make subject to questions presented which are not based upon what the 
committee already has. 

The Chairman. All we can do, sometimes, is spend the Govern- 
ment's money in vain, and to have people here and ask them to cooper- 
ate. So if he will not cooperate, we may proceed. 

Go ahead. 

Mr. Kennedy. I will tell you what I wanted to find out, Mr. Hoffa, 
and that is why this property was purchased in the first place, and 
what I want to find out is whether you looked at any other pieces of 
property, and you say it was turned over to Mr. Brennan. 

I felt Mr. Hoffa also should have a responsibility, Mr. Chairman, 
because part of the money came from his local. 

Now, this is a very, very peculiar transaction, to say the least. You 
were president of a local which paid out some $75,000 in connection 
with the purchase of this property, then the joint council paid out some 
$150,000. 

Mr. Hoffa. No ; it didn't. Let us correct the record. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me finish, Mr. Hoffa. The joint council ulti- 
mately reimbursing the two locals and paying out some $150,000 in 
connection with the purchase of this property, and you as president of 
the joint council, I would think that you would have some information 
on it, Mr. Hoffa. I would have thought that before you purchased 
some property for $150,000 you would have had the property 
appraised. 

The Chairman. Let me see, did the two locals purchase the prop- 
erty? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Originally ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. After they purchased the property, you, as presi- 
dent, or your joint council, purchased it from the locals ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No, sir; the joint council has not yet purchased or, I 
should say, they haven't paid for the property. 

21243— 59— pt. 40 9 



15064 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The joint council has agreed to purchase the property from 299 
and 337, but they have not at this moment paid any money to 299 
or 337. 

The Chairman. You say they have agreed. Is that a binding obli- 
gation ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. They are committed, then, to purchase it ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. So for all practical purposes, it has been pur- 
chased, and there is a legal obligation ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir ; there is. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, my first question is: Why, when you paid 
out the $75,000 from your local, was the property not appraised? 
Do you have any explanation for that ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Maybe it was appraised. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, there is no document in the record, and there 
are no documents in the Teamsters Union records to indicate it was 
appraised. 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, did you ask Mr. Bolger, the attorney, for it ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I am asking the Teamsters Union, and not the at- 
torney for Mr. Ricca, or Mr. DeLucia. I am asking the Teamsters 
to find out if they had it appraised, and what other pieces of property 
they had appraised. 

Here is the most notorious gangster in the United States, and the 
Teamsters Union comes along and happens to buy his property for 
$150,000. 

Now, we have gone out and checked it, and although this is not 
a complete appraisal by any means, the man who had originally 
handled this property said that the probable fair market value of 
this property is, for land and improvements, $85,000. 

Now, maybe he is wrong, but I haven't seen any evidence from the 
Teamsters Union that indicates that he was wrong or that you ever 
had an appraisal. 

Did you have one, or can you give us any documents whatsoever 
that you had an appraisal or found out how much this property was 
worth ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Mr. Kennedy, I repeat to you that you will have to ask 
Mr. Brennan about the transaction, and I have every confidence in 
the world in Mr. Brennan having carried on his obligation of han- 
dling the transaction in such a way that it satisfies the members of our 
two local unions who are perfectly aware of the transaction as you 
well know. 

Mr. Kennedy. If you are aware of the transaction, did you ever 
inquire to find out if this property was actually worth the $150,000, 
or if you were turning the $150,000 over to Paul "The Waiter" Eicca 
because he needed it at the time he was under investigation by the 
Internal Revenue Department? 

Mr. Hoffa. I made no inquiry concerning the property except to 
discuss it with Mr. Brennan, and that also I can answer you. 

The Chairman. Has this letter been placed in the record — this 
appraisal ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No, it has not, Mr. Chairman. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15065 

The Chairman. From whom did you obtain this ? 

Mr. Kennedy. From this Mr. Ray J. Beahan, who had formerly 
handled this property, and so he was aware of the building, and the 
property, because he had handled the financial transaction in connec- 
tion with this property when it was originally purchased by Paul 
"The Waiter" Ricca. 

Mr. Williams. What year was that ? 

The Chairman. Mr. Hoffa, I read you this letter for the purpose 
of predicating a question on it. 

The counsel for the committee requested Mr. Raymond J. Beahan 
to make an appraisal of this property. He replied and stated : 

Mr. Adlerinan, assistant chief counsel, requested in a recent telephone conver- 
sation that I write you relative to my idea of value of the Paul DeLucia prop- 
erty located in Long Beach, Ind., as of this date. As I understand, you are 
interested only in the main piece comprising eight lots with two homes and 
swimming pool. Without opportunity to make a thorough inspection of the 
property in its present state, I am able only to give an opinion based on some 
recent sales in Long Beach of properties somewhat typical of subject property. 
The probable fair market value of this property for land and improvements is 
$85,000. In support of my ability to get such value, I offer the following as my 
qualifications: 

(A) Realty and licensed broker, State of Indiana for 33 years. 

(B) Twenty-five years general appraisal work for individuals, banks, estates, 
and so forth. 

(C) Veterans' Administration since 1946. 

(D) Appraiser and negotiator for J. E. Greiner Co., consulting engineers, 
construction of Indiana toll roads. 

(E) Condemnation appraisals for PHA in Michigan City, Ind. 

(F) At present under contract to Indiana State Highway Commission to 
inspect all appraisal work. 

Now, Mr. Hoffa, this letter is dated August 9, 1958. This appraiser 
apparently, if his statements are correct, has considerable experience 
as an appraiser, and I would regard him as competent, assuming these 
statements he makes in the letter are correct. 

He said its probable value is $85,000. 

Now, based on that, would you say that his appraisal or his idea 
of it is incorrect ? Do you have any information that would refute 
his estimation of the value ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator, I am afraid he didn't take into consideration 
the fact that we bought the property completely furnished, and the 
large house, and the small house, and the lawn furniture, and every- 
thing included from the mowers to cut the grass all of the way up, I 
don't think he took into consideration the question, and I notice he 
says only some of the property, and he didn't take into consideration 
the total amount of property involved in the sale. 

I think, furthermore, you must recognize that an appraiser gener- 
ally appraises at the lowest rate he can when he wants to, and when 
he is opposing a sale, as against another appraiser who appraises at 
a higher value when he wants to get the price up to the point for his 
client, and, furthermore, I must say, Senator, that it isn't a question 
always of price. 

It is a question of location. It is whether or not it is a piece of 
property that is desirable for the purpose that you intend to put it to 
work for. 

The Chairman. I understand that, and I understand, too, that all 
of those factors might well be taken into account in appraising a piece 
of property. 



15066 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Now, this is the only appraisal or estimate that we have so far of 
the value. It is the Teamsters (lint are spending $150,000 for it. If 
it is worth it, well and good. If it isn't, then there is some reason to 
ask why. 

So, why is there not, unless you can say definitely there is, an 
appraisal supplied or procured by the Teamsters before they invest 
$150,000 in a piece of real estate? 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator, I don't have an appraisal. 

The Chairman. You do not what? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't have a different appraisal than the one you 
have just read off. I am not fully familiar with the entire transaction 
concerning the operation. I know the cost of it. 

I am not in a position at this time to get whether that appraisal is 
a fair appraisal or not. 

However, I am certain — let me put this into operation — we will get 
value received for our money. 

The Chairman. Maybe so, but let us say you are not in a position 
to get whether that is a fair appraisal. 

Mr. Hoffa. At this moment, no, sir. 

The Chairman. But yet before finding whether the property was 
worth the $150,000, you have committed the union to purchase it. In 
fact, the two locals have already purchased it, and now the conference 
is going to purchase it from the two locals at that price. 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, I may have misunderstood. 

The Chairman. Wait just a moment. 

Is that a correct statement? 

Mr. Hoffa. Excuse me for a moment. 

There is no other appraisal present that I know of, and the local 
unions have invested the money in the property, and the joint council 
will purchase the property from the local unions at the purchase 
price, and I believe that our executive board of the two unions feel 
that the property for the purpose we are going to use it for is well 
worth the amount of money that we are putting into the property. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, I haven't seen that exhibit, I heard 
you read it. But as I understand it, and I may be in error 

The Chairman. You may see it. I did not make it an exhibit. I 
can have it made an exhibit, of course, by counsel swearing to it. But 
I just used it as a basis of interrogating Mr. Hoffa as to whether he 
had any different information than what was stated in it. 

Mr. Williams. I am not sure, Mr. Chairman, that it should be part 
of this record, either, because actually I don't see the probative value 
that it has. It is not an appraisal of the assets which were acquired 
by the Teamsters in this purchase, as I understand them. 

The Chairman. Sir, I was giving him every bit of information in 
that letter, and giving the witness the opportunity to make any state- 
ment of explanation that he thought proper. I was not trying in any 
way to mislead the witness. 

Mr. Williams. I know that, Senator. I know that, But I did 
think I should point out to you that this is an appraisal, as I under- 
stand it, of part of the real estate involved in the transaction, and 
none of the personalty involved in the transaction. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15067 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe it is all of the real estate. Mr. Williams. 
Possibly on the furnishings, it does not include that, but I think it is 
eight lots, isn't it ? 

Mr. Williams. It says : 

You are interested only in the main piece. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. DeLucia owns a piece of property still, as I 
understand it, across the street, and which, of course, would not be 
included. But I think it includes all the real estate that was pur- 
chased by the Teamsters. It did not include the rest of Mr. DeLucia's 
property. Mr. DeLucia still has property right across the street. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you want to say something further? 

Mr. Hoffa. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, there are certain zoning restrictions re- 
garding this property also. 

The Chairman. Before we move to that, let me ask this : Accord- 
ing to the information before the committee, this man DeLucia was 
in, possibly, income tax trouble at the time and was under investiga- 
tion and needed money. Is there any connection between Mr. DeLucia 
in this transaction and the union ? 

Mr. Hoffa. There isn't any transaction between DeLucia at all. 
If you will look at the testimony, sir, that I stated the last time I was 
here concerning this property — and I think it has been verified by 
Mr. Bolger — the property wasn't in the name of DeLucia. 

The Chairman. Well, it was held in trust for him. 

Mr. Hoffa. It was held in trust for him. Therefore, the person we 
did business with was Bolger and not DeLucia. Until this committee 
brought out the fact that Paul DeLucia was involved in the property, 
I made the statement that he was not involved in it, because I had no 
knowledge of the fact that he was involved in it. So I can't see any 
connection between his problems and the sale of this property to us. 

The Chairman. Did you have knowledge at that time that Mr. 
DeLucia was in distress with respect to his income tax and under in- 
vestigation, and, therefore, needed to make the sale? 

Mr. Hoffa. No. I didn't know the man then and don't know him 
today. I only saw him when he testified here. 

The Chairman. You have never met him ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Only when he testified here did I see him. 

The Chairman. You never had any conversations with him about 
this matter? 

Mr. Hoffa. I did not. 

The Chairman. Again, it would be Mr. Brennan ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't know whether Mr. Brennan ever met the man or 
not. 

The Chairman. Have you ever interrogated him about that ? He 
will talk to you, but he won't talk to us. Did he have any informa- 
tion about that ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I didn't ask him that question. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, regarding the zoning restrictions in con- 
nection with that land, was there any attempt to have those zoning 
restrictions changed or a decision 



15068 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Church. Mr. Kennedy, I have a question before we get into 
that question of zoning. Just so that I am sure I understand your 
testimony, Mr. Hoffa, am I to understand that you did not know at 
the time that the locals purchased this property that it was substan- 
tially Paul DeLucia's property, that he was the beneficiary of the 
trust? 

Mr. Hoffa. I didn't. 

Senator Church. You did not know this ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I did not. 

Senator Church. You said Mr. Brennan handled this transaction? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right, 

Senator Church. And Mr. Brennan never informed you, although 
such a large amount of money was involved, that this property was 
actually Paul DeLucia's estate ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Well now, if you look at the record, Senator, you will 
find that we did business, and on page 3179, we did business with 
Bolger and we didn't do any business with DeLucia, and this was in 
a trust, as stated by the Senator. If this committee wouldn't have 
brought to light DeLucia was involved in the transaction, if some- 
body had asked me was he involved, I would have said no. as far as I 
know. I would have imagined that Brennan would have said the 
same thing. 

Senator Church. I was here during the time when this proposition 
was first discussed before the committee. My impression was that it 
was generally known that this was Mr. DeLucia's estate, that his name 
actually appeared as an endorsement on the back of the check involved. 
It just seems strange to me that although technically this property 
was in the hands of a trustee, generally the fact was well known by 
all those concerned that it was Mr. DeLucia's estate. It just seems 
hard for me to believe that Mr. Brennan, as close as he is to you, 
would not have advised you that the local unions concerned were not, 
in fact, purchasing property that belonged to a notorious gangster. 
But you say that you did not know this ? 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, and Senator, may I say to you, and 
I think that you are under some confusion here, Mr. Paul DeLucia 
is more well known and I think lias gained considerably more notoriety 
under the name of Paul Ricca. That was the name that was used 
during the interrogation, Paul "The Waiter" Ricca. Paul DeLucia 
does appear on the back of the check. 

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

Senator Church. We all know Ave are talking about the same man, 
whatever name we are using, because the first question put to this 
witness was, "What is your real name?" And he said, "Paul De 
Lucia," and he went on to say that he was generally known as Paul 
"The Waiter" Ricca. 

Mr. Williams. But the thrust of your question, as I understood it, 
Senator, was that Mr. Hoffa should have known that DeLucia owned 
this land, a notorious criminal. It may have been that he should have 
known that DeLucia owned the land, but whether DeLucia was Paul 
"The Waiter" Ricca was a fact that might escape anyone. 

Mr. Ricca was not known as DeLucia, as I understand, until this 
committee unveiled him as DeLucia. 

Senator Church. I think that the personality involved here, by 
whatever name, is notorious enough to be well known, and it just 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15069 

seems strange to me that this fact was not communicated by Mr. 
Brennan to Mr. Hoffa at the time that the two locals were putting 
out $150,000 on property that they had not even bothered to get an 
appraisal on. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, was any attempt made to go to the zoning 
board to get an interpretation of the zoning restrictions? 

Mr. Hoffa. There isn't any need to go to the zoning board for a 
restriction change. 

Mr. Chairman, that question was brought up before, and I answered 
the question. I answered it on this basis, that if the property is 
owned by the joint council or by the two local unions, and they de- 
cided to invite any given number of people they wanted to be guests 
at that house, there wouldn't be any reason to have any necessity to 
change the zoning unless you were going to make a commercial enter- 
prise out of it, and that isn't the intention. 

The Chairman. Well, the question was : Did you take any action 
with respect to changing the zoning? 

Mr. Hoffa. No, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. The answer is "No." 

Mr. Kennedy. In your testimony on page 5013, Mr. Hoffa, you 
stated 

Mr. Hoffa. When ? 

Mr. Kennedy. In August of 1957. 

Mr. Hoffa. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is in the printed volume. 

Mr. Hoffa. It must be the same book. It comes out of here, 
doesn't it? 

Mr. Kennedy. It is a different page. 

Mr. Hoffa. What did I state ? 

Mr. Kennedy, [reading] : 

Question. That is going to be a sort of a school for the business agents and 
the officers? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. If it works out properly, we will have the key 
stewards also attend classes. 

Question. Is it a home and some land? 

Mr. Hoffa. It is a home and some land, with sufficient sleeping quarters, I 
believe we can have some 30 or 40 people at a time in classes, and we don't 
think it is advisable to have more than that at a time to try to listen properly 
to explanations. 

From the zoning restrictions, Mr. Hoffa, it would certainly appear 
that they would not permit the use of this kind of building for this 
kind of operation. The only kind of school it describes is a church, 
school or high school. It does not say anything about this. 

What I am asking you is if before the union put out $150,000, they 
went to the zoning board to determine whether this building could be 
used for this purpose ? 

The Chairman. Mr. Hoffa says they did not, as far as he knows. 

Mr. Hoffa. That is correct, sir. There was no need then or now. 

The Chairman. He thought there was no need. 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right, sir. It is a legal question to be handled 
by the lawyers if it arises. 

Mr. Kennedy. Again, Mr. Chairman, I feel when this amount of 
money was going to be used, they would not only get an appraisal, 



15070 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

but check and see if the property could be used for the purpose they 
intended. 

The Chairman. That is a circumstance attending the transaction 
that has its proper place for consideration. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, you made a statement about the fact 
that the testimony regarding your purchase of the property and the 
fact that only half of it was in the Teamsters name in 1956, was in- 
correct ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No, I didn't say it was incorrect. I said that Mr. 
Adlerman, and it is here, I believe, somewhere, made a statement 
that all of the property that we supposedly purchased wasn't in the 
name of the Teamsters Union. 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe he stated 

Mr. Hoffa. We went back and checked the record immediately and 
found out that there had been some laxity on the part of an attorney 
we had hired to do the job. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was that ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I believe Paul Mayran was the man who handled it. 

A fellow named Prebenda handled it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Prebenda? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes. 

Paul Mayran went down. There was a very insignificant mistake. 
He corrected the mistake, and all the property today is in the name 
of the Teamsters Union. It never was in jeopardy at any time of 
not being in the Teamsters name. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say a very insignificant mistake ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. For 13 months, Mr. Hoffa, the Teamsters only had 
half of the property, and the Teamsters and Paul "The Waiter" 
Ricca were sharing the tennis court and the swimming pool ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That isn't true. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why do you say it isn't true ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Because I say to you that the original purchase of 
the property included all of the land, all of the buildings, and there 
was some misunderstanding as to certain lots, if I understand it cor- 
rect, which were not transferred promptly into our name. But the 
purchase price and the purchase document covered the situation to 
where nobody could have, by any stretch of the imagination, demanded 
to receive title to the property that you are discussing. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you say Mr. Adlerman's testimony in connection 
with this property, where he showed that approximately half of the 
property actually was transferred in 1956 and the rest of it in 1957, 
and that would include the part that was still in Mr. Ricca's hands 
of a small house, part of the tennis court and part of the swimming 
pool — you say that testimony by Mr. Adlerman is incorrect? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. Hoffa. You have a statement from Mr. Bolger, which I think 
will indicate 

Mr. Kennedy. I don't have any statement from Mr. Bolger. 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, you do. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just answer the question. Is the testimony that 
Mr. Adlerman gave in connection with this property, that approxi- 
mately half of the property had been transferred in 1956 and the 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15071 

rest of it had not been transferred until after our investigation in 
1957 ? and that this property included a small house, part of the 
tennis court and part of the swimming pool, is that testimony by 
Mr. Adlerman incorrect ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Hoffa. At the time he made the statement, the abstract com- 
pany had failed to carry out the original purchase arrangement. At 
that time 

The Chaerman. Based on the record 

Mr. Hoffa. At that time he was correct to the point that the 
abstract company had failed to carry out their end of the purchase, 
and it was adjusted when it was brought to our attention, Senator. 

The Chairman. All right. As of the time of his testimony, is 
what the records reflected true ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I can't agree, Senator, that it is 100 percent true, be- 
cause the purchase of the property and the documents we signed 
gave us possession of all the property, all the land, but the abstract 
company, and this part of Mr. Adlerman's testimony is right, the 
abstract company had failed to clear all the property title to the 
Teamsters Union. 

The Chairman. I will ask you this way : Is it not a fact that at 
the time the transaction was first closed, you only secured a deed 
to a part of the property ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No, sir — excuse me. 

The Chairman. That was in 1956. Later, in 1957 you secured 
a deed for the balance of it? 

Mr. Hoffa. May I talk to counsel, please? There seems to be 
some misunderstanding here. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Hoffa. May I make this statement, Senator, to clear the rec- 
ord : The purchase of the property included all the property and the 
buildings. The title, according to Mr. Adlerman's statement, was 
correct, that it was not cleared to come to the Teamsters Union. But 
at no time were we in jeopardy in losing it. We want to thank Mr. 
Adlerman for giving us the information so that we could properly 
clear the title for our local unions. 

Thank you. 

The Chairman. All right. So it turns out that Mr. Adlerman's 
testimony was correct. 

Mr. Hoffa. Partially, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. Let's proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just a few last questions. 

Was the purchase of this property by your local taken up with your 
executive board ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I have the authority, I repeat, from my executive board 
to spend the necessary funds in behalf of my local union for what- 
ever is for the benefit of the local union. 

Mr. Kennedy. This specific purchase was not taken up ? 

Mr. Hoffa. It was not. It was under the broad terms and broad 
powers granted to me as president. 

The Chairman. Mr. Hoffa, are we to understand that is correct, 
that you, as president, have authority to make an expenditure of 



15072 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

$150,000 of Teamster money without anyone else approving or agree- 
ing to it ? I mean the blanket authority to do that ? 

Mr. Hoffa. The membership has so voted and so have the execu- 
tive board, sir. 

The Chairman. Both the membership and the executive board have 
voted to give you blanket authority, unlimited, to spend any funds 
in any amount that you deem personally to be in the interest of the 
union ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. 

(Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., with the following members of the 
committee present: Senators McClellan and Church, the committee 
recessed to reconvene at 2 p.m., the same day.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

The committee reconvened at 2 p.m., upon the expiration of the 
recess. 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

(Committee members present in the hearing room: Senators Mc- 
Clellan, Ives, and Church.) 

Mr. Hoffa. May I correct the record from something I said this 
morning ? 

The Chairman. All right, 

Mr. Hoffa. This morning I said I thought the car was in the name 
of Gene San Soucie. Over the lunch period I find that the car was 
in the name of Byron Tref ts. 

The Chairman. What is that name ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Byron Trefts. 

The Chairman. Who is Byron Trefts ? 

Mr. Hoffa. He is an official of 135, in Indianapolis. 

The Chairman. An official of what ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Local 135, in Indianapolis. 

The Chairman. What connection did he have with this ? 

Mr. Hoffa. He works under Gene San Soucie, and in the same 
local union, and apparently the car was placed in his name when it 
was purchased. 

That is what we could gather this afternoon, or during the lunch 
period. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Hoffa. May I say, I received all of this information over the 
telephone, as rapidly as we could get it together, and I am sure it is 
correct and we will check the books again once we receive them back, 
or have our accountant go over them and see if there is anything 
questionable about it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that automobile used at all in connection with 
the State Cab Co? 

Mr. Hoffa. Not to my knowledge; the car came directly to Detroit. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long before it came to Detroit ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I couldn't tell you that. 

Mr. Kennedy. They couldn't tell you ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I didn't ask them. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15073 

The Chairman. Let me get it straight. Where was this automo- 
bile purchased? 

Mr. Hoffa. I think it was 1954. 

The Chairman. I mean where? 

Mr. Hoffa. In Indianapolis; I am quite sure it was Indianapolis, 
from what they told me. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it transferred to local 299 ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Later on, I understand it was transferred to 299. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much longer afterward, after it was pur- 
chased ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I thought I gave that this morning. 

Mr. Kennedy. We didn't know the date when it was transferred, 
Mr. Hoffa. 

Mr. Hoffa. I could get it, and I said this morning we would check 
with the secretary of state. 

Mr. Kennedy. Don't they know? The man who had it does not 
know how long he kept it ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I didn't talk to him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Doesn't Mr. San Soucie know ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I didn't talk to him at lunch, and this information Avas 
supplied to me by somebody who had received it from Detroit. It 
can be checked in Lansing, I am sure, in Michigan. 

The Chairman. This information you have as to this fellow Trefts 
is just something relayed to you ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You haven't talked to Trefts and you haven't 
talked to San Soucie ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I talked to San Soucie last night. And he was not too 
clear as I said before, on the details, and now I talked, or I received 
this note after they talked to our office, and we will check Lansing also 
and that should give us the date it was transferred. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, on occasion you have spent money in 
political campaigns ; have you not ? I am going into a different phase 
of this. 

Mr. Hoffa. The joint council and local unions have spent money on 
campaigns; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy-. Have you spent money in the election of prosecutors 
in Wayne County ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Money has been spent for prosecutors; yes. 

Mr. Kennedys And in this recent election ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy*. Was that for just one person running for prosecutor, 
or for both sides ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I didn't make, the contribution, and I was called on the 
phone and asked if it was all right, and I said yes, and the details I 
don't know exactly, but it was highly publicized at both the Demo- 
cratic National and State meetings, and it was a matter that was 
brought to the attention, I think, of everybody in the United States. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much was spent ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I believe it was $11,000, if I am not mistaken. 

The Chairman. $11,000? 



15074 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Hoffa. I believe it was. 

The Chairman. For a local prosecuting attorney ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. 

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

Did that action receive the approval of the members of your or- 
ganization ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I have on my books a motion from the members au- 
thorizing the expenditure of money from the local union for the best 
interests of the local union, and likewise the question of the political 
contribution has been taken time and again up with the membership, 
and they left it in my hands to decide who we should support, and 
how much money we should spend on those individuals whom we be- 
lieved were the best persons for the job, the best qualified persons for 
the job. 

Senator Ives. Well, I cannot quarrel with that idea as long as the 
membership fully approves it, but I suppose the membership voting 
for supporting candidates for public office is a little bit different than 
voting on some other things. 

Suppose some of your members do not approve, and what happens 
to them ? 

Mr. Hoffa. They have a perfect right to come to the meeting and 
register their protest, if they desire, and take a vote, and the majority 
is binding in every instance where there is a motion on the floor. 

Senator Ives. The majority of the membership binds all of them 
on a political question such as that? 

Mr. Hoffa. On any question that arises in our union it is decided 
by a majority vote. 

Senator Ives. That includes a question such as supporting certain 
candidates for public office? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. 

However, I may say to you we haven't had any dissenting votes 
in the meeting. 

Senator Ives. Do they dare dissent ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator, if you want to come to 299 meetings 

Senator Ives. Do you suppose I would get kicked out ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I will invite you there at a specially called meeting to 
take this matter up with those members to clarify whether or not 
they authorized me to make political expenditures for qualified 
candidates. 

Senator Ives. I am not arguing as to whether a majority may au- 
thorize you at all, but I am talking about the minority that does not 
approve of the candidates you are supporting ? 

Mr. Hoffa. So far there hasn't been a minority. 

Senator Ives. What is that ? 

Mr. Hoffa. So far there hasn't been a minority at a meeting. 

Senator Ives. How many attend those meetings, may I ask? 

Mr. Hoffa. Anywhere from 200 to 1,000, to 1,500. 

Senator Ives. Out of how many members ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Wait a minute now. Out of a membership of about 
15,000, and we hold sectional meetings, and the city cartage group 
will run anywhere from 250 to 500 to 1,000 and as high as 2,500, and 
we can have meetings of the drivers and get 500 to a meeting, and if 
we want a special called meeting we can fill any hall in Detroit. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15075 

Senator Ives. Now, these meetings, the way you are describing 
them, are meetings at which you are deciding on whom you will sup- 
port for public office ? 

Mr. Hoffa. The regular order of business find this becomes part 
of the regular order of business. 

Senator Ives. There is no announcement made that this is going 
to be taken up, is there ? 

Mr. Hoffa. There is no announcement made for any specific ques- 
tion in the meeting. However, our meeting has never changed as to 
time or date and every member who joins our union or who belongs 
to the union knows when the meetings are going to be held and they 
have the right to attend and discuss any problem they desire to 
discuss. 

Senator Ives. I believe we went into that last year, did we not? 

Mr. Hoffa. We sure did, and I went into it again, Senator, if I 
may say, a week ago Wednesday. 

Mr. Ives. Do not get me wrong. I am not criticizing you for 
spending money for supporting candidates, if your membership 
unanimously approves of it. 

But you want to bear in mind when you are supporting public of- 
ficials for office, or candidates for public office, when you are doing 
that you are voting on something wholly different from almost any 
other thing that you will vote on in your union? 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, I don't consider the question of politics any dif- 
ferent than the question of electing officers of a local union. 

Senator Ives. That is where you and I do not happen to agree. 

Mr. Hoffa. There is no question about that. 

Senator Ives. There are several other things we do not agree on, too. 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. Let me see, now. Did I understand that this 
$11,000 was spent on both candidates, or on one? 

Mr. Hoffa. No, I believe $11,000 went to one candidate, and I do not 
believe it came from one local union. 

You must have the record there, and I think it came from several 
local unions, and probably through the joint council, and I don't know, 
and I can't tell you because I didn't handle the transaction, and I 
only know approximately what happened. 

The Chairman. There is one thing that intrigued me a little. I 
know this happens in business circles as well, sometimes in others, and 
I am not vindicating them, but this idea of making contributions to 
both sides is something that intrigues me a bit. 

What would be the purpose of that? Do you have authority to 
make the contribution, you say, to the candidate best qualified ? 

Well, there cannot be but one "best." 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator, my position has been, and will remain, that 
we reward our friends, and we attempt to defeat our enemies. 

Senator Ives. The better word is "punish." That is the more com- 
mon usage in your vocabulary ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I haven't been known to punish anybody. 

Senator Ives. To "reward our friends and punish our enemies." 

Mr. Hoffa. I haven't been known to punish anybody. 

The Chairman. Well, I had just heard that used so many times, 
"reward our friends and punish our enemies." 



15076 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Hoffa. I would rather put it the other way, because punishing 
him and not defeating him is not very good satisfaction. I would 
rather defeat him. 

The Chairman. I am using your own language, the language that 
I have heard many of you use before. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Hoffa. It is common talk in labor circles. 

The Chairman. Well, I have experienced it. I know what it is, 
myself, except that I did not get punished. 

Mr. Hoffa. You were able to win again. 

The Chairman. Yes, sir ; thank you. 

Senator Ives. That was the same as Gompers' philosophy, and I 
can't quarrel with it at all. I have always been on the punishing end 
rather than any other end. 

I know what that is. 

The Chairman. Well, we will proceed. I have my own political 
philosophy about punishing. If those of us who get elected con- 
ducted ourselves that way, to punish those who voted against us, this 
would be a pretty sordid political government. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who did the $11,000 go to ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I believe Olsen. 

Mr. Kennedy. Olsen? 

Mr. Hoffa. I believe so. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever spend money for or against a prosecu- 
tor in Wayne County on the basis of action that he took for or against 
any individual Teamster ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, I don't know if I did or not. If you can tell me 
who you are talking about, I will tell you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you familiar with the case of the indictment 
of Mr. Peter P. Ellis, I believe back in 1943 ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And there were also Peter P. Ellis and James 
Cassily? 

Mr. Hoffa. Cassily. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Solomon Schneiderman, is that correct? 

Anyway, there was Mr. Ellis and two others ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes. I don't know about Schneiderman. Yes, I guess 
he was involved. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were indicted, is that correct ? _ 

Mr. Hoffa. I believe they were indicted, and I believe they even 
had a trial. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that was in connection with supposedly or 
allegedly shaking down Detroit morticians, is that right? 

Mr. Hoffa. May I check on something before I try to answer? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you all set now ? 

Mr. Peter Ellis and two business agents were indicted for shaking 
down Detroit morticians, is that correct ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No, they weren't indicted for shaking down any two 
morticians or any morticians. They were indicted for allegedly 
shaking them down, and they were found innocent. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you participate in this case at all, Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. Hoffa. To what extent? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15077 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any discussions about the case with 
the prosecutor, William Dowling? 

Mr. Hoffa. I sure did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell Mr. William Dowling that you would 
take action to bring about the loss of his job for causing the indict- 
ment of Peter P. Ellis and the two business agents. 

Mr. Hoffa. I told Bill Dowling that I thought he was antiunion 
and was discriminating against the Teamsters' Union, and I would 
do my best to try and defeat him. That is what I told him. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you in fact work against him? 

Mr. Hoffa. As a matter of fact, he was defeated. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that was prior to the time that the case came 
to trial ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't remember whether it was or not. You are talk- 
ing about — pardon me. Are you talking about when I talked to him 
or when we defeated him ? 

Mr. Kennedy. You talked to him after the business agents were 
indicted, but before they were tried? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you supported his opponent, Mr. O'Brien? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you supported him financially ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr Dowling was defeated ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. O'Brien then handled the case? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't know if he did or not. I don't know if the 
case came up before or after. I can't tell you that offhand. 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe, as you stated earlier, the case came up 
after Mr. Dowling was defeated and Mr. O'Brien, the man you sup- 
ported, handled the case. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Hoffa. It could be. I don't remember. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you make the same statements to his assistant, 
Mr. Jack Gilmore? 

Mr. Hoffa. I could have. I don't remember. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't remember that? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't think I talked to Jack. I might have. If I 
did, I would have told him the same thing. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much money did you spend for O'Brien ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I couldn't tell you. 

Mr. Kennedy. You can't remember that? 

Mr. Hoffa. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Going on to another case, Mr. Hoffa, in the case of 
Nicoletti, Marroso, Linteau, Keating, and Fitzsimmons, Jack Gilmore 
was working on that case. Did you make a contact with Jack Gil- 
more during the course of that trial ? 

Mr. Hoffa. May I again find out? I can't quite remember who 
Gilmore is. Just a moment, 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Hoffa. What was the question, Mr. Kennedy? I couldn't 
hardly remember the fellow. 

Mr. Kennedy. Going back to the Marroso, Nicoletti, Linteau, and 
Keating case in 1954, Jack Gilmore was working on that case from 
the prosecuting attorney's office ? 



15078 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Did you make a contact with Mr. Gilmore during the period of 
time during the trial of that case ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't recall ever discussing the question with Gilmore, 
because I didn't even remember that Gilmore handled the case. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you make a telephone call to him in the court- 
room during the opening days of the trial of that case? 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, I don't recall it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Does it refresh your recollection that you called him 
right after the opening statement, called him and asked him to come 
out and have lunch with you ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Gilmore? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Hoffa. I can't remember and don't believe I ever had lunch 
with Gilmore. I think you are talking about Dowling that I had 
lunch with. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not asking you whether you had lunch. I am 
asking you whether you called him in the opening days of the trial 
and requested him or asked him to come out and have lunch with you. 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, I could very easily have done it. I don't remem- 
ber it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't remember that ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was while the trial was going on, the early 
days of the trial, and he was in the prosecuting attorney's office. Did 
you make such a call to him ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't remember any such call. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you deny that you made a call ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't deny or affirm whether I did or not because of 
the lapsed time. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is 1954. 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, that is 4 years ago. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. You can't remember that at all ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I remember nothing about it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember him saying to you that "You have 
a hell of a lot of guts" calling him while the case was going on, and 
that he was going to report this to the main prosecuting attorney? 
Do you remember that conversation ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't remember, as I told you before, even talking to 
him. 

I will be happy to talk to him when I get back to Detroit. 

Mr. Kennedy. Also do you remember that Mr. Joe Rashid was 
working on that case ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, I know Joe, now a judge. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. Did you speak to him at all about 
his work in connection with the case of Keating, Linteau, Marroso, 
and Nicolleti ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't know. I may have, but I can't recall it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell him that he would also have political 
opposition for the part that he had played in the indictments of these 
individuals ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I didn't tell anybody that he would have political 
opposition to that. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you tell him ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15079 

Mr. Hoffa. I told him he would have political opposition every 
time he ran for office, as far as I was concerned. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you speak with him in the court or outside 
the courtroom in connection with this case and tell him he would have 
political opposition ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't remember discussing the question with him at 
all. 

Mr. Kennedy. You told him you could have him followed and find 
out who he was having lunch with, who he was having dinner with, 
and that you could frame him in 90 days ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I seriously question whether I talked to the man. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am asking you whether you had that conversa- 
tion with the man. Did you tell him that you could have him fol- 
lowed, know who he was having lunch with, know who he was having 
dinner with, and that you could have him framed in 90 days? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't need to have anybody in Detroit follow any- 
body. I could have followed him myself, and I don't recall any con- 
versation concerning this talk with Rashid at all. I don't recall any. 

The Chairman. Mr. Hoffa, if you do not recall the conversation, 
of course you cannot answer. But if you had such a conversation, 
unless it is a commonplace thing with you, it seems to me you would 
be likely to remember it if it was only 4 years ago. We would like 
to ascertain whether you took that action and have such conversation 
or did not. 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator, I don't remember talking to Rashid concern- 
ing this trial at all. I say I may have talked to him, but I cannot 
recall any conversations with Rashid concerning this trial. 

The Chairman. Well, if he makes the statement that this occurred, 
are you prepared to deny it ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, if he could refresh my memory who was there, 
when we were there, what we talked about, other than this, it might 
bring back some recollection. At this moment I cannot recall any 
conversation like that, Senator. 

The Chairman. You are not saying now whether you would be 
prepared to deny having such a conversation or not ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, I certainly would not tell him I could frame him. 
I wouldn't in any event make such a statement as that, but I do not 
believe I ever discussed the question with him. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. This was in back of Martha Griffiths' court. It 
was during the preliminary inquiry, and I believe Mr. Fitzgerald was 
present as well as Sergeant Mullins of the Detroit Police Department. 
Does that refresh your recollection ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I do not remember any discussion with Rashid concern- 
ing this case. I probably passed the time of day with him, but know- 
ing Rashid, if such a statement was made, it wouldn't surprise me 
that he would have been into the court within 2 minutes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you say that these, meaning Nicoletti, Marroso, 
Linteau, Keating, and Fitzsimmons were being framed, and that you 
could easily have him framed? Do you remember saying anything 
like that? 

Mr. Hoffa. I remember no conversation with Mr. Rashid concern- 
ing this trial. 

21243—59 — pt. 40 10 



15080 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember having any conversations with 
him about taking some gifts, asking him who he took presents and 
gifts from? Do you remember any conversations along those lines? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't remember any conversations with Rashid at all. 

The Chairman. Apparently, Mr. Hoffa, the staff is prepared and 
has witnesses here to testify to these things. I am giving you that sug- 
gestion now, for you to reflect upon, and try to refresh your memory 
as much as you can. The Chair is hopeful we can get through with 
this series of hearings as soon as possible. If we bring on witnesses to 
testify to these things, then of course I want you to be given an oppor- 
tunity to deny, affirm, or explain. I am giving you the opportunity 
before we put on the witnesses to state if you have any recollection of 
it or if you did not, or explain. 

Air. Williams. I think the witness has testified, Mr. Chairman, fully 
on the fact that he does not recall the conversation in which he 

The Chairman. We are giving him as we go along the incidents, 
time and place and so forth, to be of help to his memory. I believe he 
said he would like to have his memory refreshed. 

Mr. Hoffa. If you have anything, I am willing to listen to it. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am giving you pretty much the information that 
we have, Mr. Hoffa, in connection with the statements that you are 
alleged to have made to Mr. Rashid, who is presently Judge Rashid, in 
the presence of certain individuals. I gave you the time in connection 
with it, in the back of Martha Griffiths' courtroom. 

The Chairman. Well, move on to something else. 

Mr. Kennedy. Does it refresh your recollection at all if I say that 1 
understand you also said to him that he was a chump not to take gifts 
like every other person, as other politicians took gifts? Does that 
refresh your recollection at all ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I told you I do not recall any conversation with 
Rashid. 

The Chairman. The witness' recollection is not refreshed. Let's 
proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. In this same connection, Mr. Chairman, I have a 
question. 

Do you know Mr. Santo Perrone ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes ; I know him. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you known Santo Perrone? 

Mr. Hoffa. I know who he is, and I have met him probably three 
times in my life, and I believe at various weddings or some social 
gathering. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Mr. John Wolke ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Wolke? I don't recall the name. What is he; what is 
his position? 

Mr. Kennedy. He is an individual in Detroit. Did you ever inter- 
cede or seek to intercede on behalf of John Wolke directly or indirectly 
after he was arrested ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I can't recall the name. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever send anyone or did you ever intercede 
with Judge Rashid directly or indirectly on behalf of John Wolke 
after he was arrested for a very serious crime ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Just a moment, please. May I consult with counsel ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15081 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Hoffa. Is that the fellow tried for abortion ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. 

Mr. Hoffa. Who handled his case? 

Mr. Kennedy. He was a cellmate of Santo Perrone when Santo 
Perrone was in the penitentiary, and his case was ultimately handled 
or was handled by Judge Rashid's court, and I am asking you if you 
interceded directly or indirectly or sought to intercede directly or in- 
directly on behalf of John Wolke after he was arrested and charged 
with abortion. 

Mr. Hoffa. I didn't send anybody in to intercede for him, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not send anyone? 

Mr. Hoffa. Not that I know. 

Mr. Kennedy. You would know if you sent anyone ? 

Mr. Hoffa. A lot of people use my name at various times around 
the city of Detroit without me knowing about it. 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, I am sure 

The Chairman. This was in 1955 or 1956 ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is right. 

Mr. Williams. I am sure that any judge on whom such intercession 
was practiced, as Mr. Kennedy's question implies, would immediately 
present a matter of that character to a grand jury, where it should go. 
I think if there are any records showing such a report was made by 
Judge Rashid then it is incumbent upon counsel in the interest of fair- 
ness to show such report to the witness. 

The Chairman. We are asking the witness a question. I assume 
that you have some proof, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes ; we do have that. I didn't ask if you sent any- 
one, Mr. Hoffa. 

You just denied, or said you didn't send anyone, but I am asking 
you whether you interceded or intervened directly or indirectly on 
behalf of John Wolke after he was arrested for abortion. 

Mr. Williams. I think that question needs clarification. 

Mr. Kennedy. We are just looking for the truth. 

Mr. Williams. I think the question needs clarification. If Mr. 
Kennedy does not mean did Mr. Hoffa send someone to the judge, 
then he should ask him what he does mean. 

How do you intervene if you don't go to the judge or send someone 
to the judge? 

Mr. Kennedy. I thought it was interesting that he did not send 
someone, and he could have had someone call. 

The Chairman. The witness said he didn't send someone. In what 
other way if any, did you contact the judge and undertake to intervene 
in the case? 

Mr. Hoffa. I didn't talk to Judge Rashid about this case. 

The Chairman. I did not ask you that. You did not talk to him 
and you did not send anyone. Did you in any other way undertake 
to intervene in the case on behalf of Wolke ? 

(The witness conferred with counsel.) 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator, if I didn't send anyone there to intervene and 
I didn't go there personally, how else would you go about intervening? 

The Chairman. You might do it by telephone, you know. There 
are other ways. 



15082 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Hoffa. I said I didn't talk to him. 
The Chairman. I do not know. 
Mr. Hoffa. I said I didn't talk to the judge, Senator. 
The Chairman. All right, then the answer is "No"; you did not 
intervene directly or indirectly ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator, I am asked every day in the week to do favors 
for people, and I do it automatically, and I don't want to sit here and 
say I did not talk to anybody about the case because somebody may 
have asked me to make a phone call to some lawyer or somebody, and 
I may have proceeded to do so, and so I will not say positively that 
I had nothing to do with getting a postponement or some situation 
that may have come about in this case because I do it quite regularly 
when I think it is necessary to make a phone call. 

I don't always get the job done, but I don't hestitate to try. 
The Chairman. Do you recall having intervened in this case, by 
telephone or otherwise, to get a postponement ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't recall that, Senator. If you could tell me who 
I supposedly called, that would probably refresh my memory, but it 
may have just been just one of those situations where it happened in a 
minute or two, in a busy spell of the negotiations or in my office. I 
don't recall. 

The Chairman. Mr. Hoffa, you recall when we first started our in- 
terrogation of you some weeks ago, objection was raised to asking you 
these questions and then putting a witness on the stand at a time like 
this and interrupting your general questioning, and it was charged 
that the committee was unfair in proceeding that way. 

We can put the witness on afterwards, but we have to ask you these 
questions and get the best answers you can give at this time. 
All right, Mr. Kennedy, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Interestingly enough, Mr. Chairman, it was a post- 
ponement that this individual requested, according to our informa- 
tion. 

Mr. Hoffa. What is illegal about that? 

Mr. Kennedy. Nothing. It was just of some interest that you 
happened to volunteer that you might have asked for a postpone- 
ment, because that is exactly what was requested. 

Mr. Hoffa. That is the most I would do, because that is the only 
thing that is legal. 

Mr. Williams. As I understand your ruling at the outset of this 
phase of the hearings, this was the very thing on which you agreed 
with me, and as I recall your ruling it was manifestly unfair to put 
a witness on the stand and ask him about events that took place some 
years back, when the counsel holds someone's version of the informa- 
tion in hand. 

You are asking in generalities when he holds the information at 
all times in his possession without specifying in detail. 

I understood that you ruled that the witnesses would be called first, 
and then this witness would be permitted to come on and answer such 
questions as the counsel wished to ask him on the phase developed. 

The Chairman. You will recall, I reserved the right in the com- 
mittee, of course, at all times, to determine its procedure. I did say, 
since you objected to interrupting Mr. Hoffa's testimony at the time 
to put on this testimony. You objected to that, that we would try 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15083 

insofar as we could to do it the other way. That is what we are try- 
ing to do now. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, I don't believe 
it is speaking in generalities to ask somebody if he interceded on 
behalf of an abortionist, a man arrested for abortion, and a cellmate 
of Santo Perrone, that is not a very general question. 

The Chairman. The Chair ruled on the question. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Hoffa, going on in the same general sub- 
ject, did you request former Governor Ratner to intercede with Wint 
Smith of Kansas, when the investigation was being made of you by 
a congressional committee? 

Mr. Hoffa. I didn't ask Ratner to intercede for me with Wint 
Smith. Ratner was, I believe, retained on advice of counsel to 
assist us in the hearings, and all I wanted from Wint Smith was what 
I finally got, a fair hearing and a right to present my case. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, wasn't one of the purposes of having Mr. 
Ratner retained to make the contact with Congressman Smith? 

Mr. Hoffa. What was the purpose of contacting ? There certainly 
isn't anything wrong that I know of in having a lawyer ask that a 
client be able to receive what he is rightfully entitled to under the 
law. 

If I asked Ratner to do that, I probably asked him to see that I 
got a fair hearing, which I couldn't get from Clare Hoffman because 
he didn't know what he was doing in the hearing. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is fine, but that was one of the purposes of 
retaining former Governor Ratner, was it not ? 

The Chairman. If you did, say yes. 

Mr. Hoffa. That isn't the answer. I retained Ratner for advice 
as well as seeing that I could get a fair trial. 

The Chairman. All right, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had he had a considerable amount of experience 
with congressional committees prior to this time ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Being a governor twice, he certainly was familiar with 
legislative procedures. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many attorneys did you have ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I hired every one I could get that I thought would do 
some good. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wasn't one of the purposes that he was retained for, 
to make this contact and discuss your case with Congressman Smith ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I told you what he was hired for. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't that one of the reasons, Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. Hoffa. He was hired to be able to try and get a fair hearing 
and allow me to put into the record the corrections that I had been 
denied under Hoffman in my opinion. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you familiar with Mr. Joe Schneiders, and this 
is another matter in the same general category ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Where is he from ? 

Mr. Kennedy. From Detroit. 

Mr. Hoffa. What does he do ? 

Mr. Kennedy. He was in the public relations business, advertising 
business. 



15084 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. IIoffa. Maybe; just a moment. May I talk to counsel, Sen- 
ator? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't know who Schneiders is at this moment, and 
you will have to get closer than that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember a company made up of a husband 
and wife, a public relations organization, and you made certain pay- 
ments to them? 

Mr. IIoffa. I can't recall them. When was this? When did this 
take place ? 

The Chairman. Mr. Hoffa, apparently this Joe Schneiders was 
operating under the firm name, and I do not know who was in the 
firm, of Joe Schneiders Associates, Inc. 

Do you recall having employed Joe Schneiders Associates, Inc., for 
any work for the union or for yourself ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't recall the name or the company, Senator. It 
could very easily have been handled 

The Chairman. I present to you, then, three checks. The first one 
appears to be dated sometime in December of 1952. This is a photo- 
static copy. It is not quite clear, but it appears to be December of 
1952, in the amount of $15,601. 

The next one is dated March 9, 1953, made out to the same firm in 
the amount of $868. 

I am sorry ; that is correct as to the amount, but the first check, the 
last one, the $15,601 is the second check. The first check was dated 
March 12, 1952, in the amount of $6,200. That makes a total of 
$22,669. 

The first check I referred to, the early dated check, March 12, 1952, 
in the amount of $6,200, I present to you, the original check on joint 
council No. 43. 

The other two checks that I present to you, and to which I have 
referred, the $15,601 check and the $868 check are drawn on your local, 
local No. 299. 

The latter two are photostatic copies, and the first one is the original 
check, and I ask you to examine those documents and state if you 
identify them. 

(Documents handed to witness.) 

The Chairman. I believe those next total $22,669. 

Mr. Hoffa. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire what the stub of the 
check shows, and they have the books there. 

The Chairman. Do we have the stub of the checks ? 

We will get the stubs. 

Mr. Hoffa. I think it is the only way I would be able to tell you 
anything about it, and probably it was a transaction I had someone 
else handle and I don't remember Joe Schneiders, myself, and that 
could be political, or it could be many things. 

The Chairman. The checks, you identify them as being checks 
on the union ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right, not on the union, but joint council 13, 
and the union. 

The Chairman. Well, as you identify them for what they show on 
their face? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15085 

The Chairman. They may be made exhibits 178- A, B, and C in the 
order of their dates. 

(Documents referred to were marked "Exhibits 178-A, B, and 0" 
and will be found in the appendix on pp. 15340-15342.) 

The Chairman. We will get the stubs if we can find them ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember the fact that you would retain 
this firm for weekly television programs of a half hour each ? 

Mr. Hoffa. We'll, I wouldn't have arranged for any television. 
We have people who work for us and they would have arranged it 
and probably someone came in and discussed it with me, and if I ap- 
proved it they would handle it and I wouldn't have had anything to 
do with that personally. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember Judge Gill is bringing in the 
Schneiderses to you, and suggesting this television program back in 
1952? 

Mr. Hoffa. Just a moment. I think that I know the answers, and 
if I had the stubs I could have done it before. I believe this is a 
television program and if I get the stub I think it will verify it, where 
we ran some pictures concerning truck transportation. 

If I am wrong, you can correct me. 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe that is correct. 

Mr. Hoffa. That is truck transportation, and either prior to or 
right after each one of the TV shows, we would reserve a few minutes 
to bring in some judges, or individuals running for office, and have 
them say a few words concerning either the show, or concerning some 
subject that was of current topic during that period. Maybe they 
would put in a word for themselves. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember Judge Gillis bringing the 
Schneiders into your office? 

Mr. Hoffa. It could be. I don't deny whether he did or did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember his financial connection with this 
transaction ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No ; I do not remember. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't remember anything about that ? 

Mr. Hoffa. It is just another routine deal. Somebody probably 
worked it out as a publicity situation, brought it into my office. I 
listened to them for 10 or 15 minutes. They worked it out and that 
was all there was to it. 

Mr. Kennedy. This involved a considerable amount of money. 

Mr. Hoffa. $22,669 is not a lot of money when you are talking 
about TV. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is a lot of money to a lot of people. It is a lot 
of members' dues. You say somebody came in for 15 or 20 minutes 
and wanted a television program and you made a decision just like 
that. There is something more to it than that. This is a lot of money. 

The Chairman. Do you know what there is to it, Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator, there isn't anything to it. That is the peculiar 
part. 

Senator Ives. Is this a statewide program ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That would extend not only into Michigan, but I 
think it extended into part of Indiana and part of Ohio, if I recall 
rightly. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, do you remember 



15086 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Hoffa. May I say, I believe it was 13 weeks. Was it not, Mr. 
Kennedy ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe it was. 

Mr. Hoffa. Thirteen weeks at $22,669 isn't a terrible lot of money. 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe for the 13 weeks it was $15,601, and then 
the rest of the money was for a different matter. 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, it could be. You said Schneiders, and as far as 
I know of, that is all I can recall. 

Mr. Kennedy. When you made this transaction or made this deal, 
arrangement, with the Schneiderses, Judge Gillis was receiving from 
the Schneiderses $100 a week ; was he not ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Was he? 

Mr. Kennedy. I am asking you, Mr. Hoffa. 

Mr. Hoffa. You can't ask me. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am asking you if you knew of that fact and 
whether that fact wasn't discussed with you in the office at the first 
meeting. 

Mr. Hoffa. Now, can you tell me who was in that meeting? 

The Chairman. Let me ask the counsel. Was this judge receiving 
$100 per week from this Schneiders Associates out of this money 
being paid for the service ? 

Mr. Kennedy. He was receiving 

The Chairman. Well, at the time. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was, that is correct. 

The Chairman. At the time, whether it came out of this or out of 
some other account. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct, and as we understand it, and that is 
what I was asking Mr. Hoffa about, Judge Gillis knew Mr. Hoffa, 
brought the Schneiderses in to introduce them to Mr. Hoffa, and at 
this conference Mr. Hoffa wrote out the first check for $15,601. There 
was discussion at that time of the fact that Judge Gillis would be on 
the payroll at $100 a week. 

The Chairman. In other words, was that a part of the transaction 
at the time this $15,601 was paid? 

Mr. Kennedy. That was part of the transaction. 

The Chairman. Now, do you recall that, Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Excuse me, sir. I am trying to figure something out. 

The Chairman. I say, according to the information of the staff, 
Judge Gillis was to receive $100 a week from the Schneiders Asso- 
ciates during the time of this contract for 13 weeks television time, 
for $15,601. Do you recall that or know anything about it? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't recall the conversation, not even about the de- 
tails of this, because I imagine, Senator, that somebody from my sfaff 
must have been in the office presenting this proposed TV program, 
and I would have probably left it up to that individual to handle the 
details and simply told the secretary to issue a check for the program. 
I do not recall any discussion concerning Judge Gillis. 

The Chairman. What position did Judjje Gillis hold? Judge of 
what? 

Mr. Hoffa. Recorders court, sir. 

The Chairman. Recorders court. What jurisdiction does it have? 

Mr. Hoffa. I will have to find out for you. 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Hoffa. Criminal, civil, and condemnation. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15087 

The Chairman. Would you enter into a contract for television 
service or any other service where you would pay out $15,601 of 
Teamsters money, knowing and understanding, and as a part of the 
transaction, that $100 a week of that was to go to a judge, a presiding 
judge of a court before whom you might have cases ? 

Mr. Hoffa. If lie was going to do any work in behalf of the pro- 
gram, and going outside of the court chambers. It might have been 
discussed. I don't recall it. 

The Chairman. Wouldn't you think such a transaction was against 
public policy ? 

Mr. Hoffa. It is according to what he was going to do for the 
money if he received any. 

The Chairman. No matter what he was going to do, if he is a judge 
of a court before whom you might have cases, do you think that a 
proper transaction? s 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator, I don't know if it happened, and I don't know 
if the man received any money. I cannot recall any discussion con- 
cerning it. However, I think his conscience would have to be the 
judge or the determination of whether or not it was right or wrong. 

The Chairman. I think his conscience should play some part in it, 
no doubt. I am not questioning that. I am just asking you if you 
would knowingly enter into such an agreement as that. 

Mr. Hoffa. I think that if a judge, on his own time, could assist 
in a show and enterprise, of any description, and he could earn some 
money doing it, and he wasn't obligated to the individual who paid 
him for anything other than producing what he was paid for, there 
certainly wouldn't be anything immoral about it. 

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

The Chairman. Senator Ives. 

Mr. Hoffa. And he would have to probably disqualify himself in 
any case pertaining to the individual. 

Senator Ives. That is the question I was going to bring up. Did 
any of your cases come before his court ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I think they did. 

Senator Ives. Did he in every instance disqualify himself ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't know. When was Mr. Bufalino's trial, Mr. 
Kennedy ? 

Mr. Kennedy. He had a good number of the cases. He had 
Linteau, Nicoletti, Marroso, Keating, and the Bufalino case. 

Mr. Hoffa. Before or after? 

Mr. Kennedy. After this. 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, he put four of them in jail. 

Mr. Kennedy. They pled guilty. 

Mr. Hoffa. And he put them in jail. 

Mr. Kennedy. They pled guilty. 

Mr. Hoffa. And he put them in jail. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the Bufalino case he also had. 

Mr. Hoffa. The jury found the other ones innocent. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, that is correct. 

Did you know that Judge Gillis had a financial interest in this 
company over and above the $100 a week at the time you had this 
conference ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't believe it was ever discussed with me. 



15088 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know that % 

Mr. IIoffa. I don't believe I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you deny that you knew that he had a financial 
interest in this company ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, I am saying to you, Senator, that to present such 
a question to me for an answer is something that cannot be answered 
because there may have been a discussion or there may not have been 
a discussion concerning the background of this particular company. 
I wasn't hiring them for their background. They were being hired 
to run a TV show, and whatever else we hired them for. 

Now, I cannot say whether or not I ever knew it or didn't. It may 
have been told to me and slipped my mind. I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't know as of this time ? You don't re- 
member having been told, as of this time ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No, I don't remember. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't remember that ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No, and I don't know if it was ever told to me or not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't the judge use one of these 13 programs him- 
self for his own candidacy during the early part of 1953 ? 

Mr. Hoffa. He could have. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you give instructions to that effect, Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Did I give instructions ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. That one of these 13 programs was to be 
used by Judge Gillis to promote his candidacy. 

Mr. Hoffa. Maybe I did. Say I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't know if I did or not. 

Senator Ives. I would like to point out one thing, that is according 
to what you believe, isn't it ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No, I don't believe anybody discussed with me the 
question. 

Senator Ives. Pardon me. I misunderstood what you said before, 
then. I have been under the impression that you believe that any 
money you raise and that a majority of the members of your union 
agree to ■ 

Mr. Hoffa. That is different. 

Senator Ives. All right. That is what I am talking about. I 
assume they approved that, did they not ? 

Mr. Kennedy. They don't approve 

Mr. Hoffa. They approve giving me the authority to run the 
organization. 

Senator Ives. That is just blanket authority. It isn't any authority 
dealing with this particular thing, though. 

Mr. Hoffa. As far as I am concerned it is. 

Senator Ives. Well, that is where you and I disagree again. 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. 

The Chairman. We have found two of the check stubs on your 
local, I believe. 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Kennedy, do you have the dates of these tele- 
vision shows ? 

The Chairman. The Chair presents these two check stubs. One 
would seem to be an original, and the other is a photostatic copy. 
Check No. 6813, which is a part of exhibit 178, is one of the items. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15089 

This seems to be on joint council No. 43. We have that check stub 
here, I believe. And we have the check stub on check No. 1760 in 
the amount of $868, which is also a part of exhibit 178. I present 
these to you for your inspection and identification. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. May I inquire of staff : Do we have the check stub 
on the $15,601 check? 

Mr. Bellino. Senator, that is a December 1952 check. Those 1952 
checks were not in existence when the Hoffman committee in 1953 
attempted to examine the records of that local. 

The Chairman. In other words, you have no check stub for that 
check ? 

Mr. Bellino. No, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, I am confused by the date sequence 
here. Maybe you could help us out. As I understand it, this $15,000 
check was made out, it appears, in December of 1952. I can't make 
out the exact date. 

The Chairman. Neither can we. I can't. 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Kennedy tells me the television show began, 
he thinks, in December. 

Mr. Kennedy. I thought you asked me when the meeting was at 
Mr. Hoffa's office. The meeting in Mr. Hoffa's office in which this 
arrangement was made, in which Mr. Bert Brennan was present and 
Mr. Kobert Holmes, we understand, was made on December 1, 1952, 
on the same date this check was made out. 

Mr. Williams. Do the television shows follow that ? 

Mr. Kennedy. It was 13 weeks before the election. 

Mr. Williams. That is why I am confused. I don't know what the 
habits are for elections in Detroit, 

Mr. Kennedy. February and April of 1953. Isn't that right, Mr. 
Fitzgerald ? That is what we understand. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, I think that is right. 

The Chairman. Can you identify the check stubs ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I am trying to, sir. 

They are the stubs that match up with the checks. 

The Chairman. Those two? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The check stubs may be made exhibit 178-D and 
178-E. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits 178-D and 
178-E," respectively, for reference and will be found in the appendix 
on pp. 15343-15344.) 

The Chairman. I may say to you, Mr. Hoffa, you probably wouldn't 
be able to identify these checks, but we have checks here for the same 
period of time, one dated April 10, and these are original checks, one 
dated April 10, 1953, to T. A. Gillis in the amount of $64.56, from 
Joe Schneiders Associates, Inc.; another one dated April 20, 1953, 
T. A. Gillis, from the same associates, in the amount of $277.35 ; and 
another dated April 22, 1953, in the amount of $68.28, from the same 
group. 

Mr. Hoffa. Did you say T. A. Gillis, Senator ? 

The Chairman. J. A. Gillis. I am sorry. It is hard to tell 
whether it is a J or a T. One has Joseph A. 



15090 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Hoffa. That is what I was trying to get clear. Joseph is 
apparently the judge. There are two Josephs. There is his son, 
Joseph, and also the father. I don't know whether or not it is to his 
son or to the Judge. 

Senator Ives. Is the son a junior? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. I might say that prior to the time we went into this, 
we attempted to interview Judge Gillis to get an explanation of this 
situation, as well as the matter that was brought up during the hear- 
ing last week, and he refused to be interviewed, so we couldn't get 
any explanation. 

The Chairman. He has been given an opportunity to make ex- 
planation ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. 

The Chairman. All right, proceed. 

Mr. Hoffa. Is there any notation there as to why he was paid, for 
what purpose ? 

The Chairman. Nothing appears on the checks. I was just trying 
to get the total of these checks. These checks total $1,210.19. _ We 
will put these into the record later, but I assumed you couldn't iden- 
tify them. 

Mr. Hoffa. No, I could not. 

The Chairman. I wanted to acquaint you with the information we 
have. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is again on this same general subject, but going 
on to a different situation, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to know, Mr. Hoffa, if you know Irving Charles 
Velson. 

Mr. Hoffa. Velson? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you known Velson ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Maybe a year. Not much longer. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have had conferences with him, have you not ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Up in New York ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is in connection with the association, the pos- 
sible association, with Harry Bridges' organization on the west coast? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you were aware of the fact that he appeared 
before the House Un-American Activities Committee on July 12, 
1956? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't keep track of him that close. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was asked whether he had been or whether he 
was presently a member of the Communist Party and he took the 
fifth amendment. And whether he was a national military director 
of the Young Communist League and he took the fifth amendment; 
whether he was in frequent contact in 1943 and 1944 with Roy Hudson, 
a top Communist Party functionary ; whether or not he worked in the 
underground section of the Communist Party with Alexander Stevens, 
who is also known as J. Peters. 

Were vou aware of all that ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15091 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you aware of all that, Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't know anything about it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't know anything about it. 

Did you know about the record of that House Un-American Activi- 
ties Committee which showed that Communist meetings were held 
in his home and that he was 

Mr. Hoffa. What I know about the Un-American Activities Com- 
mittee is very limited. But from what I read, it seems to be a pretty 
peculiar committee. 

Mr. Kennedy. These are questions that were asked him, and he took 
the fifth amendment on them. 

I am sorry, I made a mistake. It is the Internal Security 
Subcommittee. 

Mr. Hoffa. That is fine. I am glad you corrected it. 

Mr. Kennedy. He appeared before the Internal Security Subcom- 
mittee and took the fifth amendment on these questions. 

Did you know that ? 

Mr. 'Hoffa. I have no knowledge of anything that Velson does 
except the discussions I have with him. 

Mr. Kennedy. I thought you were interested from the conversa- 
tions that you have had before this committee on prior occasions, I 
thought you were interested in whether there was any Communist 
background on any individual with whom you were associated. 

Mr. Hoffa. Thanks for the information. I will take care of it. 

( At this point Senator McClellan left the hearing room. ) 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know, Mr. Hoffa, what connection he has 
with Mr. Richard Pastor? 

Mr. Hoffa. I never heard of the fellow. Who is he ? 

Mr. Kennedy. You never heard of Richard Pastor ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't know him. 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't know the Communist background of 
Richard Pastor, who runs a labor newspaper at Macy's store? 

Mr. Hoffa. Never met him. 

Mr. Kenney. You never did ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Velson tell you that he was going to get in 
touch with Richard Pastor, who also has a Communist background, 
to make an approach to one of the jurors in New York City in con- 
nection with your trial ? 

Mr. Hoffa. He didn't tell me that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know that Richard Pastor approached Miss 
Catherine Barry, of your jury ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't know who approached who, but there was an 
article in the newspaper and the judge made a statement from the 
bench. 

Mr. Kennedy. And it was Mr. Richard Pastor, who is an associate 
of Mr. Velson, who has a Communist background, who made this 
approach to Miss Catherine Barry on the jury. Can you give us 
any explanation of that? 

Mr. Hoffa. Why should I have any explanation ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I am asking you if you can give us any explanation, 
Mr. Hoffa. 



15092 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Hoffa. I have no explanation. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Hoffa, do you know anything about it? 

Mr. Hoffa. No, sir. 

(At this point Senator McClellan returned to the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. I might say, Mr. Chairman, we have looked into 
this matter and will go into it to some extent a little later. But it 
fits into the context of the rest of the matters we have been dis- 
cussing. 

Mr. Hoffa, I would like to ask you now about an entirely different 
situation, and that is, what was in Barney Baker's background which 
made you feel that he was a fit and proper person to become a Team- 
ster business agent ? 

Mr. Hoffa. If Barney Baker was good enough for the National 
Democratic Party to be able to organize what they thought was neces- 
sary to handle a campaign in Washington, it ought to qualify him to 
be able to organize for the Teamsters Union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, when he was made a business agent, did 
you know of the fact that lie had been arrested and convicted for ac- 
tivities on the New York waterfront ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I didn't know at the time he was hired. I learned 
later on. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you take any action, then, in connection with it ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know that he was an associate of "Cock- 
"" Dunne, "Squint" Sherridan, and Don Gentile? 

Mr. Hoffa. I didn't go into the background of Baker to determine 
who his associates were. I am quite sure that, hearing him testify 
here, that he knew every one of them. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Meyer Lansky, Joe Adonis, "Jimmy Blue- 
eyes," and Bugsy Segal? 

Mr. Hoffa. The same answer would have to hold true. 

Mr. Kennedy. That he was a collector for Varick Enterprises? 

Mr. Hoffa. Are you asking me if I knew that ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Hoffa. How would I know that ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Here was a business agent, rather prominent, and 
you sent him around the country, did you not, Mr. Hoffa? 

Mr. Hoffa. I sent him where it was necessary to organize, Mr. 
Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then I would think you should know something 
about his background. Did you know in St. Louis he is a friend of 
Johnny Vitale, Joe Costello, Jack Joseph, "Trigger Mike" Coppola 
in Miami ? Did you know that in 1954 ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I heard him testify here to what extent he knew those 
people. 

Mr. Kennedy. Does that not disturb you ait all about his opera- 
tions ? 

Mr. Hoffa. It doesn't disturb me one iota. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about the Teamsters Union paying his hotel 
bills at the Shoreland Hotel when he was calling these people all over 
the country? Do you think that is a proper use of union funds? 
How would I have known — excuse me, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15093 

The Chairman. What are you asking about, the telephone calls to 
these people? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

The Chairman. Were they paid out of union funds? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't know who he was calling and the telephone bill 
would come in on the hotel bill and he would pay it and that is it. 
How would I know who he called, and there is nothing to indicate 
on the bill that comes in to us who he called. 

Mr. Kennedy. The bill at the Shoreland Hotel also had a cash 
advance of $1,850 to Mr. Baker. 

Mr. Hoffa. I think that I can supply you with the answer in just a 
moment, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. I think that $1,850 was a number of advances, 
totaling that much. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Hoffa. There was a mattress company in Chicago we were 
attempting to organize. I can't recall the name of it now. 

The Chairman. In what town ? 

Mr. Hoffa. In Chicago, and Barney was attempting to organize, 
and apparently he needed the money for cash advances to carry on 
his organizing program. Since we would have paid it ultimately 
anyway, he simply charged it to the hotel and it came to our office in 
St. Louis, billed regularly, and it was paid as an expense of organiz- 
ing, I imagine. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, there were some vouchers as to how he spent 
the money ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I think there would be a voucher there with my signa- 
ture on it, if it came from Gibbons' office to my office. If you have it, 
we will look at it. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am trying to find out whether there are vouchers 
in there for the $1,850 hotel bill which you paid, as to how he spent 
the money. 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't handle the St. Louis office, and I can't tell you, 
and you have the records. 

Mr. Kennedy. Before you signed the check and OK'd the bill, did 
you make sure that he had actually spent this money in organizing? 

Mr. Hoffa. Harold Gibbons has the authority to sign the checks 
for bills that come in for organizing on the road, and then sends me 
a voucher to keep me informed as to expenditures. If there is any 
question, I call Gibbons and we discuss it, but that is all I can tell you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Hadn't you OK'd this bill, Mr. Hoffa? 

Mr. Hoffa. Maybe I did ; if someone called me, I would. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you not inquire into how he was spending the 
$1,850? 

Mr. Hoffa. I just got through telling you what he spent it for. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did youhave any vouchers to show that he actually 
spent it for those purposes ? 

Mr. Hoffa. You don't have vouchers when you are organizing. 

Mr. Kennedy. You would want an explanation as to where the 
money went, if you were interested in how the money went. 

Mr. Hoffa. I am confident it was spent in a proper way. 



15094 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Even with an individual with this background? 

Mr. Hoffa. Mr. Kennedy, Baker is a competent organizer. 

Mr. Kennedy. Excuse me. 

Mr. Hoffa. Mr. Baker is a competent organizer, and I believe that 
Mr. Baker would use the money for the purpose that it was intended 
and finally paid for organizing purposes. 

The Chairman. Here is the bill referred to, and it has been made 
exhibit 66 in this hearing. I am not sure, and I will ask you, but 
it appears to have your signature approving, or your initials approv- 
ing, and you may examine it and state if you did approve the bill. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Hoffa. I would imagine, looking at the bill, that this is a 
routine approval that is typed in on the left-hand corner, and after I 
signed the voucher I assume that they simply typed on the fact that 
I had approved the payment by signing the voucher. That is what 
it looks like to me. 

The Chairman. What are the initials over there in handwriting? 
I was not sure about that. 

Mr. Hoffa. It is on the left-hand corner, typed in, "JRH", and it 
says, "Payment has been OK'd, per JH." 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, was not this drawn to your attention 
at the time? 

Mr. Hoffa. It could very easily have been. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you not surprised that Mr. Baker had spent 
so much money? 

Mr. Hoffa. Very easily I could have been surprised. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not asking you about that, but is it not a fact 
that you were surprised ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Listen, Senator, please. You can have Mr. Kennedy 
tell me, if he will, whether or not Marge Bellows in Chicago talked 
to me about this bill and if she did I will try to answer, because I 
talked to Marge Bellows about bills from the Shoreland Hotel quite 
regularly, and if this is one of them I will be quite happy to say I 
did or I didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. I don't know who Marge Bellows is. Is she the 
owner? . 

Mr. Hoffa. Her husband owns it, and she, I believe, owned the ma- 
jority control of the hotel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it not a fact it was Mrs. Bellows that talked 
to you, and you expressed some chagrin about it, and this was brought 
to the attention of Barney Baker, and that is what brought about 
Barney Baker trying to choke Mr. Bellows. 

Mr. Hoffa. It could have been brought to my attention and it was 
the amount of money that was there, and perhaps there was some- 
thing surrounding it other than the very bill, and we owed the bill 
and I would have paid the bill or OK'd the bill to be paid to the hotel. 
We are not in the habit of running up bills and not paying them, and 
we take care of our own responsibilities after we pay the bill. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you do that in connection with Barney Baker ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I might have. 

Mr. Kennedy. It does not do any good for you to say "I might 
have" or "I might have, and perhaps I did" I want to get some 
answer from you. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15095 



Mr. Hoffa. If you tell me 

Mr. Kennedy. I think I told you about everything. 

Mr. Hoffa. If you say I talked to her, I will say I did, because 
I talk to her quite regularly at the hotel, and it may have been in one 
of our conversations that she brought it to my attention and I ap- 
proved it. I would have anyway. 

The Chairman. Do you recall the incident about that bill in which 
a controversy was raised about it or where it was questioned, and you 
expressed yourself as disappointed or surprised at the bill, and did 
you then learn about the attempt of Mr. Baker to choke her husband? 
Do you recall that ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I knew that Baker had a problem in the hotel. How 
serious it was 

The Chairman. What do you mean, a problem ? 

Mr. Hoffa. He got into an argument with the owner of the hotel 
and how serious it was, I don't know to this moment. I heard a dozen 
variations of how serious it was. But Marge would have probably 
called me if the bill was out of line, and if they did I would have 
approved the bill if it was charged. 

The Chairman. You probably would have gone ahead and ap- 
proved the bill, and I can understand that, but do you recall the in- 
cident that you were disappointed or surprised at the amount of the 
bill and the way it was handled ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Offhand I don't even recall the bill and it was just a 
routine transaction. 

The Chairman. Unless there was some disapproval on your part, 
or some surprise, or expression of doubt about the validity of it, 
although you went ahead and paid it, I do not understand why Baker 
would get provoked and undertake to choke the hotel proprietor. 

Mr. Hoffa. I can't answer that, Senator. 

The Chairman. I thought maybe you would remember something 
about it. 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't deny that I talked to Marge, and I talk to her 
quite often, and she may have brought it to my attention, and if she 
did I would have ok'd it, but I don't recall. 

The Chairman. Do you recall reprimanding Baker about it? 

Mr. Hoffa. I talked to Baker about the question of Chicago, not 
only in this situation, and I talked to him about the situation con- 
cerning the mattress company. 

The Chairman. Do you recall that the lady that you speak of, 
when she presented the bill to you, told you about the bill being run 
up that way, and that you asked them to try to get the money out of 
Baker ? Do you recall that ? 

Mr. Hoffa. When was this, Senator ? 

The Chairman. At the time the bill was made. 

Mr. Hoffa. Let me look at the date. What was the date? 

The Chairman. The particular date would not be important, and 
I would not know what date she called you and what day you had 
your discussions. 

Mr. Hoffa. You said you want to know that ? 

The Chairman. I said I did not know, and I do not think that 
that particular date has any significance. It is not a question of 
whether she called you on a Friday or a Monday or the 31st or the 

21243—59 — pt. 40 11 



15096 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

15th. That would not be important. But do you recall the incident 
in which you instructed her to try to get the money out of Baker, 
and it was her effort to do that or his effort to do that that caused 
the trouble. 

You would only instruct her to do that, I assume, if you thought 
this was an excessive bill, and that Baker had exceeded his authority 
over spending his money carelessly. 

Mr. Hoffa. I am trying to think about the conversation. It might 
come to me in a moment, and as we go along here, but quite offhand 
I don't know. 

The Chairman. If it comes to you, let us know. 

Mr. Kennedy. The amount of the telephone bills, did that raise 
any question in your mind ? 

Mr. Hoffa. 1 wouldn't see this bill, Mr. Kennedy, don't you under- 
stand? This bill doesn't come to my office, and this bill goes to St. 
Louis. St. Louis approves the bill. Nothing comes to my office on 
a question concerning the expenditure of Baker, and it doesn't item- 
ize the expenditure. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know or did you learn of the fact that he had 
several hundred dollars of telephone calls? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes ; he had telephone calls wherever he stayed, because 
much of his work is done on the telephone. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you inquire into these telephone calls, the exces- 
sive amount of the telephone calls? 

Mr. Hoffa. Who he made the calls to or the amount? 

Mr. Kennedy. The amount of the telephone calls. 

Mr. Hoffa. I am always after him about the amounts, and I was 
probably after him about the hotel bill and the amount, 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you make him pay or inquire into it further as 
to how this money had been used in these telephone calls and who he 
was telephoning ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't think that I specifically asked him. 

Mr. Kennedy. The union paid for those? 

Mr. Hoffa. That would be right. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much was the telephone calls and how much 
did it cost the union ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I thought you said a couple of hundred dollars. 

Mr. Salinger. In this period, from May of 1956, to May of 1957, the 
amount was $929.65. That is just the Shoreland Hotel. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is just the Shoreland Hotel. 

Mr. Hoffa. That is the total bill ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. 

Mr. Hoffa. Didn't you say the other day a couple of hundred 
dollars? 

Mr. Kennedy. This is just Baker's telephone calls. 

Mr. Hoffa. I am talking about the bill that was handed to me, the 
question was asked about the telephone calls on that bill. 

Mr. Kennedy. No ; this is something else. 

The Chairman. In other words, to straighten this out, he was not 
asking you just about the telephone calls on this particular bill, but 
Baker's telephone calls generally, the amount of bills that he sub- 
mitted for telephone calls, and did it not arouse your interest or 
suspicion. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1.5097 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator, as I stated, I don't see those bills when they 
come into the office. 

The Chairman. Here is the thing about it, a lot of these calls were 
made to characters that I wonder whether you would approve or 
would not, I would not know. But the union was paying for those 
calls to these disreputable characters, and these bills appear to be 
rather high. I wondered if it came to your attention, and if you got 
concerned about it, and if so, what you did about it. 

Mr. Hoffa. No specific phone call was brought to my attention, but 
Baker's bill was constantly being brought to my attention as being 
excessive, and I constantly kept after him to cut the bill down, sir. 

The Chairman. Now, in finding it excessive, would you not exam- 
ine the bills to ascertain what the expenditures were made for, if you 
had learned they were excessive ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I would leave that to the St. Louis office to raise the 
question. 

The Chairman. In other words knowing the bill was excessive and 
complaining about it, you would not inquire into it because of the 
excess ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I think the total bill would have been inquired into by 
the St. Louis office, and when the voucher came through I would have 
raised a question concerning the amount of money that the check 
was signed for, and the bills paid. But I don't recall any specific 
phone calls made to individuals ever being discussed. 

Senator Ives. I would like to ask Mr. Hoffa if he always found 
Mr. Baker to be honest ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I haven't found Baker to be other than honest, ex- 
cept that he makes phone calls once in a while. 

Senator Ives. He probably has been a little different with you than 
he led the committee to believe he is, then. He led the committee to 
believe that except when he is under oath he constantly tells little 
white lies, as he calls them. 

Mr. Hoffa. I heard him testify. 

Senator Ives. I thought you did. You would not think the testi- 
mony he gave would lead one to believe he was a very honest person, 
would you ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator, he is a great organizer, and every one of us 
has some faults. 

Senator Ives. I am not talking about what he is ; I am talking about 
what he is not. 

Mr. Hoffa. Some of us have faults, all of us do, and he may in 
some instances make such statements as he made, but generally Baker 
does a job he is sent out to do. 

Senator Ives. That may be, and I do not know what is the job he is 
sent out to do. 

Mr. Hoffa. That is organizing. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. If these associations do not disturb you, and these 
excessive bills do not disturb you, did it disturb you during the testi- 
mony of Mr. Callahan about the payments that he had been making 
to Barney Baker? 

Mr. Hoffa. When he gets in a position to be able, to discuss the 
matter with him, I will very definitely take those questions up with 
Baker. 



15098 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Did this disturb you at all ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, it certainly did if it is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, now, this has been going on. Mr. Hoffa, I 
would think that you would be able to get from this man's background 
and experience of what he had been doing, and his associations, and 
what the police departments in the various sections of the country 
were saying about him, in New York and St. Louis, and his associa- 
tions, and yet you kept him on during all of this time, until this 
committee made these revelations — how can you possibly explain that? 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, Senator, I listened to the testimony concerning 
Baker, and from the St. Louis Police Department, and I listened to 
Keating testify and I didn't hear Keating say anything about Baker 
to any extent except that he thought this, and he thought that. In 
my opinion, he is no law enforcement agent or no expert. 

Mr. Kennedy. He said he had gone to the penitentiary and he had 
a bad record. 

Mr. Hoffa. Which is a matter of record and he didn't have any 
brilliancy to get that all at once, and he can get it by a 3-cent stamp. 
So the answer to it is that Barney Baker was hired to do a job, and 
while he had been in our employment Barney Baker hasn't been con- 
victed nor to my knowledge indicted in any particular incident that 
he has handled for the union, and I cannot find anything in the record 
other than the fact that somebody questioned him in Chicago concern- 
ing a gun incident and then released him. 

What else has there been since he was with us, Senator? 

The Chairman. It was in St. Louis, I think. 

Mr. Hoffa. Excuse me, St. Louis. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think what he has done is clear and his associa- 
tions, and the fact that I read out the names of the people he has been 
associated with: "Cockeyed" Dunne, Meyer Lansky, Joe Adonis, 
Frank Costello, "Jimmy Blue-Eyes," Bugsy Segal, John Vitale, Joe 
Costello, Lew Farrell, and what else do you want? 

What does it take, Mr. Hoffa? 

Mr. Hoffa. I think those names attract you a lot more than they 
attract me, and I say to you that Baker, being in the capacity of 
organizing and carrying out his position in organizing,, that we would 
have no way of knowing he was talking to these individuals unless he 
wanted to tell us, and apparently he didn't. So I cannot be expected 
to reprimand an individual for something I didn't know at the time 
it was happening. 

Mr. Kennedy. Topping it all off, we had the testimony that an 
employer was paying him money. 

Mr. Hoffa. I told you when Baker gets in a position to be able to 
talk to, I will discuss the question with Baker. I have heard stories 
before about people paying money, and whether or not it is true will 
be decided by a court ultimately if such a thing happened, I imagine. 
So we will go into that when Baker gets well enough. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know he was friendly with these people 
from Esco, from Callahan's company ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I knew that Baker was friendly with Weinheimer, and 
I think he knew him in New York. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he speak to you about this case ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15099 

Mr. Hoffa. I know all about the case, and I told everybody about 
the case, and I am very familiar with the strike, and very familiar 
with its problems, and I had a meeting with them I think last Thurs- 
day to discuss his problems. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Barney Baker call you about this matter? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did lie call you when he was meeting with Wein- 
heimer? 

Mr. Hoffa. He may have; and I imagine he did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he called you in connection with this particular 
matter; did he not? 

Mr. Hoffa. The strike, you mean? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. In fact, you discussed the matter quite frequently 
with him; did you? 

Mr. Hoffa. I must have discussed it with everybody I could get a 
hold of who I thought could do anything about straightening it out. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you send him in to Pittsburgh? 

Mr. Hoffa. No ; I don't think that I directed Baker to Pittsburgh. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know who sent him in there? 

Mr. Hoffa. I think he went on his own, and I think that was his 
testimony. 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe he said he was sent. 

Mr. Hoffa. I believe he said he was on his own. 

Mr. Kennedy. Does he have authority to go into any section of the 
country he wishes ? 

Mr. Hoffa. If it involves the Teamsters Union, and it is necessary 
to take care of some business, he certainly has a right to go where he 
has to take care of the problem. 

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

(Recess.) 

(Members of the select committee present at this point in the pro- 
ceedings: Senators McClellan, Ives, and Church.) 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

Mr. Kennedy, call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Sergeant Mullins. 

The Chairman. 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. Mullins. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF BERNARD MULLINS 

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

Mr. Mullins. My name is Bernard Mullins. I am a police ser- 
geant in the Detroit Police Department. I live at 12125 Wayburn, 
in the city of Detroit. 

The Chairman. You are a sergeant in the P»**oit Police Depart- 
ment ? 

Mr. Mullins. Yes, sir. 



15100 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. How long have you been in the police department? 

Mr. Mull ins. Thirteen years. 

The Chairman. You waive counsel ? 

Mr. Mullins. Yes, sir. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Sergeant, you were one of the principal investigators 
in connection with the work of the Culehan grand jury ? 

Mr. Mullins. I was, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they looked into some of the activities of certain 
Teamster officials in Detroit ; is that right ? 

Mr. Mullins. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What year is this? 

Mr. Kennedy. This is 1953? 

Mr. Mullins. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was an indictment that came out of that 
grand jury; is that correct? 

Mr. Mullins. Two indictments, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was an indictment relating to Bufalino's 
activities ? 

Mr. Mullins. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. A Teamster official in organizing the jukebox and 
car wash industries in Detroit ? 

Mr. Mullins. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And also against Keating, Xicoletti, Marroso, and 
Fitzsimmons? 

Mr. Mullins. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. On charges of taking payoffs from employers? 

Mr. Mullins. Extortion, and conspiracy to extort, 

Mr. Kennedy. Sergeant, were you present when there was a con- 
versation between Mr. James R. Hoffa and the assistant prosecutor, 
Joseph Rashid? 

Mr. Mullixs. Yes, sir; I was. 

Mr. Kennedy. That conversation took place back of the courtroom 
of Judge Martha Griffiths, of Detroit? 

Mr. Mullins. That is correct, 

Mr. Kennedy. About what time was this ? 

Mr. Mullins. It was in the fall of 1953, in the preliminary ex- 
amination of the matter. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was the preliminary examination involving Lin- 
teau, Xicoletti, Marroso, and Fitzsimmons? 

Mr. Mullins. That is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell the committee what the conversation 
was as you overheard it? 

Mr. Mullins. During the examination, we had witnesses that were 
testifying to the fact that certain amounts of money were given to 
various Teamster officials. The witnesses were somewhat reluctant to 
testify, and Joseph Rashid was quite strenuous in his examination of 
the witnesses to extract the information he desired. 

A recess was called after one of the witnesses came off the stand, 
and Mr. Hoffa came back to Joseph Rashid in the rear of the court- 
room and he was quite perturbed. He told Mr. Rashid that this 
wasn't Culehan's indictment, it wasn't the attorney general's indict- 
ment. It was an indictment because of his own personal prejudice 
and hatred towards the Teamsters Union. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 



15101 



Mr. Hoffa then explained to Rashid that it was these ■ P^cidar 
o-ifts received were not in the manner or shape or form of extort on, 
But were 'merely Christmas gifts, and he said to Mr. Rashid, "Isn't it 
true that von have taken gifts?" And Mr. Rashid replied that he had 
reeved two. One was a carton of cigarettes from a b md man on he 
comltei down in the Recorder's Court Building, and a bottle of Scotch 
from a personal friend, Joseph Sullivan. ; T^hirl 

Mr Hoffa replied that that didn't speak very highly of Mr. Rashid, 
that he couldn't have too many friends This time Mr Rashid ^told 
Mr Hotfa that he had more responsibility to the people and to the 
members that he represented, and he shouldn't condone conditions that 
were being testified to from the stand. , 

Mr Hoffa asked Rashid if he wouldn't accept any gifts under sim- 
ilar circumstances, and Mr. Rashid replied that he wouldn't: He 
wouldn't accept any gifts from anybody that he thought may be afoul 
of the law. Hoffa told Mr. Rashid that he wasn't very broadmmded. 

The Chairman. Wasn't what? ,..,,._ 

Mr. Mullins. Wasn't very broadmmded m these matters. 

The Chairman. Brightminded? •. 

Mr Mullins. Broadmmded. He said, "I have every politician m 
town in my office." Mr. Rashid replied, "Well, I have never been 

Mr Hoffa told Mr. Rashid that he would see to it that he never 
<rot anyplace politically, and he would spend every dime he could get 
his hands on to see that Mr. Rashid never went anyplace politically. 

Hoffa's concern, in the main, in this particular case, was m regards 
to Frank Fitzsimmons. He told Mr. Rashid that he was persecuting 
a very fine gentleman, and that this indictment would cause him to 
lose an opportunity to become on the international board of the 
HPp*! i listers 

Mr Hoffa then repeated to Mr. Rashid that he was framing in- 
dividuals, and he said all he needed was to know who Mr Rashid 
would go out with and who he would go with socially, and in the 
matter of 90 days he could frame him or any individual that he 
wanted to frame, All he had to do was to know his company. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa said that he could frame anybody f 

Mr. Mullins. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he told Rashid he could have him framed 

'IfclinS. In a 3-month period, yes sir; Mr. Kennedy 

The Chairman. What was the purpose of this conversation i W hat 
motivated it? Why was such a conversation taking place, as you 

° MrJMuLLiNs. Well, it was during the recess following Mr Rashid's 
strenuous examination of the reluctant witnesses, and Mr. Hotfa was 
obviously perturbed. . 

The Chairman. Did you regard what he was saying as a threat 01 
implied threat, or an effort to intimidate the prosecutor many way* 

Mr Mullins. W T e discussed it with Mr. Rashid as to what action 
should be taken, and he passed it off and said, "Oh forget about it, 
don't worry about it," that he wasn't concerned about Mr. Hoffa. 

The Chairman. He seemed to not be very concerned about the 
threat ? Or would you call it a threat ? 



15102 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Mullins. I didn't call it a threat. When Mr. Hoffa inferred 
that he could frame Mr. Rashid or anybody else, I assumed that it 
was more or less in the form of an illustration that he could do such 
a thing in the matter of 90 days or any given period of time, provid- 
ing he knew what company he kept socially, who he went out with, 
who he ate with, who he slept with. He said he could frame him. 

The Chairman. Rashid was assistant prosecuting attorney? 

Mr. Mullins. He was the chief trial attorney for the county of 
Wayne. 

The Chairman. What is his name and how do you spell it? 

Mr. Mullins. Joseph J. Rashid, R-a-s-h-i-d. He is of Syrian ex- 
traction. 

The Chairman. He was an official of the court at that time ? 

Mr. Mullins. Yes, sir ; he was. 

The Chairman. In the process of performing his duty ? 

Mr. Mullins. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Are there questions ? 

Senator Ives. Yes ; I have some. 

How long ago did all of this occur ? 

Mr. Mullins. This was in the fall of 1953, Senator. 

Senator Ives. And what is Mr. Rashid now ? 

Mr. Mullins. Mr. Rashid is now a circuit court judge in the county 
of Wayne. 

Senator Ives. Then this didn't hurt him in any way, shape, or man- 
ner, did it ? 

Mr. Mullins. He ran for reelection. There was four judges run- 
ning for the vacancy, and Mr. Rashid ran first. 

Senator Ives. By a large vote ? 

Mr. Mullins. Quite a majority, yes, sir. 

Senator Ives. Did the people know of this threat or whatever you 
want to call it, made by Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. Mullins. Not to my knowledge, sir ; no. 

Senator Ives. It didn't get around ? 

Mr. Mullins. Not to my knowledge, no. 

Senator Ives. They will know it after this hearing, I suspect. 

Mr. Mullins. I would assume they will ; yes, sir. 

Senator Ives. Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was Mr. Hoffa 's state of mind or appearance 
during this conversation. 

Mr. Mullins. Well, he was obviously perturbed. He was very 
angry, very perturbed. 

Mr. Kennedy. This case ultimately went to trial, did it? Would 
you tell us what happened in connection with that? 

Mr. Mullins. Well, the case was assigned to Judge Gillis. Four of 
the individuals charged, Linteau, Keating, Marroso — the three of them 
pled guilty, the three I named. Mr. Fitzsimmons was dismissed on 
a motion of the prosecutor. Nicoletti refused to plead guilty and was 
taken to trial and subsequently found guilty by a jury. 

The Chairman. Did I misunderstand you ? Was it Fitzsimmons in 
whom Hoffa seemed to be the most interested ? 

Mr. Mullins. Yes, sir ; that is correct. 

The Chairman. That is the case that was dismissed ? 

Mr. Mullins. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15103 

The Chairman. It did not go to trial ? 

Mr. Mullins. It did not, sir. 

The Chairman. The other four were all convicted? 

Mr. Mullins. Three of them pleaded guilty, sir, to charges of con- 
spiracy to extort, and Mike Niboletti was found guilty by the jury. 

The Chairman. Well, a conviction grows out of a plea of guilty 
as well as a trial and a jury verdict of guilty. 

Mr. Mullins. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. The four of them were, either by pleas of guilty 
or by trial, found guilty. 

Mr. Mullins. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. And the other one was dismissed, Mr. Fitzsim- 
mons, in whom Mr. Hoffa manifested the most interest? 

Mr. Mullins. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. Of course, you can indict four or five people to- 
gether. Four of them can be guilty and the other one not guilty. 
That can well occur. 

Mr. Mullins. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. What was the difference, if you heard the examin- 
ing testimony, what was the difference in the actions of the four who 
were convicted as related to those of Mr. Fitzsimmons', whose case 
was dismissed ? 

Mr. Mullins. Well, as I recall the testimony, Mr. Chairman, in 
regards to Mr. Fitzsimmons, the question of a check in the amount of 
$500-some-odd, was the strength on which the indictment was first 
issued. The inability of the prosecution to show that Mr. Fitz- 
simmons had actually received this check from the witness made it 
impossible for us to proceed in the matter. 

The Chairman. Did the witness refuse to testify ? 

Mr. Mullins. He didn't refuse to testify, sir. He was reluctant 
to testify. 

The Chairman. He was reluctant to testify ? 

Mr. Mullins. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Well, of course, if you get into that, I don't know 
whether the witness was lying to begin with or not. All you know 
is this conversation took place and the final outcome of it was these 
cases were transferred to Judge Gillis for trial ? 

Mr. Mullins. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And four of them — three of them pleaded guilty, 
one was convicted on trial, and the one against Mr. Fitzsimmons was 
dismissed ? 

Mr. Mullins. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. Those are the circumstances ? 

Mr. Mullins. In that particular case, yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened to the Buf alino case ? 

Mr. Mullins. Well, originally, Mr. Kennedy, in February of 1954, 
Judge Gillis was presiding judge. The cases were called up for as- 
signment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could he take that case as presiding judge? 

Mr. Mullins. Not as presiding judge, no, sir; he couid not hear a 
felony case. Mr. Fitzgerald asked for a 90-day adjournment. There 
was an argument between Joseph Rashid and Mr. Fitzgerald regard- 



15104 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

ing the adjournment, Mr. Rashid claiming that the adjournment was 
unnecessary, that the people of the State of Michigan were ready to 
proceed in' the matter. Mr. Rashid accused Mr. Fitzgerald of not 
acting in good faith in the matter. Mr. Fitzgerald stated to the court 
that the reason for the 90-day adjournment was for the purpose of an 
appeal of a ruling handed down by Judge Krause. After consider- 
able argument in front of Judge Gillis, Judge Gillis granted the 00- 
day adjournment. 

In May of 1054 the case was then called up in front of Judge Ricca, 
and both cases were assigned to Judge Gillis. 

The Chairman. In other words, Judge Gillis had granted the post- 
ponement and then when the next — what do you call them — chief 
judge? 

Mr. Mullins. Presiding judge. 

The Chairman. Presiding judge? Well, that makes him the chief 
judge for the time being; is that correct \ 

Mr. Mullins. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The next presiding judge transferred the cases to 
Judge Gillis court for trial ? 

Mr. Mullins. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that an unusual situation, or would you know ? If 
you dont' know 

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

Mr. Kennedy. The Buf alino case was tried in front of Judge Gillis ? 

Mr. Mullins. Yes, sir; that is correct, 

Mr. Kennedy. And Bufalino was acquitted, was he I 

Mr. Mullins. Yes, sir, he was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the people, the State, feel that they received a 
fair trial in front of Judge Gillis? 

Mr. Mullins. Mr. Rashid has told me and officers that I have 
worked with, that the people of the State of Michigan did not get a 
fair trial. 

The Chairman. That would be a matter of opinion; but he was 
acquitted ? 

Mr. Mullins. Yes, sir, he was. 

The Chairman. The case was tried in Judge Gillis' court ? 

Mr. Mullins. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe that k all, Mr. Chairman. 

We have an affidavit here from Mr. Rashid, Judge Rashid, in con- 
nection with the matters we discussed. 

The Chairman. You may keep your seat for a moment. 

This is in the nature of a deposition, that is, questions and answers, 
but it is an affidavit and it is sworn to by the judge. 

Is Mr. Rashid still judge? 

Mr. Mullins. Yes, sir, he is. 

The Chairman. Judge of what court ? 

Mr. Mullins. Circuit court, county of Wayne. 

The Chairman. Is that the county in which Detroit is situated ? 

Mr. Mullins. Yes, sir ; that is correct. 

The Ch airman. This affidavit may be printed in the record in full. 
I will not take time to read all of it at this time unless the members 
of the committee desire that it be read. I note he says here : 

I am judge of the Third Judicial Circuit Court of Michigan — 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15105 

and he has been such since January 1, 1957. Prior to that lie was a 
chief trial lawyer for Wayne County, working under Gerald O'Brien. 
He held that position for 8 years. lie was holding that position at 
the time that you testify to? 

Mr. Mullixs. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Counsel. If you wish to read any 
excerpts from the affidavit, you may do so. It is quite lengthy. 

Mr. Kennedy. I will not read it all. But referring to page 4, Mr. 
Chairman, the judge was asked : 

"What did Mr. Hoffa say to you? referring to this conversation. 

Answer. My best recollection is that he said to me that this indictment was 
strictly mine ; that I was narrowminded. and then he said to me it was because 
of my prejudices that this indictment was issued. You want to bear in mind 
that we were putting in testimony that certain of his agents had accepted gifts 
in amounts from .$50 to $100. He said, "Everyone takes Christmas presents — 
don't you take presents?" and I said, "No; particularly if the person who gives 
the presents might be under indictment or investigation." He asked if I had 
ever received any Christmas gifts, and I said I had received a bottle of scotch 
from Joe Sullivan and a carton of cigarettes from the blind boy downstairs. 
He said, "That doesn't speak well for you ; you don't have any friends." I said, 
"Mr. Hoffa, regardless of how yon feel, I feel that a man in your position in the 
labor union has a moral duty to the people in this town and the men you repre- 
sent to prevent, this sort of thing that is being testified to here." Then he said 
to me, "Well, you're not very broadniinded. I have had every politician in town 
in my office," and I said, "I am not a politician, I guess. Because I am not, I've 
never been to your office." He said, "What is more, you won't ever get any- 
where politically in this town. These fellows are being framed. It is easy to 
frame anybody." He was not threatening me with framing me in any way. 
But. he said he could even frame me or anyone else. He could find out where 
you went, who you were associated with socially, and so forth, and in a few 
months' time he would know all about you. I said, "Could be. There is the 
record, Jim ; these checks speak louder than any witness." That, to my recollec- 
tion, is the sum and substance of the conversation at that time. And I went on 
my way, and he went on his. 

The Chairman. Does the affidavit pertain to other matters? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Any that we have interrogated Mr. Hoffa about 
this afternoon ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Read another pertinent part or two of it, 

Mr. Hoffa may see this affidavit. He may have the opportunity to 
see it. I am trying to expedite it. Read any other pertinent part 
of it, 

Mr. Kennedy. He was asked about any conversations. [Reading:] 

Question. Do yon know Jack Gilmore? 

Answer. Yes, I do. At that time he was assistant prosecutor. I was assigned 
to the police grand jury at that time by Judge John P. O'nara. When the 
second case came up for trial I had to go back to the grand jury. The only 
case he tried then was Nicoletti alone. 

Question. Do you recall Mr. Gilmore receiving a telephone call during the 
course of the trial while he was in the courtroom? 

Answer. From anyone in particular? 

Question. Specifically, James K. Hoffa. 

Answer. All I recall about that is this: I don't know if he got it in the 
courtroom, at his office, or at home. But one day he summoned me and Mr. 
Garber, chief assistant prosecutor, to Mr. O'Brien's office and we had a con- 
ference and he said that he had a call from someone who identified himself as 
Jimmy Hoffa, and who asked to talk with him. Mr. Gilmore reported to the 
three of us — O'Brien, Garber, and myself — that he had declined to discuss the 
matter with Mr. Hoffa. I have no recollection of anything further at the con- 



15106 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

versation. Mr. Gilmore was rather upset about it. He chose to report it to us, 
even though he declined to discuss the case with Mr. Hoffa. 

We have discussed the matter with Mr. Gilmore, Mr. Chairman, 
and my questions to Mr. Hoffa were predicated on the conversations 
with Mr. Gilmore, rather than this supporting information here. 
[Continuing:] 

Question. Do you know the name John Wolke? 

Answer. Yes, I know the name John Wolke. 

Question. Did you ever have any connection with a case involving John 
Wolke? 

Answer. Yes, I did. I tried John Wolke for abortion and convicted him in this 
court. I do not recall the exact year. 

Question. Did you enter the case from the time of his arrest? 

Answer. Yes, I was called the night he was arrested, and recommended the 
issuance of a warrant. 

Question. Were there any postponements? 

Answer. Motions filed and postponements. Ultimately an appeal to the 
Supreme Court. 

Question. Made by whom? 

Answer. Mainly by the defense counsel. After the conviction the counsel who 
defended him at the trial dropped out and there was subsequently a new counsel. 

Question. Was there any outside interest, other than defense counsel, in these 
postponements of Wolke? 

Answer. From time to time we had people telephone me or Mr. O'Brien asking 
us to accede to requests for adjournments. Who the people were in the main, I 
don't recall. 

Question. Were any of these requests, by any means or communication, made 
by James R. Hoffa ? 

Answer. Not by him directly. I at no time received any such requests from 
Mr. Hoffa. In fairness to the situation, none were made directly. 

Question. Was any request made in which it might be construed that it was 
connected with James Hoffa? 

Answer. I don't recall who it was that called and reported that James Hoffa 
had asked him to call me to ask for an adjournment. Again, I want to be posi- 
tively honest. I can't say whether the person was authorized to call for 
Mr. Hoffa or not. Someone had asked this party to call. I have no way of 
knowing, and have never made an attempt to find out if Mr. Hoffa did ask 
that person to call. It is conceivable the caller might think it might have some 
influence. 

Question. You don't recall who it was that called? 

Answer. No. People would make comments on the street, and by telephone, 
and it seemed to attract some interest. This chap had quite a record of abor- 
tions and we were anxious to put the case into operation. Is there anything 
further that you want to ask me? 

That is subscribed and sworn to. 

The Chairman. The affidavit is ordered printed in the record. 

(The affidavit referred to follows :) 

Interview 
Of : Judge Joseph G. Raschid. 
By : Sherman S. Willse. 

On : Saturday, September 13, 19">8, in suite 1801, City County Building, Detroit, 
Mich., at 9 :30 a.m. 

Question. What is your name? 

Answer. Joseph G. Raschid, 1726 Boston, Detroit, Mich. 

Question. My name is Sherman S. Willse, and I am an investigator with the 
U.S. Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Manage- 
ment Field and I show you n y credentials. 

Answer. Very well. 

Question. Judge Raschid, 1 would like to ask you certain questions, the 
answers to which would be of great interest to the committee. Are you willing 
to voluntarily answer the questions I am about to put to you? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15107 

Answer. Yes, I have no objections to answering any questions which you 
might put to me, asking that you bear in mind however, that there are certain 
questions that I cannot ansv/er because my lips are sealed pursuant to the 
Michigan Grand Jury Act. 

Question. What is your present occupation? 

Answer. I am judge of the Third Judicial Circuit Court of Michigan. 

Question. How long have you held that position? 

Answer. Since January 1, 1957. 

Question. And prior to that? 

Answer. I was chief trial lawyer for Wayne County, working under Gerald 
O'Brien. I held that position for 8 years. 

Question. During what time? 

Answer. From January 1, 1949, until December 31, 1956. 

Question. During the period of time that you were connected with the prose- 
cutors office were you assigned to any cases involving the Teamsters Union? 

Answer. Yes. Mr. O'Brien filed a petition with the circuit court asking for 
the appointment of a grand jury to investigate certain activities of the Team- 
sters Union and Judge Culehan was named. I was the assistant prosecuting 
attorney in charge. After the indictments were issued against some of the 
Teamsters, Local 985 and other locals, I handled the preliminary examination 
and the trial of some of those cases. I handled the trial for two cases, one with 
seven defendants and the other with five defendants. 

Question. In the case where you mention the seven defendants, is this the 
matter involving William Bufalino and local 985. 

Answer. Yes, that is the case and at the same time we issued indictments 
against Keating, Linteau, Nicoletti, Marroso, and Fitzsimmons. Both indict- 
ments were issued at the same time — Bufalino case first — then Keating, Linteau. 

Question. In the Bufalino case do you recall a motion made by Attorney 
George Fitzgerald for a 90-day continuance? 

Answer. Yes, I recall both those cases were set for trial, and to my best rec- 
ollection it was in February of 1954 in the recorder's court, and at that time 
George Fitzgerald asked for a 90-day continuance for the purpose of appealing 
from certain interlocutory orders. He filed certain motions which the judges 
had denied in recorder's court, and he was going to take an appeal from that 
denial. 

Question. What action was taken? 

Answer. We objected to any adjournment, and we were attempting to proceed 
to trial as expeditiously as we could before the grand jury would expire as a 
matter of law. 

Question. Was that motion granted and by whom? 

Answer. By Judge Gillis, who was then presiding judge in recorder's court. 
He was the one who assigned the cases to the other judges for trial. 

Question. At the termination of this 90-day continuance did it come up for 
trial? 

Answer. It did, before another judge sitting as presiding judge. 

Question. What is his name? 

Answer. Judge John Ricca. 

Question. Was it assigned, and to whom? 

Answer. Yes, it was assigned to one of the judges who was trying felony 
cases at the time, Judge Gillis. And we tried the Bufalino case first and im- 
mediately after that the Nicoletti-Keating case was tried. However, in the 
Nicoletti-Keating case, Fitzsimmons was dismissed before we went to trial and 
all the other defendants excepting Nicoletti pleaded guilty to the felony charge 
of conspiracy. Nicoletti stood trial and was found guilty. All others pleaded 
guilty and I am sure that some were sentenced to Jackson Prison. 

Question. Now, do you recall during that case a conversation with James 
R. Hoffa in the corridor outside the courtroom? 

Answer. There was one conversation but it wasn't during the trial of the 
cases; it was during the preliminary examination before Judge Martha Grif- 
fiths of the recorder's court, now Congresswoman Martha Griffiths. 

Question. Who was present during this conversation? 

Answer. As I say, it was during the preliminary examination and she was 
sitting as examining magistrate and we were showing probable cause. It was 
in the course of the Kea ting-Li nteau case and we were putting in testimony 
to the effect that certain employers — trucking firms — had been making gifts to 
various teamsters, then the defendants in the case. We were putting evidence 



15108 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

in of the checks and it was during the recess during that examination — is that 
the conversation you are referring to? 

Question. Yes. 

Answer. There was only one direct conversation that I recall with Mr. Hoffa 
during the course of the case. Present were Lieutenant Lee, now Inspector 
Lee, Detroit Police Department, and Sergeant Mullins and Sergeant O'Neil, 
both of the Detroit Police Department, and George Fitzgerald. I am not sure 
if Joseph Sullivan who was with me at the trial was present, or Irving Beat- 
tie, assistant attorney general. During parts of the conversation there were 
a couple of newspaper reporters nearby. I assume that is the conversation 
you are referring to and that you have information from other sources. 

Question. That is correct. What did Mr. Hoffa say to youV 

Answer. My best recollection is that he said to me that this indictment was 
strictly mine; that I was narrow minded, and then he said to me it was because 
of my prejudices that this indictment was issued. You want to bear in mind 
that we were putting in testimony that certain of his agents had accepted gilts 
in amounts from $50 to $100. He said, "Everyone takes Christmas presents — - 
don't you take presents?" and I said, "No — particularly if the person who gives 
the presents might be under indictment or investigation." He asked if I had 
ever received any Christmas gifts, and I said I had received a bottle of Scotch 
from Joe Sullivan and a carton of cigarettes from the blind boy downstairs. 
He said, "That doesn't speak well for you — you don't have any friends." I 
said, "Mr. Hoffa, regardless of how you feel, I feel that a man in your position 
in the labor union has a moral duty to the people in this town and the men you 
represent to prevent this sort of thing that is being testified to here.'' Then 
he said to me, "Well, you're not very broadminded. I have had every politician 
in town in my office," and I said, "I am not a politician, I guess. Because I 
am not, I've never been to your office." He said, "What is more you won't ever 
get anywhere politically in this town. These fellows are being framed. It is 
easy to frame anybody." He was not threatening me with framing me in any 
way. But he said he could even frame me or anyone else. He could find out 
where you went, who you were associated with socially, etc., and in a few 
months time he would know all about you. I said, "Could be. There is the 
record, Jim ; these checks speak louder than any witness." That, to my recol- 
lection, is the sum and substance of the conversation at that time. And I went 
on my way and he went on his. 

Question. You mention, Judge, that he said you had prejudices. What do you 
think he meant? 

Answer. I don't know, excepting I suppose when he used the word prejudice 
he used it as synonymous with being narrow minded. The practice of accepting 
gifts was a usual thing. In other words, that this should be condoned. Now, 
that is the best construction that I can put on it. Now, that was the only 
conversation that I can recall that I had with him. Obviously there were times 
when I talked with him in the grand jury, but of course my lips are sealed by 
grand jury law. 

Question. Did you have any other conversations? 

Answer. Just those that were in the grand jury. I recall none other than the 
one that occurred outside the court. 

Question. Do you know Jack Gilmore? 

Answer. Yes, I do. At that time he was assistant prosecutor. I was assigned 
to the police grand jury at that time by Judge John P. O'Hara. When the sec- 
ond case came up for trial I had to go back to the grand jury. The only case 
tried then was Nicoletti alone. 

Question. Do you recall Mr. Gilmore receiving a telephone call during the 
course of the trial while he was in the courtroom ? 

Answer. From anyone in particular? 

Question. Specifically, James R. Hoffa. 

Answer. All I recall about that is this. I don't know if he got it in the court- 
room, at his office, or at home. But one day he summoned me and Mr. Garber, 
Chief Assistant Prosecutor, to Mr. O'Brien's office and we had a conference and 
he «aid that he had a call from someone who identified himself as Jimmy Hoffa, 
and who asked to talk with him. Mr. Gilmore reported to the three of us— 
O'Brien Garber and myself, that he had declined to discuss the matter with 
Mr Hoffa. I have no recollection of anything further of the conversation. Mr. 
Gilmore was rather upset about it. He chose to report it to us, even though he 
declined to discuss the case with Mr. Hoffa. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15109 

Question. Do you know the name of John Wolke? 

Answer. Yes, I know the name John Wolke. 

Question. Did you ever have any connection with a case involving John Wolke. 

Answer. Yes, I did. I tried John Wolke for abortion and convicted him in 
this court. I do not recall the exact year. 

Question. Did that conviction stand V 

Answer. Yes, it did. I went to the Supreme Court — it was a State Police 
case, assisted by some Detroit Police Officers. 

Question. Did you enter the case from the time of his arrest? 

Answer. Yes, I was called the night he was arrested, and recommended the 
issuance of a warrant. 

Question. Was he released on bail? 

Answer. Ultimately he was. First it was a high bond and subsequently 
reduced. 

Question. Were there any postponements V 

Answer. Motions filed and postponements. Ultimately an appeal to the 
Supreme Court. 

Question. Made by whom? 

Answer. Mainly by the defense counsel. After the conviction the counsel 
who defended him at the trial dropped out and there was subsequently a new 
counsel. 

Question. Was there any outside interest, other than defense counsel, in 
these postponements of Wolke? 

Answer. From time to time we had people telephone me or Mr. O'Brien ask- 
ing us to accede to requests for adjournments. Who the people were in the 
main, I don't recall. 

Question. Were any of these requests, by any means or communication, made 
by James R. Hoffa ? 

Answer. Not by him directly. I at no time received any such requests from 
Mr. Hoffa. In fairness to the situation, none were made directly. 

Question. Was any request made in which it might be construed that it 
was connected with James Hoffa? 

Answer. I don't recall who it was that called and reported that James Hoffa 
had asked him to call me to ask for an adjournment. Again, I want to be 
positively honest. I can't say whether the person was authorized to call for 
Mr. Hoffa or not. Someone could call me and say that he was asked to call 
by Mr. Hoffa, and that such a request was made with the statement that Mr. 
Hoffa had asked this party to call. I have no way of knowing, and have never 
made an attempt to find out if Mr. Hoffa did ask that person to call. It is 
conceivable the caller might think it might have some influence. 

Question. You don't recall who it was that called? 

Answer. No. People would make comments on the street, and by telephone, 
and it seemed to attract some interest. This chap had quite a record of 
abortions and we were anxious to put the case into operation. Is there any- 
thing further that you want to ask me. 

Question. I think that is all I want to ask you at this time. 

Answer. I believe I asked you, Mr. Willse, when you indentified yourself 
a while ago — I assumed you were directed by the committee to ask me these 
questions. 

Question. That is correct. Judge, do you have any objections to signing this 
statement — with your answers to my questions, under oath? 

Answer. No, I have no objection to signing this statement. Everything I 
have said here is the truth. Frankly, I note that in the course of your investi- 
gation, apparently you have gotten information about these things and you 
approached me on these questions. I have no objection at all. You people, 
in the course of your investigation, have found these matters, and as far as 
I am concerned, everything is the truth that I have given you in my answers. 

Question. Thank you very much Judge. 

I have read this statement consisting of eight pages and it is true to the 
best of my knowledge and belief. 

(Signed) Joseph G. Rashid. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 13th day of September 1958. 

[seal] Louis I. Flatteky, 

Notary Public, Wayne County, State of Michigan. 

My commission expires August !(!, 1960. 



15110 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Is there anything further of this witness I 

Senator Ives. I don't want to ask this witness anything, but are 
we going to have Mr. Hoffa around here to answer some of these 
charges? 

The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Hoffa is present, and the purpose of 
this, before these witnesses leave, is that they might testify in his 
presence and give him an opportunity to hear it. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman, (his thing shapes up as something 
pretty serious. Here we find a condition where union funds are being 
used to elect officials to public office who, presumably, will be under the 
command or control, at least, of the union leaders, or a union leader. 
Then, on top of that, we find a condition wherein, if that isn't suffi- 
cient, apparently, public officials are being threatened with extinction 
when it comes to public life, if they don't toe the line as they are 
ordered to toe the line by certain union leaders or a certain union 
leader. 

Not having heard Mr. Hoffa, I am not going to pass judgment on 
this until we do. But it seems to me that this is a very serious situa- 
tion, and it is one that ought to be brought to the attention of every 
community in the United States. If there is laxity in law enforce- 
ment, this has a great deal to do with it. Until we get the American 
people roused at the source, at the base, we are not going to get very 
far in this matter. We can pass all the laws we want, but in the final 
analysis, the cure rests with the people themselves in their own 
communities. 

I apologize for taking all of this time. 

The Chairman. The Chair would make this observation : The rele- 
vancy of this testimony goes to the question of, primarily, political 
contributions, and the purposes for which they are made. There are 
those who think unions should not be permitted to make a political 
contribution out of union funds. That is one of the subject matters, 
as my colleague knows, that this committee is charged with looking 
into. It is one of the matters that it determined it would look into. 

Rather than to call these witnesses back at a later day, when we 
may go into that field more or less exclusively, I thought we might as 
well make this a part of the record while we have Mr. Hoffa here, and 
while he has the opportunity to refute it or explain it, or make any 
statement about it he wants to. Mr. Hoffa has been interrogated 
some about it already this afternoon. However, we didn't want to 
keep these witnesses over. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman, I am in full accord with what you are 
doing. 

The Chairman. All right, then. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. Mullins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Joe Schneiders. 

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

Mr. Schneiders. I do. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15111 

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH A. SCHNEIDERS 

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

Mr. Schneiders. My name is Joseph A. Schneiders. I live in a 
small town outside of Jackson, Mich., Horton, Mich., 141 Main Street, 
and I am the minister of the Universal Church there. 

The Chairman. A minister? 

Mr. Schneiders. Yes, sir. 

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

Mr. Schneiders. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you also operate a business? 

Mr. Schneiders. No, sir. No longer. 

The Chairman. Did you formerly operate a business ? 

Mr. Schneiders. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What was the nature of the business, Mr. 
Schneiders ? 

Mr. Schnedders. It developed from free-lance writing to writing, 
directing and producing radio and television shows and publicity and 
promotion. 

The Chairman. What firm name did you have ? 

Mr. Schneiders. Joe Schneiders Associates, Inc. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy. 

First, may I ask, just for the record, when you terminated that 
business enterprise ? 

Mr. Schneiders. We tried to dissolve it, but because of some shen- 
nanigans I couldn't get the necessary papers to dissolve it. So, legally 
it is still a corporation, although I ceased to operate within that area 
around 1953. 

The Chairman. Around 1953 ? 

Mr. Schneiders. Yes. 

The Chairman. Although it may still be a legal entity, it is not 
active ? 

Mr. Schneiders. I did continue to do free-lance writing until about 
2 years ago, though, but not as a corporation, not a corporation. 

The Chairman. You did that individually ? 

Mr. Schneiders. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. And not as an association. 

Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Schneiders, involved in this also was your wife; 
is that correct? 

Mr. Schneiders. That is correct, 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know a Judge Joseph Gillis ? 

Mr. Schneiders. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you known him for a number of years ? 

Mr. Schneiders. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. For how many years? 

Mr. Schneiders. I had known him from about 1950 — well, about a 
year prior to that. He married my wife and I in his chambers. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he interested in your corporation ? 

Mr. Schneiders. Yes, he was. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is your enterprise ? 

21243— 59— pt. 40 12 



15112 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Schneiders. Joe Schneiders, Inc., yes. He was a vice presi- 
dent and one of the directors. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was the vice president ? 

Mr. Schneiders. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did he become a vice president? 

Mr. Schneiders. He took care of all the legal, necessary legal mat- 
ters which incorporated us. He was with it right from its beginning. 

Mr. Kennedy. When was that? Just approximately. 

Mr. Schneiders. I would say sometime in 1952, in the fall of 1952, 
perhaps. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he to perform any particular service during 
that time for you ? 

Mr. Schneiders. It was his intention — he was the one that sug- 
gested that we incorporate. This was completely his idea. I had 
been a fairly successful free-lance writer. But in the summer or the 
fall, or late summer or early fall, of 1952, he suggested that we incor- 
porate, that because he was a judge he would be able to throw business 
our way. That is just about the way he put it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he, in fact, obtain some business for you ? 

Mr. Schneiders. Just one account; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What account was that? 

Mr. Schneiders. The Teamsters television show. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand 

Mr. Schneiders. I am sorry. There were two accounts. We also 
handled his political campaign. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he explain to you that he was a friend of Mr. 
Hoffa's. 

Mr. Schneiders. He introduced us to Mr. Hoffa ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he bring you around and introduce you to Mr. 
Hoffa? 

Mr. Schneiders. Yes; he did. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had a meeting at Mr. Holla's office, had you? 

Mr. Schneiders. Yes; we did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And at that time you were trying to obtain some 
funds, or do some work for the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Schneiders. That is right, 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us about the conversation ? Did Mr. 
Hoffa agree to put up money ? 

Mr. Schneiders. Well, prior to that, Judge Gillis suggested that if 
we were going into it — we were going to bring a program to Mr. 
Hoffa — we should outline it. So I outlined a 13-week series because 
Judge Gillis had suggested this would be the original approach, and 
because it is the policy to buy television time in 13-week segments. 

The Chairman. May I ask you at that point if a campaign, a local 
political campaign, was approaching or imminent? 

Mr. Schneiders. Yes, sir ; it was. 

The Chairman. It is just preceding a political campaign? 

Mr. Schneiders. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Schneiders. So Judge Gillis, my wife, and I met, and the three 
of us went to Mr. HoflVs office in the Teamster Building in Detroit, 
Mr. Walter McMahon, who is a State legislator, was there, Mr. Bob 
Holmes and Mr. Frank Fitzsimmons and Bert Brennan, along with 
Mr. Hoffa. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15113 

They asked me what I had in terms of a program, what I had out- 
lined, so I outlined it verbally. Then Hoffa said, "How much is this 
going to cost me?" And I said, "Wei, I would have to find out. I 
know roughly what the television time would cost, and probably pro- 
duction costs, but it would depend on the elements that went into it, 
and I would have to spend some time to get the estimate." 

He said, "I don't do business that way. How much does it cost?" 
Judge Gillis nudged me, and I took out a piece of paper and roughly 
figured it out at around $1,000 a week, which made around $13,000. 
Then to be included, because of the previous discussion, there was to 
be $1,300 which was to go to Judge Gillis. I added that to it, and 
it came out rather roughly around — well, there were some other items. 
It came around $15,000. I remember I made it 601 so it would not be 
a round figure. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you told him $15,601 ? 

Mr. Schneiders. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did he do ? 

Mr. Schneiders. He said, "OK, that is fine." He pushed a button 
and a girl came in, and he said, "Make out a check to Joe Schneiders, 
Inc., for $15,601." He asked me if that was the right amount, and 
I said, "Yes." I said something about "I hope it wasn't too much," 
and he said, "I get a thousand dollars a day, $30,000 a month, I can 
do anything with." At that point I wished I had charged him 
$25,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. He said he had $30,000 a month he could do anything 
with? 

Mr. Schneiders. That is right- 
Mr. Kennedy. What did he call this fund ? 

Mr. Schneiders. He didn't call it. He said nobody ever called him 
to acount for it. 

The Chairman. He could dispose of the money as he saw fit? 

Mr. Schneiders. That is right. 

The Chairman. You said there was some arrangement where the 
judge would get $1,300. How was that calculated ? 

Mr. Schneiders. We had discussed it previously. The campaign 
was coming up in April, and Gillis said he could get $1,300 toward 
his campaign. He suggested that perhaps it would be a salesman's 
commission for getting the account. When we got in the office it 
was — well, Hoffa and myself, my wife, Walter McMahon, and the 
others we discussed, and he was to be an adviser, he was to be the 
television adviser. We laughed about it because he didn't know very 
much about television. 

Mr. Kennedy. But it was discussed in the office in the presence of 
Mr. Hoffa? 

Mr. Schneiders. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was to receive this $100 a week? 

Mr. Schneiders. Yes, sir 

The Chairman. Mr. Hoffa knew that out of the check he was giving 
von for $15,601 it was understood at the time that the judge was to 
receive $1,300 of it? 

Mr. Schneiders. That is right. 

Senator Ives. Let me ask you a question there, I would like to ask 
Mr. Schneiders if he considered the charge excessive. 



15114 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Schneiders. No, sir. 

Senator Ives. For a business of that type, that is. 

Mr. Schneiders. I don't. 

Senator Ives. I did not think it sounded that way, myself. 

The Chairman. Did you need the judge's advice about how to run 
a television show \ 

Mr. Schneiders. No, I didn't. After all, my wife and I were only 
getting $75 a week. 

The Chairman. The two of you ? 

Mr. Schneiders. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was getting more than you ? 

Mr. Schneiders. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. More than both of you ? 

Mr. Schneiders. That is right. 

Senator Ives. In other words, what he was getting you should have 
gotten in the way of profit, is that right? 

Mr. Schneiders. Well, we were attempting to build up an organiza- 
tion, our corporation, and so we decided instead of taking it out in 
excessive salary, we would attempt to buy equipment and that sort of 
thing. 

Senator Ives. You were not getting sufficient salary yourself, were 
you? 

Mr. Schneiders. No, sir; but I was attempting to build this thing 
up. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, were all of the broadcasts used? They started 
on January 4, 1953, did they ? 

Mr. Schneiders. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they went through March 29, 1953 ? 

Mr. Schneiders. I don't know the exact dates. 

Mr. Kennedy. But they went for some 13 broadcasts? 

Mr. Schneiders. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were they all used for the trucking program ? 

Mr. Schneiders. They all signed off "Sponsored by Teamsters Joint 
Council 43," although I believe the last two were political programs 
involving the judges of Detroit, and I believe the last one was specifi- 
cally assigned to Judge Gillis. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why was it assigned to Judge Gillis ? 

Mr. Schneiders. Originally I had carte blanche to develop these 
programs as I saw fit, and I thought it was rather good to do 
something in this particular field. But I had his liaison men from 
Mr. Hoffa's office, one was Mr. Holmes and the other was Walter 
MeMann. And Mr. Holmes, I would report occasionally to him to 
get what I needed, films on trucking from the coast and that sort of 
thing, and Mr. MeMann in terms of being available just to put ap- 
proval on persons I might suggest in terms of putting on the program. 
About the ninth week or so Mr. MeMann said he wanted to have lunch 
with us at Joe Hewitts, my wife and me, and that is a restaurant in 
Detroit, and we had lunch there, and at that time he said that the last 
program, or possibly the last two programs, would be devoted to 
Judge Gillis. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was in connection with Judge Gillis' cam- 
paign ? 

Mr. Schneiders. That is right. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15115 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he explain what the situation was as far as 
Judge Gillis was concerned? 

Mr. Schneiders. I don't understand. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he say anything about Judge Gillis ? 

Mr. Schneiders. Just that we were to promote Judge Gillis. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he say Avhy they were promoting Judge Gillis? 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Knowing about Judge Gillis' background ? 

Mr. Schneiders. No. 

Senator Ives. Had you any suspicion as to why they were doing 
that? 

Mr. Schneiders. Yes, I had. 

Senator Ives. Eventually it dawned, did it not? 

Mr. Schneiders. It dawned when a CPA told me exactly what I 
Avas, and how it happened, and what had happened, yes. 

Senator Ives. What did he tell you ? 

Mr. Schneiders. He said the corporation was obviously set up to 
take care of campaign funds for Judge Gillis and he wouldn't handle 
it himself and he wouldn't involve such a judge unless I told Judge 
Gillis about it, which I did, subsequently, because I was attempting 
to dissolve the corporation, and that is when he saw the CPA. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand that Mr. Hoffa was friendly 
with Judge Gillis, and had he done any favors for him ? If you don't 
know the answer 

Mr. Schneiders. Yes, I know, I am sorry. Previously to that, 
Judge Gillis got into some trouble in Detroit and the Legislature of 
Michigan was going to impeach him, and Judge Gillis told my wife 
and me that it was because of Holla's influence on the legislature, 
and because specifically of Walter McMann and Haroldson, who 
were senators, that this thing had been quashed. This was previous 
to that. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the trouble he had been in ? 

Mr. Schneiders. He had been picked up as a drunk driver. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, it is Leon Haroldson, is that right ? 

Mr. Schneiders. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is he in the legislature ? I understand he is presi- 
dent of G14. He was in the legislature. 

The Chairman. How did you pay Mr. Gillis ? 

Mr. Schneiders. We established an account, credits, $100 a week 
was set up or was set aside for Judge Gillis. He received the money 
in terms of credits when his campaign started. 

The Chairman. What do you mean by "credits" ? 

Mr. Schneiders. We got a check from the Teamsters for $6,200, 
which was to be paid. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is a second check ? 

Mr. Schneiders. Yes, the $6,200, which was to be used only for 
Judge Gillis' campaign, and Gillis gave me, I don't remember whether 
it was money or checks, but I believe it was a check for $1,500, and 
so we had $7,700 to buy advertising, promotional materials and so on, 
which we did. I have that pretty well listed. A bit of that went over 
the amount and that made up the $1,300 and it was deducted from 
the $1,300, and also as soon as Judge Gillis was elected he called and 
said he wanted to drop out of the corporation. So the next day or 



15116 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

next 2 days, Monday or Tuesday, he wanted his $1,000, as I remember, 
which he had invested, plus his interest, in the company, and he 
wanted that. So we did not have that money and my wife and I 
mortgaged the station wagon and went to the bank and got it, and 
made up this money, and showed him the credits he had, the $1,500, 
and he got that in terms of over his campaign, and just credits, and 
he did get the value of the $1,300 specifically, and I do have it 
itemized. 

Mr. Kennedy. As the books indicate, he got some in cash. 

Mr. Schneiders. That is right, $800. 

Mr. Kennedy. And a Plymouth station wagon % 

Mr. Schneiders. That was not the $1,300. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am just asking you what he came out of the cor- 
poration with. He got some money in cash, and he got some credit on 
the political aspects of it, and he received this station wagon when he 
left, as well as some other cash. 

Mr. Schneiders. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And some checks ? 

Mr. Schneiders. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. The $1,300 was given each week in credits to him 
to be used for political broadcasts, and then plus the Teamsters con- 
tributed another $6,200 for his political broadcasts ? 

Mr. Schneiders. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was used to promote his candidacy ? 

Mr. Schneiders. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. All of this money came out, either the broadcasts or 
the work you did for him politically or checks to him or the Plymouth 
station wagon? 

Mr. Schneiders. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And right after the election he left the corporation ? 

Mr. Schneiders. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then he got out ? 

Mr. Schneiders. That is right. 

The Chairman. This total amount paid you, I believe, was $22,000- 
and-some-odd — $22,669, was paid to you or your company in con- 
nection with this transaction ? 

Mr. Schneiders. That is right. 

The Chairman. How much of that, based on what the judge got 
out of it in cash and the time that was spent purely promoting his 
campaign — how much of that $22,000 went to Judge Gillis' benefit, 
either politically or personally ? 

Mr. Schneiders. There are some exact amounts, Senator McClellan. 
but also there are other benefits like having him on the television 
program. 

The Chairman. I am talking about what that would amount to and 
the time, and cost of the time he was on the program, and so forth. 

Mr. Schneiders. Well, there were $6,200 specifically assigned. 

The Chairman. $6,200 out of this $22,000 went directly to his 
campaign ? 

Mr. Schneiders. That is right. 

The Chairman. Now proceed. 

Mr. Schneiders. I really don't have the records, Senator McClellan. 

The Chairman. Immediately after the election did you make a 
settlement with the judge? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15117 

Mr. Schneiders. Yes, sir; about 2 days afterward, around Easter, 
Kaster Monday or Easter Tuesday. 

The Chairman. Do you remember how you settled with him ? 

Mr. Schneiders. Yes. We gave him, not exactly, but I know I 
gave him a check for $864.52, because I had to get that from the bank. 

The Chairman. Do you remember whether you gave him some 
other checks or not at a later date ? 

Mr. Schneiders. No, sir ; I don't believe I did. 

The Chairman. I present you with the $86-4 check dated April 10, 
1953, and it is the original check, and I ask you to examine it and 
state if you identify it. I also present to you a second check dated 
April 20, 1953, to Judge Gillis in the amount of $277.35. I also pre- 
sent a third check dated April 22, 1953, in the amount of $68.28. I 
ask you to examine those checks and state if you identify them. 

(Documents handed to witness.) 

Mr. Schneiders. All three of these checks were drawn on the 
corporation, and were signed by both my wife and myself. They 
were made out to Joseph A. Gillis and I don't exactly know what you 
mean in terms of identifying them. 

The Chairman. Those are your checks ? 

Mr. Schneiders. Oh, yes. 

The Chairman. They will be made exhibit 179-A, 179-B, and 
179-C in the order of their dates. 

(The documents referred to were made "Exhibits 179 A, B, and C" 
for reference and will be found in the appendix on pp. 15345-15347.) 

Mr. Kennedy. How much did he invest initially? Do you have 
that? 

Mr. Schneiders. He invested in cash $1,350, and a tape recorder 
which had a value of $125 and he charged us legal fees for incorporat- 
ing us of $525, so he invested $2,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was a judge at this period of time ? 

Mr. Schneiders. Oh, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Now, the first transaction of $15,000 he was to get 
$1,500 out of? 

Mr. Schneiders. That is right. 

The Chairman. The second check of $6,200 he was to get all of ? 

Mr. Schneiders. That is right. 

The Chairman. And the third check — I have forgotten the amount 
of it. Is it $868? 

Mr. Schneiders. That would make up the $1,300. 

The Chairman. That was a part payment of the $1,300? 

Mr. Schneiders. That is right. 

The Chairman. All right, 

Is there anything further ? 

Thank you very much. 

We will stand in recess until 10 o'clock in the morning. 

(Whereupon, at 4:40 p.m. the committee was recessed, to reconvene 
at 10 a.m., Wednesday, September, 17, 1958.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1958 

United States Senate, 
Select Committee on Improper Activities 

in the Labor or Management Field, 

Washington, D.C. 

The select committee met at 10 :30 a.m., pursuant to recess, in the 
caucus room, Senate Office Building, Senator John L. McClellan 
(chairman of the select committee) presiding. 

Present : Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas ; Senator 
Frank Church, Democrat, Idaho ; Senator Irving M. Ives, Eepublican, 
New York. 

Also present : Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel ; Paul Tierney, as- 
sistant counsel; John J. McGovern, assistant counsel ; Carmine S. Bel- 
lino, accountant; Pierre E. Salinger, investigator; Leo C. Nulty, in- 
vestigator ; James P. Kelly, investigator ; James Mundie, investigator ; 
John Flanagan, investigator, GAO; Alfred Vitarelli, investigator, 
GAO ; Ruth Y. Watt, chief clerk. 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

Call your next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Louis Triscaro, Mr. Chairman, is the next wit- 
ness. 

The Chairman. What information do you have about him ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Triscaro was served with a subpena, Mr. Chair- 
man, to appear here with his personal books and records some time 
ago, and his attorney was notified a week ago that he would be called 
this morning. As an attorney he had written me a letter stating that 
he would produce Mr. Triscaro as well as Mr. Presser upon the re- 
quest of the committee. As attorney he has been very cooperative 
with the committee, and the subpena had been served, and we had had 
these conversations. 

The Chairman. Mr. Lawson, do you represent this witness, Mr. 
Triscaro ? 

Mr. Belford Lawson. Yes, and Mr. Presser. 

The Chairman. Do you represent both of them, also Mr. William 
Presser ? 

Mr. Lawson. They are not here, may I say to the committee. 

The Chairman. Will you identify yourself, and I think you have 
already been identified in one place in the record. 

Mr. Lawson. I am Belford Lawson, District of Columbia bar. I 
would like to say that I can have those gentlemen here shortly, and 
there has been some misunderstanding about counsel, but I know 
where they are, and I think that I can get them here shortly. 

15119 



15120 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. You may call them and have them get here 
promptly. 

Mr. Lawson. May I say while I am here, are you going to call Mr. 
Starling ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I expect we will, but not until we have the other 
two. 

The Chairman. Are these witnesses in town ? 

Mr. Lawson. Yes, all three of them. 

Mr. Kennedy. We haw a situation regarding Richard Kavner. 

The Chairman. Was he > be here today ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, Mr. chairman. Mr. Richard Kavner was ex- 
pected to be here. He is- n lieutenant of Mr. Gibbons from St. Louis. 
He had submitted a medical certificate stating that he had some dif- 
ficulties and that he would not be able to appear. That was some 
6 or 8 weeks ago, and so we arranged to have him examined by doc- 
tors from the Public Health Service, and that is their report. 

We then sent him that telegram, and that telegram was received. 

The Chairman. What is the original report? 

Mr. Kennedy. His original report is that he had some difficulty, I 
believe, dealing with the heart, Mr. Chairman. I do not know what 
the official medical term was. 

The Chairman. He submitted a medical certificate? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

The Chairman. Do you have that ? 

Mr. Kennedy. We are trying to locate it at the present time. That 
was the letter that we received from the Public Health Service. 

The Chairman. We will review all of the file and records in con- 
nection with this Witness Kavner, and handle the matter a little later 
during the day. 

Proceed and call the next witness. 

A Ir. Kennedy. We can call a witness on a different matter that I 
intended to call this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, while we are waiting 
for Mr. Triscaro and Presser, and that would be a member of the 
staff, Mr. Salinger. 

The Chairman. Come around, Mr. Salinger. 

TESTIMONY OF PIERRE E. G. SALINGER 

The Chairman. Proceed, he has been sworn. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, according to newspapers this morn- 
ing, there was some report that Mr. Hoffa has called or is going to 
attempt to call a convention in February of next year, to vote on the 
officers of the International Union of Teamsters. We have made a 
study of the situation that occurred at the last convention, dealing 
with union democracy, and we sent out a questionnaire, as you know. 

Mr. Salinger is prepared to testify on the results of the question- 
naire, and the results of our study that we made in this situation. 

The Chairman. Do you have a cop}' of the questionnaire? 

Mr. Salinger. I do not have one with me here, but I think we can 
get it. 

The Chairman. Let us have a copy of the questionnaire so that we 
can place it in the record. 

Proceed, but a copy of the questionnaire will either be printed in 
the record at this point or made an exhibit after I see it. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15121 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Salinger, could you feel] us what the situ 
ation was? 

Mr. Salinger. I do have a copy of the questionnaire. 

(The document was handed to the chairman.) 

The Chairman. This questionnaire will be made an exhibit, exhibit 
No. 180. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit 180" for reference and 
may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Salinger, that questionnaire was sent to all of 
the Teamsters' locals? ) . 

Mr. Salinger. It was sent to every Tea • .ter local in the United 
States. 

The Chairman. How many are there? 

Mr. Salinger. There are somewhere over 1,000. 

The Chairman. More than a thousand ? 

Mr. Salinger. Yes. 

The Chairman. You sent it to every Teamster local of which you 
had a record or knowledge of ? 

Mr. Salinger. We sent it to every Teamster local that is in their 
book of locals of the Teamsters' Union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Salinger, we received replies from just a 
percentage of the locals ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Salinger. We received replies from 750 locals, but of that num- 
ber only 437 would be categorized as what we call informative replies. 
The difference between 437 and 756 would be locals which just sent 
us a letter saying that they did not care to supply the information, or 
would supply it at a future date, but they have not supplied it as of 
now. 

Mr. Kennedy. From what area of the country did we receive the 
smallest number of responses? 

Mr. Salinger. The smallest number of responses was received from 
the Central States Conference of Teamsters and the Southeastern 
Conference of Teamsters. 

Mr. Kennedy'. The eastern conference and the western conference 
answered the questionnaire ? 

Mr. Salinger. They replied to the questionnaire ; that is correct. 

Mr. Kennedys Now, could you tell us generally what the results 
were of a study of the questionnaire, as well as a study of the files of 
the Teamsters'Union themselves, and the credentials committee? 

Mr. Salinger. First, in relation to the questionnaire itself, a study 
of the answers to the questionnaire revealed that of the locals which 
answered it, only 14.6 percent actually complied with the require- 
ments of the international constitution of the Teamsters Union in 
electing their delegates to the convention in Miami. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is out of the 437 that gave you an answer. 

Mr. Salinger. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. 14.6 percent complied ? 

Mr. Salinger. That is right. It might be well to bear in mind the 
provisions of the constitution on this point. 

The Chairman. Let us have those inserted in the record. 

This is the principal point, where compliance was lacking, with 
respect to the article of the constitution you are now about to read ? 

Mr. Salinger. That is correct, sir. 



15122 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Read the article. 
Mr. Salinger (reading) : 

All delegates to the international convention shall be selected by vote at a reg- 
ular or authorized meeting of the local union, or such delegates may be appointed 
by the executive board of the local union if so authorized by a vote of the local 
union membership at a regular or authorized meeting. All convention dele- 
gates, except substitute delegates, shall be selected during the period from the 
receipt by the local union of the convention call up to the 30th day preceding 
the 1st day of the convention. 

Now, the convention call in this case was issued in June. The con- 
vention actually started on October 1. The 30th day before the con- 
vention would have been either the 1st or 2d day of September, so 
that the delegates had to be selected in that period in order to be 
legally authorized delegates under the Teamsters' own constitution. 

The Chairman. Now, the point that you are making now is that 
they were not selected prior to 30 days before the date the conven- 
tion convened? 

Mr. Salinger. That is right. 

The Chairman. That is one point that you are making. 

Mr. Salinger. Yes, sir; some of them were selected, and I will go 
through some examples here, some were selected before the call for 
the convention went out. 

The Chairman. Some were selected even prior to the call of the 
convention ? 

Mr. Salinger. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. Now, you say "selected," do you mean selected now 
by election or by designation ? 

Mr. Salinger. There are two legal methods, as I have read, under 
this section to elect delegates. One is by having the delegates elected 
from the floor of a regularly called meeting of a Teamster local. The 
second one is to have the executive board designate those delegates. 

However, in that case, the executive board must have authorization 
from the general membership to make such designations. 

The Chairman. In other words, the general membership can do it 
two ways : They can elect them at a meeting, at a regular meeting, or 
a meeting called for that purpose ? 

Mr. Salinger. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Or at such meeting, they can delegate the power of 
appointment to the executive board ? 

Mr. Salinger. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Salinger. Now, just to give an example as a starter in this 
matter, we had a witness before the committee last year. He ap- 
peared here the 14th of September, his name was James Clift. He 
was a delegate of local union 337, Detroit, Mich., the union which is 
headed by Bert Brennan. 

He was asked by counsel at that time whether or not he was a 
delegate on the national convention, and he said he was. He was 
asked when was he elected, and he said, "I will be." He was asked 
when that would be, and he said the meeting was being held that 
night, that being September 14, 1957. 

Now, that election of officers on September 14, 1957, was clearly 
outside of the date provided for in the international constitution. I 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15123 

might point out that I have here the executive board minutes of local 
337 and they show 

The Chairman. Of what date? 

Mr. Salinger. This is dated February 1, 1957, where it says: 

Brother James Clift made a motion, supported by Brother Walter Schuler, 
that the personnel of local union No. 337, comprised of Bert Brennan, James 
Langley, Robert Holmes, Frank Yezbeck, James Clift, Walter Schuler, Charles 
Burge, Allen Balfour, Cecil Watts, Morris Coleman, Louis Desser, and George 
Danuk, be elected as delegates to attend the international convention this fall. 
Motion carried unanimously. 

The Chairman. That was away back in February ? 

Mr. Salinger. February 1, 1957. 

The Chairman. Does it appear there that notice was given that 
delegates would be elected at that meeting? 

Mr. Salinger. This is an executive board meeting. 

The Chairman. That is an executive board meeting? 

Mr. Salinger. The executive board elected the delegates on Febru- 
ary 1, 1957, and then took it to the membership on September 14, 1957. 

The Chairman. That was after this investigation was under way, 
and the procedure was under inquiry by the committee ? 

Mr. Salinger. That is correct, sir. 

(Committee members present in the hearing room: Senators Mc- 
Clellan, Ives, and Church.) 

Mr. Kennedy. That was in violation of the constitution in two 
points ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Salinger. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. One, the date, and, two, the manner in which the 
delegates were elected. 

Mr. Salinger. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. The executive board under the constitution did not 
have the right to elect delegates ? 

Mr. Salinger. That is right. 

The Chairman. Let me inquire, prior to the February 1, 1957 
meeting of that executive board, did you search the minutes of local 
337 to ascertain whether the membership had delegated that power 
to the board prior to that date? 

Mr. Salinger. I cannot state specifically whether we did, Senator. 
However, even had they done it, the election by the executive board 
on February 1, 1957, would not have met the provisions of their 
constitution. 

The Chairman. I understand that would not be in compliance, but 
I am trying to ascertain whether, according to the constitution, as I 
understand it, and you studied it, the executive board would have no 
authority to designate delegates to the convention until and unless 
the membership themselves delegated that power to the executive 
board. 

Mr. Salinger. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. That power would have to be delegated at a regular 
meeting of the local ? 

Mr. Salinger. That is correct, and, of course, I think the fact that 
they took this to a regular membership meeting in September would 
certainly indicate that they had not received prior authorization or 
there would have been no need to do that. 



15124 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. That is a very strong circumstance in that direc- 
t ion, but 1 wondered if you had made the check. 

Mr. Salinger. Not to my knowledge, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. At least in the minutes we have searched there 
doesn't appear to he any permission. 

Mr. Salinger. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. 1 don't know whether we have searched all minutes, 
but that is on the ones we have searched. 

Mr. Salinger. 1 might point out, too, that at the time Mr. Clift 
was testifying before this committee, and saying he was going to be 
elected that night, his credentials were already in the hands of the 
Teamsters' Union, having been dated July 12, 1957. 

These are the credentials of local 337 in Detroit, Mich. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is Mr. Owen Bert Brennan's local? 

Mr. Salinger. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he was elected a vice president at that con- 
vention ? 

Mr. Salinger. That is correct. 

I might say the same situation exactly applies to Mr. Hoffa's own 
local, 299. 

The Chairman. What happened there? 

Mr. Salinger. We had the testimony before the committee on the 
same day, of Mr. Bell, who said that his local was going to hold a 
meeting either that night or during that week, which was in Septem- 
ber of 1958, to confirm the election of delegates to the national 
convention. 

The credentials in the name of Mr. Bell and the other delegates of 
local 299 w T ere dated the 15th of June 1957, and were already in the 
hands of the Teamsters' Union at the time that he was testifying. 

The Chairman. They get their certificate before they get elected or 
designated ? 

Mr. Salinger. They did in this case, sir. 

The Chairman. All right, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Salinger, you gave the percentage of 14.6 per- 
cent on the questionnaires that were sent out, properly elected dele- 
gates. 

What is the percentage that we have found from an examination of 
the Teamsters' records and an examination of the credentials com- 
mittee as to the properly elected delegates ? 

Mr. Salinger. Well, demonstrably illegal by study of both the 
Teamsters' Union credentials and our survey are 57.6 percent of the 
votes. 

Mr. Kennedy. That we can prove 

Mr. Salinger. Prove they are definitely illegal. I might point out, 
however, that by the same token we can only prove that 8.9 percent 
of the total votes cast at the convention was legal, from an examina- 
tion of all these sources, the credentials committee and our question- 
naire. 

We can only come up with a total of 8.9 percent. 

Senator Church. Mr. Salinger, do I understand you to say that on 
the basis of the data furnished you in this questionnaire that you 
circulated coming from 437 of the locals, that you can positively ascer- 
tain that 57.6 percent of the total vote at the convention electing 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15125 

Mr. Hofi'a was not in conformity with the requirements of the inter- 
national constitution and, therefore, illegal? 
Mr. Salinger. That is correct. 

I might say that we have broken this down into 

The Chairman. That would be 57 percent of the 437. 

Mr. Salinger. No; this is 57 percent of the total vote cast, 1,661 
votes cast. 

Senator Church. The total votes cast at the convention electing the 
present officers of Teamsters ? 

Mr. Salinger. That is correct. 

1 might say that if you notice that the total legal I just stated, 8.9 
percent, is lower than the total legal that I stated from our question- 
naire, that is because we have taken into account in this 8.9 percent 
figure all the votes that were cast, and out of the questionnaire there 
was a higher percentage of legals that we can establish than there is 
in the total vote that we can establish. 

Mr. Kennedy. The votes coming from the eastern conference and 
the western conference, by and large, elected their delegates in a legal 
fashion? 

Mr. Salinger. They showed to have a slightly more percentage of 
legal — the ones that answered our questionnaire had a greater inci- 
dence of legal votes than the others. 

Mr. Kennedy. Than the southern ? 

Mr. Salinger. And central. 

We have broken this down into the total legal votes cast for each 
candidate that we can establish from these various sources. 

The total legal cast vote for Mr. Hofi'a that we can establish from 
these sources is 59 votes, or 4.8 percent of his vote that we can es- 
tablish as legal. 

We can clearly establish that 56.2 percent of his votes was illegal, 
through a study of these various sources. 

By contrast, I might say that 20.7 percent 

The Chairman. I believe about 39 percent are there in the twilight 
zone that you do not know whether they are legal ? 

Mr. Salinger. Unknown or questioned where we couldn't make a 
specific determination. 

Also, in relation to that we studied the votes of Mr. HonVs op- 
ponents, Mr. Hagerty and Mr. Lee. We found that of Mr. Hagerty's 
vote, 20.7 percent proved to be legal votes, and Mr. Lee ? s, 19.4 percent 
proved to be legal. 

We made a study, just for example purposes, of certain specific 
locals where these situations arose. 

Probably the most flagrant example was the Coal, Gasoline, and 
Fuel Oil Teamsters, Chauffeurs, and Helpers' Local 563, in New 
York, which answered our questionnaire on October 16. 

In answer to question No. 3 : 

Set forth the date such delegates were appointed by the executive hoard of the 
local union — ■ 

they stated October 14, 1957. 

This is a week after the convention was over. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did those delegates participate in the convention? 

Mr. Salinger. They did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they were seated and voted ? 



15126 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Salinger. They did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they weren't elected until a week after the 
convention was over ? 

Mr. Salinger. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Could that just be an inadvertance or typograph- 
ical error? 

Mr. Salinger. No, sir, because I have a copy of their minutes for 
October 14, 1957. 

The Chairman. The minutes actually show that? 

Mr. Salinger. That is right. 

The Chairman. So it is not just an error in the date ? 

Mr. Salinger. It says here the question of the international consti- 
tution of Miami, Fla., was then discussed. It was moved by Brother 
Thomas Kuiwan and seconded by Brother Thomas Oswald to ratify 
the arrangements previously made by the full time officers and dele- 
gates to save expenses by sending only a single delegate, Thomas J. 
Riley, to the convention, and granting him $500 for such purpose. 

Motion carried unanimously. 

So it refers to the arrangements made by that full time officer and 
delegates and, of course, no previous action of any kind in this case. 

The Chairman. I think I follow you, but does that appear to be 
an attempt to ratify the legality of the delegates, to make legal by 
some ratification after the convention was held ? 

Mr. Salinger. That is hard to say just what they were trying to do. 
You know, under any circumstances, it would not be a legal 
ratification. 

The Chairman. I understand that. 

Mr. Salinger. Then it appears that they were trying to give some 
legality to the action they had taken, yes. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Salinger. I will run through some of these examples. 

Local No. 7, in Kalamazoo, Mich. The minutes submitted to the 
credentials committee state that these delegates were selected by the 
executive board in July and approved by the membershij) on Septem- 
ber 8, 1957. 

The credentials of the delegates to the convention show that they 
were credited on June 21, 1957. That would be before even the execu- 
tive board met and discussed the delegates from that local. 

The Chairman. The names had been sent in even before the execu- 
tive board acted ? 

Mr. Salinger. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Again, had the executive board been authorized by 
that local to act? 

Mr. Salinger. Well, if that particular executive board had had 
prior authorization, the July period would have fallen within the 
correct time for them to elect their delegates ; that is true. 

The Chairman. Do you know whether they had that prior authori- 
zation ? 

Mr. Salinger. We do not, but they took the matter to the member- 
ship on September 8, which indicates, again, that they did not have 
the prior authorization or they would not need to have the action 
ratified again. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15127 

The minutes of local 89, in Louisville, Ky., state the delegates were 
approved by the membership at a meeting in September. The cre- 
dentials show the delegates were accredited on August 8, 1957. 

Local 107, in Philadelphia, Pa., the delegates were selected by the 
executive board on June 17, 1957, and approved by the membership 
on September 15, 1957. 

The credentials of the delegates were issued on July 11, 1957. 

The Chairman. Are those just samples or examples of what you 
found ( 

Mr. Salinger. That is correct. We have taken some examples. 

The Chairman. You are not undertaking to testify that these fig- 
ures you have given are absolutely accurate. They are just what you 
have discovered from examination, insofar as you were able to get 
information? 

Mr. Salinger. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. But it is enough to show the general trend or to 
show that, certainly in many instances, the constitution is not being 
followed, and that the membership is not being given the opportunity 
to express and make choice of their own delegates. 

Mr. Salinger. We made what we consider a representative study 
of these credentials, the minutes of the credentials committee of the 
convention, and then, of course, our own questionnaire to try to arrive 
at some approximation of what the legality of the election of these 
delegates to this convention was. 

The Chairman. Do you have a complete file on this phase of the 
inquiry now that you are discussing, the legality of the last conven- 
tion, the delegates who attended, and the manner in which they were 
selected ? 

Mr. Salinger. I have a number of memorandums which have been 
prepared at my direction on this subject. 

The Chairman. What I want to do is to take your whole file with 
respect to this subject matter, the questionnaires, and all of your work 
on it, and what you found, and make it, in bulk, an exhibit so that we 
can preserve it, 

In other words, we can check, if need be, the actual records against 
the summary of testimony that you have given. 

Mr. Salinger. We still have possession, I think, of all the creden- 
tials of the convention, the original credentials. 

The Chairman. Let the entire file with respect to the national con- 
vention, the questionnaires, and the study made of them, and all sup- 
porting documents, with reference to the matter, be made exhibit 181 
and an exhibit in bulk. 

(Documents referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 181" and may 
be found in the files of the Select Committee.) 

The Chairman. Are there any questions, Senator Ives ? 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask one or two ques- 
tions about this survey that was made. 

Judging from reports which were issued about that time, there 
were certain members of some of these locals that were very much 
opposed to having this done in this way. There was quite a lot of re- 
sentment ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Salinger. Do you mean of our surveys ? 

Senator Ives. I am not talking about your survey. 

21243 — 59 — pt. 40 13 



15128 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Salinger. Of having the election done this way ? 

Senator Ives. Yes. 

Mr. Salinger. There was ; yes, sir. 

Senator Ives. In our survey, did you check into that matter to find 
out how extensive that feeling was among the unions, among these 
people that were virtually disfranchised in this matter '. 

Mr. Salinger. I can say in this regard we did receive a consider- 
able amount of communication from individual union members who 
were complaining about the way that the delegates from their par- 
ticular locals had been selected. 

Namely, we didn't have the manpower to go out and interview every 
one of them. We did interview many of these people and found that 
they felt that in many cases the delegates from their local had either 
been selected without the approval of the membership, or in such a 
highhanded manner that they didn't have a chance to have any say 
in who these delegates were going to be. 

Senator Ives. I gathered from the information you provided, even 
though it is not complete, and you cannot vouch for the accuracy of 
all of it, that a majority of the members were disfranchised in this 
election. 

Mr. Salinger. It would appear that way, sir. 

Senator Ives. I would think so. I would say that anything of that 
nature that can happen gives us thought for further legislation. I 
am very much interested in it. 

The Chairman. We can take the constitution and say, without 
conceding, but for the purpose of this observation it can be conceded, 
that the constitution sets up proper democratic processes, where, if 
followed, the individual member throughout the country, and through 
his local, would have an opportunity of expression of his will with 
respect to the delegate to represent his local in a national convention. 

That is just assuming that the constitution provides that. 

But when you violate the constitution, when you fail to observe it, it 
amounts to an illegal disfranchisement under the terms of the con- 
stitution itself. 

Mr. Salinger. It goes even one step further in this case. 

The Chairman. In other words, if the national officials, who have 
the highest duty and obligation and responsibility to the local dues- 
paying members, disregard the constitution or distort or abuse its 
provisions so as to nullify it, so that it cannot operate against their 
will, and serve the will of the membership, then it is just a scrap of 
paper. It means nothing. It is just window dressing. 

If powers, those who are in the official positions, whose duty it is 
to observe and follow the constitution under which the union is sup- 
posed to live, act, and operate when they disregard it, then you have 
simply a travesty, a disfranchisement of the members who pay the 
dues and support the organization. 

Mr. Salinger. I might say that when Mr. Clif t was here and it was 
pointed out to him that his election on that particular night, the 
night that he was appearing before the committee, was clearly an 
illegal election, he said to the committee at that time, "Well, I will 
leave it to our lawyers. They will take care of it." 

When the convention did come up in Miami, President Beck did 
waive the provisions of the constitution in regard to some of these 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15129 

requirements for the selection of delegates, thereby rendering the 
constitution valueless. 

Senator Church. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Church. 

Senator Church. Mr. Salinger, would you review for me the total 
number of locals in the Teamsters Union, please ? 

Mr. Salinger. I stated it was over 1,000. I sent for the figure and 
got the figure of 893. 

Senator Church. There are 893 locals, then, in the Teamsters In- 
ternational Union ? 

Mr. Salinger. That is correct. 

Senator Church. And of this number, you received back informa- 
tion from 437? 

Mr. Salinger. Actual information ; yes, sir. 

Senator Church. So that your testimony today is based upon the 
437 completed questionnaires that were returned to you from these 
locals ? 

Mr. Salinger. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Church. When you testify that your examination of these 
437 questionnaires positively indicates that only 4.8 percent of the 
votes cast for Mr. Ho if a in the convention itself was a legal vote, that 
is not to be construed to mean that he might not have received more 
legal votes than that, because this is based only upon 437 locals. 

Am I correct in that surmise? In other words, that is not meant 
to be definitive. That is meant merely to mean that based upon the 
437 reports, you know positively that only 4.8 percent of the vote was 
legal, but additional legal votes may have been cast from the locals 
that have not reported in ? 

Mr. Salinger. That is the total ascertainable. 

Senator Church. Ascertainable based on 437 locals? 

Likewise, when you say with reference to his two opponents at the 
convention, that one received 19.4 percent and the other received 20.7 
percent in legal votes, again that is the total ascertainable legal vote? 

Mr. Salinger. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Church. But when we look at it from the opposite side 
of the coin, and evaluate these 437 returns, in order to determine il- 
legal votes, then this has been a sufficient return from the union na- 
tionally to positively ascertain that more than a majority of the votes 
cast for Mr. Hoffa were not in compliance with the constitution of 
the International Union, and, therefore, illegal votes? 

Mr. Salinger. And again that is the ascertainable illegal votes. 

Senator Church. That is the ascertainable illegal vote, which is, 
however, a majority of the votes cast for Mr. Hoffa. 

Mr. Salinger. That is correct. 

Senator Church. 57.6 percent, 

Mr. Salinger. 56.2 percent. 

Senator Church. Excuse me. 56.2 percent, 

Mr. Salinger. The 57.6 percent figure you mentioned, is the total 
illegal vote at the convention. 

Senator Church. Inasmuch as this data has been supplied by the 
locals themselves, and assuming that you have not misconstrued or 
misunderstood the data submitted, would not this lead you to the con- 
clusion that this is a self -confession, that the election of Mr. Hoffa 



15130 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

did not comply with the constitution of the international and, there- 
fore, was not legal ? 

Mr. Salinger. That is correct. 

Senator Ives. To follow that up, Mr. Chairman, I gathered from 
the figures that have been given, slightly less than 50 percent re- 
ported ; is that right ? 

Mr. Salinger. That is right. 

Senator Ives. Or answered the questionnaire ? 

Mr. Salinger. That is right. 

Senator Ives. In that 50 percent, 4.8 percent cast legal votes for 
Mr. Hoffa. 

Mr. Salinger. 4.8 percent. 

Senator Ives. That is what I thought it was. Now, certainly the 
conditions in the locals not reporting can be no better and probably 
they are not as good as in those reporting, so that your 4.8 percent of 
slightly less than half of the total membership would probably shrink 
considerably, if you were going to have all of them? 

Mr. Salinger. As I say, this 4.8 percent figure is based on not only 
the returns that we received from the questionnaire but also the study 
of the actual credentials issued and the minutes of the credentials 
committee of the convention ? 

Senator Ives. Yes. That is the total of them ? 

Mr. Salinger. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ives. That is based on the total, 4.8 percent? 

Mr. Salinger. That is based on the total we can ascertain to be 
the legal votes out of all of those examinations. 

Senator Ives. I suspect very strongly that the 4.8 percent is a little 
high, isn't it? 

Mr. Salinger. It is high ? 

Senator Ives. If you had everything? 

Mr. Salinger. I would have no way of telling that. 

The Chairman. The Chair will make this observation : Since any 
statement like this might be challenged, I want all of your documents 
now, and all of your calculations and everything placed in this exhibit 
so those who may question the accuracy of your statement here, or 
your summary of it, may have the opportunity if they desire to check 
the documents. I want these documents made a public record so 
they can be checked. 

Mr. Salinger. We will place the questionnaires in this exhibit. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to make sure we understand that when you 
reached these overall figures, it is not based just on the questionnaires, 
but it is based on the questionnaires plus other documents that we 
have. 

Mr. Salinger. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

All right, thank you very much. 

Will you assemble all of those documents and get them into one 
package ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Triscaro. 

The Chairman. Mr. Triscaro, will you come around, please, and 
be sworn. Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15131 

before this Senate select committee will be the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 
Mr. Triscaro. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF LOUIS TRISCARDO, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
BELFORD LAWSON 

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

Mr. Triscaro. My name is Louis Triscaro, and I live at 2929 Gates- 
ville Boulevard. 

The Chairman. Where? 

Mr. Triscaro. In Cleveland, Ohio. 

The Chairman. What is your business or occupation, please? 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question under 
my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States Con- 
stitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Mr. Counsel, is this witness an official in any 
teamster union ? 

Mr. Kennedy. He is president of local 436 of the Teamsters Union, 
Excavation and Race Track Workers. 

The Chairman. Do you have counsel ? 

Mr. Triscaro. Yes ; I do. I wanted my own personal attorney, the 
attorney from the State of Ohio, to represent me, since my opinion is 
that I was not served other than in February, and I was not notified 
to be here until last night at 11 :30 by Mr. Lawson, and so since I have 
no choice I am using Mr. Lawson. 

Just a moment. That is not discredit to Mr. Lawson, and I think 
he is a very capable attorney, but, personally, I preferred my attorney, 
which was Mr. Robert Lee from Dayton, Ohio. Since he cannot be 
here, I have decided to go along with Mr. Lawson. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Lawson. Will you identify your- 
self for the record ? 

Mr. Lawson. I am Belford Lawson of Washington, D.C. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Triscaro, you have been with local 436 since 
1940, have you? 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the' fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Do you intend to take the fifth amendment to all 
questions ? 

Mr. Triscaro. Could I confer with counsel ? 

The Chairman. You may ask him what you intend to do. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Triscaro. Yes, I do, Senator, on all of them. 

The Chairman. I do not think it makes much difference whether 
you have your personal attorney or not. 

Senator Ives. May I ask a question there? I would like to ask the 
witness if he would take the fifth amendment if he had his own 
attorney. 

Mr. Triscaro. Yes, sir; I would. 

Senator Ives. Then what difference does it make? Your excuse 
does not amount to anything. 



15132 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Triscaro. I didn't s;iy that it would make any difference, 
Senator. 

Senator Ives. lie went into this long harangue about having his 
own attorney, and I thought that might mean something to him. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Triscaro, according to the information that we 
have, you were associated with the Mayfield road gang out in Cleve- 
land, Ohio. 

Mr. Triscaro. I didn't hear the question, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. According to the information that we have, you have 
been associated with the Mayfield road gang in Cleveland, Ohio. 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privileges under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Mr. Counsel, so that the witness may know exactly 
what you are talking about, and the staff, what is this Mayfield road 
gang according to our information? 

Mr. Kennedy. According to our information, Mr. Chairman, it 
is a gang of underworld figures in Ohio who operated very actively 
and were involved in a large percentage of the crimes that were com- 
mitted in the Cleveland area. Mr. Triscaro was an important member 
of this underworld operation. He is alleged to be very close to the 
top hoodlums in Ohio as well as some of the top gangsters in New 
York and on the west coast, including Mickey Cohen. Isn't that cor- 
rect, Mr. Triscaro? 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and as- 
sert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the Constitution of 
the United States not to be a witness against myself. 

Senator Ives. I would like to ask a question there. I would like to 
ask our counsel a question. 

Just how is this witness tied in with Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. Kennedy. He is an important figure in the Ohio Teamsters, 
Mr. Chairman, and he has this very prominent underworld connec- 
tion. He was associated, as I said, during the late 1940's with Mickey 
Cohen on the west coast, and with Frank Milano, and he was a close 
associate also with Johnny Dioguardi. Isn't that correct, Mr. 
Triscaro ? 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. He has been arrested six or eight times, and he was 
sentenced and convicted for robbery in 1933, and sentenced to the Ohio 
State Reformatory. Is that correct ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Were you elected or appointed president of this 
local 436? 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15133 

The Chairman. Are you president of that local? 

Air. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Do you feel any sense of moral obligation at all, or 
legal obligation to the membership of that local ? 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Do you regard the members just as mere chattels 
to be treated any way you want to treat them ? 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully — no. 

The Chairman. Will you give an accounting to them of your 
stewardship ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Do you honestly believe that if you gave an ac- 
counting of your stewardship to them, under oath, that a truthful 
answer, and a truthful report of your stewardship might tend to in- 
criminate you ? 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and as- 
sert, my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States Con- 
stitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. With the approval of the committee, the Chair 
orders and directs you to answer the question : Do you honestly be- 
lieve that if you gave a truthful answer and made a truthful factual 
report to the membership of your union, with respect to your steward- 
ship as president thereof, that such truthful report and answers might 
tend to incriminate you ? 

Mr. Triscaro. I honestly believe that if I am forced to answer the 
question I will be forced to be a witness against myself, and violation 
of my rights under the fifth amendment of the United States Consti- 
tution. 

The Chairman. You would know. 

Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have information, also, that Mr. 
Triscaro has been associated with John Scalise who we had before the 
committee and who also appeared at the Apalachin meeting. He was 
in business with Mr. Scalise's brother, Mr. Tom Scalise, in a bar and 
a club in Cleveland, Ohio. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Senator Ives. May I ask a question there. I would like to know 
if the witness is a member of the Mafia. 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Tell us a little something about the Mafia, as you 
understand it. 



15134 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we also have him associated with 
Frank Brosio, and Frank Brancato, who are prominent figures in the 
underworld in Cleveland, Ohio. 

The Chairman. How many members are there in local 436? 

Mr. Triscaro. 1 respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Do you honestly believe that if you gave a truthful 
answer to how many members there are in local 436 that a truthful 
answer would tend to incriminate you ( 

Mr. Triscaro. I honestly believe that if I am forced to answer 
the question I would be forced to be a witness against myself in viola- 
tion of my rights under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are also vice chairman of the Joint Council 41, 
are you not ? 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you are also one of the trustees of local 436 
health and welfare fund ? 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. That welfare fund was handled by Louis Saper- 
stein of Newark, N.J., and he received an $8,000 commission, as a 
result of the deal whereby he acquired local 436. Can you tell us 
about that ? 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. You said where he acquired it. That is where he 
acquired 436. What is that 3 

Mr. Kennedy. Louis Saperstein, Mr. Chairman. The arrange- 
ments were made with Louis Saperstein, a notorious broker that 
operated out of Newark, N.J., and there was finagling that went on 
in almost all of the accounts he acquired. 

The Chairman. You mean he acquired the welfare and pension 
fund, the insurance of it ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Not the local itself ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No; excuse me. Just going into your background 
again, in 1951 Mr. Triscaro, you were arrested in connection with the 
shooting of Jack Halbert, and refused to answer any questions. Is 
that correct ? 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that in connection with Halbert's willingness 
to sell you $3,000 worth of hot whisky ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15135 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Is there any difference between hot whisky and 
cold whisky ? 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question 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 what other sources of income you 
have now, or have had in 1957, other than your union position? 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question 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 you have received income from 
several trucking companies in the Ohio area with whom you have had 
contracts? 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question 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 in 1957 your income tax return 
shows an income of $105,488 for 1957 ? 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Are you operating this local out there for your 
own profit without regard to the welfare of the men that you repre- 
sent ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Triscaro. No ; I don't. 

The Chairman. You do not? 

Mr. Triscaro. No. 

The Chairman. Tell us where you got this $100,000. Did you get 
it out of this local ? 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

(Members of the select committee present at this point in the pro- 
ceedings: Senators McClellan, Ives, and Church.) 

The Chairman. You said you don't operate it against their in- 
terests and against their welfare. May I ask you, do you have any 
conflict of interest ? That is, do you 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully 

The Chairman. Wait a minute, Do you have an interest in any 
business, corporation, or enterprise that has a contract, a labor con- 
tract, with your local ? 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privileges under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Does any part of your income come to you from 
any organization, association, business enterprise, or corporation, that 
has a contract with your local union ? 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privileges under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 



15136 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. You understand what I mean by contract. A col- 
lective bargaining contract. You understand that; do you not? 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privileges under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. If you don't want to say whether you understand 
it or not, I am telling you that is what I am referring to. Now, are 
your answers the same? 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully — yes. 

The Chairman. They are the same ? 

Mr. Triscaro. Yes. 

The Chairman. So you refuse to tell whether you have a conflict 
of interest or whether you are receiving money, not only a salary from 
your union, whatever they pay you, compensation from your union, 
but you are refusing to say whether you receive also compensation 
from those who have a collective-bargaining contract with your un- 
ion ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privileges under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Don't you think your membership out there are 
entitled to know whether you are doubledealing with them or not ? 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and as- 
sert my privileges under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, may I call Mr. Mundie, of the com- 
mittee staff? 

The Chairman. Have you been previously sworn? 

Mr. Mundie. No. 

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

Mr. Mundie. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES F. MUNDIE 

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

Mr. Mundie. My name is' James F. Mundie. I live at 3903 Silver 
Hill Road, Silver Hill, Md. I am a staff member. 

The Chairman. Of this committee ? 

Mr. Mundie. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Mundie, have you made an examination of cer- 
tain records in connection with Mr. Triscaro ? 

Mr. Mundie. I have, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Triscaro had made available his 1957 in- 
come tax return ? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. We subpenaed all his books and records, and this is 
what he stated was the only record he had available; is that right? 

Mr. Mundie. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. One income tax return? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15137 

Mr. Mundie. One income tax return for the year 1957. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the only records he turned over ? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

The Chairman. May I ask you if that is the only records you have? 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privileges under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Did you state to the staff of this committee or any 
member thereof, that this one income tax was the only record you had ? 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privileges under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. May I ask you if you got the records of the local ? 

Mr. Mundie. I think someone else has them, Senator. 

The Chairman. The committee got them ? 

Mr. Mundie. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell us what the records show? 

The Chairman. What records? Do you mean the income tax 
returns ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Income tax returns. 

Mr. Mundie. According to the copy furnished this committee of 
the 1957 income tax returns of 

The Chairman. Would you repeat that, please ? 

Mr. Mundie. According to a copy of the 1957 income tax return 
furnished by Mr. Triscaro, it shows that he and his wife, Sarah, 
had income in the amount of $132,238.30, of which he received income 
from the Shaker Sand & Gravel Co. in the amount of $10,575. 

Mr. Kennedy. How do you spell that ? 

Mr. Mundie. S-h-a-k-e-r. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much money ? 

Mr. Mundie. $10,575. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that in salary ? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Salary? 

Mr. Mundie. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who owns that company ? 

Mr. Mundie. According to the records of the Shaker, his brother, 
Joseph. 

Mr. Kennedy. We will have some other testimony on that. 

Mr. Mundie. Yes. 

The Chairman. Do you know whether this local has a contract 
with that company ? 

Mr. Mundie. A card index maintained at the local has a card there, 
but on it it didn't say whether it had a contract or not. But evi- 
dently they had an oral agreement, according to one of the business 
agents. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, it might be well if Mr. Sheridan 
explains about this. We are going to deal with a number of com- 
panies. It might be well if he is sworn also and testifies about these 
companies, 

He has been sworn. 

The Chairman. You have been previously sworn ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes. 



15138 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

TESTIMONY OF WALTER J. SHERIDAN 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us about the Shaker Co. ? 

Mr. Sheridan. The Shaker Co., as well as the other companies 
that Mr. Mundie is going to mention, are all owned by Mr. Tris- 
caro's brother, Joseph Triscaro, and his wife, Sarah Triscaro. 

Mr. Kennedy. Whose wife? 

Mr. Sheridan. Louis Triscaro's wife, Sarah Triscaro, and his 
brother, Joseph Triscaro. 

Mr. Kennedy. Does this Shaker Co. have a contract with the 
Teamsters Union ? Do you know that ? 

Mr. Sheridan. The Shaker Co. does not have a contract. They 
had a contract in 1951, and there was a supplementary contract in 
1952. Since that day there has been no contract. 

The Chairman. Previously there has been a collective bargaining 
contract between this local 436 and the Shaker Sand Co. ? 

Mr. Sherddan. Yes, there has been. This would be between Louis 
Triscaro, representing local 436, and his brother, representing the 
Shaker Co. 

The Chaikman. When was the extension of that contract? When 
did it expire ? 

Mr. Sherddan. May 1952. 

The Chairman. There has been no contract since, so far as your 
records disclose ? 

Mr. Sherddan. That is right. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could I ask you, Mr. Triscaro, are those facts 
correct ? 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privileges under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. In answer to the chairman, you said you were inter- 
ested in the union members, or the employees. If that is correct, why 
hasn't this company that belongs to your brother — why do they not 
have a union contract, Mr. Triscaro ? 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privileges under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. How many employees does this Shaker Co. have? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. We haven't that information. 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privileges under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Are you taking this $10,000 a year from that com- 
pany to protect it from being organized ? 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privileges under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. If you are doing that, wouldn't you regard it as 
doubledealing with your members? 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privileges under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15139 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman. 

The. Chairman. Senator Ives. 

Senator Ives. I would like to ask if the company is organized. That 
has not been established yet. 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privileges under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Senator Ives. Where in blazes name is that going to hurt you, to 
answer that question ? 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and as- 
sert—I honestly believe that if I am forced to answer the question I 
will be forced to be a witness against myself in violation of my rights 
under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Let us go to another company. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he receive any other income from that com- 
pany ? 

Mr. Mundie. No. In the year 1957, for the Pettibone Sand & 
Gravel Co. at Cleveland, Ohio, $4,675. 

The Chairman. How much? 

Mr. Mundie. $4,675. 

The Chairman. What is that listed as ? 

Mr. Mundie. Sand and gravel company, salary. 

The Chairman. Salary? 

Mr. Mundie. Wages. 

The Chairman. Salary or wages ? 

Mr. Mundee. Wages. 

The Chairman. The other was salary and this is wages ? 

Mr. Mundie. The other was wages, too. 

Mr. Sheridan. This company is also owned by his brother. 

Mr. Kennedy. Does it have a contract ? 

Mr. Mundie. They had a card index of it. On it there was no men- 
tion of a contract. But the business agent said there must have been 
an oral contract. 

The Chairman. What do you mean a card index ? What do you 
find that to be? 

Mr. Mundie. Well, of the contracts they had, they must have had 
five or six hundred that were brought out, and we looked through all 
of them for these particular contracts, and then we got an alphabetical 
list, and this company was listed in the card file. 

The Chairman. As one they had a contract with ? 

Mr. Mundie. Well, as one that the contract was mailed to, but they 
had no notation that it was sent back to them. 

The Chairman. A contract had been mailed to them ? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

The Chairman. But there was no indication in their records, the 
records of the local, that the contract was ever executed and returned ? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Mundie. From the Valley Slag Co., wages, $6,625. In addition, 
he received a $10,000 dividend. 

Mr. Kennedy. Pie received wages and a dividend from that com- 
pany? 



15140 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you a financial interest in that company? 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privileges under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Senator Ives. Is that company organized ? 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privileges under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. What do you find from the local's records with 
respect to that company as to whether it is organized or not? 

Mr. Mundie. We didn't find anything in regard to that. Only that 
the ownership was there. 

The Chairman. Speak a little louder. 

Mr. Mundie. We didn't find anything in regard to that. There was 
no contract for Valley. 

The Chairman. What I am trying to understand, and we have had 
this before, is if unionism is such a grand thing for the working peo- 
ple, and the leaders and officers of the union are dedicated to the 
welfare of working people, why should they have a company that is 
unwilling or fails to do some collective bargaining? They go out 
and picket other people to make them join, and yet they have their 
companies, drawing big money from them and protect themselves 
from the benefits and welfare of unionism to the men. In other words, 
this is just an exploitation. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman, in that connection, I think you might 
have a conflict of interest there, if they organize their companies with 
their own unions. In my judgment, and I am not a lawyer, you know, 
it seems to me that they ought to get out of the union leadership and 
run their companies, if that is what they are going to do. They 
haven't any business doing both. 

The Chairman. Let us proceed. 

Senator Church. Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Senator Church. 

Senator Church. Before we proceed further, what is the ownership 
of the Valley Slag Co.? 

Mr. Sheridan. The Valley Slag Co. was also owned by Mr. Tris- 
caro's brother Joseph and his wife Sarah. 

Senator Church. When you say his wife, are you talking about the 
wife of this witness ? 

Mr. Sheridan. The wife of the witness ; yes. 

Senator Church. That has been true in the case of each of the other 
companies you mentioned ? 

Mr. Sheridan. That is right, sir. 

Senator Church. Was this a joint income-tax return that you are 
referring to, and from which you are testifying? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

Senator Church. It is possible that the dividend of $10,000 in this 
case might refer to the wife's interest in the company ? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Go to the next company. 

Mr. Mundie. For part of the year, from the Eagle Trucking Co., 
he received wages in the amount of $1,860. This company was sold in 
the year 1957— 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15141 

Mr. Kennedy. Who is that company supposedly owned by ? 

Mr. Mundie. It belonged to Mr. Joseph Triscaro, and Louis' wife 
Sarah. It was sold in the year 1957 for $54,000. According to this 
copy of the tax return, his cost in the year 1953 was $500. 

The Chairman. His what ? 

Mr. Mundie. It was $500. He shows a capital gain in the amount 
of $53,500. 

Mr. Kennedy. This was all declared by Mr. Triscaro? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct, 

Mr. Kennedy. The sale of this trucking company was declared on 
Mr. Triscaro's and his wife's income tax ? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct, 

Mr. Kennedy. It was purchased for $500 and sold for how much ? 

Mr. Mundie. In the year 1953 and sold for $54,000 in the year 1957. 

Mr. Kennedy. So from the income tax records alone it would in- 
dicate that Mr. Louis Triscaro and his wife owned the trucking 
company ? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. They also have a contract for the 
Eagle Trucking Co. which runs for 3 years. It was dated July 15, 
1956, and it is an agreement from May 1, 1956, to May 1, 1959. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who is that contract signed by ? 

Mr. Mundie. This contract was signed by Mr. N. Louis Triscaro, as 
president of local 436, and the Eagle Trucking Co. by Bill Triscaro. 

Mr. Kennedy. His brother ? 

Mr. Mundie. His brother. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Louis Triscaro, according to his own income tax 
returns, as a representative of the union, was signing a contract with 
the company that he owned ? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Are there any other companies ? 

Mr. Mundie. That is all. 

The Chairman. Are there any questions ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that the total of the income ? 

Mr. Mundie. Yes, that is the total. 

The Chairman. You have $132,000 income there. This only adds 
up to about thirty-some-odd thousand. 

Mr. Mundie. He received $30,850 from local 436. 

The Chairman. Thirty thousand what ? 

Mr. Mundie. $850. 

The Chairman. Is that salary ? 

Mr. Mundie. That is wages. 

The Chairman. All wages? 

Mr. Mundie. Yes, sir. 

Senator Church. This witness received that much in 1957 from a 
local ? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. Of course, he has convention allow- 
ance of $1,812.82; expense allowance of $4,350; Ohio Conference of 
Teamsters, $560. 

Senator Church. So this represents salary and allowances for the 
year? 

Mr. Mundie. No, the allowances, the convention allowance, expense 
allowance, and the Ohio Conference of Teamsters allowance, was 
taken off at the bottom. 



15142 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Church. How much was the salary alone ( 

Mr. Mundie. The salary is $30,850. 

The Chairman. He got all of this other in addition to the salary? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct, 

Mr. Kennedy. Plus his regular expenses ? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. How could you get all of that money running the 
union and get the rest of the money running your trucking company, 
Mr. Triscaro ? 

Mr. Teiscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert, my privileges under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you see anything improper or wrong in this 
operation, Mr. Triscaro? 

Air. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privileges under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have one other very serious matter, Mr. Chair- 
man, that I would like to go into with Mr. Triscaro. 

The Chairman. I hand you a photostatic copy of a check dated 
August 22, 1958, in the amount of $1,500, issued by the Ohio Con- 
ference of Teamsters to Komade of Cleveland. I ask you to examine 
this check and state if you identify it, please, sir. 

(Document was handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privileges under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Who obtained this check from the file? 

Mr. Sheridan, did you obtain this check that I have just presented 
to the witness, from the records of the union ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes. I obtained the check from the records of the 
Ohio Conference of Teamsters. 

The Chairman. That check may be made exhibit No. 182. 

(The check referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 182" for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 15348.) 

Air. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I would like to call Mr. Sheridan to 
trace this check and what happened to it. 

Mr. Triscaro, this $1,500 check was used for you, was it not ? 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privileges under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Air. Kennedy. You made a personal purchase with it, did you not, 
$1,500 of union funds ? 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert, my privileges under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Sheridan. This check, which was signed by Mr. Presser, as 
president of the Ohio Conference of Teamsters, and Air. Pfeiffer, the 
secretary-treasurer, is made out to Romade of Cleveland. Romade of 
Cleveland is an awning and storm window corporation in Cleveland. 
This check was given by Air. Triscaro to the Romade of Cleveland 
Co., in partial payment for awnings for his new house which he has 
just finished building. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15143 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the cost of that new house, Mr. Triscaro? 

Mr. Tkiscaeo. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privileges under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do we have the cost of the house, approximately? 

Mr. Sheridan. The cost of the house has been reported to be $(50,000. 

The Chairman. How mueh? 

Mr. Sheridan. $60,000. 

The Chairman. Why do you think these union boys who work and 
pay their dues ought to buy you awnings ? 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privileges under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Don't you think taking their money for that pur- 
pose, if you take it without their knowledge and approval is, in effect, 
stealing it? 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privileges under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Senator Church. Mr. Triscaro, has the membership of your local 
ever voted you or otherwise authorized the payment to you of $30,000 
a year in salary? 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privileges under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you trace that check through and tell us 
what the stub says? 

Mr. Sheridan. On the check stub it says "Gift" and then the initials 
"L.T." and "per Presser." 

The Chairman. For who ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Presser. That would refer to William Presser, the 
president of the Ohio Conference of Teamsters. 

The Chairman. It is marked "gift" ? 

Mr. Sheridan. It is marked "Gift. L.T., per Presser." 

The Chairman. "Gift, L.T., per Presser" ? 

Mr. Sheridan. "Per Presser." The union books charged this 
amount off to donations and gifts. The check 

The Chairman. They did actually charge it correctly. 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes. 

The Chairman. Well, I wanted to give them credit for it, 

Mr. Sheridan. The check was dated August 22, and used, as I say, 
in partial payment of the awnings on August 25. The check was 
taken to Komade of Cleveland Co., by Mr. Triscaro. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have an affidavit here from Romade? 

Mr. Sheridan. We don't have an affidavit. We have a signed state- 
ment from one of the partners of Romade of Cleveland, saying that 
Mr. Triscaro stopped into there August 25, 1958, and gave them a 
check in the amount of $1,500, in partial payment of the awnings. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there any authorization in the minutes for 
Mr. Presser to give away $1,500 of union funds to another union 
official? 

Mr. Sheridan. I saw no such authorization. 

21243— 59— pt. 40 14 



15144 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. This was just one union official giving $1,500 of 
union funds to another union official ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you search the minutes ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes, I did, Senator. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you explain that to us, Mr. Triscaro ? 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privileges under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you make a practice of giving gifts to one an- 
other of Teamster Union funds, you and Mr. Presser? 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privileges under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Triscaro, you had a testimonial dinner on 
June 9, 1956, did you not ? 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my priviledges under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that testimonial dinner on your behalf — at 
that, the principal speaker was Mr. James K. Hoffa, was he not? 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my priviledges under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are a close associate of Mr. Hoffa and have 
been for a number of years, Mr. Triscaro ? 

Mr. Triscaro. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privileges under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

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

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

If not, stand aside for the present. You will remain here. You 
may be recalled. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Presser. 

The Chairman. Come forward, Mr. Presser. 

Will you be sworn. 

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

Mr. Presser. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM PRESSER, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
BELFORD LAWSON 

The Chairman. State your name — are you now ready to proceed? 

Mr. Presser. Yes, sir. 

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

Mr. Presser. My name is William Presser. I live at 2525 Clover 
Road, University Heights, Ohio. 

The Chairman. And you work for wages, do you ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15145 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. What is your business or occupation ? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Will you answer any questions that may be asked 
you '. 

( The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Presser. I will have to know what the question is first, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you have a lawyer? 

Mr. Presser. Yes ; I do. 

The Chairman. Let the record show the same counsel appears for 
this witness as appeared for the previous witness. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Presser. Mr. Chairman, I had no notice of being present here 
this morning. My counsel would have been Mr. Robert Nee. How- 
ever, I feel that Mr. Lawson is fully as competent. Therefore, Mr. 
Lawson is my counsel. 

The Chairman. If your other attorney was here, would you take 
the fifth amendment? If not, if you will agree to testify, I will post- 
pone hearing you until you could get him here. 

Mr. Presser. I would have to know the questions, sir. 

The Chairman. The questions will pertain to your stewardship of 
the labor organization of which you are an official. 

Mr. Presser. I would have to know the, specific questions, sir. 

The Chairman. All right, I will ask you one. 

Are you willing to give an accounting to the membership of your 
union for the handling of its affairs, financial and otherwise? 

( The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. That is a question. 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Would you tell them what you have done with 
their money ? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Would you answer those questions if your other 
counsel was present? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the Constitution of 
the Ignited States not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Well, 1 do not think it makes any difference 
whether the other counsel is present, or not. 

Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Presser, you were born in Cleveland, Ohio, in 
1907 ; is that correct? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and as- 
sert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 



15146 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. The fact that you were born, somewhere, sometime, 
would not tend to incriminate you ; would it? 

Mr. Presser. I honestly believe that if I am forced to answer the 
question, I would be forced to be a witness against myself in violation 
of my rights under the fifth amendment of the United States Consti- 
tution. 

The Chairman. Let the record show that except for his testimony 
here, there is no other evidence to the effect that he was ever born. 

Senator Ives. I think on this last question he told an actual and 
absolute truth. I do not think there is any question about it. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Presser, you have been active in union affairs 
since the 1940's; have you? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and as- 
sert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the Constitution of 
the United States not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were an official of the IBW as well as the 
Teamsters ; were you not ? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and as- 
sert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. During the same time that you have been an official 
of the union, you have also been associated with various businesses; 
is that correct? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and as- 
sert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Your primary interest has been in the coin operating 
machine business? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and as- 
sert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have been involved, during the 1940's, with 
Jimmy James, setting up jukebox companies in the Midwest, at the 
same time you were operating a union : is that correct ? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and as- 
sert my privilege under the" fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Mr. Counsel, this witness says he cannot tell you 
whether he is a member of a union or has anything to do with a 
union without incriminating himself. 

Would you tell us what information we have as to his union con- 
nections? 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Presser was indicted with 
John Nardi 

The Chairman. First, give me the other information. 

Mr. Kennedy. Back in 1951. At that time, or about that time, he 
received a Teamster charter. He was organizing jukebox employers. 

In 1933, there was a testimonial dinner in Presser's name attended 
by Mr. Beck and Mr. Hoffa, and at that time 

Senator Ives. May I ask, on that indictment was he convicted ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, Senator. He pleaded nolo contendere and re- 
ceived a fine. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15147 

Senator Ives. Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy. So he was made president of joint council 41, a po- 
sition he holds at the present time in Ohio. 

So he is the top union official in the Teamsters in Ohio. 

He is also president of the Ohio conference. He is president of 
local 555, of the Teamsters. 

He is president of the national over-the-road conference of Team- 
sters. 

He is president of the Teamsters yearbook. He is trustee of several 
Teamster welfare funds. He is the administrator of Baker Drivers 
Local 114, Cincinnati. 

He is vice president of the Cleveland Federation of Labor. 

Those are the positions that we understand he holds. 

The Chairman. Is there any error in that summary of the posi- 
tions you hold? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and assert 
my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States Consti- 
tution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. We would not want to make any statement that 
might tend to incriminate you, any erroneous statement. 

I thought you might clarify that for us. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and as- 
sert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States Con- 
stitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Shall I repeat them again ? 

President of joint council 41 

Mr. Presser. Mr. Chairman, I heard them the first time. 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to make sure I have them. 

The Chairman. The committee is not doing this for your benefit. 

Mr. Kennedy. President of joint council 41, national over-the- 
road conference 

I am not sure exactly what that is — the Ohio Conference of Team- 
sters; the Teamsters Yearbook, Local 555 of the Taxicab Drivers, trus- 
tee of the several Teamsters welfare funds, and administrator of 
Baker Drivers Local 114. 

He still holds, as we understand, the position of vice president of 
the Cleveland Federation of Labor. 

The Chairman. What is this administrator of local 114? What 
position is that? Is that what you said, administrator of local 114? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is a trusteeship. 

The Chairman. He is trustee of it ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. 

We understand, Mr. Presser, that you have an association with a 
number of the important criminal elements in Ohio. Is that correct? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and as- 
sert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that would include Mr. John Scalish, would it 
not, who attended the meeting in the Appalachians ? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and as- 
sert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 



15148 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. You have given jobs, have you not, as union officials 
to three of your brothers-in-law, all of whom have criminal records, 
is that right? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and as- 
sert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. That would include Mr. Harry Friedman, Mr. Jo- 
seph Friedman, and Mr. Allen Friedman, is that right, who have held 
union positions under you at various times ? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and as- 
sert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is your son, Jack, also a Teamster official now ? He 
was an official of another union. Is he now with the Teamsters' 
Union ? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and as- 
sert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us how much dues are paid for the 
various members of the jukebox local, Mr. Presser? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and as- 
sert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could I, Mr. Chairman, just call a witness in con- 
nection with this matter? I have a few questions I want to ask. 

The Chairman. Have you been sworn ? 

Mr. Kaplan. Not in this hearing. 

The Chairman. You do solemnly swear the evidence you shall give 
before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Kaplan. I do, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF ARTHUR G. KAPLAN 

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

Mr. Kaplan. My name is Arthur Kaplan. I am a staff member of 
the committee. I reside in Portland, Oreg. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. You made a study of the juke box situation through- 
out the United States, did you not, Mr. Kaplan ? 

Mr. Kaplan. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. On behalf of this committee ? 

Mr. Kaplan. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell the committee what the arrange- 
ments are as far as the payments to the union in the area that Mr. 
Presser controls ? 

Mr. Kaplan. Yes, sir. The basic dues structure is a $5 per month 
dues per union member, and then in addition a dollar per month per 
machine each union member services during that month. This assess- 
ment, this additional amount, is termed an assessment. 

Mr. Kennedy. So how much do they receive on the average ? 

Mr. Kaplan. This approximates dues of $50 per month per man. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15149 

The Chairman. $50 per month per man ? 

Mr. Kaplan. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. They pay $5 dues ? 

Mr. Kaplan. Yes. 

The Chairman. Then whenever a man goes around to the machine, 
that extra dollar is added ? 

Mr. Kaplan. Well, yes, sir. A man is supposed to service a certain 
number of machines. 

The Chairman. In other words, they have one man, he is a union 
member, and he services these slot machines ? 

Mr. Kaplan. Music machines or vending machines, sir. 

The Chairman. Well, whatever they are, vending machines. 

Mr. Kaplan. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. He is supposed to service them. That is, keep them 
in working order? 

Mr. Kaplan. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. He may service 25, 30, or 40 — one man ? 

Mr. Kaplan. Well, usually they will service about 45 to 50. 

The Chairman. Well, whatever the number is. 

Mr. Kaplan. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Who pays that $1 for each machine ? the man who 
actually services the machine or does the owner have to pay it? 

Mr. Kaplan. The dues are paid by a checkoff system, but it is 
alleged to be a payment by the man. It is an assessment on the union 
member. 

The Chairman. But who pays it, the owner of the machine or 

Mr. Kaplan. Well, in effect, the owner of the machine pays it, be- 
cause every time there is an increase in dues or any change in the wage 
structure, the total wage is so computed so that it takes care of the 
difference. In other words, it actually does come out of the employer. 

The Chairman. It finally comes out of the employer ? 

Mr. Kaplan. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And the whole amount, the $5 dues that the mem- 
ber himself pays, the working man, plus a dollar for each machine, 
plus a dollar a month for each machine he services, all of that money 
goes into the treasury or goes into this local union ? 

Mr. Kaplan. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Kaplan. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. So it averages about $50 per month per man that 
services the machine ? 

Mr. Kaplan. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That would include people in the union that were 
doing some other kind of work ? 

Mr. Kaplan. Well, in the particular union to which Mr. Kennedy 
has referred, all of those people do only that kind of work, sir, almost 
exclusively. There are some few that do not. Some few are called 
inside mechanics, but the great majority of the members do that kind 
of work, sir. 

The Chairman. Well, that is a pretty lucrative enterprise for the 
local. 

Mr. Kaplan. In Cleveland and in most other places. 



15150 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Is there any benefit as far as the wages are con- 
cerned for the employees ? 

Mr. Kaplan. None that have been ascertained yet. 

Mr. Kennedy. You mean they ordinarily would receive higher 
wages? 

Mr. Kaplan. Well, in actual effect they do receive higher wages. 
The contract scale has always been discovered to be below what these 
men are actually making. That is, they are assured of making less 
by the union than they actually do make for other reasons, which are 
primarily that the employer himself is concerned with having honest 
servicemen, that the labor cost is a relatively small part of his business, 
so it pays to pay them a little bit more than comparable work in other 
industries, and so forth. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it a fact that many of these locals, and particu- 
larly this local we are talking about, sets up and operates as an arm 
of the employers ? 

Mr. Kaplan. Well, this local, as well as most others, in fact, appear 
to have been set up by the concurrence of the employer, and the 
amount of money that actually funnels oil' from the employer is a 
payment for the privilege of forcing a trade monopoly in the city of 
Cleveland. 

The Chairman. How was that? 

Mr. Kaplan. Well, I say it is a payment for receiving the means 
or the enforcement machinery to enforce a trade monopoly on behalf 
of the employer. 

The Chairman. In other words, these owners that are in this 
arrangement here get protection from the union against anyone else 
going into the business ; is that it ? 

Mr. Kaplan. Precisely. 

The Chairman. In other words, this is a part of the payment that 
the local gets for enforcing unionism and controlling the number of 
machines ? 

Mr. Kaplan. As a matter of fact, they have clone it so effectively, 
both this Teamster local and its predecessor, local 442 of the BEW, 
which Mr. Presser also formed, that they have been the mecca for all 
of the employer associations through the country who, over the past 
almost 20 years, have wanted to set up a similar type of arrange- 
ment. They have all come up to Cleveland to find out how to do it. 

On one occasion Mr. Presser went down to Detroit to show them 
how to do it. That is when Jimmy James went into the jukebox 
business. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he get paid for it ? 

Mr. Kaplan. Did Mr. Presser get paid for it ? Yes, sir. 

Senator Ives. Is there any collective-bargaining agreement in con- 
nection with this activity I 

Mr. Kaplan. Well, the collective-bargaining agreement or a so- 
called labor contract is entered into 

Senator Ives. It is the same principle? 

Mr. Kaplan. Yes, sir — entered into very regularly. I think in this 
particular case it is a 3-year contract or it is a 2-year contract that 
renews itself automatically. 

The Chairman. What happens when someone undertakes to go into 
the business that does not join ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15151 

Mr. Kaplan. Well, usually he, does not stay in the business very 
long because most of these machines are placed in taverns and restau- 
rants and places that today are very dependent upon Teamster 
delivery. 

Today it is not even necessary to put out a picket. All they have 
to do is put out the word to the beer driver, the milk driver, or the 
bread driver, to not deliver. Since the operator is dependent upon 
the storekeeper or so-called location owner, he has no recourse to 
the storekeeper, because to the storekeeper, who is being boycotted, 
the machine is relatively of small significance in his total business. 

The Chairman. To have the machine, he has to join ? 

Mr. Kaplan. That is right. 

The Chairman. And they control whether he joins or not? 

Mr. Kaplan. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Presser, through the years, has been one of 
the foremost organizers in this regard ? 

Mr. Kaplan. Well, he shows great organizing genius. 

Mr. Kennedy. In connection with what you described? 

Mr. Kaplan. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. These are top-down contracts, are they not? The 
employees are not consulted ? 

Mr. Kaplan. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. From an examination of Mr. Presser's contracts, 
do we find that the employees are not consulted, that these are con- 
tracts with the employers that actually bring the employees into the 
union? 

Mr. Kaplan. Yes, sir. What actually happens is that the em- 
ployers form an association and then sign a master contract with 
the union, and thereby unionize their employees. We have never 
found a single instance — there may be some, but we have not ever 
seen one — where it is operated in any other way, or where the union- 
ization has taken place as a result of employee pressure to unionize. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us about that, Mr. Presser, if that is 
how you operated ? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the U.S. Constitu- 
tion not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are not interested in the employees, Mr. Pres- 
ser, you are just interested in getting the money in ; isn't that correct? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the U.S. Constitu- 
tion not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have something else? 

Mr. Kaplan. I might mention that m Cleveland itself, Mr. Pres- 
ser has also worked directly for this very association at one period 
of time. He was actually on their payroll. 

The Chairman. During the time he headed the union? 

Mr. Kaplan. No, sir. Purportedly he was not in the union at the 
time, although we have never been able to ascertain whether or not he 
actually had resigned from the union during this period. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, at a later time we will be going into 
Mr. Presser's activities in far more detail. But we had wanted to get 
the books and records of Mr. Presser. We served a subpena on him 



15152 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

for his own personal books and records and also for the records of 
the unions under his control. That is a matter we are going to go 
into right now. I would like to ask him some questions about 
whether any of the records have been destroyed. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Presser, you were served with a subpena on the 23d day of 
March 1958, to produce your personal financial records for the period 
of January 1, 1949, to date, including canceled checks, check stubs, 
deposit slips, bank statements, records of loans, securities, insurance 
policies, and income tax returns, together with records of all business 
or enterprises in which you have had an interest. 

Have you complied with that subpena ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Who can testify from the staff on whether this 
subpena has been complied with ? 

Mr. Sheridan, did you serve this subpena ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes, I did, Senator. 

The Chairman. Has the witness complied with it ? 

First, are you now ready to comply with the subpena ? 

Mr. Presser. Pardon me, sir. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Presser. I have complied to the best of my ability. 

The Chairman. What have you done in compliance with it \ 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Presser. May I have the question again, sir ? 

The Chairman. What have you done? You said you have com- 
plied to the best of your ability. What have you done in compliance ? 

Mr. Presser. I have made available all records I could get to- 
gether. 

The Chairman. What is the status of it, Mr. Sheridan, with re- 
spect to his compliance ? What records has he delivered ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Mr. Presser has delivered a bankbook covering a 
checking account at the Cleveland Trust Co. from October 12, 1951, 
to March 1, 1958. This is a bankbook and not canceled checks, or 
check stubs. He has furnished 10 life insurance policies. 

The Chairman. Furnished what? 

Mr. Sheridan. Ten life insurance policies, and his income tax 
returns for the years 1943, 1955, and 1956. He has furnished no 
canceled checks, no check stubs, no bank statements, and no other 
financial records. 

The Chairman. You said you had complied to the best of your 
ability. Have you delivered to the committee all of the records 
called for here that were in your possession or under your control 
and available to you at the time the subpena was served ? 

Mr. Presser. I have delivered to the committee everything I had 
available and could lay my hands on. 

The Chairman. At the time the subpena was served ? 

Mr. Presser. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You have destroyed no records since then ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15153 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Now, then, you said you had complied to the best 
of your ability. The best of your ability would be to deliver records, 
produce them as ordered by the subpena, such records as you had, and 
not destroy them. 

I ask you the question again : Have you destroyed any of the records 
called for by this subpena? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and as- 
sert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States Con- 
stitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. You are ordered, with the permission of the com- 
mittee the Chair orders and directs you to answer that question. 

Mr. Presser. I honestly believe that if I am forced to answer the 
question I will be forced to be a witness against myself in violation of 
my rights under the fifth amendment of the United States Consti- 
tution. 

The Chairman. You have already testified that you have complied 
with the subpena to the best of your ability. This tests the truthful- 
ness of that statement. For that reason and the committee desires to 
ascertain whether you have complied according to the best of your 
ability, or whether you have made that statement falsely and, instead, 
destroyed records that the subpena called upon you to produce. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and as- 
sert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. You are ordered and directed to answer the ques- 
tion, with the approval of the committee. 

Mr. Presser. I honestly believe that if I am forced to answer the 
question I will be forced to be a witness against myself in violation of 
my rights under the fifth amendment of the United States Consti- 
tution. 

The Chairman. That is a continuing order. You will return at 2 
o'clock this afternoon and will be further interrogated about it. 

The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. 

(Thereupon, at 12 : 30 p.m. the committee was recessed, to reconvene 
at 2 p.m. the same day.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

The committee reconvened at 2 p.m., upon the expiration of the 
recess. 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

(Committee members present in the hearing room: Senators Mc- 
Clellan, Church, and Ives. ) 

The Chairman. Will you return, Mr. Presser ? 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM PRESSER, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
BELFORD LAWSON— Resumed 

The Chairman. When we recessed, Mr. Presser, at noon, the Chair 
was interrogating you about compliance with the subpena. 



15154 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

I hand you here a copy of the subpena and ask you to examine it 
and identify it, please. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

The Chairman. Is that the subpena you received from the com- 
mittee, a copy of it? 

Mr. Presser. I believe it is ; it looks like it. 

The Chairman. That subpena may be printed in the record at this 
point together with the return thereon of the serving officer. 

(The subpena referred to follows :) 

United States of America 
Congress of the United States 
To "William Presser, Cleveland, Ohio, Greeting: 

Pursuant to lawful authority, you are hereby commanded to appear before 
the Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Management 

Field of the Senate of the United States, on Forthwith, 195__, at o'clock 

m., at their committee room, Room 101, Senate Office Building, Washing- 
ton, D.C., then and there to testify what you may know relative to the subject 
matters under consideration by said committee, and produce your personal finan- 
cial records for the period January 1, 1949, to date including cancelled checks, 
check stubs, deposit slips, bank statements, records of loans, securities, insur- 
ance policies and income tax returns, together with records of all businesses or 
enterprises in which you have or have had an interest. 

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

To 

to serve and return. 

Given under my hand, by order of the committee, this 19th day of March, in 
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and fifty-eight. 

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

The Chairman. You are familiar with the records the subpena 
called for, are you, Mr. Presser ? 

Mr. Presser. I read the subpena and I think I understand what it 
said. 

The Chairman. You have that information. The Chair asked you 
before we recessed, after you had stated that you had complied with 
the subpena to the best of your ability, whether all of the records called 
for in the subpena that were in your possession, control, or available 
to you at the time the subpena was served, which was on the 23d day 
of March 1958, whether any of those records had been destroyed by 
you since the subpena was served. 

The Chair, with the permission of the committee, had ordered and 
directed you to answer that question after you had invoked the fifth 
amendment. That order still stands. 

Are you now willing to obey the orders of the committee and answer 
the question ? 

Mr. Presser. I honestly believe that if I am forced to answer the 
question, I will be forced to be a witness against myself in violation 
of my rights under the fifth amendment of the United States Con- 
stitution. 

The Chairman. Well, I do not know whether you are committing 
perjury, or whether you are defying the committee and committing 
yourself to contempt of the U.S. Senate. There is hardly any other 
alternative. You are doing one of the two because 3^011 swore under 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15155 

oath that you had complied with the subpena to the best of your 
ability. 

Now, if you have delivered all of the records to the committee that 
the subpena calls for that were within your power and your control 
or your possession or that were available to you at the time the sub- 
pena was served, then your statement that you have complied to the 
best of your ability would be a truthful statement. 

If, on the other hand, you have not delivered the records that were 
available to you and in your control or possession, but have destroyed 
them or any part of them since the subpena was served on you, then 
in my judgment you definitely would be in contempt of the U.S. 
Senate. 

I am trying to let you take your choice which road you want to 
travel. I have no alternative except to recommend to this committee 
an action of contempt against you if you now refuse to answer the 
question as to whether you destroyed any of these records. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. You may consult with your counsel. 

The Witness. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Presser, you have had the benefit of 
counsel and you have heard the admonition of the Chair on behalf 
of the committee. 

You may now proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Sheridan. We have subpenaed the records of Mr. Presser's 
local, as well as the joint council and various other Teamster locals. 

The Chairman. Do you have that subpena ? 

Mr. Sheridan. We don't have it here, Senator. It is downstairs. 

The Chairman. Let us have that subpena, please, and I want to in- 
terrogate the witness about that subpena. 

In the meantime, Counsel, you may proceed, but I want to further 
interrogate this witness about the subpena of the locals' records. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, prior to interrogating Mr. Sheridan 
about what we have found in connection with the records, I would 
like to read from this copy of the quarterly conference meeting of the 
Ohio Conference of Teamsters, Saturday, November 13, 1954, at 10 : 30 
a.m., Commodore Perry Hotel, Toledo, Ohio. 

The Chairman. What are you reading from ? 

Mr. Kennedy. This is from the conference minutes of that meeting. 

The Chairman. Let the witness identify the minutes. 

Mr. Sheridan, do you identify those minutes? 

TESTIMONY OF WALTER SHERIDAN— Resumed 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes ; I do. 

The Chairman. How were they procured — from where ? 

Mr. Sheridan. They were procured in Cincinnati, Ohio, from the 
records of Local 100 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. 

The Chairman. Are they a part of the records and documents you 
procured under subpena from that local ? 

Mr. Sheridan. This particular local, yes. It was under subpena, 
and we did obtain these. 



15156 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. They were obtained under process of subpena? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 183. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit 183" for reference and 
may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. Now, you may read from it, 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Presser is talking to the meeting, 
and he is talking about the recent investigation that has been made 
of him by a committee of the House of Representatives. 

The Chairman. We a 
and what is the date of it ' 

Mr. Kennedy. The meeting is November 13, 1954. For instance, 
he states that : 

Certain teamsters in the State of Ohio were used for political purposes. I 
was one of them. It was pretty rough and a rotten time. I am happy to say 
that the hearings, as far as the people involved in the hearings in Washington 
and Cleveland, are over. Of the people that were involved, not a single one was 
indicted for anything — no one was cited for any contempts — no perjuries— 
which just bears out the fact, fellows, again, that when you maintain a position 
where politicians and people in public life can take a whack at you, you have to 
stand there and take it, and be big enough to understand that the press of our 
Nation, in its interest to gather news, and give it to the public, does not have 
time, nor take the necessary precautions, to always speak the truth. 

Then in another case there is the following quotation : 

I am going to stick my neck out by saying this : I don't know how to say it, 
but I have to say something. There is no Federal law on the statute books that 
states that a labor organization has to keep books and records beyond its audit 
period. Under the law, it is a misdemeanor if you don't have those books. 
Take it for what it is worth. That goes especially for those so-called clean 
organizations that never did anything wrong in their entire existence, because 
you are going to find, if you took $5 and used it for the benefit of one of your 
members, with the consent of the executive board, and the consent of the mem- 
bership, someone will get indicted, as they indicted a business agent in one of 
our big cities yesterday — only $5 — the board approved the action. 

The Chairman. The whole minutes are made an exhibit, and so 
you may read excerpts from it. 

Mr. Kennedy. I was just wondering in connection with that, Mr. 
Presser, how did you know that there were not going to be any fur- 
ther hearings of that committee ? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Over here on page 3, it states : 

I am going to stick my neck out by saying — 

and this is the part 

The Chairman. This is Mr. Presser still talking? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes; and it is in connection with these documents 
that I would like to bring out : 

I don't know how to say it but I have to say something. There is no Federal 
law on the statute books that states that a labor organization has to keep books 
and records beyond its audit period. Under the law, it is a misdemeanor if you 
don't have those books. Take it for what it is worth. That goes especially 
for those so-called clean organizations that never did anything wrong in their 
entire existence, because you are going to find, if you took $5 and used it for 
the benefit of one of your members, with the consent of the executive board, and 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15157 

the consent of the membership, someone will get indicted, as they indicted a 
business agent in one of our big cities yesterday — only $5 — the board approved 
the action. 

Now, what I would like to ask you about, Mr. Presser, is this : Were 
you or weren't you suggesting at that time that there be a destruction 
of the records in the various locals in the Ohio area? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why else did you point out to them that there was 
no crime to destroy books and records, or not to keep books and 
records beyond a certain period ? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and as- 
sert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now I would like to ask Mr. Sheridan what we have 
found as to what books and records were available in the various 
units under Mr. Preiser's control. 

Mr. Sheridan. We have subpenaed the records of several locals in 
the Cleveland area, and just running down the list, local 436, which 
is Mr. Triscaro's local, there was nothing in the cashbooks and there 
were no records prior to January of 1954. Canceled checks and check 
stubs, nothing prior to January 1955. Minutes of meetings, nothing- 
prior to January of 1955. Bank statements, nothing prior to January 
of 1954. 

Local 555, which is Mr. Presser's local, the daybooks, there was 
nothing prior to July of 1954, and the other records were complete 
in local 555. 

The National Over the Road Conference, nothing prior to April of 
1955, as far as canceled checks and check stubs went, and the bank 
statements, nothing prior to January of 1955. 

Joint council 41, the cashbooks, nothing prior to January of 1954, 
and in 1954 we got the disbursements from joint council 41 which are 
ordinarily kept together with receipts, but we did not get the receipts 
and we haven't been able to locate those. Canceled checks, nothing 
prior to January of 1954. Payroll records, nothing prior to January 
of 1956. And the payroll records, I am not certain about that. 

The Chairman. What is that? 

Mr. Sheridan. I am not certain in the case of the payroll records, 
whether we actually asked them for payroll records prior to 1956. 

Joint council 41, retirement fund, the ledger sheets, nothing prior 
to May of 1954, and canceled checks, nothing. 

The Chairman. You mean the retirement fund records are not 
available ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Prior to May of 1954, as far as the ledger sheets 
and prior to November of 1955, canceled checks. There are no can- 
celed checks prior to November of 1955. 

Joint council 41 building association, cashbooks, nothing prior to 
July of 1954, and canceled checks, nothing prior to December of 1956. 
Bank statements, nothing prior to January of 1957. 

I will have to check that, The check stubs from January of 1955 
to December of 1956 were turned over to us on July 18, 1958. 



15158 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The joint council 41 welfare fund, there was nothing prior to Decem- 
ber of 1956, and bank statements, nothing prior to January of 1957. 

The Ohio Conference of Teamsters, we found that there were no 
records prior to January of 1957. 

Mr. Kennedy. These were the important ones ? 

Mr. Sheridan. These were important records ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the explanation for those? 

Mr. Sheridan. The explanation for that was that a Mr. Cozza, 
Michael Cozza, one of the attorneys for the Teamsters Union in 
Cleveland, had come to Columbus in 1956 and had taken the records 
to Cleveland, saying that the Internal Revenue Service wanted to look 
at the records. Now, we checked with the Internal Revenue Service 
and they said that they did ask Mr. Cozza to bring the records to 
Cleveland so they could check them, and, however, when they went to 
check them, Mr. Cozza informed them that he had sent the records 
back to Columbus, and the records never arrived in Columbus. 

Mr. Cozza claims the records were lost in the mail. 

Mr. Kennedy. So what records are missing for that unit ? 

Mr. Sheridan. All of the records prior to January of 1957. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were any of those records destroyed purposely, Mr. 
Presser ? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Sheridan. Excuse me, Mr. Counsel. It was January 1956. 
All 7-ecords prior to January 1956. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they were the ones that were supposed to have 
been sent in the mail but never arrived at their destination ( 

Mr. Sheridan. That is correct. In addition to that, I might point 
out that when we went over to go through the correspondence files of 
the joint council 41, we were informed — as Ave were going through the 
files we noticed there was very little correspondence prior to 1957-58. 
So I asked the secretary in the office what had happened to the previ- 
ous correspondence, and she told me that they had been taken with the 
other records subpenaed by the committee, and had been delivered 
with those records. Those records were not received by us. Mr. 
Cozza says he does not have them, and they are also missing. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you tell us where they are, Mr. Presser ? 

Mr. Pressor. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Sheridan, do you know for a fact, from your 
review of the records, that any of the records were destroyed after 
the subpena was served on Mr. Presser ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes, sir ; I do. 

Mr. Kennedy. There were certain records that were destroyed '? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What records ? 

Mr. Sheridan. These are records of the joint council 41. 

The Chairman. Just a moment. 

Mr. Presser, are you president of joint council 41 ? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15159 

The Chairman. Is it a fact that he is the president of joint council 
41? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes, it is, sir. 

The Chairman. I present to you another subpena dated the 1st of 
April 1958, addressed to Joint Council 41, the International Brother- 
hood of Teamsters, Cleveland, Ohio. 

According to the return on it, it appears to have been served on you, 
Mr Presser, as president on the 3d day of April 1958. I ask you to 
examine that copy of the subpena and state if you identify it. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. You have examined the subpena, have you? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Presser. Yes, I have examined it. 

The Chairman. You identify it as the copy of the subpena served 
on you ? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and as- 
sert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. The subpena, together with the return thereon, will 
be printed in the record at this point. It shows to have been served by 
Mr. Paul Eiebesell. 

It may be printed in the record at this point. 

(The subpena referred to follows :) 

United States of America 

Congress of the United States 

To Joint Council No. 41, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Cleveland, 
Ohio, Greeting: 

Pursuant to lawful authority, you are hereby commanded to appear before 
the Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Manage- 
ment Field of the Senate of the United States, on Forthwith, 195__, at 

o'clock m., at their committee room, Room 101, Senate Office Building, 

Washington, D.C., then and there to testify what you may know relative to the 
subject matters under consideration by said committee, and produce all your 
records for the period January 1, 1949, to date, including cash receipts and 
disbursements books, ledgers, canceled checks, check stubs, daybooks, paid bills, 
records of loans, correspondence files, memoranda, payroll records, minutes of 
meetings, record of all bank accounts, opened and closed, relating to joint coun- 
cil No. 41 welfare records, building association records, special fund records and 
th" Teamsters yearbook. 

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

To to serve and return. 

Given under my hand, by order of the committee, this 1st day of April, in 
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and fifty-eight. 

/s/ John McCeellan, 
Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities 

in the Labor or Managciiu nt Field. 

Production of records in Washington, D.C., will be waived if they are made 
available in Cleveland, Ohio, forthwith. 

April 3, 1958, I made service of the within subpena by personal service 

the within-named president, William Presser, Joint Council No. 41, at 2070 East 

22d Street, Cleveland, Ohio at 3 : 40 o'clock p.m., on the 3d day of 

April 1958. 

/s/ Paul T. Riebesell. 

The Chairman. According to this subpena, it was served on you as 
president of Joint Council 41, International Brotherhood of Team- 

21243— 59— pt. 40 15 



151 GO IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

sters, Cleveland, Ohio, on the date shown on the return. By that sub- 
pena, you were ordered to produce all your records for the period Jan- 
uary 1, 1949, to date, including cash receipts and disbursement books, 
ledgers, canceled checks, check stubs, daybooks, paid bills, records of 
loans, correspondence files, memorandums, payroll records, minutes of 
meetings, records of all bank accounts opened and closed relating to 
joint council 41, welfare records, building association records, special 
fund records, and the Teamsters' year book. 

Have you complied with that subpena ? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and as- 
sert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. You are ordered and directed to answer the ques- 
tion whether or not you have produced or if you are now ready and 
prepared to produce the records called for by this subpena. 

Mr. Presser. I honestly believe that if I am forced to answer the 
question, I will be forced to be a witness against myself in violation 
of my rights under the fifth amendment of the United States Con- 
stitution. 

The Chairman. You understand, do you, we are asking for the 
records of a union, of a union organization, joint council 41, not your 
personal records in the subpena, but the records of the union, which 
do not belong to you but which belong to the organization ? 

You understand that ; do you ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Mr. Sheridan, to what extent has this subpena 
been complied with? 

Mr. Sheridan. By joint council 41 ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Sheridan. It has been complied with to this extent : Cash books 
have been provided for the years January 1954 to December 1957. 
Canceled checks from January 1954, to December 1957. Payroll 
records from January 1956 to December 1956. Cash disbursements 
for the year 1954. However, no cash receipts. There are other things 
mentioned in the subpena which include other organizations, such as 
joint council 41, I believe mentioned the building association. 

Do you want me to go through all of those ? 

The Chairman. The question is: Has this supena been complied 
with and these records produced as called for ? 

Mr. Sheridan. No ; it has not. 

The Chairman. I believe you have already stated some of these 
things. But there are a number of records in here that have not been 
produced ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Give me a list of those. 

Mr. Kennedy. If he could describe the circumstances, Mr. Chair- 
man, of receiving the records, and what occurred 

The Chairman. Well, let me get the list and then he can tell the 
circumstances, because I want to ask this witness about producing 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15161 

them. The subpena was served on him, and he is the president. They 
were certainly records within his control. 

Mr. Sheridan. Of joint council 41, cashbooks prior to 1954, can- 
celed checks prior to January 1954, payroll records prior to January 
1956, cash receipts for the entire year of 1954. That is all as far as 
joint council 41 goes. 

The Chairman. Do you mean those have been supplied? 

Mr. Sheridan. Those have not been supplied. 

The Chairman. I want to ask you about those, Mr. Presser. Were 
those records available, were they there under your control as presi- 
dent of this joint council 41 at the time this subpena was served on 
you? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. These are records belonging to the union and not 
to you personally. Therefore, the Chair, with the approval of the 
committee, orders and directs you to answer the question. 

Mr. Presser. I honestly believe that if- 1 am forced to answer the 
question I will be forced to be a witness against myself in violation of 
my rights under the fifth amendment of the United States Consti- 
tution. 

The Chairman. Have you delivered, pursuant to this subpena, all 
of the records it calls for that were within your possession, control, or 
available to you as president of the joint council 41 at the time the 
subpena was served on you ? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. I order and direct you to answer the question, with 
the approval of the committee. 

Mr. Presser. I honestly believe that if I am forced to answer the 
question I will be forced to be a witness against myself in violation of 
my rights under the fifth amendment oi the United States Consti- 
tution. 

The Chairman. As president of this joint council 41, have you 
complied with this subpena to the best of your ability ( 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Do you have in your possession, or have you had in 
your possession and control, and under your authority and jurisdic- 
tion since the service of this subpena, any records called for by it that 
you have not produced or that you are not now ready and willing to 
produce in compliance with the directions of the subpena ? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. With the permission of the committee and the 
approval of the members, you are ordered and directed to answer that 
question. 

Mr. Presser. I honestly believe that if I am forced to answer the 
question I will be forced to be a witness against myself in violation of 



15162 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

my rights under the fifth amendment of the United States Consti- 
f ut ion. 

The Chairman. You understand that it is the view of the Chair, at 
least, that a failure and refusal to answer these questions places you 
squarely in contempt of the I f.S. Senate, and it will be the duty of the 
Chair to recommend that action accordingly be taken by the commit- 
tee. Do you understand that? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. You can consult your attorney about it. I am try- 
ing to give you every admonition that I know that should be given to 
you under these circumstances. I don't want to take any advantage 
of the witness. 

I am trying my best to get an understanding of whether you are 
complying or refusing to comply with this subpena. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Lawson. Mr. Chairman, may I say this for the record : That 
there has been some confusion about representation of Mr. Presser. 
As has been indicated here, his chief counsel is a Mr. Nee of Dayton, 
Ohio, with whom I have not had the opportunity to consult. My 
understanding is that it was never Mr. Presser's intention to testify 
regarding certain records about which I know nothing, and as to 
which I am not in the proper position to advise him. 

The Chairman. You know the import of these questions, and you 
know whether he should answer or not. That is, you can exercise 
your judgment as a lawyer to tell him whether he should or should 
not. Here is a legal document issued under the authority of the U.S. 
Senate, calling for the production of certain records. I am simply 
trying to ascertain whether he has complied with it, whether he is now 
prepared to comply with it, that is, to produce these records, or 
whether he has refused and still refuses to comply with this subpena. 

He can answer that. He does not have to have a lawyer, other than 
you telling him whether you think he should or should not answer it. 

Mr. Lawson. I think I understand the import of the questions and 
the responsibilities here. But because I don't have the facts upon to 
which to predicate my advice to him, I think he should have the 
opportunity to consult with these people, Cozza and Nee, or whoever 
they are, who have been transferring these records around. So I take 
the' position that I am not in a position to advise him, and he ought to 
have an opportunity to consult counsel who apparently know some- 
thing about these records. 

The Chairman. How long will it take you to e:et these records 
here ? 

Mr. Lawson. As to that, I don't know 

The Chairman. I am asking the witness. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. I am simply trying to ascertain whether, if given 
time, any additional time, you would be willing to comply. If you 
are unwilling to, or won't tell the committee whether you are willing 
to comply or not, I can see no reason for granting additional time. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15163 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. The question is : If you have not up to now com- 
plied with the subpena, how much time do you want to comply 
with it? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Presser. 1 am sorry, sir, 1 don't know. I will have to consult 
my counsel in Ohio. 

The. Chairman. You have counsel here. You will know how long 
it will take you or won't take you. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed. 

I have ordered this subpena printed in the record. 

Mr. Kennedy. These are records, Mr. Chairman, that we are inter- 
ested in. There has been some testimony about other records that the 
lawyer says that he sent, and which have disappeared. What we are 
asking Mr. Presser about are records that he himself knows about, 
and records that he himself had custody and control over at the time 
the subpena was served. Those are the records I am asking about. 

I want to ask you, Mr. Presser, whether you removed or destroyed 
any records yourself or had them removed or destroyed since the sub- 
pena has been served, as called for by this subpena with respect to the 
records of the joint coimcil 41. 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the U.S. Constitu- 
tion to be a witness against myself. 

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

Mr. Presser. I honestly believe that if I am forced to answer the 
question, I will be forced to be a witness against myself, in violation 
of my rights 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Sheridan, would you give us the situation ? 

Mr. Sheridan. On September 9, 1958, I reviewed the correspond- 
ence files of joint council 41. I noted among the files an envelope 
which contained several pieces of paper, several documents, invoices, 
and the envelope was marked "Christmas list," and all of the docu- 
ments referred to Christmas presents purchased by joint council 41 
for various individuals. 

I made notes concerning one of these documents, and I have my 
notes here. Do you want me to read them ? 

The Chairman. All right. You examined the original document? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes, I did, Senator. 

The Chairman. All right, proceed. 

Mr. Sheridan. My notes read as follows: September 9, 1958, Xmas 
list 

The Chairman. Is that for next Christmas? 

Mr. Sheridan. No, it is the abbreviation for "Christmas." 

The Chairman. I was wondering which Christmas. 

Mr. Sheridan. I was taking notes relative to an invoice, which is 
invoice No. 1670, from the Rudolph Deutsch Industrial Sales Co. 

The Chairman. What is the date of it ? 



15164 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Sheridan. The date is December 8, 1955. 

Second floor, Bulkley Building, Cleveland, Ohio. 

In the right hand top corner of the invoice there were two telephone 
numbers, Main 1-2880 and Main 1-7875, and the name Mrs. Roma. 
These numbers are reflected in my notes. 

The invoice refers to eight champagne masters. 

The Chairman. Eight what? 

Mr. Sheridan. Champagne masters. 

The Chairman. What is a champagne master ? 

Mr. Sheridan. I do not know, sir. 

Priced at $100 apiece, total amount, $800. 

The Chairman. What? 

Mr. Sheridan. The total amount of the cost of the champagne 
masters was $800. 

The Chairman. Eight of them at $800 ? 

Mr. Sheridan. No, eight at $100 each for a total of $800. 

The Chairman. That is what I mean. 

Mr. Sheridan. The State tax was $24, for a total of $824. This 
invoice had on the left side of the invoice a list of names- 

The Chairman. How many names? 

Mr. Sheridan. Eight names, being the eight people to whom the 
champagne masters were to be delivered. The names were as follows : 
Beck, English, Hoffa, Brennan, Connell, Bender, Bliss, and Dorfman. 

The Chairman. Dorfman ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Dorfman. 

The Chairman. Does that make eight names ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Eight names. 

The invoice also contained the notation that the bill was paid by 
check No. 8302, on December 29, 1955. 

The Chairman. Check No.— What was that ? 

Mr. Sheridan. 8302, dated December 29, 1955. 

The Chairman. December 29, 1955 ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What happened to that invoice? 

Mr. Sheridan. I left the invoice along with the correspondence 
which I requested from Mr. Presser, because he told me he wanted to 
photostat anything we were taking. So I returned 3 days later to 
pick up the photostated material. Mr. Presser did not have the photo- 
stated material, but he gave me the original documents which I asked 
for. I looked through the documents and noticed that the envelope I 
referred to was missing. A sheet of yellow paper, I believe it was 
yellow paper, that there were names on, corresponding to the names 
on this invoice, was also missing. The invoice itself, which is right 
here, had been torn in such a manner as to remove the names of the 
people listed. 

The Chairman. Do you have there the remnants in your hand of 
the original invoice about which you have testified ? 

Mr. Sheridan. I do. Senator. 

The Chairman. That remnant may be made exhibit No. 184. 

(The remnant referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 184" for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 15349.) 

The Chairman. Now, as I understand you, when you first examined 
this invoice there was nothing torn off of it. 

Mr. Sheridan. That is correct. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15165 

The Chairman. And the notes from which you have testified were 
made at the time that you first examined it ? 

Mr. Sheridan. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Three days later when you went back to get a 
photostatic copy of it, you found it in this condition ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What was torn off of it ? 

Mr. Sheridan. The eight names that I read off to you. 

The Chairman. They had been torn off ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Presser, I assume you would know about that, 
would you ? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and as- 
sert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Did you tear off those names, mutilate that record, 
or order or direct or suggest to anyone else that they do so ? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and as- 
sert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just on this, Mr. Sheridan, isn't it correct that part 
of the document was cut across? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes, it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then there were erasures that occurred at the top ? 

Mr. Sheridan. The top name was erased, the name of Beck was 
erased. 

Mr. Kennedy. The top name was erased, that would appear there. 

The bottom part of the sheet was cut off, and the top name was 
erased, and evidently an attempt was made to erase the rest of the 
names, and it started to rip, and so the rest of the sheet was ripped 
off? 

Mr. Sheridan. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. This was much longer originally ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Here is the original size. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you do after you found that he had done 
this? 

Mr. Sheridan. After I found he had done that, I went to the Ru- 
dolph Deutsch Industrial Sales Co. and obtained their copy of the 
invoice. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have that ? 

Mr. Sheridan. I have that right here. 

The Chairman. Does that have all of those names on it ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes. 

The Chairman. Let us see that. Is that a carbon copy of this 
original invoice? 

Mr. Sheridan. It is a carbon copy. 

The Chairman. We can make a comparison. 

Now let this carbon copy invoice be attached, and made exhibit 
184-A. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit 184-A" for reference 
and will be found in the appendix on p. 15350.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, here are Mr. Sheridan's notes that he made at 
the time. 



15166 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Are these (lie notes that you made at the time that 
you examined the original invoice? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. They may be made exhibit 184-B, and that will be 
attached. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit 184-B" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mi-. Kennedy. Now, there was attached to this invoice another 
sheet of paper? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes; there was. 

Mr. Kennedy. That listed these names ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Sheridan. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. The full names? 

Mr. Sheridan. It listed an initial with the last name. 

Mr. Kennedy. This list just has the last name ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. The other listed the initials as well \ 

Mr. Sheridan. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that document was missing entirely ? 

Mr. Sheridan. It was missing entirely. 

Mr. Kennedy. As well as the envelope ? 

Mr. Sheridan. That is right. 

The Chairman. Now, Mr. Presser, would you like to give us some 
explanation or statement about this and a little comment ? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you like to have the initials put in ? 

The Chairman. Do you have the initials? Do you show the ini- 
tials on your original notes? 

Mr. Sheridan. On the bottom of my original notation which says 
"Other list," and it has the initial "G" Bender, and the initial "R" 
Bliss. 

The Chairman. Were initials on any of the others ? 

Mr. Sheridan. There were initials with other names, but these are 
the only two I have here. 

The Chairman. You knew who the others were ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have some other minutes, and I 
wonder if we could have those introduced and made exhibits for ref- 
erence, other minutes of the meetings that we might want to discuss. 

The Chairman. Identify the minutes of the other meetings and 
whatever other meetings you have. 

What is the document you hold in your hand, Mr. Sheridan ( 

Mr. Sheridan. These are the minutes for the quarterly conference 
of the Ohio Conference of Teamsters, which was held in Columbus, 
Ohio, September 30, 1955. These were also obtained from the local 
100 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, in Cincinnati, 
Ohio. 

The Chairman. For what meeting are they ? 

Mr. Sheridan. They are for the Ohio Conference of Teamsters 
quarterly meeting held on September 30, 1955. 

The Chairman. They may be made exhibit 185. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15167 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit 185" for reference and 
may be found in the files of the select committee. ) 

The Chairman. Mr. Presser, can you tell us what a champagne 
master is ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Just for our enlightenment. 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. All right, off the record and out from under oath, 
will you tell us for just our enlightenment and edification. I don't 
even know what it is. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. I will not bind you by this. You are out from 
under your oath. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Now you are not compelled to answer this, and if 
you do not want to, it is all right. 

Mr. Presser. If I am not compelled to, I would just as soon not. 

The Chairman. You are not compelled to. 

Back under oath again. Let us proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could I have Mr. Sheridan introduce another set 
of minutes ? This is November 22, 1954, the minutes of the meeting. 

The Chairman. What do you have in your hand, Mr. Sheridan, 
what document ? 

Mr. Sheridan. These are the minutes for the executive board meet- 
ing of joint council 26, for November 22, 1954. Joint council 26 is 
located in Cincinnati, Ohio. 

The Chairman. They may be made exhibit 186. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit 186" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, in these minutes, Mr. Chairman, it states that 
there is a letter. This is November 22, 1954. There is a letter from 
joint council 41, Cleveland, Ohio, wherein request was made for finan- 
cial assistance for several Teamster officials recently under attack by 
the newspapers and various branches of the Government. The letter 
was read, and upon motion by Trustee Luken, seconded by Vice Presi- 
dent Griffith, after some discussion on the subject, the motion was 
voted on and passed. 

Could you tell us about that letter, Mr. Presser, that you sent out? 

Mr. Presser. If you read the letter to me, I probably would be able 
to tell you about it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, this is all of the information I have. The 
letter is missing. 

The Chairman. Tell us what became of the letter and maybe we 
can find it and read it. 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Is the letter still in existence? I don't want to 
make a vain search for it. 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and as- 
sert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 



15168 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us what was done with that money 
that you raised on November 22, 1954, Mr. Presser ? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and as- 
sert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is it not correct that certain payments had already 
been made and this was a question of reimbursing the funds from 
which the money had been taken ? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and as- 
sert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Was that money used for political purposes, that 
you were trying to raise there, or trying to reimburse? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and as- 
sert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against, myself. 

The Chairman. According to the information we have regarding 
the letter, and you do not have the letter with you, do you ? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and as- 
sert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. According to the information we have, among other 
things, the letter said, or rather you announced at the time the letter 
was read at the meeting — we were not there and we do not have it 
exactly, but just to refresh your memory, was it announced at that 
meeting, and I quote : 

Other money was spent to pull certain strings to see that the charges were 
dropped. 

Do you recall that ? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and as- 
sert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitutin not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. This letter would be very helpful if we could 
find it? 

Mr. Presser. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You agree with that, do you ? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and as- 
sert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. What were the charges at that time that you wanted 
to have dropped ? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and as- 
sert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. What charges had you had dropped by that time? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and as- 
sert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States Con- 
stitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Does that have anything to do with your announce- 
ment at a meeting earlier in November that there would be no more 
committee meetings of the committee that was investigating you at 
that time ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15169 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and assert 
my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States Con- 
stitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. I have some other matters, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Presser, I hand you a check drawn on the High- 
town office of the Ohio National Bank of Columbus, Ohio Conference 
of Teamsters, payable to the order of G. H. Bender, for $1,000, 
signed by William Presser, president, and John Pfeiffer, secretary- 
treasurer. 

I hand you this check for your identification. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Senator Ives. What do you have to say about that ? 

Mr. Presser. What is the question ? 

Senator Ives. Will you identify that check and do you recognize it? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and assert 
my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States Con- 
stitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Senator Ives. All right, Mr. Counsel. 

That will be made exhibit 187. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit 187" for reference and 
will be found in the appendix on p. 15351.) 

Mr. Kennedy. This itself is dated August 15, 1958, and it states on 
the check stub, "Public relations and professional services and ex- 
penses." 

Could you tell the committee what that was for? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and assert 
my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States Con- 
stitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Is this Ohio Conference of Teamsters, that is your 
organization ; is it not ? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and assert 
my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States Con- 
stitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Is this your signature on this check ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and assert 
my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States Con- 
stitution not to be a witness against myself. 

(Members of the select committee present at this point in the pro- 
ceedings : Senators McClellan, Ives, and Church.) 

The Chairman. Did your membership or your executive board or 
whatever the authority is that you have, the governing body of this 
Ohio Conference of Teamsters, know anything about this check? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment .of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. All right, proceed. 

Mr Kennedy. Mr. Presser, if you wouldn't give us any answer on 
that, could you tell us at all about the $1,500 that was used for the 
purchase of the awnings for Mr. Triscaro ? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 



15170 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. You heard the testimony here about your having 
given him a check for $1,500 to pay on his awning bill? You heard 
that testimony this morning, did you ? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. I present to you a check that has been made exhibit 
No. 182, a check in the amount of $1,500, made payable to the order 
of Komade of Cleveland, dated August 22, 1958, in the amount of 
$1,500, and the check appears to have your signature as president, and 
Don Pfeiffer as secretary -treasurer of Ohio ( lonferehce of Teamsters. 
I will ask you to examine that exhibit and state if you identify it, 
that photostatic copy of the check. 

(Document handed to the witness.) 

( Witness consulted with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Do you identify the check ? 

Mr. Witness. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Will you state for what purpose that check was 
issued ? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Did it actually go to pay on the awnings, and was 
it intended to pay on the awning account of Mr. Triscaro? 

Mr. Presser. 1 respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Was it an honest transaction, one that you can talk 
about ? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Now I hand you here — who is the recording sec- 
retary of joint council 41 ? What is his name ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Who is Edwin M. Elkin? Do you know him? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Is lie secretary of the Ohio Conference of Team- 
sters ? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question 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 Charles E. Bond ? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15171 

The Chairman. Is he the recording secretary of Teamsters Joint 
Council No. 41 \ 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. I hand you here what purports to be the original 
minutes of the executive board meeting of Teamsters Joint Council 
No. 41, held Thursday, August 14, 1958, at the Carter Hotel, Cleve- 
land, Ohio, bearing the signature of, apparently, Charles E. Bond, 
recording secretary, and ask you to examine this document and state 
if you identify those minutes. 

(Document handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. I hand you here now what purports to be a 
photostatic copy of minutes of the executive board meeting of the 
Ohio Conference of Teamsters held August 14, 1958, bearing, appar- 
ently, the signature of Edwin M. Elkin, secretary. 

Will you please examine those minutes and state if you identify 
them? 

(Document handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Mr. Reporter, let your record show that the wit- 
ness physically examined both documents that have just been sub- 
mitted to him. 

Will you return them to me now, please ? 

Mr. Sheridan, I hand you here a document, and wish you would 
identify it, please, sir. 

Mr. Sheridan. These are the minutes of the executive board meet- 
ing of Teamsters Joint Council No. 41, held on Thursday, August 14, 
1958, at the Carter Hotel in Cleveland, Ohio. 

The Chairman. Where did you procure them ? 

Mr. Sheridan. These minutes were procured from joint council 41 
records in Cleveland, Ohio. 

The Chairman. These minutes may be made exhibit 188. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 188" for 
reference and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. I hand you now another document and ask you to 
examine it and state if you identify it. 

Mr. Sheridan. These are the minutes of the executive board meet- 
ing of the Ohio Conference of Teamsters held on August 14, 1958, at 
the Carter Hotel, Cleveland, Ohio. 

The Chapman. Where did you procure that document ? 

Mr. Sheridan. This was procured from Robert C. Knee, attorney 
for the Ohio Conference of Teamsters. 

The Chairman. It may be made exhibit No. 189. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 189" for 
reference may be found in the files of the select committee.) 



15172 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. 1 note thai (hose two documents, these minutes, or 
these two different meetings, were held on the same day, August 14, 
L958. I don't know what significance that has. 
Jouhsel, you may proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, the wording in both of these minutes 
is very similar. I would like to have permission to read one of them 
into the record. 

The Chairman. You may read excerpts from them. 

Which one will you read from first ? 

Mr. Kennedy. This will be the minutes of the executive board 
meeting of the Ohio Conference of Teamsters, held August 14, 1958. 

The Chairman. May I ask you, were you present at that meeting, 
Mr. Presser? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and as- 
sert 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 know which meeting 
came first. 

Mr. Kennedy. They are both the same day. 

Senator Ives. I know they are the same day, but there must have 
been one ahead of the other. Did one come in the morning and the 
other in the afternoon, or the other in the morning and the first one in 
the afternoon ? How about it ? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and as- 
sert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Senator Ives. I think it would be confusing to have minutes like 
these. 

Mr. Kennedy (reading) : 

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Presser. All of the officers and 
division heads were present with the exception of Dale Mann, who was on vaca- 
tion. Robert C. Knee, general counsel of the Ohio Conference Of Teamsters was 
present. The officers of joint council 41 were present as observers. The meet- 
ing, as stated by Chairman Presser, was called first for the express purpose of 
giving the board members of the Ohio Conference of Teamsters information 
pertaining not only to individuals in the Teamster movement, but the autonomy 
and welfare of the movement itself in the State of Ohio : and second to officially 
obtain certain authority to protect the Teamster movement in the State of Ohio. 
Chairman Presser continued his statement and report as follows : 

He stated that the monitors of the international who were appointed by court 
order, were either now taking or momentarily contemplated taking, certain 
action, or would probably insist that the general president would take certain 
action which would affect detrimentally certain labor leaders of the Teamster 
movement; that the contemplated action not only affected those leaders, but 
through them the entire structural autonomy as we know it to exist ; that under 
the contemplated action no one would be safe, and since the movement cannot 
exist apart from individuals, and since the movement, in the true sense of the 
word, is made up of individuals, Chairman Presser reported that in his opinion 
the movement was in jeopardy. 

Following Chairman Presser's statement, a report and full discussion was had 
among the officers and division heads who were present in open meeting assem- 
bled and in the presence of the observers. During this discussion, a few illustra- 
tions or examples of the contemplated action were brought out. 

The general president either has or will be requested by the monitors to sum- 
marily fire at least 60 Teamster officials, among whom, and high on the list, 
was Chairman Presser. Presser continued and stated that the monitors' re- 
quest, or contemplated request of the general president was in truth an ulti- 
matum—from this move would sprout a consistent pattern to run or control the 
international union, from the contemplated installation of a bookkeeping system, 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15173 

which as Presser stated, would be foreign to the Teamster movement, to the 
election of convention delegates by the locals. 

It was even stated, according to Presser, that one of the monitors indicated 
that areas or locals within the Teamster jurisdiction would not be permitted to 
choose their own legal counsel. Presser further pointed out that in his informed 
opinion these actions, even though done under color of authority, would not only 
have the smack of illegality, but would be ruinous to this or any other labor 
movement and its autonomy. 

In passing, Chairman Presser stated that it was contemplated to eliminate 
all business representatives or labor leaders who had records in the past, no 
matter how honest the individual is now living his life. It was also contem- 
plated to eliminate anyone who had a bad reputation, or who associated with 
anyone who had a bad reputation ; that anyone who availed himself of the fifth 
amendment under the Constitution of the United States would also be elim- 
inated ; also, should a member of a local bring a charge against any officer of 
that local, that officer would be suspended pending the hearing and without 
salary. 

The following official action was duly taken in open meeting assembled : Mo- 
tion by Starling, seconded by Elkin, that Presser be authorized to expend the 
necessary moneys to engage counsel and/or other necessary or proper personnel 
for the purpose of protecting Teamster individuals and the autonomous rights 
of the Teamster movement in the State of Ohio, because the operations of those 
individuals are irrevocably linked with the Teamster movement in Ohio — the 
two being inseparable; and that Chairman Presser, if he should deem it ad- 
visable, take the lead in order that the intent of this motion be activated. 

The question being called, the motion was put to vote. Unanimously carried. 

Senator Ives. I would like to ask Mr. Presser how many attended 
this meeting. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question 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 last paragraph, and probably the most 
interesting : 

Motion by Heindorff and seconded by Triscaro, that if for any reason, physical 
or otherwise, Chairman Presser as a result of his activities in opposition to the 
contemplated move of the monitors, the International Union, any of the officers 
of the international, or any individual, he is severed from his status or posi- 
tion in the Ohio Conference of Teamsters or the Teamster movement, then and 
in any of which events he — or in the event of his demise, his wife, Faye — will 
be paid an amount equivalent to what would be 1 year's salary paid by joint 
council 41, to wit : The sum of $20,000. 

Question being called, motion being put to oral vote. Unanimously carried. 

There being no other or further business to come before the meeting, same 
was adjourned. 

The Chairman. Was that a form of severance pay, Mr. Presser? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. We had encountered something like that before 
under little different circumstances, and they called it severance pay. 

How did your organization regard it ? 

Mr. Presser. Mr. Senator, can we go off the record and out from 
under oath ? 

The Chairman. Well, I would like to have it under oath. You 
wouldn't mind, would you ? 

Mr. Presser. Well, I would like to make a statement, if I wasn't 
under oath. 

The Chairman. I would like you to make it under oath. I would 
like to have the truth. 



15174 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Presser. I will tell you the truth, if you will let me get out 
from under oath. 

The Chairman. Well, if you will say it under oath — do I under- 
stand you wouldn't tell it under oath \ 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

Senator Ives. I would like to point out something about Mr. Pres- 
ser. He is the antithesis of Barney Baker. 

Mr. Presser. Sir? 

Senator Ives. I didn't ask a question. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was for the Ohio Conference of Teamsters. 
There was a meeting at the same time of joint council 41, in which 
Mr. Presser gave exactly the same talk on the same day, August 14, 
1958. 

The Chairman. Did you have a meeting of the two at the same 
time and then keep minutes separate ; is that correct? 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and as- 
sert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Or did you just go from one to the other? I 
thought it might have been a matter of convenience to hold them to- 
gether and let them keep their separate minutes. 

Mr. Presser. I will be happy to explain it if I am not under oath. 

The Chairman. I want it under oath. I don't know why an oath 
should keep you from telling the truth. You can explain why it does. 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and as- 
sert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, if he went from one meeting to an- 
other, it was rather a profitable trip, because he got another $20,000 
from joint council 41. 

The Chairman. Let's see that. Where? 

Mr. Kennedy. He got $40,000 in the two meetings. 

The Chairman. One was to pay him 20 ? 

Mr. Kennedy. They are both to pay him 20. 

The Chairman. Each to pay him 20 ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Each to pay him 20. 

The Chairman. You were kind of getting prepared for any event- 
uality, weren't you ? 

Mr. Presser. Am I under oath ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Presser. Do you want me to answer that question, sir ? 

The Chairman. Yes, I would like for you to. 

Mr. Pkksser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and as- 
sert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

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

Did you have another meeting somewhere we don't have any rec- 
ord of ? 

Did you \ 

Mr. Presser. It is up to Mr. Kennedy to produce it. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15175 

The Chairman. Well, we can't keep up with all of you fellows, you 
know. We have to have a little cooperation from you, if we make 
the record complete. 

Mr. Presser. Did you ask me a question ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and as- 
sert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Are there any further questions ? 

The orders that the Chair has previously given you still stand. You 
are given this final opportunity before you are excused from the wit- 
ness stand to state whether you will comply. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Presser. Sir, I don't understand 

The Chairman. The questions that were asked you that the Chair 
ordered and directed you to answer, that order still stands, as I ad- 
vised you before noon, before we recessed. It will stand until you 
leave the witness stand. Do you want to comply and answer the 
questions, or do you still decline? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Presser. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
assert my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States 
Constitution not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. All right. Thank you. 

My understanding is that we have, and I say this, but counsel can 
supplement it, for the information of members of the committee, we 
have a great deal more of this, but I am not taking the time today to 
put it all into the record. It is futile to go on. This witness is not 
going to answer any questions that will be helpful. But counsel ad- 
vises we have a great deal more of the same information in our file. 
I think this makes the record sufficient, however. 

Mr. Kennedy. I was thinking more on the matter of the letter that 
was written back in 1954, Mr. Chairman, that we talked about briefly. 
We have more information in connection with matters surrounding 
that situation, which we have discussed but which we do not expect to 
go into at this time. 

The Chairman. There is some additional information needed. 
That will be withheld for the present. 

Are there any questions % 

If not, you may stand aside for the present. 

Do you think you will need this witness any more today ? 

Well, you may stand aside for the rest of the day. We will ascer- 
tain before you leave whether you will be needed further. 

The committee will take a 5-minute recess. 
( A brief recess was taken. ) 

(Members of the select committee present at the taking of the 
recess were Senators McClellan, Ives, and Church.) 

The Chaibman. The committee will come to order. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa is the next witness. 

The Chairman. Mr. Hoffa, will you come forward ? 

21243 — 59 — pt. 40 10 



15176 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

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

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Hoffa, you will remain under the 
same oath. 

Mr. Holla, the Chair presents to you a check dated October 11, 
1956, in the amount of $1,000, payable to John Wilson, and it is 
drawn on Truck Drivers Local No. 299, and signed by Mr. Frank 
Collins, secretary and treasurer, and countersigned by you. Will you 
examine the check and state if you identify it, please. 

( A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Hoffa. It is a 299 check. 

The Chairman. 1 beg your pardon? 

Mr. Hoffa. It is a 299 check. 

The Chairman. That is local 299 ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. 

The Chairman. That check may be made exhibit 190. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit 190" for reference 
and will be found in the appendix on p. 15352.) 

The Chairman. You may proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, the date of this check is Octoberll, 1956, Mr. 
Hoffa. Could you tell us what that was for, to John Wilson? 

Mr. Hoffa. Who is John Wilson ? 

Mr. Kennedy. It is your check for $1,000. 

Mr. Hoffa. It is not my check; it is the union's check. Whose 
check is it ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I will give you the stub, and perhaps that will help. 

The Chairman. I present to you what appears to be a photostatic 
copy of the stub of the check which I have just presented to you, and 
which has been made exhibit 190. Will you examine that, please, and 
state if you identify that as a stub of the check. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

The Chairman. Have you examined it, Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. Hoffa. It is a stub of the 299 checkbook. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

That may be made exhibit 190-A. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit 190-A" for reference 
and will be found in the appendix on p. 15353.) 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, this says John Wilson, legal services rendered, 
$1,000. What services did he perform ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't know. 

The Chairman. Do you know him, Mr. Hoffa? 

Mr. Hoffa. I never met him. 

The Chairman. You have no knowledge of this check? 

Mr. Hoffa. I can't recognize the check, except the fact it says "Wil- 
son, $1,000 for legal services." 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you recall any legal services he did, Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I hire lawyers and many times I don't use them for 
legal services and I pay them a retainer and this may have been one 
of them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that in fact what happened with John Wilson ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I can't answer that question, and I don't know. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15177 

The Chairman. Do you know where Mr. Wilson lives, and where 
he practices law ? 

Mr. Kennedy. It says on the back here, Richard Blake. Do you 
know Richard Blake? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't recall the name. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Richard P. Blake? 

Mr. Hoffa. I might but I don't recall the name. I may have met 
him sometime or other. 

The Chairman. The check appears to be endorsed "John Wilson, 
pay to Richard P. Blake," and then it appears to be endorsed by 
Richard P. Blake. You have no information about it or knowledge 
about it, and you can give us no information as to the check and for 
what purpose it was issued. 

Mr. Hoffa. The check was issued in October of 1956 which is a 
long time ago, and a lot of checks have passed through my hands 
since and I cannot recall the particular checks, Senator. 

The Chairman. And you do not recall that you know Mr. Wilson 
or any services that he performed for you ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't remember Wilson at all, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How about Mr. Blake? Do you remember Blake 
at all? 

Mr. Hoffa. The name doesn't register. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't know anything about this checks 

Mr. Hoffa. I cannot say I don't know anything about it, and it 
may be one of numerous checks that I issued. 1 may have instructed 
someone else to issue it. I don't issue checks. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is too bad. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

I present you another check dated June ID, 1956, payable to Florida 
National Bank, signed by Frank Collins and countersigned by you, 
and drawn on Truck Drivers Local No. 299, in the amount of $300,000. 
Will you please examine that check and state if you identify it '. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Hoffa. It is a 299 check. 

The Chairman. All right, the check may be made exhibit 191. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit 191" for reference 
:and will be found in the appendix on p. 15354.) 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could I see the check again, please ? 

This check is dated June 19, 1956, Truck Drivers Local Union 299, 
and it is made payable to the Florida National Bank for $300,000. 

Could you tell the committee the circumstances surrounding issu- 
ance of that check ? 

Mr. Hoffa. The check speaks for itself; it is a deposit in a bank. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why were you depositing $300,000 in a bank? 

Mr. Hoffa. Because I wanted to. 

The Chairman. Now, Mr. Hoffa, you have been very nice so far, 
and let us tiy to answer the question. 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator, I am answering the question, and I deposited 
the check because I decided it was for the best interests of local 299 
to do so. 

The Chairman. Did you have some particular transaction there, 
that it was in connection with? 



15178 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Hoffa. I didn't have a transaction personally, no. 

The Chairman. I did not say you particularly, and now if you 
want to get down to specific, did you or your Teamster organization 
have any business transaction there that this check is related to? 

Mr. Hoffa. It was a deposit and I believe it is still on deposit, 
Senator. 

The Chairman. That still does not answer it. 

Did you have a business transaction there ? 

Air. Hoffa. Only the depositing of the check, to the best of my 
knowledge. 

The Chairman. No other business transaction ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Not to my knowledge. 

The Chairman. Nothing in connection with it I 

Mr. Hoffa. Not to my knowledge. 

The Chairman. All right, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why would a local in Detroit decide to send $300,000 
to this Florida National Bank, and why did you, Mr. Hoffa, make 
that decision ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Mr. Kennedy, I make decisions every day of the week. 
I make decisions based upon what I believed at that time was for the 
best interests of the organization, and I made this check as a deposit 
or instructed this check to be made as a deposit in that bank because 
I believed at that time it was for the best interests of the union; and 
so there wouldn't be any mystery about the check, we at that time 
were trying to arrange to buy some lots for the local 299 members 
in Florida at a reduced rate. 

Mr. Kennedy. How were you arranging that? I would like to 
get the story. I know you can feel it presumptuous for someone to 
ask you how you handled a check for $300,000 of union funds, Mr. 
Hoffa; but I am asking you about it, and I would like to find out 
what the situation is in connection with it. 

Mr. Hoffa. I have answered, Senator, the question asked by the 
counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. I still do not understand. 

What kind of lots, what was the arrangement and who was dawn 
there? Explain all that to the committee. Who did you have the 
confer slices with? 

Would you give us an explanation of the $300,000 ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I have given you an explanation to the depositing ol 
the check. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now then 

Mr. Hoffa. Just a moment. I have said that the local 299 and 
joint council 43. which comprises all of the Teamster local unions, 
were interested in seeing that their members were able to secure 
lots in Florida, at Sun Valley, at a reduced price per lot. 

The Chairman. Now, this check then was deposited there in con- 
nection with the Sun Valley project? 

Mr. PIoffa. Not in connection with Sun Valley. 

The Chairman. Not exactly Sun Valley ? 

Mr. Hoffa. It was not in connection with Sun Valley, sir. 

The Chairman. It had no relation whatsoever to Sun Valley ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Sun Valley could not at any time have drawn any 
money out of this bank account so far as the $300,000 was concerned. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15179 

The Chairman. I understand that, and I am not contending that, 
but was this check deposited there to make some arrangements with 
the bank for accommodations in connection with the Sun Valley 
project I 

Mr. Hoffa. This money was placed in the bank in Florida, at a 
request of Henry Lower, for the purpose of being able to have onr 
money in a bank secured as other funds of local 299 which it has in 
two other banks. 

The Chairman. It had then, and I am trying to get now, or you 
have a Sun Valley project down there? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't have one, sir. 

The Chairman. All right now, if you want to get so particular, 
there is a Sun Valley project down there ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes; there is. 

The Chairman. And it has been associated with this union, and 
you had an interest in it ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I had an option. 

The Chairman. You had an option on the whole thing? 

Mr. Hoffa. No; I didn't. 

The Chairman. On how much of it? 

Mr. Hoffa. Forty-five percent of it. 

The Chairman. Forty-five percent of it ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You did have an interest in it ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I had an option, sir, and I never exercised it. 

The Chairman. You had an option and that gave you the right to 
exercise it ; did it not? 

Mr. Hoffa. If and when I desired to; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. If and when you desired to, and that was a right 
that you possessed. 

Now, I am not trying to get technical and you are starting it this 
way. But you did have that interest, and the interest of a right to 
purchase 45 percent of it, 

Mr. Hoffa. I had the option, sir. 

The Chairman. And that option provided that; did it not? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, it did, sir. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have a copy of that option ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where is it? 

Mr. Hoffa. I would like to find it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have lost the option? 

Mr. Hoffa. For some unknown reason I can't locate it, and I looked 
high and low for it. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have been asking for this option for 14 months, 
and when did you lose it? 

Mr. Hoffa. I have not been able to find the option and I have been 
looking all around for it, but I would like to have the option. I am 
still looking for it. 

Mr. Kennedy. I have had at least a dozen conversations with George 
Fitzgerald in which he said you were going to produce the option, 
and at no time up to now was I told you had lost the option. 



15180 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Hoffa. I do not say I have lost it, and it may be misplaced 
somewhere, but I can't find it, and I have tried to find it, to please 
Fitzgerald so he could present it to this committee. I probably will 
find it somewhere, and I don't know where it is. Eventually, I don't 
know where it is and I could have put it somewhere. 

Mr. Kennedy. When was the last time that you saw it? 

Mr. Hoffa. I can't hardly remember it after the first time I had it. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you do with it then? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't know, and I wish I did know. 

Mr. Kennedy. To show it to someone? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't recall what happened to it, and I think that I 
left it on my desk, or in my drawer or some place, and I can't find 
where that option is at this moment. I don't say it is lost, but it is 
misplaced and I can't find it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who prepared the option for you ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Lower brought it to my office and I don't know who 
prepared it for him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you show it to George Fitzgerald ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't know if I did or not, and I may have. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about Owen Bert Brennan? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't remember. I guess I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he have an option, too ? 

Mr. Hoffa. The option was partially Brennan's. 

Mr. Kennedy. Each one of you had an option to buy 45 percent? 

Mr. Hoffa. No; the 45-percent option was 45 percent and Brennan 
was to get half of the option if and when we exercised it. 

Mr. Kennedy. And it was in connection with that Sun Valley 
project that you sent the $300,000 down to the Florida bank? 

Mr. Hoffa. Mr. Kennedy, it wasn't in connection with Sun Valley, 
but Sun Valley was in Florida and we had money in a bank anyway, 
and it didn't make much difference where the money was deposited, 
and the money was deposited in that bank on the same basis as I believe 
it was deposited in a bank in Detroit. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did you happen to send the money down there 
if it had nothing to do with Sun Valley ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I decided, and I will accept the responsibility, that 
the money was as safe there as anywhere else and would do the same 
good there as anywhere else. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not answer the question ? 

Mr. Hoffa. What is the question ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did you send the money down there ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I just told you, and I made the decision to do it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why? What was the basis for making the decision 
to send the $300,000 to the Florida bank if it was not in order to 
induce them to loan money on this land scheme in which you had a 
financial interest ? 

Mi-. Hoffa. They could have loaned Lower money with or without, 
and if the money helped him borrow the money, I would have had no 
objection to him being able to borrow money, provided none of the 
money that belonged to 299 could have been used or could have been 
drawn by Lower for any part of any business that he was in, and 
only 299 could have used that money. That is the way it was deposited, 
and that is the way it has been. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15181 

Mr. Kennedy. The reason you sent it down there, Mr. Hoffa, was 
to induce them to loan money on this ; was it not ? 

Mr. Hoffa. They had already made up their mind to loan the 
money. 

Mr. Kennedy. Will you tell the committee why you sent the money 
down there ? 

You just do not take money out of a bank in Detroit, when your 
local is up there, and send it to just any Florida bank. You must 
have had some reason for it. 

Mr. Hoffa. Why not ? I don't understand why not. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is how you run your local, Mr. Hoffa % 

Mr. Hoffa. My local union was protected by the same laws in a 
bank in Florida as they were protected by a bank in Detroit, and the 
local union could suffer no losses from this being deposited in Florida. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, you had to have something, or something 
had to happen to have Mr. Hoffa decide to send the $300,000 down 
there. I am asking you what happened to induce you to send $300,000 
to Florida. 

Mr. Hoffa. I told you at the very outset, that our members were 
to get lots at a reduced rate from joint council 43. 

The Chairman. With whom was that arrangement made? 

Mr. Hoffa. With Sun Valley. 

The Chairman. It was made with Sun Valley ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How would sending $300,000 down to that bank 
help them get a reduced rate on the lots ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Lower agreed 

The Chairman. I am trying to get the connection. 

Mr. Hoffa. Lower agreed through Sun Valley to give our mem- 
bers a reduced price on the lots. I believe they saved $150, if I am 
not mistaken. 

The Chairman. Was that on condition you send this money down ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No. I am quite sure, Senator, that that agreement 
was made prior to that, but I did make a deposit in the bank and I 
believe the money is still there under the same conditions as it would 
have been in a bank in Detroit. If it helped Lower get a loan for 
Sun Valley, then it would have been satisfactory to me. But it did 
not affect at any time the deposit of 299. 

The Chairman. Was that discussed between you and Mr. Lower 
before the money was sent down there, that it would help him? 

Mr. Hoffa. I believe Lower had his loan prior to that time, Senator. 

The Chairman. He had the promise of it, did he not ■'. 

Mr. Hoffa. I think that he had the loan, Senator, and I think the 
dates must be in the committee's hands. 

The Chairman. Was he not trying to negotiate for the loan, and in 
the course of that negotiation, this money was sent down there ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I think that he had it, and if he didn't have it then, 
either way we deposited the money, and if Lower could have gotten 
a loan for Sun Valley, it would have been of benefit to our members. 

The Chairman. Do you think if it had not been for Sun Valley that 
money would have ever gone to that bank ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I question whether it would or not. 

The Chairman. I do, too. 



15182 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Ives. I would like to ask a question. 

Mr. Kennedy. I can straighten out the dates. 

Senator Ives. I am not interested so much in the dates, if E can 
get a question in here. I am curious about this deposit of $300,000. 
Was that drawing interest or was it in a checking account, or what 
account did you have it in ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Offhand, I can't tell you, sir. 

Senator Ives. You left $300,000 there without getting any interest 
on it? 

Mr. Hoffa. I say offhand I can't tell you. 

Senator Ives. Well, are you not the one who deposited it? 

Mr. Hoffa. I had the secretary-treasurer forward the money down 
to the bank, and I can't tell you or give you the answer to that 
question. 

Senator Ives. I am a little curious, because $300,000 is a sizable 
amount of money, and it has been there how long now ? 

Mr. Hoffa. What date did you say ; 4 years ago ? 

Senator Ives. I did not say. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was 1956. 

Senator Ives. That is a lot of interest on $300,000 in a 2-year period. 
Are you leaving it there indefinitely ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Am I leaving it indefinitely there? Until such time 
as we need the money, I assume we will. 

Senator Ives. Were you getting any interest on it in Detroit? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't handle the bank accounts or the records will 
have to indicate whether or not we did or didn't, and I don't know. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Hoffa, all I am asking you is a straight question 
regarding your business habits in matters of this nature. It is cus- 
tomary when one has a large deposit in a bank against which nothing 
is being drawn, and I take it nothing has been drawn on this $300,000 ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Not to my knowledge. 

Senator Ives. That is it. It is customary to have some kind of 
an arrangement with the bank so you get interest, and it may be a very 
tiny amount, only half of 1 percent or 1 percent or something like 
that. 

Mr. Hoffa. Maybe it does, and I don't know. 

Senator Ives. I am just making a suggestion to you in connection 
with your finances. Apparently you have these deposits in banks 
around the country, and it would seem to me that better business judg- 
ment would be that it should be drawing some money on it as a matter 
of general policy for you. 

Do you not think so yourself ? 

Mr. Hoffa. It may be drawing interest, Senator, and I don't know. 

Senator Church. I wonder if counsel can tell us whether this is in a 
savings account or a checking account, because the average rate of 3 
percent which is standard rate nowadays, this would in 2 years' time 
accumulate $18,000 worth of interest. 

Mr. Kennedy. According to our information, it is not drawing 
interest. 

Senator Church. It is not ? 

Mr. Kennedy. It is not. 

Senator Church. It would be a matter of considerable inducement 
to a bank to have $300,000 in capital not drawing interest. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15183 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, and I think the chairman lias something to add 
on that. 

The Chairman. May I ask yon, Mr. Hofl'a, if it is not a fact that 
your check was dated June 9, 1956', making the deposit, and the loan 
to Sun Valley, and I am not sure how the loan was made, to the devel- 
opment project, the loan was made to him or to the Sun Valley project 
the next day on June 20 ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't know that, Senator, and if you say it is line, 
it could be true, 

The Chairman. I think that that is what the records reflect. 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't know. 

The Chairman. We can establish that. 

You see the significance of it, Mr. Hoffa ? It looks like there is an 
arrangement there, that if you put some money down there, maybe 
without interest, and leave a sizable amount down there, Sun Valley 
would get accommodated for a loan. That is the way it looks on the 
face of it, 

Now, do you have any further explanation about it ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't have any explanation, except what I gave, 
Senator. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. I have some other documents. 

The Chairman. Mr. Hoffa, I present to you two more checks, photo- 
static copies, one dated November 13, 1956, and the other dated the 
next day, November 14, 1956, made payable to the Florida National 
Bank, each of them in the amount of $100,000, drawn to the same 
account of your local. 

Would you examine those checks and state if you identify them ? 

(Documents were handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Hofea. There are local 299 checks. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. They may be made exhibits 
192-A and B. 

(Documents referred to were marked "Exhibits 192-A and 192-B" 
for reference and will be found in the appendix on pp. 15355-15356.) 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Hoffa, were these placed down there 
under the same circumstances of the other deposit ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, I don't recall those two checks. I don't remem- 
ber discussing the question, and I probably did, and it was probably 
the same circumstances, but I don't recall, and I thought there was 
$300,000 and not $500,000 there. But if the checks are there, the money 
is still there. 

Senator Ives. I would like to put a question there. 

Apparently you have quite a number of deposits around the 
country, that is, your union, that you control yourself. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right, 

Senator Ives. Have you any idea what they amount to in the aggre- 
gate? 

Mr. Hoffa. No. But I could find out what it aggregates. 

Senator Ives. I wondered if you knew yourself. I would like to 
know what they amount to, if you would let me know. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did you send this $200,000 down there, Mr. 
Hoffa? 



15184 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Hoppa. Probably for the same reason, although I don't recall 
the $200,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you mean you could send $200,000, sign a check 
or have a check out of your local for $200,000 and not remember 
anything about it ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Mr. Kennedy, if there had been an arrangement made 
to make a $300,000 deposit, and it was necessary to make a $100,000 
more at various times, two other times, it would simply have been in- 
structed to the secretary-treasurer to draw two checks, $100,000 
each, deposit them in the same bank account and there would have 
no reason to make other arrangements than the first bank account. 

The Chairman. Mr. Hoffa, you said if it were necessary to send 
more. What do you mean? What caused the necessity for that? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't know, sir. When I say necessity, I mean if 
something would have come up, a suggestion, a discussion, or what- 
ever it would have been, there would have been no necessity to arrange 
a second account. We would have simply put it in the first account. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who would know about this, if you don't ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Nobody would know anything more about it than I 
do, because I will accept the full responsibility for the checks and the 
instructions to send them to that bank. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't seem to be able to give any explanation. 

Mr. Hoffa. I gave you an explanation ; that it was simply a deposit 
in the same account that was originally opened, apparentlv for 
$300,000. 

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

Apparently what is being done here is that these balances from 
one bank to another are being shuffled around. That is about it ; is it 
not? 

Mr. Hoffa. Not in 2 years, sir. 

Senator Ives. I am not talking about when. I am talking about 
what has occurred. You move part of your deposit, at least, from 
the Detroit bank down to Florida. 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. 

Senator Ives. Are you in the habit of doing that with all of your 
accounts ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I moved $125,000, 1 believe, to Indianapolis. 

Senator Ives. Yes, I remember that. Are you in the process of 
moving anything now ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, not at the present moment, but if the situation 
arose where I thought it was necessary in behalf of our members to 
deposit money in a certain locality, I wouldn't see anything unusual 
about it, Senator. 

Senator Ives. I can't argue with you about that. That is perfectly 
all right, if your reason is legitimate. That is what we are trying to 
find out, what your reason is, Mr. Hoffa. So far you haven't really 
given a reason. 

Mr. Hoffa. I told you, Senator, and it is a matter of record here, 
that our members were to get a reduced price on lots in Florida. 

Senator Ives. And nothing ever came of the whole thing? 

Mr. Hoffa. That isn't true. Many of our members did buy lots. 

Senator Ives. Well, nothing was paid for out of this deposit you 
made in the bank. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15185 

Mr Hoffa. No, excuse me. I didn't say that we were buying the 
lots. ' It allowed the members to buy the lots at a reduced price 

Senator Ives. In other words, they could borrow money based on 
your deposit in that bank, is that it ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No, sir. 

Senator Ives. What was the reason ? 

Mr Hoffa. They had a reduced— the arrangement for a reduced 
price'on lots to be able to buy them from Sun^alley, and I believe 
they saved $100 or $150 on those lots by the fact that the Teamsters 
Union was sponsoring at that time Sun Valley, even though we were 
not the owners of Sun Valley. We were trying to get a city set up 
for retirement of Teamsters Union members around the country. 

Senator Ives. That is all right so far 

Now, where does the half million dollar deposit enter thaU 

Mr. Hoffa. It is still in the bank. 

Senator Ives. Where does that enter the picture ? 

Mr Hoffa. They don't draw any of this money out ol that ac- 
count for the purchase of lots, sale of the lots, or for any transaction 
at all. It simply is in that bank in Florida m behalf of local 299. 

Senator Ives. What do you mean in behalf of 299 ? 

Mr. Hoffa. It is 299's deposit. . 

Senator Ives. I am probably stupid on this, and I wish you would 

clear me up. . tit £ -i 

Mr Hoffa. It is 299's deposit and can only be drawn for the pur- 
pose of 299's expenditures and signed by Collins and myself to draw 

Senator Ives. But nothing was drawn to date ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is correct. . 

Senator Ives. And the money has been down there, a halt million 
dollars 

Mr. Hoffa. Two years. Well, no. 

Senator Ives. Not quite 2 years? 

Mr. Hoffa. You are right, - • 

Senator Ives. It is very mystifying to me why that has to be there, 
when you do not use any of it, and apparently that is not a factor at 
all in this lot deal, as I see it. 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes; it is. 

Senator Ives. How? 

Mr Hoffa. Senator McClellan just stated that Lower had a loan 
at the bank and Lower was the owner of Sun Valley. Apparently 
I agreed to deposit money in the bank in 299's account, but not for 
the purpose of Sun Vallev, but to make a deposit from one bank to 
the other bank, not affecting the 299 funds insofar as expenditures 
were concerned for Sun Valley. 

Senator Ives. That still doesn't answer the half-million-dollar 
business. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you read that answer back ? 
(The reporter read from his notes as directed.) 

Mr. Hoffa. Let's clear it up this way, maybe, Senator McClellan. 
Let's see if we can clear it up this way. The half million dollars, while 
it may have drawn interest, it would have been set up in a different 
type of checking accounts, would have drawn less money in my opinion 
in the way of interests than value received by our members who 
bought lots at a reduced price. 



15186 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Let me see if I understand this, now. In other 
Avoids, for your members to get lots at a reduced price, you had to 
put this money in the bank down there where Lower was buying? 

Mr. Hoffa. I didn't have to put the money there, Senator. 

The Chairman. Were they going to get the lots at reduced price 
anyhow ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I believe they would have, yes, sir; and I think if we 
could find a folder, and I am quite sure Mr. Kennedy must have it 
there somewhere, the dates beyond that period of time to where there 
was an agreement made for the members to get lots at a reduced price, 
and I believe it was 50 percent of the regular purchase price. 

Mr. Kennedy. That, I believe, goes back to about the first part of 
1955, that they were getting lots. 

Mr. Hoffa. It could very well go back : 1956, I think, was the first 
deposit. Is that right ? 

Mr. Kennedy. And Johnnie Dio Guardi was getting lots' 

Mr. Hoffa. Anybody could have bought lots, but they didn't get 
them at a reduced price, our members got them. Many people bought 
them for the purpose of an investment, looking forward to the day 
that area would be developed down there to where they could have 
made a tremendous profit on the lots they bought. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question about this gentle- 
man known as Lower ? Is that his name ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Lower, L-o-w-e-r. 

Senator Ives. Was he an official of the bank ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No, sir. He was the president of Sun Valley, and prior 
to that time had been and officer of the Teamsters local union. A car 
salesman union. 

Senator Ives. He could still be an official of a bank. That is what I 
was curious about. 

Mr. Hoffa. No, he isn't. 

Senator Ives. You still haven't cleared this up for me, Mr. Holla. 
I can't understand why you had to deposit a half million dollars down, 
there. 

The Chairman. Let me ask Mr. Hoffa this : According to the records 
here, when the $300,000 was deposited on the 19th of November, I 
believe — the 19th of June 1956, the next day Sun Vallev got a loan for 
$300,000. Later, in November of the same year, when the two $100,000 
checks were deposited, November 13 and 14, the date of the checks, 
on November 26, about 10 or 12 days thereafter, November 21 or some 
few days thereafter, in the same month, Sun Valley got another loan 
for $200,000. 

Mr. Hoffa. You say Sun Valley did ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Hoffa. $500,000 altogether? 

The Chairman. Yes, $500,000 altogether from the same bank. 

Mr. Hoffa. Are you sure of that, Senator? 

I don't think that is correct, Senator. 

The Chairman. I am giving you this information as I have it so as 
to help you. 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't think it is correct, Senator, from what I know 
about it. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15187 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman, is this the bank where the deposit had 
been made \ 

Mr. Hoffa. I think, from what I know about it, there is only 
a $300,000 loan from the bank, to the best of my knowledge. 

Senator Ives. The same bank? 

Mr. Hoffa. I think there is only a $300,000 loan from that bank, 
Senator. 

Mr. Kennedy. We can put the documents in. It might be well to 
put these documents in. 

Mr. Hoffa. There might be something that I don't know, that I 
dont know about. 

The ( hairman. The chairman doesn't want to make a misstatement 
of fact to you. I, of course, am being guided by what the staff 
members tell me. We will just put the records in. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have this mimeographed, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Hoffa. I am not aware of it, myself. 

TESTIMONY OF CARMINE S. BELLINO— Resumed 

The Chairman. Mr. Bellino, have you made an examination of this 
bank account at the Florida National Bank, about which we have been 
taking testimony ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Have you also made an investigation to ascertain 
about the loan made to Sun Valley from that same bank? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Will you state what your records reflect and pro- 
duce the documents substantiating your statements? 

Mr. Bellino. The $300,000 loan signed at the Florida National 
Bank 

The Chairman. Let's get the deposits first. Do you have those? 

Mr. Bellino. You have the checks, Senator. 

The Chairman. Well, the checks show the first deposit or the first 
check that was deposited was dated June 19, 1956. What do your 
records show relative to that date with respect to a loan from that 
same bank to Sun Valley ? 

Mr. Bellino. The account itself is coming up from downstairs on 
local 299, in the Florida National Bank. But that was deposited 
either the same day or the next day, about June 20, 1956. 

The Chairman. And that same day a loan was granted to Sun 
Valley? 

Mr. Bellino. On June 20, 1956, this note evidencing the loan of 
$300,000 was obtained from the Florida National Bank. 

The Chairman. You have a copy of that note there ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Is that a copy of the note ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That note may be made exhibit 193. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 193" for reference, 
and may be found in the files of the select committee. ) 

The Chairman. Is that a note from the Sun Valley interest to the 
same bank? 



15188 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mi. BeLlino. This is a note signed by Sun Valley Inn, by Henry 
Lower as president, payable to the Florida National Bank, $300,000 
at 5 percent interest. 

The Chairman. What security is there in back of that note, if it 
reflects? 

Air. Bellino. It says moral assignment of various contracts for 
deeds held by Bank of the Commonwealth, Detroit, Mich. 

The Chairman. What is that ? 

Mr. Bellino. Moral assignment. 

The Chairman. Moral ? 

Mr. Bellino. Moral ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Moral assignment. What does that mean? You 
are an accountant. It may be something I don't know about. 

Mr. Bellino. This meant that the Bank of Commonwealth was col- 
lecting the moneys on the sales and they had an understanding that 
their collections up in Detroit would go for payment against this loan 
in Florida. 

The Chairman. In other words, sales from Sun Valley ? 

Mr. Bellino. That is right. 

The Chairman. Collections from sales at Sun Valley would be 
applied against this mortgage ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Any other security given ? 

Mr. Bellino. Well, the mortgage on the properties. 

The Chairman. There was a mortgage on the properties? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And then the pledge of the payment of collections 
as the property was sold ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. Now you have the $300,000 loan. 
When was the next deposit made? And what was the amount of it? 

Mr. Bellino. There w T ere two checks for $100,000 each dated No- 
vember 13, and 14, and that was deposited on or before November 20. 
The bank statement, as I say, is on its way up. On November 20, 
there was another loan of $200,000 from the Florida National Bank, 
signed by Henry Lower, president of Sun Valley, Inc. 

The Chairman. Is that another note? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That note may be made exhibit 193-A. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 193-A" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the Select Committee.) 

Senator Ives. That is 5 percent, too ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How is it secured ? 

Mr. Bellino. A 5-percent note with the same security. 

The Chairman. As the $300,000 note ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Then the two loans were made simultaneously or 
immediately after these deposits were made ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions, Mr. Kennedy ? 

Senator Ives has a question. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15189 

Senator Ives. I would like to know if the loans that were made by 
the bank are more or less of an offset to this half million dollar 
deposit. 

Mr. Bellino. I didn't get the question, Senator. 

Senator Ives. Were the loans made by the bank more or less an 
offset to this half million dollar deposit? 

Mr. Bellino. It was with that understanding that the loans, ac- 
cording to the affidavit which we have from the records of the bank, 
that the loans were being made on the basis that the local union, the 
Teamsters Union would deposit $300,000 in the first instance and keep 
the money there as long as the loan was outstanding. 

Senator Ives. The loan could not exceed $300,000 at that time? 

Mr. Bellino. Well, I don't find anything — — 

Mr. Kennedy. They applied it to the loan of $300,000. 

Senator Ives. The reason I bring up this point is I am wondering 
what the bank is making out of this deal. If it wasn't paying any 
interest on the deposit and charging 5 percent on the loans, it looks 
to me that they were making 7 or 8 percent on the deal. 

Mr. Bellino. That was their security. 

Senator Ives. That is dandy. 

The Chairman. Do you have the document there with respect to 
the agreement that this money should remain in the bank? 

Mr. Bellino. I believe it is in the affidavit, Senator. 

The Chairman. Do you also have an affidavit ? 

Mr. Bellino. Also, I have an application. 

The Chairman. Do you have a copy of the original application for 
the loan ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Has it previously been made an exhibit? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir ; in the last hearing. 

The Chairman. What exhibit number does it have ? 

Mr. Bellino. No. 32, dated September 28, 1957. 

The Chairman. What does it say about a deposit ? 

Mr. Kennedy. It states at one place in there, Mr. Bellino, does it 
not, that — 

As stated above, our bank was told by Mr. Lower, in the presence of Mr. 
McCarthy, at the outset of the loan negotiations, that Mr. Hoffa had a principal 
interest in Sun Valley, Inc. At first Mr. Lower said that this interest of Mr. 
Hoffa could not be revealed publicly. He did not say why. On November 16, 
1956, Mr. Lower told me personally, in the presence of Mr. McCarthy and our 
current president, Mr. Willard, that as of that time he was free to reveal Mr. 
Hoffa's interest, where he had not been previously. 

Isn't that contained in that affidavit ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir ; it is in the affidavit. 

The Chairman. Have you made note of it there ? 

Let's get the affidavit and the original application together so we 
can examine them. 

Mr. Bellino. Here is a photostat of the affidavit, Senator. 

The Chairman. Has it previously been made an exhibit? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What exhibit number does it bear? 

Mr. Bellino. 32-A, B, and C. It is a part of that exhibit. We 
have the original here also. 

The Chairman. I didn't understand you. 



15190 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Bellino. We have the original affidavit. 

The Chairman. You have the original affidavit and also a photo- 
static copy \ 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Who is the affidavit by? 

Mr. Bellino. This affidavit is by Mr. Omar Hewitt, Jr., vice presi- 
dent of the Florida National Bank, at Orlando. 

The Chairman. What I am trying to determine here, and what I 
think should be cleared up, is whether these funds were actually used 
as collateral for this loan, or if there is any agreement that the funds 
should remain deposited in that bank during the life of the loan. 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator, there is no commitment by 299 to that extent. 
The best evidence is we withdrew $100,000 from that bank, according 
to this statement. 

The Chairman. That may be true. I am just trying to clear it up, 
because it should be cleared. 

Mr. Bellino. My recollection of discussions with Air. Hewitt, and 
from these very lengthy documents, my recollection is that the money 
was being deposited with the understanding that it would remain 
there as long as the loans were outstanding. 

The Chairman. Does he state that in his affidavit? I do not want 
your conversation with him. That might have some bearing if he told 
you that. But what does he state in the affidavit about it? 

Mr. Kennedy. While he is looking that up, could I ask Mr. Hoffa 
a question about that ? 

The Chairman. All right, 

Air. Kennedy. Wasn't this money advanced down there, Mr. Hoffa, 
to induce the bank to loan the money ? 

Mr. Hoffa. In my opinion, the bank would have loaned the 
money 

Mr. Kennedy. Just answer that question. 

Mr. Hoffa. I am answering the question, Senator. If you want an 
answer, I will answer the question. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are not answering the question. 

The Chairman. Let him proceed. We will pursue it until we get 
the answer. 

Mr. Hoffa. In my opinion, the money would have been loaned on 
the property, because of the value of the property, regardless of 299's 
deposit in the bank. However, by depositing the money in the bank, 
it may have helped Lower or Sun Valley get the loan. But in return 
our members were able to purchase lots at a reduced rate which, in my 
opinion, was of far greater benefit to the members than a question of 
some slight interest on the money. 

The Chairman. Now, Mr. Hoffa, I think that agreement, some 
arrangement, had been made some year before. 

Mr. Hoffa. What? 

The Chairman. That they could purchase the lots. 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. 

The Chairman. Then that had nothing to do with this, because that 
agreement and arrangement was already in effect, 

Mr. Hoffa. Except the fact that the property, if I remember cor- 
rect 1 v. wasn't ready to be sold, and the money had to be borrowed to 
be able to subdivide the property for the members. 

The Chairman. To develop it? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15191 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes. 

The Chairman. And, therefore, you thought your members might 
benefit some by reason of getting it developed i 

Mr. Hoffa. They did benefit. And that was our belief. 

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

I would like to find out how many members bought lots. 

Mr. Hoffa. Offhand I don't know, but I would say well over a 

Senator Ives. One hundred, and you lost approximately $15,000 to 
$30,000 in interst? n , 1 _ 

Mr. Hoffa. I would say well over a hundred. I don't know exactly 
the number, but it was well over 100. It could have been 200, 300, or 
400. . 

Senator Ives. What did the lots sell for \ Do you remember i 

Mr. Hoffa. I think $300, if I am not mistaken, normally. And I 
think now they are up to about $900. 

Senator Ives. In other words, the regular price they would have 
had to pay at the time would have been $450 approximately? 

Mr. Hoffa. No, I think it was about $150 to the union. 

Senator Ives. About half price? 

Mr. Hoffa. I think that is correct. Somewhere there is a proced- 
ure I am sure they have it here — which outlines the details of what 

the members could buy the lots for at the reduced rate. 

Senator Ives. When you say there is a hundred, you think, that 
bought them, that is $1 5,000 ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I would say a minimum of a hundred and far greater 
than that if we could get 'the full details. I am sure they must have 
it from Sun Valley's office here. 

Senator Ives. While you are getting that other material for me 
about your accounts, I wish you would get that. 

Mr. Hoffa. I can't ^et it for you. 

Senator Ives. You can't get it ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, still going back to the question I asked 
you, you loaned or you advanced this money, put this money in the 
Florida bank, in order to induce them to loan money to Sun Valley, 
did you not ( 

Mr. Hoffa. It may have had some influence on the loan, but it wasn t 
tied down to the effect that he either got the loan or he didn't based 
upon the money. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then why did you put the money down, if it wasn't 
so that Sun Valley could develop these lots ? Why did you send the 
money clown if that wasn't the reason ? 

Mr. Williams. That wasn't his answer, Mr. Kennedy. His answer, 
as I understand it, was that it may have had some influence on the loans 
to Sun Valley but wasn't a condition prerequisite to it. 

The Chairman. Let me ask this question. Was that a part of your 
consideration in deciding to send the money down there, to assist in 
getting this loan? 

Mr. Hoffa. It could have been, but I think generally — 

The Chairman. Well, it could have been. Was it or wasn't it? 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator, 1 think generally if Lower had come into the 
office and requested that we make a deposit down there without his 
property, we might have done it. But you can say that it had an 

21243 — 59 — pt. 40 17 



15192 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

influence to a degree on our members getting the benefit of reduced 
lot prices. 

The Chairman. They were already getting that. 

Mr. Hoffa. But it wasn't subdivided, Senator, or developed to the 
point that the commitments would have been all right for them. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did depositing the money in the Florida bank 
help the members buy lots from Sun Valley if it wasn't that the money 
was to be used to develop Sun Valley ? Mr. Hoffa, your answer just 
doesn't make any sense. 

Mr. Hoffa. The $300,000 that Lower borrowed was for the purpose 
of developing Sun Valley. 

Air. Kennedy. Right. 

Mr. Hoffa. But the money we deposited could not be used for the 
purpose of, or any part of, Sun Valley. 

Mr. Kennedy. How would you depositing money in this Florida 
bank help your members buy lots from Sun Valley ? 

Mr. Hoffa. They couldn't have bought lots if the land wasn't 
subdivided. 

Mr. Kennedy. So how was your depositing money in the bank in 
Florida helping to subdivide the lots in Sun Valley ? 

Air. Hoffa. Lower had a loan — Lower requested me — he had a com- 
mitment — I will put it in the Senator's words — he had a commitment 
for a loan. He requested me to put the money in the bank. I put 
the money in the bank but would not allow it to be used as collateral 
or any part of the loan. It probably did affect 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it in connection with the loan? 

Mr. Hoffa. Wait a minute. It probably did affect the question of 
Lower getting the loan to divide Sun Valley where our people could 
get the benefit of buying the lots. 

The Chairman. Don't you know that it was put in there to enable 
them to get this loan ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Lower didn't tell me that that was the only way he 
could get it, and I didn't talk to the bank officials about the loan. 

The Chairman. I did not ask you what was told to you. Did not 
you know, and was not it your belief at the time, that it was necessary 
to put this money down there in order for Lower to get the note ? 

Air. Hoffa. Senator, I don't believe that it was necessary to put it 
there. I think it assisted him, but I think he could have gotten the 
loan based purely on the value of the land, after it was developed, 
Senator. 

Senator Church. Mr. Chairman, I think we could determine pretty 
clearly the extent of the inducement on the bank involved in this 
transaction. 

Mr. Bellino, can you testify as to the interest being paid on this 
bank on its savings accounts ? 

Mr. Bellino. No, sir. 

Senator Church. You do not know what percentage? 

Mr. Bellino. No, sir ; I would think around 2 percent. 

Senator Church. Assuming that the interest would be 2 percent, 
$500,000 deposited at 2 percent would amount to $20,000 in 2 years' 
time, would it not, so that the benefit derived by the bank under an 
arrangement of this kind, where $500,000 is placed interest-free on 
deposit in the bank, as compared to what would normally be the ar- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15193 

rangemerit where the bank is paying interest on the money it loaned, 
entails a saving to the bank of $20,000 in 2 years, and also entails a 
loss to the union of $20,000, which would otherwise be obtainable 
through the investment of these unused funds in an account that paid 
interest. Is that not true '. 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator Church, we withdrew on December 11, 1956, 
$100,000 from that deposit and placed it back in City Bank. 

Senator Church. However, at this time you still retained on de- 
posit $100,000 in this Florida bank. 

Mr. Hoffa. Right, which would change the figures, I would agree, 

Senator Church. The next question is: Could you tell me how 
much the loan has been reduced ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No ; I can't, 

Senator Church. Is it possible that the loan has been reduced by 
$100,000 ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't know. Maybe they can answer that, I don't 
know. 

Mr. Kennedy. The one important thing is- — you talk about the 
developing of the lots for the Teamsters. The important thing is, Mr. 
Hoffa, your own personal financial interest, the fact that this money 
was going to be loaned on this land scheme also helped you financially, 
you and Mr. Owen Bert Brennan, because you had an option on this. 
This is not just a question of union funds going down there to help 
Teamsters. These are union funds being sent down there, a loss to 
the union of almost $20,000, to help Mr. James Riddle Hoffa and Mr. 
Owen Bert Brennan. 

Mr. Hoffa. Mr. Senator, may I straighten Mr. Robert Kennedy's 
thinking about that question out ( 

If you will look in the first page, you will find in the middle of the 
page on March 29, 1955 that $50,000 was loaned by the Bank of Com- 
monwealth to Lower and was endorsed by myself as the cosigner of 
the loan. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. 

Mr. Hoffa. Then, if you will look over on July 29, 1957, you will 
find $25,000 loaned, obtained from the Bank of Commonwealth by 
Henry Lower Associates, Inc., which was part of Sun Valley. A 
mortgage note was endorsed by Henry Lower and James R, Hoffa. So 
actually the option that I had was accountable for by me countersign- 
ing $75,000 worth of notes that if Lower didn't make good, I had to 
make good. That is actually what happened to the situation. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think you proved it even beyond what I said. You 
not only had a financial interest in Sun Valley, but you had gone on 
certain notes that it was important that this land scheme be successful. 

Mr. Hoffa. The best evidence is I didn't receive any money from 
Sun Valley at any time insofar as the repayment — in repayment of 
my option. I have not exercised the option. 

The Chairman. Mr. Hoffa, was this a joint venture between you 
and Mr. Lower?, 

Mr. Hoffa. No. I was not responsible and had no part of Sun Val- 
ley. I simply had an option to buy. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have Mr. Hoffa clear 
something up which he did not quite clear up. 



15194 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

I think you said, Mr. Hoffa, that you had approximately 100 mem- 
bers of the union thai bought lots \ 

Mr. Hoffa. L said, Senator, a minimum of loo and over. I don't 
think L00,butover. 

Senator Eves. 200? 

Mr. Hoffa. I would think it verv easilv could be 200. 

Senator Ives. 300 \ 

Mr. Hoffa. I would think it could easily be up to 400. 

Senator Ives. Was it 400? 

Mr. Hoffa. I believe at one time there was a figure published, and 
I don't have it, but it seems to me vaguely there was a figure of 400 
lots sold to our members. 

Senator Ives. You are sure of it, but you are not able to swear to it ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. 

Senator Ives. 400 lots, and you said they cost $150 apiece to your 
members ? 

Senator Ives. That is $60,000. I am curious to know why you went 
through all of this financial operation for that particular purpose. 
I take it this was not exclusively to buy lots for your members, was it? 

Mr. Hoffa. It was originally started out, Senator, for the members 
of Teamsters. 

Senator Ives. You could not possibly, with that kind of an expendi- 
ture, hope to make anything of it yourselves if that is all there 
was to it. 

Mr. Hoffa. That is not correct, the way I understand. 

Senator Ives. I am just relaying on what you said. That is all. 

Mr. Hoffa. But if a sufficient number of Teamsters bought lots and 
developed the city, then there would be the commercial property that 
would be set aside which would make the profit for the developers, not 
necessarily any profit out of the lots. 

Senator Ives. On that basis, you would have to sell 2,000 lots in 
order to get your original $300,000 back. 

Mr. Hoffa. Very easily. 

Senator Ives. And that $300,000, that original amount, as I under- 
stand, was for the purpose of developing the whole area there I 

Mr. Hoffa. That is what it was supposed to be for, as I understood. 

Senator Ives. That is as I understand it. I would think you would 
have known more about the wishes of your members before you under- 
took anything as vast as this. Originally, you told me 100 or better 
and now you have it up to 400, maybe. But 400, 1 want to remind you 
again, if you sold them all at $150 apiece, amounts to only $60,000. 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator, there wasn't any secret about Sun Valley, be- 
cause there was a film made of Sun Valley and it was shown at union 
meetings to the members who came to the meetings, and there was 
literature passed out to the members. It was on TV for several weeks 
in Detroit. So it wasn't something that was hid from the members. 
They were all aware of it. They all knew about it, because the TV 
program and because of the picture that was shown to memebrship 
meetings, so that they would be able to have the benefit of purchasing 
these lots. 

Senator Ives. Was your interest in this whole matter known ? 

Mr. Hoffa. My interest in it ? 

Senator Ives. Yes, your personal interest in it? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15195 

Mr. Hoffa. I did not announce that I had an option, so I would 
say no, but I believe 

Senator Ives. Well, let us suppose it had been. 

Mr. Hoita. Wait a minute. I would have told them. What is the 
difference ? 

Senator Ives. Of course you would, and it would not have made a bit 
of difference, would it? 

Mr. Hoffa. Not a bit of difference. As a matter of fact, they know 
about it now, for almost 18 months. 

Senator Ives. I still don't understand this wild scheme of financing 
that produced what you produced here. 

Senator Church. Do you still have this option, Mr. Hoffa ? Do you 
still have the right to exercise it ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes. 

Senator Church. And that option, as I understand it, pertains to 
45 percent ownership if exercised ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to get the documents in 

Mr. Bellino. The deposit of 

Mr. Hoffa. Pardon me. I didn't catch it, but there seems to be a 
question. So that the record is clear, there isn't any union money 
in this property. 

Senator Ives. No, I gathered there isn't. You had a very fancy way 
of financing it. You took union money to deposit in the bank. It is 
perfectly clear what happened here on the face of it. You deposited 
it in the bank so that the bank, in turn, would turn around and loan 
this money to Lower. 

Mr. Hoffa. Without affecting the interest of the Teamster Union 
money, with no possibility of losing any money of the Teamsters 
Union. 

Senator Ives. Well, they were not getting any interest on it. 

Mr. Hoffa. Except they had the benefit of purchasing the lots at 
the reduced rate. 

Senator Ives. Those who were able to, but how many teamsters were 
eligible ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I think they only paid $5 a month payment. 

Senator Ives. That has nothing to do with it. 

Mr. Hoffa. There were about 80,000 people who could, if they 
wanted to, purchase lots. Certainly out of the 80,000 people, with the 
right promotion, you can sell 2,000 lots. 

Senator Ives. I don't think you had the right promotion, because I 
do not think you sold 2,000 lots. 

Mr. Hoffa. I think you are right. 

Senator Ives. I am curious to know what became of all of this. 
Can you tell us ? 

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

Mr. Kennedy. We can tell you. 

Mr. Hoffa. I will tell you what happened to this. Because of this 
committee it is almost on the rocks. 

Senator Ives. What? 

Mr. Hoffa. Because of this committee publicity, it is almost on the 
rocks. 



15196 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the financial status of the operation? 

Mr. Bellino. The present status? It is in bankruptcy at the 
present time. However, the bank expects to be able to recover all of 
its money from the sale of any property, when and if ordered. 

Senator Ives. When did it go into bankruptcy '. 

Mr. IIoffa. It isn't in bankruptcy court. There is to be a hearing 
on it. 

Senator Ives. When did it get there ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I think about 3 months ago. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Bellino, you say it has gone into bankruptcy 
court ? 

Mr. Bellino. A petition for reorganization under chapter 10 of 
the Bankruptcy Act. 

Mr. Kennedy. What has been the reason that it went into bank- 
ruptcy court, and what has happened to the money that was put into 
this project? 

Mr. Bellino. One of the main reasons was that the money which 
they borrowed from the Florida National Bank for use on that de- 
velopment was diverted to other projects in Detroit, Mich. 

Mr. Kennedy. And to Henry Lower personally I 

Mr. Bellino. Henry Lower and associates, and possibly Mr. Hoffa 
might tell us whether he is part of this associates. 

Senator Ives. It was diverted, and we would like to know that, too. 

Mr. Bellino. Diverted to a golf range, and two igloos. 

The Chairman. What is that? 

Mr. Bellino. Or drive-in ice cream stands, and they were intend- 
ing to put up, I think a $15 million project, an office building, and a 
little city in itself, but which the zoning authorities did not approve. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much was diverted that we can show? For 
instance out of the $500,000 that the Florida bank loaned on this 
scheme, how much actually went into the development of the lots? 

Mr. Bellino. Out of the $500,000, I might say first out of the 
$300,000, there was around S.Ml.ODO-some-odd that went into the 
lots, and the balance of $200,000 went up to the banks in Detroit and 
was used principally on the Detroit projects. 

Mr. Kennedy. They had other projects going, Henry Lower and 
associates ? 

Mr. Bellino. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is why it is so important to see this option 
and we would like to see if Mr. Hoffa had an interest in Henry Lower 
Associates. 

Mr. Hoffa. The answer is "No." 

Senator Ives. I want to ask Mr. Hoffa, right here, exactly how 
the committee caused you to do all of this? You say we are respon- 
sible for the failure of that business down in Florida. We are not 
the cause of this business failing. We had nothing to do with it. 

Mr. Hoffa. The publicity originating out of this committee in my 
opinion was what caused a loan that normally would have been a good 
loan and a good investment, to become, a bad loan and a bad invest- 
ment, because the newspapers in Florida 

Senator Ives. When did you divert this money to Detroit or there- 
abouts ? 

Mr. Hoffa. What money? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 15197 

Senator Ives. This loan money. 

Mr. Hoffa. Who did? 

Senator Ives. I suppose you did. 

Mr. Hoffa. I did not. 

Senator Ives. Well, Mr. Lower then, or whoever got it, and you 
were probably connected with it. 

Mr. Hoffa. I am not. 

Senator Ives. Well, Mr. Lower, did he divert it up there? 

Mr. Hoffa. I know nothing about Lower's bookkeeping situation. 
I have never been in the Sun Valley's office. 

Senator Ives. Let us find out. 

Mr. Hoffa. I have nothing to do with the Sun Valley Associates. 

Senator Ives. Let us call it a development, and I think we will un- 
derstand it then. 

The Chairman. Let us develop the diversion here for a moment, 
and see if we can do that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can we go through it from the beginning, Mr. 
Chairman, as to how this operated ? 

The Ciiairm an. Mr. Bellino, can you tell us ? 

Mr. Kennedy. So we can finish the other subject of the $500,000, 
how much was supposed to go into the development of the lots? 
How much actually went into the development of the lots? Can you 
tell approximately ? 

Mr. Bellino. Approximately around $50,000 of the first $500,000 
that came out of the Florida bank 

Mr. Kennedy. The first $300,000? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much of the second $200,000 ? 

Mr. Bellino. Of the second $200,000 the money went immediately 
up to Detroit, and there may have been some money, possibly an 
additional $50,000 that was spent on the Sun Valley, but I am not 
positive on that. 

The Chairman. Now, you are saying that approximately $400,000 
of this $500,000 was diverted from Sun Valley up to projects in 
Detroit? 

Mr. Bellino. I would say from $250,000 to $300,000 has been 
diverted. 

The Chairman. In other words, from half of it to three -fifths of it ? 

Mr. Bellino. It has been diverted or it is on deposit in banks in 
Detroit rather than in Florida. 

Mr. Kennedy. Diverted from the Florida lots ? 

Mr. Bellino. That is right. 

Senator Ives. Is it drawing any interest in those banks ? 

Mr. Bellino. No; it is in checking accounts in Detroit. 

The Chairman. Was this diversion made before this committee 
started investigating? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Now, go ahead. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Bellino, isn't it a fact that the money was 
supposed to have been used for the development of roads, streets, and 
other kinds of developments of that kind ? 

Mr. Bellino. A water plant and so on. 

Mr. Kennedy. And it was not used for that purpose ? 

Mr. Bellino. Thev had some streets. 



15198 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. But this money was not used all for that purpose, as 
it was supposed to have been \ 

Air. Bellino. They built six houses, that is all. 

Mr. Kennedy. The money was not used for the purpose it was 
supposed to have been used, but it was diverted up to Detroit, 

Mr. Bellino. On other projects. 

Mr. Kennedy. And isn't that the reason that this finally failed? 

Mr. Bellino. That is what made it very difficult. 

Air. Kennedy. Is it not the fact of our activities. All we did was 
give publicity to the fact that it was a fraud. 

Air. IIoffa. You gave publicity to the fact that Sun Valley bor- 
rowed the money from the bank, and the publicity that came out of 
the newspapers, it effected the sale of lots, and the net result was in 
addition to this, that you have just said here, which I had no part 
of, it became a problem of being able to pay the notes and continue 
developing the property. 

I maintained that if it wasn't for the bad publicity that Sun Valley 
got, which originated out of the investigation here, they would have 
been able to sell sufficient lots in addition to the ones they had already 
sold to maintain the project and pay back the money they borrowed. 

Air. Kennedy. What it was, Air. Hoft'a, as the lots were being sold, 
it was a fraud to people buying them, because Air. Lower was telling 
the people that these lots were developed. 

We gave publicity to the fact that these lots were not developed, and 
they hadn't built the roads and the sewer pipes and the waterways. 
That is the reason. The fact that this was going on, that this money 
had been diverted up to Detroit, was developed in a Detroit paper 
back as far as October of 1956, the fact that Henry Lower was 
doing this. 

Mr. Hoffa. But that situation was corrected when that appeared 
in the paper. It was corrected and one of the agencies of Govern- 
ment, I don't know which it is, finally cleared the selling of the lots 
after Lower had complied with certain requirements of law. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you go through and show the involvement in 
this matter? 

Mr. Bellino. Could I first read the part of the affidavit that re- 
ferred to the money deposited in the bank ? 

We were assured by Mr. Lower iu the presence of Mr. McCarthy — 
Air. McCarthy is the branch manager of the Bank of the Common- 
wealth, which is located near the Teamster Building in Detroit — 

that a Teamsters' account would be established at our bank with balances equal 
to or in excess of any loans granted to Sun Valley, Inc., by us. We were as- 
sured, also, that these balances would be maintained with our bank during the 
life of any loans. These promises have been complied with to date. 

Senator Church. What is the outstanding balance of the loans still 
owing the bank ? 

Mr. Bellino. I believe the last figure that I saw was somewhere 
around $366,000. 

Senator Church. In other words, the amount of money still owing 
the bank on this loan is less than the amount of money remaining on 
deposit ? 

Mr. Bellino. I believe so ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Hoffa. Which again is a proof. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LaBOR FIELD 15199 

Senator Church. That this affidavit has been complied with. 

Mr. Bellino. On August 17, 1054, local 299 issued a check to local 
985 in the amount of $10,000. We have a copy of the check here. 
Local 985 in turn issued a check No. 1180 for $10,000 to Henry Lower, 
and it was charged to loans receivable. 

Now the check of local 985 is not available. We have not been able 
to locate it. 

The Chairman. You mean here a local issued a cheek to another 
local and that local issued a check to Lower? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. Mr. Hoffa's local, No. 299, first issued the 
$10,000 check to Mr. William Bufalino's local, No. 985, and then 
Bufalino's local in turn issued a check to Henry Lower as a loan, and a 
notation of that appeared in their minutes of October 11, 1954. Those 
are the minutes of local 985, reflecting- that the $10,000 borrowed from 
local 299 was then in turn loaned to Brother Henry Lower. 

The Chairman. Was it loaned on the same date? According to 
the memorandum I have here, it appears that the same day the check 
was issued on local 299, local 985 issued the check to Lower. 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir ; it was on the same day. The loan went from 
one to the other. 

The Chairman. All right, proceed. 

Mr. Bellino. On October 22, 1954, the records of Sun Valley reflect 
that certificate No. 1 for one share of Sun Valley stock was issued to 
Henry Lower for $200, and the same date, No. 2 was issued to Earl 
G. Kehoe, and No. 3 for one share was issued to George S. Fitzgerald. 

On November 5, 1954, Mr. Troy M. Deal, the owner of the property 
at Titusville, Fla., received $6,000 earnest money on the property which 
cost $150,000. 

On November 15, 1954, the stock certificates of Earl Kehoe and 
George Fitzgerald, Nos. 2 and 8, were canceled and stock certificate 
No. 4 for two shares was issued to Henry Lower. 

On March 29, 1955, Sun Valley obtained a loan from the Bank of 
the Commonwealth, which loan was endorsed by James K. Hoffa. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have a document in connection with that ? 

Mr. Bellino. This document which is an application for a loan 
dated March 21, 1055, reflects the loan at the rate of 4 percent, to Sun 
Valley, Inc., located at 2741 Trumble Street, which is the address of 
the Teamsters Building in Detroit, and the business is subdivision for 
Teamsters Union members in Florida, and the time for 30 days, and 
interest accounts are all Teamsters Union accounts. 

They specify the numbers and the balances in each account at that 
time, and in this particular case they listed just three accounts, one 
with a balance of some $234,000, and another one with a balance of 
$263,000, and a third one with a balance of $86,000. 

There is a notation : 

These are only a few of the accounts at Myrtle 14th Street Branch. There 
are deposits of over $1 million at this branch alone, plus other branches at main 
office accounts. 

Then it lists the name of Sun Valley showing there is nothing on 
their books, and they had not borrowed anything, and the names of 
James K. Hoffa, as "nothing on our books," with a further notation : 

About a year or so ago, we lost a Teamsters account of $800,000 to the City 
Bank through some misunderstanding. We are trying to get this account back, 



15200 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

and a welfare account at the National Bank of Detroit which runs over $1 million. 
If we cannot take care of them, they propose going to the City Bank and no 
doubt we will lose more accounts. 

The Chairman. In other words, they were using the wealth of the 
Teamster local, its finances, to induce banks to loan money for these 
individual projects \ 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That document may be made exhibit 194. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 194" for ref- 
erence and may be found in the files of the select committee. ) 

Mr. Bellino. There is a handwritten notation by Mr. Parcel, the 
president of the bank, in which he noted it was a "good policy loan." 

The Chairman. A good policy loan ? 

Mr. Belling. It was good policy for their bank to make this loan. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the loan that Mr. Hoffa spoke about earlier. 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir, that is the $50,000 loan, and on their ledger 
account they list the name of Mr. Hoffa as endorser on that $50,000 
loan. 

Do you want the ledger account made a part of that, too, Senator '. 

The Chairman. The ledger account may be made exhibit No. 194-A. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 194-A" for 
reference and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Bellino. In that connection also, we have a copy of a renewed 
note, when the balance of the note was down to $17,500. It is the orig- 
inal $5,000 note which is signed by Henry Lower, showing the address 
of 2741 Trumbull Street, and the endorsement on the back of James R. 
Hoffa. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit 149-B. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 194-B" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee. ) 

Mr. Bellino. On April 6, 1955, Sun Valley issued their check for 
$39,000, which went to pay for part of the land from Troy M. Deal. 

On April 9, 1955, Mr. McCarthy, from the branch bank of the Bank 
of the Commonwealth, made a trip to Florida, and at that time the 
Sun Valley account was opened at the Florida National Bank, with 
a $500 deposit, 

On July 26, Sun Valley, Inc., was qualified to do business in the 
State of Michigan. 

That may be pertinent inasmuch as here was a Florida development 
for allegedly Teamster members, and they are now going to do business 
in Michigan and possibly that would be in connection with the sale of 
lots, and they probably would have to do that, but it also provided 
a means to c;o into any other ventures there. 

On September 26, 1955, local 299 issued its check, No. 10696, which 
was charged to "Loans receivable," to local 376. 

The Chairman. What happened ? 

Mr. Bellino. That was for $10,000. 

The Chairman. That check, is this a check that you are speaking 
of? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That check may be made exhibit 194-C. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 194-C" and will 
be found in the appendix on p. 15357.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 15201 

The Chairman. T\ T e will try to keep this transaction together as 
much as we can. 

Mr. Bellixo. Local 376 then issued its check No. 813, charged to or- 
ganization expense, and payable to Henry Lower in the amount of 
$10,000. 

The Chairman. Now then, was that money charged, $10,000, or 
given to Lower there out of union funds as organizational expenses? 

Mr. Bellixo. That is the charge made on the books ; yes. 

The Chairman. It wasn't charged as a loan ? 

Mr. Bellino. No, sir. 

The Chairman. But it was coming out of union funds '. 

Mr. Bellixo. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman-. To promote this project ? 

Mr. Bellixo. That is right. 

The Chairman. All right, that check may be made exhibit No. 
194-D. 

(The check referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 194-D" for ref- 
erence and will be found in the appendix on p. 15358.) 

Mr. Bellixo. On November 17, 1955, local 299 and local 337, Mr. 
Hoffa's local and Mr. Brennan's local, each issued a check for $6,800, 
payable to joint council 43, and on the same day joint council No. 43 
issued its check for $13,600 to Henry Lower. 

The Chairman. Those checks may be made exhibits 194-E and F. 

(The checks referred to were marked "Exhibits 194-E and 194-F," 
for reference and Mill be found in the appendix on pp. 15359-15360.) 

Mr. Bellixo. On December 5, 1955, there was a $5,000 curtailment 
on the $50,000 loan at the Commonwealth Bank, or I should say the 
agreement on the $50,000 loan called for a curtailment of $5,000 a 
month. However, on December 5, 1955, the president agreed that 
the curtailment should be reduced to $2,500 a month. 

On June 18, 1956, at a Sun Valley board of directors meeting men- 
tion was made of negotiations to borrow $300,000 from the Florida 
National Bank at Orlando for 3 years at 5 percent. 

On June 19, 1956, check No. 2063 was issued to the Florida National 
Bank for $300,000, and the account opened in that bank on June 20, 
1956. 

The Chairmax. That check has already been made an exhibit. 

Mr. Bellixo. On June 20, the same day as deposit was made, the 
Florida National Bank loaned Sun Valley, Inc., $300,000. And at 
the same time, a cashier's check in the amount of $50,000 was sent 
to the Bank of the Commonwealth at Detroit and deposited in the 
Sun Valley account in that bank. 

On June 22, 1956, local 376 received from Sun Valley Inc., drawn 
on the Florida National Bank, a check in the amount of $22,422. 

The Chairman. Do you have that check ? 

Mr. Bellixo. No, sir ; we are unable to get that check. 

On the same date, local 376 issued their check No. 1279 to local 299 
for $22,422. 

The Chairmax. What was the purpose of these checks ? 

Mr. Bellixo. This is eventually going to local 299. 299 advanced 
various expenses on behalf of local 376. This is where they are being 
repaid. I believe some of the expenses were in connection with Sun 
Valley development that were being repaid by these unions and the 
Sun Valley now is repaying them. 



15202 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Of course their books are so confused, there is no 
way of telling, is there? 

Mr. Bellino. That is correct. 

The Chairman. They suddenly repay $22,422, and there is no way 
of telling where that figure came from? 

Mr. Bellino. Well, they made a journal entry, but we don't have 
all the bills, and we can't support all the items. But it looks to us 
like it should be a whole lot more than $22,000. 

The Chairman. Mr. Bellino, was Henry Lower on the payroll dur- 
ing this period of time ? 

Mr. Bellino. He was on the payroll of local 299 for quite a period 
of time. 

The Chairman. How much was he getting? 

Mr. Bellino. From local 299, from March 12, 1954, for the balance 
of that year he received $10,800. 

I am sorry. It is $8,100 in 1954; $10,800 in 1955; and $5,200 in 
1956. That went up to about July 1, 1956, at which time he w T ent on 
the salary of Sun Valley, Inc., and for the balance of that year he got 
$8,250. In other words, he was on the union salary all through the 
period of from March 12, 1954, through about July 1956. 

Senator Ives. I would like to ask Mr. Bellino a question, Mr. 
Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Ives. 

Senator Ives. This is a quick question. 

Do you, Mr. Bellino, think that these people who were involved in 
these various transactions have themselves any idea as to how they 
stand financially in these deals or this deal ? 

Mr. Bellino. The purchasers of the lots, Senator ? 

Senator Ives. The ultimate purchasers of the lots may know. I 
am talking about these various transactions you are naming. 

Mr. Bellino. No, sir; I don't know how they could. In many of 
these cases, the name Henry Lower does not appear. We have a book 
from one of the locals that back there the money went to either Henry 
Lower or local 299 and it doesn't show his name in the book at all, nor 
does the stub of the checkbook show. 

Senator Ives. I take it that solvencv, then, means nothing to them 
at all. 

Mr. Bellino. Well, we have heard Mr. Hoffa's statement on that. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did lie receive expenses as w T ell as that money that 
he got from them ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes. He not only received expenses, but he also re- 
ceived personal loans himself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you tell us the total figure of what he received 
in salary ? 

Mr. Bellino. The total salaries for a 3-year period from 1954 to 
1956, $30,550: expenses as officer and delegate's expense allowance — 
that is a term they use in the Teamster's records — he received $5,422 ; 
organizational expenses, $4,489 ; travel expenses, $6,748, and I am now 
rounding out the figures — personal advances or loans during this 
period, $170,371.96. 

Mr. Kennedy. From the Teamsters Union ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15203 

Mr. Belling. From the Teamsters and Sun Valley both. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you break that clown ? 

Mr. Bellino. The Sun Valley on personal advances, $123,000 in- 
cluded in that $170,000 figure. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much from the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Bellino. About $47,000 from the Teamsters. Eepayment of 
loans is $15,100. That was at Sun Valley. Advertising, $385. He 
received some money to buy automobiles, $6,586. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was this all from the Teamsters? We better sep- 
arate what is from the Teamsters and what is not. 

Mr. Bellino. Of the total sum during this period that Henry 
Lower received, 1954, 1955, and 1956, there is a total of $257,000 that 
he received, and of that amount, $139,000 came from Sun Valley 
and the balance is from the Teamsters, about $120,000, approximately. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is for most of the time he was developing or 
interested in Sun Valley ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. He received during that period — you say that pe- 
riod — is that for the year 1954, the year 1955, and the year 1956, all of 
the years, up to what time ? 

Mr. Bellino. Starting March 12, 1954. 

The Chairman. Beginning March 12, 1954? 

Mr. Bellino. And all of the year 1955 and all of the year 1956. 

The Chairman. In other words, for a period of 2 years and 9 
months, in round numbers, he received $118,000 from the union? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And during that same period of time, he received 
$139,000 from Sun Valley ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Either for salary, expenses or loans ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe we have already had in the record that he 
had made Mr. Hoffa a loan, did he not ? 

Mr. Bellino. I believe these was a $25,000 cash loan which Henry 
Lower made to Mr. Hoffa. 

The Chairman. During this period of time? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir; that is included in the loan because it doesn't 
show on the records to other than to Henry Lower. 

Mr. Kennedy. And in which there is no note ? 

Mr. Bellino. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just $25,000 in cash ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir; but there is no way for us to know. There 
is no record of it, It could be more than $25,000, but that is all we 
have been told about. 

Mr. Kennedy. When we were talking with Mr. Lower about this, 
he said he placed it in a brown paper bag? 

Mr. Bellino. That is right, he had the cash put in a brown paper 
bag. 

The Chairman. Who did that? 

Mr. Bellino. Henry Lower. 

Mr. Kennedy. When we interviewed Mr. Henry Lower, Mr. Chair- 
man, he said he put the $25,000 in cash in a brown paper bag and 
delivered it to Mr. Hoffa in that fashion. Mr. Lower is alive, and 
we have been trying to get him for about 14 months. We subpenaed 



15204 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

him. lie keeps coming up with doctor certificates. Then we sub- 
penaed his wife because she had an interest in this, and now she has 
a doctor's certificate. 

The Chairman. Where do they live? 

Mr. Bellino. Detroit. And also Mr. McCarthy, of the bank, from 
whom we hoped to get an affidavit or to have here, he has been evad- 
ing^ our representatives up in Detroit. 

Senator Ives. What is his title in the bank ? 

Mr. Bellino. Well, he is out of the Bank of Commonwealth now. 
He is in the new bank, the public bank. 

Senator Ives. He is a bank official still, is he not ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ives. What is his title in the bank ? 

Mr. Bellino. He was branch manager. I presume he would go 
over at the same status or about the same status, at least. 

Senator Ives. Do you mean a bank official in Detroit is evading a 
subpena ? 

Mr. Bellino. He has given us a sworn affidavit and our men have 
been parked at his home from early this morning and late last night 
and we haven't been able to reach him. 

Senator Ives. Do the banking officials of the State of Michigan 
know this ? 

Mr. Bellino. The bank president knows this. 

Senator Ives. I am not talking about the bank president, but the 
superintendent of banking or the banking commissioner, whoever he 
is, does he know it ? 

Mr. Bellino. He will know it now, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Bellino. Continuing: On June 22, 1956, Sun Valley issued 
their check in the amount of $13,900 to joint council 43 and noted 
it on the books as ref mid, advance on advertising. 

I might say this, that the most we could find coming from joint 
council 43 is $13,600. We don't know where the other comes in. 

On the same day, joint council 43 issued its check to local 299 for 
$6,800, and recorded it as miscellaneous expenses. Similarly, joint 
council issued its check to local 337 for $6,800. Sun Valley withdrew 
from the Florida National Bank $175,000 and opened an account in 
its name in the National Bank in Detroit. 

The Chairman. Do you mean $175,000 out of this money they bor- 
rowed from them ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. They drew that much cash out and put it in a bank 
in Detroit ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. On July 23, 1956, $25,000 was withdrawn 
from Sun Valley, Inc., account in the National Bank of Detroit and 
deposited in the account of Henry Lower in the same bank. On the 
same day a $25,000 check was issued by Henry Lower to H. N. Seldon 
Co., real estate agents. Seldon, in turn, issued their check to Crowley- 
Miller Co. as deposit for property located at Myers Road and Six Mile 
Road, Detroit, and on which property they were going to construct 
this $15 million project. 

On August 10, 1956, Henry Lower placed a $2,000 deposit on land 
owned by Loyola Estates. On September 20, 1956, they paid $7,500 
for land owned by one Mary Held, in Detroit, 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15205 

The Chairman. Was that paid out of this money that they had 
borrowed in Florida ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. They are spending the money up there buying 
property ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Bellino. Henry Lower then purchased other property from 
the Loyola Estates at a cost of $62,500. On November 13, 1956, local 
299 — well, I believe we have covered these two $100,000 checks which 
went to Florida. 

The Chairman. They have been made exhibits. 

Mr. Bellino. Then they obtained the $200,000 loan from the 
Florida National Bank. I might say that that $200,000 was deposited 
on November 17, 1956, and the loan by the bank was made on Novem- 
ber 20, 1956. 

Mr. Kennedy. Three days later. 

Mr. Bellino. Right. 

On November 21, the Florida National Bank issued its cashier's 
check for $200,000 to Sun Valley, Inc., which was deposited in the 
latter's account in the Bank of the Commonwealth of Detroit. 

The Chairman. Do you mean they took out all of that money ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Immediately? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir, and it went up to the Bank of the Com- 
monwealth in Detroit. 

The Chairman. Transferred it away from that bank up to Detroit ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

At the same time, Sun Valley, Inc., had applied for a $500,000 
loan from the Florida National Bank, and at that time, Henry Lower 
gave a verbal pledge that a million dollar account in the name of 
local 299 welfare fund would remain with the bank for the dura- 
tion of the line of credit. However, the bank in Florida did not 
recommend that $500,000 loan. 

The Chairman. Do you mean that he sought another $500,000 
loan? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And was going to have $1 million of welfare funds 
out of 299 placed down there ? 

Mr. Bellino. Well, he said out of 299, but it would have come out 
of the Michigan Conference of Teamsters welfare fund to have been 
placed down there, but the bank did not go along on this loan. 

The Chairman. They did not go along on the second $500,000 ? 

Mr. Bellino. That is right. 

The Chairman. But an application was filed ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you have a copy of the application ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That application may be made exhibit 194-G. 

(The application referred to was marked "Exhibit 194-G," for ref- 
erence. And may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Bellino. On November 26, Sun Valley, Inc., issued its $200,- 
000 check against the funds in the Bank of the Commonwealth and 
deposited it in the National Bank of Detroit. 



15206 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Do you have 1 hat check ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That will be marked exhibit 194-H. 

(The check referred to was marked ''Exhibit 194-H" for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 15361. ) 

Mr. Bellino. On December 11, 1956, 299 withdrew $100,000 from 
its accounts in the Florida National Bank and deposited it in the 
City Bank. 

On December 15, 1956, we have an affidavit from Mr. Charles 
Valentine, indicating that on that date Mr. Hoffa and he and Lower 
and a Mr. Boigan made a trip to Sun Valley. Do you want that 
affidavit, Senator? 

The Chairman. That affidavit may be marked exhibit 195. 

(The affidavit referred to was marked "Exhibit 195" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the date that they made the trip ? 

Mr. Bellino. December 15, 1956. 

Mr. Kennedy. That would have been after these loans had been 
made from the Florida bank and after, at least, it was know to cer- 
tain Detroit papers and Florida papers that the money had not been 
used for the promotion of the property, to improve the property, 
is that correct ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Because at that time the various improvements 
that were supposed to have been made had not been made, is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Hoffa went down there at that time I 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

On July 29, 1957, which wasn't very long prior to our hearings of 
last year, another $25,000 loan was obtained by Henry Lower Associ- 
ates. It was a mortgage note. That note was endorsed by Henry 
Lower arid James R. Hoffa. And we have a copy of that also,*Senator. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit 196. 

(Copy of the note referred to was marked "Exhibit 196" for ref- 
erence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. "Was there any discussion about the Teamsters in 
that loan ? Is that similar to the other situation ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir; the same. On this application 

The Chairman. Is that the application for the $25,000 loan? 
^ Mr. Bellino. Yes sir . There is a handwritten notation, "Teamsters 
Union, Hoffa, have over $1 million on deposit." 

Mr. Bellino. They attach to it a list of the Teamster bank accounts 
showing the balances of over $1 million in that bank at that time, and 
the mortgage note bears the endorsement of James R. Ploffa. 

The Chairman. The committee will stand in recess until 10 :30 in 
the morning. 

(Whereupon, at 5:10 p.m., the hearing was recessed with the fol- 
lowing members present: Senators McClellan, Ives, and Church, to 
reconvene at 10 :30 a.m. Thursdav, September 18, 1958.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1958 

United States Senate, 
Select Committee on Improper Activities 

in the Labor or Management Field, 

Washington, D.C. 
The select committee met at 10 : 30 a. m., pursuant to recess, in the 
caucus room, Senate Office Building, Senator John L. McClellan 
(chairman of the select committee) presiding. 

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

Also present : Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel ; Paul Tierney, as- 
sistant counsel; John J. McGovern, assistant counsel; Carmine S. 
Bellino, accountant; Pierre E. Salinger, investigator; Leo C. Nulty, 
investigator; James P. Kelly, investigator; James Mundie, investiga- 
tor; John Flanagan, investigator, GAO; Alfred Vitarelli, investiga- 
tor, GAO ; Ruth Y. Watt, chief clerk. 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. We will proceed. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, you know Mr. Lew Farrell ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir. 

Mr, Kennedy, How long have you known him ? 

Mr. Hoffa, I would imagine 3 to 5 years. 

Mr. Kennedy, Where did you meet him first? 

Mr. Hoffa. I believe Des Moines, Iowa. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who introduced you? 

Mr. Hoffa. I believe I was down with Dick Kaviier in Des 
Moines, and I think there was a dispute with the beer distributors at 
that time in Des Moines. Also I was there to attend the council 
meeting. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he representing the beer distributors ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I believe he had a beer distributorship and he was on 
the negotiating committee, and I think it was Canadian Ace, if I am 
not mistaken. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he speak to you since you have met him regard- 
ing any companies that he represented? 

Mi*. 'Hoffa I don't think he represented anybody except his own 
company. 

21243—50 — pt. 40 IS 15207 



15208 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Since that time, has he represented any employers? 

Mr. Hoffa. Not to me: no. 

Mr. Kennedy. You do not know of any other employers? 

Mr. Hoffa. I have had no business with Lew Farrell with any out- 
side companies. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any business with him of any kind? 

Mr. Hoffa. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Any financial t ransactions of any kind '. 

Mr. Hoffa. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. It has just been a personal friendship ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No; not a personal friendship. It is an acquaintance, 
as an employer. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you had any dealings with him since that time, 
regarding the company that he represents ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I think he went out of business very shortly thereafter. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, then, have you had any dealings with him of 
any kind? 

Mr. Hoffa. Not in regard to labor relations other than to see him 
and say hello to him. 

Mr. Kennedy. So it was just a personal acquaintance? 

Mr. Hoffa. It wasn't a personal acquaintance. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you seen him since then ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I have seen him since then. 

Mr. Kennedy. In what connection have you seen him since then? 

Mr. Hoffa. He would be in Chicago, or be at the fights, and I saw 
him here. 

Mr. Kennedy. Does he call you? 

Mr. Hoffa. Occasionally ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What are those conversations about ? 

Mr. Hoffa. "How are you ?" and "What's new ?" 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Various conversations, to pass the time of day. 

Mr. Kennedy. You call him ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right, 

Mr. Kennedy. What do you call him about ? 

Mr. Hoffa. About the question of what is going on in Iowa, and 
the situation. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why do you call him to find that out ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I think he is quite well acquainted with the problems 
of knowing what happens in Iowa. 

Mr. Kennedy. For what reason ? 

Mr. Hoffa. General. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't call him about any particular company 
or any particular employer? 

Mr. Hoffa. He doesn't represent anybody. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he doesn't call you about any company ? 

Mr. Hoffa. He doesn't represent anybody. 

Mr. Kennedy. He just calls to pass the time of day ? 

Mr. Hoffa. And discuss friends that we have, mutual friends. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you the trustee of local 10 in Omaha, Nebr. ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I believe I am ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you familiar with the contract that they signed 
with the Midwest Burlap & Bag Co. ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I was familiar at the time of the signing. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15209 

Mr. Kennedy. Excuse me. 

Mr. Hoffa. I was familiar only after it was signed, and it was 
brought to my attention that there was a jurisdiction question, and 
I believe it came out of the international office, and they asked me to 
adjust it. When I got into the jurisdictional question, I instructed 
Kavner to keep the drivers and I believe the shipping and receiving 
and the warehousing and to turn the balance of the people over, I be- 
lieve, to the Garment Workers or somebody of that nature. There 
was some other international union. 

Mr. Kennedy. What were the circumstances surrounding the sign- 
ing of the contract ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Kavner told me he had a majority of the people, at 
the time the contract was signed ; after going into it, I decided that 
the membership should go into the other international union, and I 
instructed Kavner to transfer the people, and I guess he did transfer 
the people. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about the fact that the Textile Workers 
Union, which was the other union, had applied for representation 
in December of 1956, the Textile Workers, and the company then 
immediately signed a contract with local 10 of Omaha, Nebr., and 
dated the contract back to September of 1956? What was the ex- 
planation for that ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't have any explanation. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, could I just call Mr. Sheridan to put 
the full facts about this in ? 

The Chairman. All right. Come around, Mr. Sheridan. 

TESTIMONY OF WALTER SHERIDAN— Resumed 

Mr. Sheridan. The Midwest Burlap & Bag Co., in Des Moines, 
Iowa, was under organization on and off by the Textile Workers 
Union starting back in 1951. In the spring of 1951 according to an 
affidavit we have from one of the owners of the Burlap Bag Co., he 
was approached by Mr. Kavner who claimed he represented a major- 
ity of his employees. At that time Mr. Pomerantz, one of the part- 
ners in the company, said he entered into an oral agreement with Mr. 
Kavner to sign a contract with the Teamsters Union. 

Mr. Hoffa. Who is that ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Pomerantz. 

The Chairman. How do you spell it ? 

Mr. Sheridan. P-o-m-e-r-a-n-t-z. 

The Chairman. Whom did he represent, and what was his posi- 
tion? 

Mr. Sheridan. He was one of the owners of the Midwest Burlap 
& Bag Co., of Des Moines, Iowa. 

Mr. Kavner was representing Local 10 of the Teamsters Union of 
Omaha, Nebr., at that time under trusteeship of Mr. Hoffa. 

Mr. Kennedy. There were Teamster locals there, were there not? 

Mr. Sheridan. There were Teamster locals in Des Moines, Iowa, 
but this local 10 of Omaha was sent into organize this company. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who assigned them to organize the company ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Presumably Mr. Hoffa. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you assign them to organize the company, Mr. 
Hoffa? 



15210 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Hoffa. Dick Kavner is an international representative, or 
rather was a Central Slates conference representative at that time, 
and if he received any leads on any new organization anywhere in 
the central conference, he would have had the right to go in and 
institute organization and the power to negotiate a contract. 

Mr. Kennedy. Go ahead. 

Mr. Sheridan. So they entered into this oral agreement according 
to Mr. Pomerantz and they were going to execute a formal agreement; 
then they moved the plant in September of 1956. 

Now the plant was moved in September of 1956, but the formal 
agreement was not entered into. On December 21, 1956, a letter was 
received from the Textile Workers claiming that they represented a 
majority of the employees. Thereupon negotiations were entered into 
with the Teamsters Union and in January of 1957 at the time of the 
NLRB inquiry into the matter a contract was signed with the Team- 
sters Union and was dated back to September 3, 1956. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now the contract was not signed until January of 
1957? 

Mr. Sheridan. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. But the contract was dated September of 1956 ? 

Mr. Sheridan. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the Textile Workers in the meantime had been 
trying to organize the plant and had come in in December of 1956 
and told the employer that they had a majority of the employees 
signed up and wanted to sign a contract. 

Mr. Sheridan. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Immediately afterward, the owner of the plant 
signed a contract with this local from Omaha, Nebr. ? 

Mr. Sheridan. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is Des Moines, Iowa, is it ? 

Mr. Sheridan. That is correct. 

Now, the contact at the time it was signed was attacked by the 
AFL-CIO, or the AFL in Omaha as being a backdoor agreement. 
They challenged the right of local 10 of Omaha to come in and 
organize the company in Des Moines. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have the condemnation by the AFL of this 
agreement that had been signed ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes. This is an article dated February 14, 1957, 
and the lead on the article is ''Condemn Invasion by Local 10 Here." 

Mr. Hoffa. Did he say ''10 years"? I can't understand what he is 
saying, sir. 

The Chairman. We are having trouble understanding you. Would 
you get that mike adjusted so we can hear? 

Mr. Sheridan. How is this? 

The Chairman. That is better. 

Mr. Hoffa. Would you give me the year, please ? 

The Chairman. Would you repeat what you said a moment ago, so 
we can all hear it ? 

Mr. Sheridan. The article says, "Condemn invasion of local 10 
here." 

Mr. Hoffa. I got it now; yes. 

Mr. Sheridan. Sam Turk, who was the head of the A. F. of L.. in 
this article condemns the organization bv local 10 of Omaha of the 
Midwest Burlap Bag Co. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15211 

Do you want me to read the article? 

Mr. Kennedy. Just read the condemnation. 

Mr. Sheridan [reading] : 

Members of the Polk County Labor Council, AFL-CIO voted unanimously to 
condemn the action of Teamster Local 10 of Omaha, Neb., in attempting to 
organize employees of the Midwest Burlap Bag Co. here. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have affidavits from several of the employees? 

Mr. Sheridan. We have affidavits from several of the employees 
who were called in by Mr. Pomerantz and asked to sign authorization 
cards. 

The Chairman. Identify the affidavits. Name the affiants. 

Mr. Sheridan. This is an affidavit by William Soper, of Chariton, 
Iowa. 

The Chairman. And the next one ? 

Mr. Sheridan. This is the only one we have. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have several others. 

Mr. Sheridan. We do have several others. 

The Chairman. That affidavit may be made exhibit 197. 

(The affidavit referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 197" for ref- 
erence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. You may read excerpts from it. 

Mr. Sheridan. This is the affidavit of William Soper. 

About the latter part of January or the first part of February 1957, the em- 
ployees in the plant were called into the office of Marvin Pomerantz, one of the 
officers of the company. I knew from conversations with other employees that 
Mr. Pomerantz was asking the employees to join the union. I was called to the 
office of Marvin Pomerantz, who acted like he was in a hurry. He put some 
papers down in front of me and said to sign. He said the papers covered juining 
local 10 of the Teamsters Union, and agreeing to let the company take out $1 
a month for clues. 

Although I knew what the papers covered from con versa t ions with other em- 
ployees, I glanced over them. 

Marvin Pomerantz then said, "Stick with me, pal, aud you won't get hurt." 
As I did not have a fight with anyone, I signed. 

They deducted dues for 8 or 9 weeks before I quit the plant. During the 
time of the union activity at the plant, Lew Farrell was around the plant about 
every day. Sometimes he would stay for only a few minutes and sometimes he 
would stay for several hours. He would go to the office and then at times would 
walk around the plant like a big wheel. As far as I know, he did not talk with 
The employees. I do not know his connection with Midwest Burlap Bag or with 
the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do we have an affidavit also from Mr. Pomerantz ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he describes the situation and the signing of the 
contract ? 

Mr. Sherddan. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The affidavit from Mr. Pomerantz may be made 
exhibit 197-A. 

(The affidavit referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 197-A" for ref- 
erence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Does he also state in there that he contacted Mr. Lew 
Farrell in connection with this matter? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes; he does. 

The Chairman. Do you want to read some excerpts from it? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes. He says : 



15212 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Some time subsequent to this period iu which we had the discussion with Mr. 
Kavner regarding his attempt to organize the plant, I talked with Mr. Lew 
Farrell of Des Moines, whom I had known since childhood. I asked Mr. Far- 
rell what he thought of the Teamsters Union and the idea of signing with the 
union. I asked Mr. Farrell if I could trust the Teamster Union officials who 
had contacted Midwest to treat us fairly. Mr. Farrell said that he knew Mr. 
Kavner and the other Teamster Union officials involved and he assured me that 
we would receive fair treatment. 

After this initial conversation I had several conversations on this subject with 
Mr. Farrell. On one particular occasion he led me to believe he had been in 
contact with certain union officials whom he did not identify. During this con- 
versation, he again stated that we could be assured that the union officials would 
abide by their word. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could I have the affidavit ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do we find that Mr. Farrell was in touch with a 
number of the union officials during this pertinent period of time? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes; we do, sir. 

The Chairman. What is that period of time, now ? Let us see if 
we can identify that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Starting in the middle of 1056 through the end of 
1956, and the first part of 1957 ? 

Mr. Sheridan. That is correct. We have several phone calls. On 
May 16, 1956, Mr. Farrell called Mr. Hoffa three times at the Palmer 
House Hotel in Chicago, 111. On September 11, 1956, Mr. Farrell 
called Mr. Hoffa at the Shoreland Hotel, in Chicago, 111. On De- 
cember 9, 1956, Mr. Farrell called Mr. Hoffa at the Americana Hotel 
in Miami Beach, Fla. On December 13, 1956, Mr. Farrell called Mr. 
Hoffa at Detroit, Mich., at the headquarters of local 299. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have the calls from Kavner that you can 
put in briefly? 

Mr. Sheridan. On December 16, 1956, Mr. Farrell called Richard 
Kavner at Northdale, Fla,, the Colonial Inn Hotel. On December 21. 

1956, was the day that the textile workers formally filed a petition. 
On the following day Mr. Farrell called Mr. Kavner at Northdale, 
Fla. On the day after that, on December 23, Mr. Farrell made five 
calls to Peter Capellupo, who was the business agent for local 10. 

Mr. Kennedy. How do you spell his name ? 

Mr. Sheridan. C-a-p-e-1-l-u-p-o. 

On the following day, December 21, Farrell placed two calls to 
Capellupo. On the same day, Mr. Pomerantz called Mr. Capellupo. 

On January 7, 1957, Mr. Farrell called Barney Baker. On the 
same day, the Midwest Burlap & Bag Co. placed a call to the Central 
Conference of Teamsters in Chicago, a suite reserved for the Central 
Conference of Teamsters in Chicago. 

On January 8, 1957, Farrell called Barney Baker. On January 9. 

1957, Ferreircalled Richard Kavner. On January 10, 1957, Farrell 
called Capellupo. 

On January 28, 1957, the Midwest Burlap & Bag Co. called Capel- 
lupo. On January 31, Farrell called Barney Baker. 

The Chairman. When was this contract actually signed? 

Mr. Sheridan. The contract was actually signed in January 1957. 

The Chairman. Do you have the date in January I 

Mr. Sheridan. We don't have the exact date. It is in the NLRB 
records which we do not have here with us. But we have been ad- 
vised by the NLRB representative. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15213 

The Chairman. Who was Mr. Farrell working for at the time? 
What was his interest in this ? Do we have that information '. 

Mr. Sheridan. Mr. Farrell has told us that he does not in any way 
represent anyone in a labor relations capacity. 

When he testified before this committee, he took the fifth amend- 
ment regarding this question. But as far as we know, he has no official 
connection with this company. 

The Chairman. He is not a part owner or an employee of the 
company ? 

Mr. Sheridan. No, he is not. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think the important thing, Mr. Chairman, is that 
the Textile Workers, a legitimate labor organization, was coming- 
in to attempt to organize the plant; that they notified the company 
in December that they had a majority of the employees signed up; 
that immediately thereafter there was all of this activity with certain 
Teamster officials and Mr. Lew Farrell ; that the company, Midwest 
Burlap & Bag Co., then in January signed a contract with this Team- 
ster local from Omaha, Nebr., signing up their employees. The 
employer brought in the employees and helped sign them up in the 
union, and the legitimate union, the Textile Workers Union, was cir- 
cumvented, their wish was circumvented. The contract of the Team- 
sters Union was back dated to September of 1956. This was a local 
that was under the. trusteeship of Mr. James Hoffa. 

The Chairman. This local 10 in Omaha; is that right? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

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

The Chairman. Mr. Hoffa, was Mr. Farrell working for you in 
connection with this operation ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Was he working for the local ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Was he working for any agency or unit of the 
Teamsters' organization ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I will say no. I would say this, officially, no. If 
anybody had him, he was not officially on any — he was not official 
with any union or any subordinate body of our international union, 
to my knowledge. 

The Chairman. I just wondered what his keen interest in the 
matter was. 

Mr. Hoffa. He seemed to indicate there that he was a friend of the 
owner, Pomerantz. 

The Chairman. He tried to help Pomerantz ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That seems to be, from what the affidavit says. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is this a procedure that you would approve of, Mr. 
Hoffa? 

Mr. Hoffa. Mr. Kennedy, I am not in a position to say I approve 
or disapprove, because it is my opinion, from what I know of the 
circumstances, Kavner had a majority of the cards when the contract 
was signed. And if he had a majority of the employees on applica- 
tion when it was signed, I would approve of the contract. 

However, when the information came to my office concerning the 
question of the Textile Workers being involved in the situation, I 



15214 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

was the one responsible to see that the Textile Workers got their 
jurisdiction, and we maintained our jurisdiction. 

Look in t here and you will find it. 

The Chairman. What would be the purpose of taking them into a 
union, a local, in another State, when there is one there immediately 
available ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Local 10 is a very small local union, and Kavner prob- 
ably figured that since this was an industrial arrangement which was 
somewhat outside of the normal craft jurisdiction of the Teamsters, 
he probably decided to put them in the local union 10 to build that 
membership up without affecting the jurisdiction of the already 
chartered locals in Des Moines. That would be my opinion. 

The Chairman. I can't see the logic or any real good reason for 
taking men here in one locality where you have a local, and organiz- 
ing them into a local in another State. 

Mr. Hoffa. We do it quite often, Senator. If you have a man who 
can get along with an employer, and you have a situation where it 
has been nonunion for a long time, they may find it necessary to 
change faces to be able to accomplish the contract. 

The Chairman. Then, if I understand you, it is regarded as a 
proper practice for one local, like the local over here in Omaha, to go 
over in another State and raid the jurisdiction of a local over there? 

Mr. Hoffa. No; they wouldn't have had jurisdiction. Senator, of a 
bag company, because normally bag companies don't come within our 
jurisdiction. 

The Chairman. Where was this bag company located ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Des Moines, I think they said. 

The Chairman. In Iowa. If they didn't come within the jurisdic- 
tion of your local in Des Moines, I would say, its work didn't; I don't 
see how it would come within the jurisdiction of a local over in Omaha. 

Mr. Hoffa. We reserve the right as Teamsters to organize any com- 
pany that is nonunion, irrespective of jurisdiction. 

The Chairman. Wouldn't that reservation apply to the local there 
in Des Moines as well as the one in Omaha ? 

Mr. Hoffa. They may have wanted to remain strictly as a craft 
organization. Kavner would be probably the only one who could give 
you actually the details of it. 

The Chairman. Have we had Kavner before us ? 

Mr. Kennedy. He, Mr. Chairman, is the one that we have sub- 
penaed, and who has stated that he has had trouble with his heart. 
We had the doctors examine him and they said he could not testify. 

The Chairman. That is the one that is declining to testify on ac- 
count of his health. 

Mr. Kennedy. I just want to read further what labor itself said 
about this arrangement, Mr. Chairman. This is something, of course, 
we have been into in other areas, this kind of situation. 

Sam Turk, president of the Polk County Labor Council, com- 
mented on the council's action in these words : 

We are positive that elements who are injurious to labor and are only inter- 
ested in hiding behind labor are trying to come into Des Moines not really for 
labor purposes. 

Turk added that : 

Des Moines labor will stop this. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15215 

111 taking- action to condemn Teamster Local No. 10, the Polk 
County Labor Council passed a resolution stating it was greatly dis- 
turbed by the invasion of the labor movement in Des Moines by 
Teamster Local 10. The council resolution said that the Teamster 
Local 10 action placed in jeopardy the jurisdiction of other inter- 
national unions. 

The employees of Midwest Burlap Bag Co. were unaware of any 
other union, other than the Textile Workers, being interested in 
organizing. 

There is a feeling that the agreement by local 10 of Omaha with 
the Midwest Burlap Bag Co., of Des Moines, is a back-door agreement, 
and contrary to true union principles. 

The Chairman. May I ask, to get this in its proper perspective, was 
that criticism made by the local there in Des Moines ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No, this was made, Mr. Chairman, by the head of 
all the unions in the area. 

The Chairman. Do you mean AFL-CIO heads ? 

Mr. Kennedy. All AFL unions. The labor council in that county. 
This wasn't just the Textile Workers Union being critical, but a coun- 
cil made up of the heads of all the labor unions in this council, 
AFL labor unions were critical of this action. 

The Chairman. Did you know about that criticism, Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I didn't know about it, but I wouldn't have paid any 
attention to it, if I did. 

The Chairman. Well, I think that is a true statement. I don't 
think you care much either way. Whatever means justify the ends, 
you pursue them. 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator, I learned a long time ago that I can hire 
writers to write anything I want, for, pro or con, so I pay no attention 
to what is drafted in the heat of an argument. 

The Chairman. Do you regard this as a back-door operation ? 

Mr. Hoffa. If he had a majority of the cards, no. 

The Chairman. I am just asking you : Do you regard it as a back- 
door operation as this charges ? 

Mr. Hoffa. These charges here, do you mean ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, I don't personally — well, I would say no. Leave 
it at that. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about the employer bringing in the employees 
and telling them to sign these cards, Mr. Hoffa? Do you condemn 
that? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't see anything in the employer's affidavit that he 
signed, or any question that your man put to him, to determine 
whether or not that affidavit is proper or not, so I don't want to com- 
ment on it. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not talking just about the affidavit of the 
employer, I am talking about the affidavit of the employee who said 
that he was brought into the office and told to sign up. 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, I wasn't there, so I can't comment on it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, now, there is the affidavit. Do you condemn 
that ? Do you think that is a proper procedure ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I have no comment on it. 



15216 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. You are not going to condemn it ? 

Mr. 1 Ioffa. I am not going to comment on it. 

M r. Kennedy. I am asking you about it. 

Mr. Hoffa. I wasn't there. 1 don't know anything about it. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am asking you about it, whether that is a pro- 
cedure that you approve of. 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't know it is a true affidavit. 

Mr. Kennedy. Excuse me ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't know that it is a true affidavit. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let's assume it is a true affidavit. Is that a proce- 
dure you approve of ? 

Mr. Hoffa. If he had a union shop contract, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it a union shop contract? 

Mr. Hoffa. What did you say ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it a union shop contract? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't know. I am asking you. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is your local. 

Mr. Hoffa. I didn't read the contract. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, I would think that you would know about it. 

Mr. Hoffa. Why would I read an individual contract of a local 
union in Des Moines, Iowa? How many people, by the way, was in 
this plant ? How big was this plant ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No. What did they get for their jurisdiction and w T hat 
did we maintain ? That could make a big determination. 

Mr. Kennedy. No, I think the determination of the question here 
is tlie fact of the Textile Workers Union's coming in and trying to 
organize, and the sudden signing of a contract and predating it, and 
the fact that this was condemned by organized labor in that area, 
that a local came in from Omaha, Nebr., and signed this contract in 
Des Moines, Iowa. 

Mr. Hoffa. I think you better ask Kavner, Senator. I can't answer 
the question on what Kavner did. I don't know. 

The Chairman. The trouble is we can't ask Kavner. 

Mr. Hoffa. He has a very bad heart condition. I understand that. 

The Chairman. I am not at the moment challenging that. 

Mr. Hoffa. But, Senator, he lias offered in his affidavit to you to 
answer your questions in writing and under oath. So you could get 
the answer from him. 

The Chairman. Yes, he has offered if we will send him questions 
down there, he will answer them. 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right, under oath. 

The Chairman. He has offered to do that. 

All right, proceed. 

Senator Church. Mr. Kennedy, do I understand that this contract 
was signed in January 1957 but predated to September of 1956? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. 

Senator Church. If that is so, Mr. Hoffa, would that be a pro- 
cedure you approve of ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't think that is correct. When you were reading 
off the statement, I think there was a temporary contract signed in 
September, wasn't there? 

Mr. Kennedy. No. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15217 

Mr. Hoffa. You said a temporary contract was signed when they 

moved to a new plant. 

Mr. Kennedy. No. 

Mr. Hoffa. What was that \ 

Mr. Kennedy. There was a conversation evidently between Mr. 
Kavner and the employer that they might sign a contract, hut there 
was never a contract signed until January of 1957. 

Mr. Hoffa. All right. 

In answer to your question, if there was a verbal agreement made 
in September with an employer, and it was finally consummated in 
January, I would find nothing wrong with predating the contract 
back to the day of the verbal agreement. There is nothing unusual 
about that. 

The Chairman. I can well understand that you might enter into 
a contract in January and make it effective, give it retroactive effect, 
back to a certain date. 

Mr. Hoffa. If you verbally agreed in September, and you finally 
consummate it in January. 

Senator Church. But there is a difference, is there not, Mr. Hoffa, 
in making a contract in January and drawing it up and signing it 
in January, giving it retroactive effect as of September, and actually 
dating the signing of the contract as though it would indicate on 
its face that it was signed in September rather than in January? Is 
there not a difference there, in your opinion? 

Mr. Hoffa. For the legal effect of the agreement of signing it in 
January may be one thing. But if the employer wanted his contract 
because of his production output in September, you could very easily 
date the contract back to September to have it expire the next Sep- 
tember and have a 12-month agreement. 

I agree with you, you could just as well have signed it in January 
and have it run out in September. But they apparently didn't do it 
that way. I wasn't there, so I can't answer your question. 

Senator Church. Yesterday, Mr. Hoffa, at the end of the hearing 
Ave were discussing the matter of the Sun Valley development and the 
deposits in the Florida bank. I didn't have a chance then to ask you 
what disposition you intend to make of the money that is now on 
deposit there. 

Mr. Hoffa. Leave it there. 

Senator Church. It is my understanding that $400,000 is on de- 
posit there, and that the Sun Valley development is now in bank- 
ruptcy court. It was also my understanding yesterday that your 
testimony was to the effect that it was in your power, in the power of 
your union, to withdraw this money. 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. 

Senator Church. At any time. 

Now, inasmuch as the money is simply on deposit and gathering 
no interest, which is a matter of substantial cost to the union, and 
inasmuch as the development itself is now in bankruptcy courts, what 
do you intend to do with that money ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I will instruct the secretary-treasurer to put it into an 
account in the same bank and draw interest on it. 

Senator Church. That is what you intend to now do ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I will; yes. 



15218 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Senator Ives. 

Senator Church. One other question. What is the need for leav- 
ing it — money of the Michigan Teamsters locals involved — what is the 
purpose of leaving it in a Florida bank \ 

Mr. Hoffa. No particular purpose. 

Senator Church. I wouldn't think there would be any particular 
purpose unless — unless, there was, in fact, an understanding with the 
bank that the money should not be withdrawn. 

Mr. Hoffa. You just got through saying that if the situation is 
over I could take it out. Now there is no particular reason why I 
couldn't, but if I decide to leave it there, there is no reason why I 
shouldn't. 

Senator Church. What I would like to know is why should you 
decide to leave it there, if there is no purpose being served. 

Mr. Hoffa. There isn't any difference between one bank and 
another. 

Senator Church. This simply would tend to indicate that the in- 
formation supplied to the committee yesterday in the affidavit, that 
the money would be left on deposit as long as the loan was outstanding 
is, in fact, the case. 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, I read the testimony Mr. Bellino put in the record 
early this morning, so that when I came over here I would remember 
a few things about it, thinking you would have a few notes. 

Mr. Bellino said that the bank made a statement that they believe 
even in the present procedures that they have no problem in securing 
sufficient money to take care of the outstanding indebtedness. 

Senator Church. Well, if that is the case, then 

Mr. Hoffa. It is a matter of record. 

Senator Church. If that is the case, then, should the bank have no 
objection or should you have no objection to withdrawing the money 
from the Florida bank, and no evident purpose would be served by 
keeping it there, yet you will tell me you will keep it there. 

Mr. Hoffa. Nothing will be lost. I will get the same interest there 
as anywhere else, the same security. 

Senator Church. Is that so ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Isn't that so ? 

Senator Church. Well, there is quite a variety between banks and 
depositories in connection with the interest available. 

Mr. Hoffa. Certainly there is, but I think the bank to maintain an 
account generally does what is necessary to maintain the account in 
regards to paying interest. 

Senator Church. Is it a matter of convenience to Michigan locals 
to maintain large deposits in Florida banks? 

Mr. Hoffa. Not necessarily. 

Senator Church. I would think it would be a matter of incon- 
venience. 

Mr. Hoffa. Not necessarily. You can draw a check just as easy 
on a Florida bank as you can on one in Detroit. You have no prob- 
lem with it that I could see. 

Senator Church. So you want to let the record stand, then, that 
you are now going to, as a result of our deliberations of yesterday, 
you are now going to instruct the secretary-treasurer, or whoever has 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15219 

authority in these matters, to transfer this account in the Florida bank 
to a savings account so that it will commence to draw interest. 

Mr. Hoffa. We will take care of it. 

Senator Church. Hut you are going to maintain the deposit in 
the Florida bank, although there is no evident reason for doing so. 

Mr. Hoffa. We probably will. 

The Chairman. Senator Ives. 

Senator Ives. Yesterday I asked Mr. Hoffa if he would give me the 
total deposits that he had in all accounts in all the banks in which he 
has accounts, and I don't know whether he has had time to do the 
job. I want to inquire if he has had time to collect the information. 

Mr. Hoffa. I have instructed the secretary-treasurer to prepare a 
statement concerning the accounts that I sign checks on. 

Senator Ives. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Hoffa. It will be a few dollars. 

Senator Ives. How many ? 

Mr. Hoffa. It will be a few dollars. 

Senator Ives. I assume it will be, judging from what you have dis- 
closed here already. The Teamsters, as an institution, are as wealthy 
as many corporations. 

Mr. Hoffa. More so. 

Senator Ives. Yes, wealthier than some of our larger corporations. 

The Chairman. Mr. Sheridan, is this a copy of the contract with 
the burlap company which you have been testifying about? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes, it is. 

The Chairman. It may be made exhibit 198. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit 198" for reference. 
And may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. Mr. Hoffa, to get this thing where we can get the 
facts on record and properly evaluate them, this contract starts off 
with a question of whether this is a proper practice or not. 

This agreement made and entered into this 3d day of September, 1956 by and 
between Midwest Burlap and the union. 

That, of course, is not accurate. There may have been an oral 
contract, but this contract was not made and entered into at that time. 

Mr. Hoffa. That was the January agreement, is that right ? 

The Chairman. Sometime in January, yes, according to the infor- 
mation we have, when the contract was actually entered into and 
signed. 

Now, a review of the contract and an examination of it from the 
staff viewpoint, and 1 have not read it all, indicates that the only 
benefit in this contract that was immediate in any sense to the em- 
ployees in this provision : 

An increase of 5 cents per hour will become effective February 1, 1957 for the 
following classifications. 

Then it names the classifications. 

An increase of $2 per week will become effective February 1, 1957 for truck- 
drivers. 

Now, I cannot understand why, if you are making a contract back 
in September, that the increase, or the only benefits immediately at 
least to the employees, would be postponed until February. This 
rather indicates, and you can make any explanation you can of it, that 



15220 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

the contract actually was made in January and the first of the next 
month the rate increases went into effect. 

Do you have any comment about it? 

Mr. Hoffa. I would like also, if you have it there, to have a copy of 
the textile workers' contract that they signed when we gave them the 
membership of that union. I think you will find that the textile 
workers accepted exactly what we have in our agreement. If you have 
it, you can compare it and you will find out that they took exactly the 
provisions we have and put it in their contract. 

The Chairman. Which contract are you speaking of ? 

Mr. Hoffa. The textile workers. 

The Chairman. You mean after this contract was signed ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No. When I identified the jurisdiction that rightfully 
belonged to the textile workers, the textile workers, I am quite sure 
from memory, they assumed the contractual provisions that we had 
already negotiated for the individuals that they put in their union. 

The Chairman. What you mean is, you made just the same con- 
tract that the textile workers had made ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I am quite sure if you have it, it will show that that is 
correct. 

The Chairman. We will have it compared, if we have the other 
contract, and see. 

Mr. Kennedy. The point is that you stated that this contract was 
going back to September of 1956, although signed in January of 1957. 
The increases in wages, if that is true should have gone back to Sep- 
tember of 1956, and be retroactive as you say the contract was. 

The Chairman. In other words, what is there in the contract that 
necessitated dating it back to September 3 ? 

Why would it have to be made retroactive ? 

There are no benefits that accrued until the beginning of the next 
month. I just cannot understand unless there is some reason about 
taking jurisdiction away, or undertaking to take jurisdiction away 
from another union, 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Can we proceed ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, it is very interesting here, and it will answer 
some of the questions and clear up something. 

The Chairman. All right, let us have it. 

(The witness examined the document.) 

Mr. Hoffa. Let us look at this contract. 

Now, first of all, Iowa is an open-shop State. 

The CHAntMAN. It is what? 

Mr. Hoffa. An open-shop State, with a right-to- work law. 

Now, if you will take section B, which is a union shop provision 
of article 1, you will find that section B is inoperative because of 
the State law of Iowa, but also hoping that the legislature will be 
liberal and change the law to a union shop, and place the union shop 
in the contract with this proviso : 

No provision of this agreement shall apply in any State to the extent it may 
be prohibited by State law, 

which again takes care of the question of open shop. 

If under applicable State law, additional requirements must be met before 
any such provisions may become effective, and additional requirements shall 
first be met. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15221 

Now, this is why the employers called the employees in. 
In those instances where subsection B may not be validly applied, 
the employer agrees to recommend to all employees that they 
become members of the local union and maintain such membership 
during the life of this agreement, to refer new employees to the local 
union representatives, and to recommend to delinquent members that 
they pay their dues since they are receiving benefits of this contract. 
Then we go down to 2, where we deal with the question of check- 
on'. The employer can conceivably sign a card and, signing that 
card, he agrees to a checkoff, which is not illegal under a right-to- 
work law. 

Then they come into the question here of grievance machinery. 
Now, in that question, if this contract was retroactive to September, 
an employee who had a grievance, he could process the grievance 
even though the contract was signed in January and dated back to 
September. If there was a discharge or grievance, he could pro- 
test it under the grievance machinery, and very conceivably be able 
to recapture a job or loss of pay suffered because of a complaint. 

The Chairman. Why could you not just date it back for the time 
the employee had been working there, if you are going to date it 
back? If you are going to date it. back to take care of grievances, 
if that is a reason, why not date it back to the time the employee had 
been working there ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Because you couldn't do it. It would be 20 years back, 
and you might have a 20-year employee. 

Mr. Kennedy. You could just date it the day it was signed, like it 
was signed, and then say it is retroactive to September. I think the 
interesting thing is it is dated in February. 

Mr. Williams. I think he has a right to finish his answer. 
The Chairman. I will let him finish. 
Mr. Kennedy. I don't think it is in point. 

Mr. Hoffa. Then we have the next question, which comes into the 
question of holiday pay. 

Now, if the contract was retroactive to September, the man would 
receive Labor Day and Christmas holiday pay or Christmas and that 
is giving pay. It would be Labor Day, that is giving an increase in 
pay. 

The Chairman. He would have received that then if the contract 
was in force? 

Mr. Hoffa. It was retroactive ; yes. 

The Chairman. Do we have any information that he did '. 
Mr. Hoffa. I am just going through what you handed me. 
Then you come over to vacations, and if you take the article here 
dealing with article 11, section 1, it sets up a vacation schedule and 
you could retroactively have credits back to September, which could 
conceivably give you a vacation which you would not be entitled to 
if it was dated in January. So that takes care of that. 

Now you come down to the question of article 13, seniority. Under 
this contract dated back to September, he would have a seniority 
status recognized by the contract machinery subject to grievance if 
there was a dispute back to September, which you would not have had 
if you signed a contract in January. 
Now let us go over to the next question. 



15222 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EN THE LABOR FIELD 

You come to the hist section of this contract, and you come to 
termination provision, article 23 : 

This agreement shall be in full force and effect from September 3, 1956, to 
September 3, 1957, and shall continue in full force and effect from year to year 
thereafter unless written notice of desire to terminate is given. 

Now, since the contract went into effect in September, the man 
would have received, even though only a 5-cent increase in January, 
he would have received the question of seniority, grievance machinery, 
holiday pay, and vacation pay, which would be equivalent to a retro- 
active rate' structure of probably more than 5 cents. So very con- 
ceivably that is why Kavner handled the contract that way. 

The Chairman. I cannot see the seniority thing, if the fellow is 
working there, and dating the contract would not change the date he 
started to work. 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir; let me tell you what it does, Senator. 

The Chairman. Maybe there is some mechanism in those agree- 
ments that I do not understand. 

Mr. Hoffa. There sure is, and I will tell you why. 

If I have 20 years' seniority with a concern, and you have 5, and 
if the contract isn't in effect* and there is a promotion to a better 
paying job, or a question of being able to receive night differentials 
or shift differentials, and without seniority being in effect, I would 
not be able to collect the shift differential because, under an employe]' 
arrangement where there is no union shop contract, the employer has 
the sole discretion, irrespective of seniority, to be able to place the 
employee in the various shifts he wants him to work and in the classi- 
fication he wants him to work. So there are provisions in that agree- 
ment which could be in excess of the 5 cents in January, retroactive 
to the employer in that contract, including the three holidays. 

The Chairman. I think it would be very illuminating to ascertain. 
Mr. Counsel, whether these men were paid holiday pay from Septem- 
ber until January. 

Mr. Hoffa. If they would have a grievance. Senator, right at this 
present moment, even under the textile workers, to collect. 

The Chairman. Mr. Hoffa, I am not challenging your interpreta- 
tion of the contract, however good it is, is no good as far as benefits 
flowing to the worker unless the contracts are enforced. 

Mr. Hoffa. There is no question about it, but by the same token, 
if the ocntract is signed 

The Chairman. I would like to find out if these provisions were 
actually in good faith, and if they were enforced. 

Mr. Hoffa. I understand. 

The Chairman. If not, then it would lend strength to the suspicion. 
at least, that this contract was signed solely to prevent them from 
joining the union of their choice. 

Mr. Hoffa. But even if the union did not process the complaint 
under that contract, the} T could have very easily gone to the Labor 
Board or to civil courts and collect what is in that agreement, if 
they did not receive it. 

Therefore, predating it would have obligated the employer to accept 
those provisions retroactively. 

The Chairman. Again I am wondering if the men knew what was 
in the contract in the first place, and in the second place, again it 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15223 

points up, I think, the need for these contracts to be approved by the 
membership before they become effective. 

Mr. IToffa. We don't disagree with that. 

Senator Ives. I would like to ask Mr. Hoffa a question, if I may, 
on this question of the right to work. I am not acquainted with 
exactly how it is interpreted and exactly how it is carried out. I 
happen to be among those who are opposed to it. 

I want to ask you this : You say this is the open shop, and naturally 
it is with that kind of a provision. That being the situation, only 
those who sign the contract individually are affected by it, are they 
not? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. 

Senator Ives. By that contract ? 

Mr. Hoffa. And even on the checkoff, in that particular State, the 
man and wife must both jointly sign the checkoff. 

Senator Ives. That is as I understand it. 

Now, to carry this a little further, suppose certain workers refuse 
to sign the contract, what happens then ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Nothing. 

Senator Ives. In other words 

Mr. Hoffa. It would be a penalty under the law, and I believe it 
is a year in jail and a large fine if an employee is forced to sign into 
a union against his will in that particular State. 

Senator Ives. You have members of that union, I assume, or you 
have people working there in that plant that I assume are not mem- 
bers of that union ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I would imagine so. 

Senator Ives. You do not know much about what is going on 
there. I would like to know the full particulars of that, because this 
"right-to-work" question is getting to be a serious matter and we 
ought to know more about it. 

Mr. Hoffa. It is a quite a fake. 

Senator Ives. Well, I know what you mean, and I am well aware 
of it, and you do not need to argue about this thing with me. But 
I just want to know more about it, I do not think the Congress 
knows as much about it as it should know before it finally decides to 
take action on it. 

Senator Church. Mr. Hoffa, in your review of this contract, you 
have mentioned certain provisions and pointed up how these provi- 
sions conferred benefits on the w T orkers involved during the fall 
months preceding January; that is, September, October, November, 
and December. 

What I am wondering is this : Assuming that this so, could not all 
of these benefits have been secured during the fall months merely by 
entering into an agreement in January and making that agreement 
retroactive to September ? 

Mr. Hoffa. There isn't any question about it, but after all, look- 
ing behind instead of ahead is pretty easy. 

Now, Kavner may have believed, and I can understand the negotia- 
tions and you probably can if you have been in them, you can un- 
derstand that if an employer said ? "I give you an increase as of 
January 1, but I will make the fringes retroactive to September," 
you can draft it one of two ways: either you can put the January 

21243 — 59— pt. 40 19 



15224 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

date in, and make it from January to September as a term of con- 
tract, or you can say you can predate the contract to September and 
make it effective in January for the wage increases. It is a matter 
of lawyers and people drafting the contract, as to how to gain the 
same effect in different ways. 

Senator Church. I have drafted contracts of this kind in my own 
practice of the law, and in my opinion it is not simply a matter of 
doing it one of two ways. 

It seems to me that there is a right way and a wrong way to do it. 
That agreement commences with this statement in the preamble: 
This agreement made and entered into the 3d day of September 1956. 
There is evidence before the committee that it was not made and 
entered into on the 3d day of September 1956, so that this is a mis- 
statement of fact. It was in fact entered into in January. Now, as far 
as the benefits conferred through making it retroactive are concerned, 
all of those benefits could have been realized by merely making it 
retroactive, but not by stating that it was entered into in September 
rather than in January. 
You would agree with that ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I am not going to quarrel with it. You can do it ex- 
actly as you stated and you have the same results, and I think the same 
results came out of the signing of the contract the way it is. I, 
wouldn't have signed it this way personally. I would have signed it in 
January and made it retroactive. 

Senator Church. I would not have drawn it up this way if I had 
been the attorney involved because it does represent a misstatement 
of fact, and I think that it does give rise to the inference that the 
only purpose served by doing it this way is the very purpose pointed 
to by the committee, namely, making it appear as though a contract 
was in fact entered into in September for the purpose of undermining 
the jurisdictional claim of the other union. 

Mr. Hoffa. It wouldn't have held up legally anyway. You are 
familiar with the labor laws, and you know as well as I do that you 
cannot predate a contract and effectively go in front of the Board and 
use that as a contract bar to another union being able to petition for 
an election. 
Is that right, sir. 

Senator Church. That only serves to emphasize the fact that this 
was in the nature of a ruse. 
Mr. Hoffa. No use of me arguing with you. I wasn't there. 
Senator Church. I think this is a very improper way to handle 
union contracts. 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, I still would like to leave the record that the 
retroactive feature of the agreement, irrespective of how it was signed, 
was effective as of September and could have been very easily drafted, 
as you stated, by stating retroactivity on fringes, basic wages from 
now on, and gotten the same effect, making it from January to 
September. 

Senator Church. I would only add it not only could have been, but 
it should have been. 

Mr. Hoffa. That is a matter of lawvers. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15225 

Senator Ives. Having had a little experience in this field myself, I 
would feel, I think, that the Senator is correct. I am sorry to disagree 
with you in that matter, Mr. Hoffa, but I have to. 

Mr. Hoffa. That is all right, too. 

Senator Ives. Just one more case where we do not agree. 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. 

Senator Ives. There is another question I want to ask you before I 
turn this back to counsel. I want to ask you this : Do the workers who 
are not members of that union receive the same pay and benefits that 
the union members receive. 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes. You cannot sign an agreement in an open shop 
State not giving all the employees of that particular concern the same 
benefits with or without the joining of a union. 

Senator Ives. That is what I wanted to find out. How it was 
handled there. 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. 

Senator Ives. Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Local 876 of the Retail Clerks is in the Teamsters 
headquarters in Detroit ? 

Mr. Hoffa. It was, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. They pay dues, do they not, to Teamsters ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Five cents. 

Mr. Kennedy. Excuse me ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Five cents per capita tax per month to the joint council. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is Teamster Joint Council 43 ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Our records show that from January 1, 1954, to 
Septemb?!- 30, 1957, they paid a total of $83,175.17. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Eightv-three thousand what? 

Mr. Kennedy. $83,175.17. 

Mr. Hoffa. It could be. I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. A number of their contracts are signed by you. 

Mr. Hoffa. You are right. Pretty good ones, too. 

Mr. Kennedy. And their contracts with the various supermarkets 
and chainstores are signed by you ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. If you look how they are signed, you 
see that they are signed as chairman of the negotiating committee, and 
that the respective Meat Cutters Union and the Clerks Union sign for 
their particular unions. Have you got it in front of you? Take a 
look at it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You sign as chairman of the negotiations com- 
mittee? 

Mr. Hoffa. Right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you chairman of the negotiations committee? 

Mr. Hoffa. Joint negotiating committee. 

Mr. Kennedy. That would be for what unions ? 

Mr. Hoffa. The Meat Cutters and the Clerks. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were chairman for the Meat Cutters and the 
Clerks ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is correct. 

(At this point Senator McClellan returned to the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. You also witnessed a good number of the contracts ? 
m Mr. Hoffa. That is right, again acting as chairman of the negotiat- 
ing committee. 



15226 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. How were you, as the Teamster official, selected to 
be the chairman of the negotiating committee 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, I will tell you, Mr. Kennedy, it is a long story. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you want to wait until I finish, Mr. Hofl'a ? How 
were you as a Teamster official selected to be 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, I will give you 

Mr. Kennedy. Do vou want to wait until I finish the question, Mr. 
Holla ( 

Mr. Hoffa. Go right ahead. 

Mr. Kennedy. How were you selected to be head of the negotiating 
committee for the Retail Clerks and the Butchers \ 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, I will give you the answer to the question, and it 
takes a couple of words of explanation so you will know exactly what 
happened. Prior to the Retail Clerks or the Meat Cutters having any 
membership in retail stories in our area of any extent, all of those 
individuals who were organized at that time were in the Teamsters. 
We had taken jurisdiction of the retail outlets, and organized them. 
When the Retail Clerks international president went to see President 
Tobin at that time, complaining about our taking their jurisdiction, 
President Tobin called my office and inquired whether or not I would 
meet with their representative to turn over the. local union to the 
Clerks Union. I met with them, worked out an arrangement whereby 
it would be understood that the present personnel would go to work 
for the Retail Clerks, and would remain working for them even 
though they were Teamsters. But the per capita tax and the mem- 
bership would be transferred to the Retail Clerks and the Meat Cut- 
ters International Union, with the understanding that they still 
would remain members of our joint council. 

There was a mass membership meeting called, and it was agreed by 
the workers to go from the Teamsters Union into the Retail Clerks 
Union with the same officers and the same business agents handling 
their business, with the understanding that I would remain as chair- 
man of the bargaining unit, because I had been negotiating their con- 
tracts from the day they made $9 a week and worked as high as 75 
and 80 hours up to the standard they had at that time. Each contract 
period thereafter the employees who attended the meetings were 
given permission of deciding whether or not they wanted their in- 
dividual representatives of their unions, their executive boards, to 
negotiate their agreement, or whether or not they wanted me to re- 
main the chairman. It was voted that I should remain the chairman 
of the negotiating committee for two reasons : One, I was thoroughly 
familiar with the industry and, two, the Retail Clerks and the Meat 
Cutters could not win a strike without the Teamsters Union, then or 
now. And as long as I sat in the negotiations, the employers were on 
alert that if they had a fight with the Retail Clerks, they were going 
to have a fight with the Teamsters Union. The result was there 
wasn't any fight, and the contracts were signed, and the increases 
were put into effect, wage increases, to where they have a contract 
today that is equivalent to any contract in the United States without 
work stoppages. That is the explanation. 

Mr. Kennedy. Working for the Retail Clerks was Mr. Steve 
Riddle? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is riffht. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15227 

Mr. Kennedy. Is he related to you ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is his 

Mr. Hoffa. My uncle. 

Mr. Kennedy. Also Lawrence Bushkin ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. No, not Lawrence. Was it ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Herman. 

Mr. Hoffa. Herman. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is he related to Babe Bushkm ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Jack. 

Mr. Kennedy. A brother? 

Mr. Hoffa. A brother. 

Mr. Kennedy. A brother of Jack Bushkin ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is a witness who appeared before the committee 
and who represents many of those grocery chains, who took the 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he took the fifth amendment. Mr. Lawrence 
Brennan, does he also work for the Retail Clerks? 

Mr. Hoffa. He did at that time, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is he related to Owen Bert Brennan ? 

Mr. Hoffa. A son. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Otto Wendel— did he work for them ? 

Mr. Hoffa. He did, before and after. 

Mr. Kennedy. Before and after what ? 

Mr. Hoffa. When they were in the Teamsters and when they were 
in the Clerks. ' , Q 

Mr. Kennedy. Haven't they always been known as Retail Uerks ! 

Mr. Hoffa. No, they were Teamsters at one time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Up to what day? What was the date ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Ten or twelve years ago; maybe 15. I dont know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Otto Wendel, what was his position ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Secretary -treasurer. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he do some lobbying work tor you * 

Mr. Hoffa. He did. . . 

Mr. Kennedy. At the legislative sessions m Lansing i 

Mr. Hoffa. He did. _ 

Mr. Kennedy. He was paid for that out of the Retail Clerks, was 

he not? _ .,„,,, i • 

Mr. Hoffa. He was on salary with the Retail Clerks, his expenses 
were paid sometimes by the Clerks and sometimes by the Teamsters 
Union, according to what bills he was working on at the particular 
time. 

Mr. Kennedy. He listed himself up there as a 

Mr. Hoffa. Lobbyist. 

Mr. Kennedy. For the Michigan Breeders & Kennel Operators. 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. ,,,.,.. ^ t> l i 

Mr. Kennedy. He never listed himself as a lobbyist tor the Retail 
Clerks. 

Mr. Hoffa. It wasn't necessary ? 

Mr. Kennedy. It was not necessary ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No. 



15228 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't he supposed to list all the lobbying activities, 
all of his employers in lobbying activities? 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, I am not familiar with that section of the law, 
but I understood that that was sufficient, that you had to register as a 
lobbying, but I don't think you were confined specifically to what was 
listed there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Local 876 paid per capita membership to the Michi- 
gan State Federation of Labor? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. They paid per capita membership for 23,000 mem- 
bers while their true membership was only 11,000. Can you explain 
that to us ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Nope. 

Mr. Kennedy. This meant a loss to the Retail Clerks of $5,760 a 
year? 

Mr. Hoffa. It didn't mean any loss to them at all. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is how much more they paid to the Michigan 
Federation of Labor over and above what they should have paid 
for 11,000. 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. It was in the form of a donation to keep 
the federation operating. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was the purpose of that to pay for 23,000 members 
to give the necessary extra votes so that you would be able to continue 
to have control of that organization ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Mr. Kennedy, I didn't need anybody to pay anything. 
I control the federation with the votes for more years than you have 
been around. I will tell you right now, that the federation with the 
building trades, the Teamsters and our friends, were always able to 
meet, work out our problems prior to a convention, and go in with a 
united front. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that the reason they paid for 23,000 members 
when they only had 11 ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I would say no. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that ever discussed ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Discussed? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, that they would pay for these extra members 
for that purpose, in order to control the Michigan Federation 

Mr. Hoffa. It was discussed that they would pay the extra mem- 
bers, so they would give the federation some extra money, and nat- 
urally they would take credit for the delegates entitled to it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it ever discussed that this would give you con- 
trol of the Michigan Federation of Labor ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I didn't need the extra votes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just answer the question. Was it ever discussed? 
That subject? 

Mr. Hoffa. Not specifically from that standpoint, no, whether or 
not it would give me additional votes. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was never discussed ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I say it was never specifically discussed that I needed 
that given number of extra votes to be able to have a majority vote 
in the federation. Certainly, I was aware of the fact that if they 
paid per capita tax they were entitled to a certain number of votes, 
and when we tallied up the number of votes we had in a convention we 
certainly used the maximum number of votes for the convention. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15229 

Mr. Kennedy. That was a factor in their paying for the extra 
number of people, was it not? . 

Mr. Hoffa. The basic point was that the federation was in need 
of money, and in paying the per capita tax, they were entitled to 
the delegates. . 

Mr. Kennedy. Wasn't that a factor in your paying the extra 
amount of money, Mr. Hoffa? 

Mr. Hoffa. A minor factor. 

Mr. Kennedy. But it was a factor ? 

Mr. Hoffa. A minor factor. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can any local, then, pay as much as they want, not 
only make a donation but pay for per capita membership of 20,000 
when they only have 5,000 ? 

Mr. Hofta. A lot of them pay less than what they are supposed 
to pay. Otherwise, some locals wouldn't have to pay more. 

The Chairman. Mr. Hoffa, does the paying more— does that de- 
termine the number of delegates and so forth ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. In other words, if you have, say, 11,000 members, 
you would be entitled, say, to 11 delegates? I am just using that as 
an illustration. 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes. 

The Chairman. But if you pay on 23,000 members, then you have 
23 delegates ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. . 

The Chairman. In other words, you double your voting strength 
by paying the money ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is it understood that locals can pay on whatever 
membership they wish to pay on, rather than their actual membership? 

Mr. Hoffa. I never heard of anybody raising objection. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it generally understood that you were paying 
for the Retail Clerks twice as much as was necessary? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't know if it was or not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if that was understood or known? 

Mr. Hoffa. Nobody ever challenged it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, was it understood? Did you explain that, 
that this was a donation? 

Mr. Hoffa. I wouldn't explain it, unless somebody raised a question. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are the Retail Clerks still in the Teamster office? 

Mr. Hoffa. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did they move out. 

Mr. Hoffa. Maybe a year or 18 months ago; somewhere around 
there. 

Mr. Kennedy. About August of 1957, about a year ago ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Somewhere around there. 

Mr. Kennedy. The Retail Clerks International moved it in and 
put this !ocal in trusteeship? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. When you got in action, they had 
enough courage to come in and do it. 

Mr. Kennedy. They what? 



15230 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Hoffa. When you got in action, they had enough courage to 
come in and destroy this local union that had been operating for a 
number of years successfully. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they took it out of there ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened to Lawrence Brennan ? 

Mr. Hoffa. He went to work for 337. 

Mr. Kennedy. Of the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right, 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Herman Bushkin ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Went to work for his brother. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Steve Riddle ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Worked for the joint council. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Otto Wendel ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Joint council. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who from the Retail Clerks came in to take over 
this union ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't know his name. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't know who it was ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't know who it was ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Offhand I don't know who it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember Mr. Sol Lippman ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No; he is an attorney. He didn't come in to take it 
over. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember any conversation with Mr. Sol 
Lippman ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I sure do. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where did the conversations take place ? 

Mr. Hoffa. In one of our offices. 

Air. Kennedy. Will you relate the conversation to the committee? 

Mr. Hoffa. You bet your life I will. I told Sol Lippman in my 
opinion that the entire International Retail Clerks were making the 
worst mistake they had ever made in their life, and that they were 
going back on an arrangement they had made with me personally, 
not only in the old regime but the present regime, and they would see 
the day that they would be very sorry that they were doing what they 
were doing, and that he personally, so far as I was concerned, wouldn't 
ever do any business with the Teamsters Union successfully. 

Mr. Kennedy. What else did you say to him ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is about all. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you say to him about having him killed? 

Mr. Hoffa. Killed? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Hoffa. Sol Lippman ? I wouldn't even waste my time talking 
about it. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you say to him at that time ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I didn't say anything about it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Will you swear under oath that 3^011 did not say 
anything to Sol Lippman in your office about having him killed? 

Mr. Hoffa. I did not, 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you say anything about the fact that you could 
have him killed in that office and nobody would know about it ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15231 

Mr. Hoffa. I did not. , , 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you say anything to the fact that he could be 
walking down the street and could be shot one day \ 

Mr. Hoffa. I did not. ■. - . 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you say anything to the effect that juries treated 

you very well 

Mr. II offa. What did you say % . 

Mr Kennedy. Did you say anything to him to the effect that juries 
treated you very well, that you could have him killed and that you 
thought that you could do very well before a jury j 

Mr. Hoffa. Now, you know, that is pretty ridiculous. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you say anything like that ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't mention any of these things at ail i 

Mr. Hoffa. I didn't say to Sol Lippman I would have him killed. 
I did not. . . . » 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you say anything generally on the subject ot 
having him killed, murdered, shot? 

Mr. Hoffa. Mr. Kennedy, if you want to make this dramatic, all 
right, but the answer is "No." 

Mr. Kennedy. Nothing along those lines ? 

Mr. Williams. We have covered this, Mr. Chairman. I don t see 
that repetition has done any good. He has answered the question 14 
times, by my count here. 

Mr. Kennedy. I have information directly to the contrary. 

Mr. Hoffa. Bring Lippman around here, 

The Chairman. Just a moment. I think it has been covered but 
sometimes answers, as given, suggest the necessity for further lnter- 
rogation along the same line. I think it has been covered now Y ou 
swear under oath you did not threaten to shoot him, have him shot, or 
talk about getting him shot in any way, shape, form, or killed in any 
manner, any time, anywhere, under any circumstances— period ( 

Mr Hoffa. Mr. Lippman and I were alone in the office discussing 
the question, and I did not tell him that anything was going to happen 
to him along the lines you a re talking about. 

The Chairman. Or even suggest it could happen ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No. 

The Chairman. All right, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now I want to ask you about another matter 

Air. Hoffa. Did you ever see Lippman, Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. No ; I don't know a lot of people in some circles. 

1'roceed 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, you are familiar with the loan that was 
made to the Winchester Village? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were present at the meetings 

Mr. Hoffa. Some of them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Excuse me ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Some of the meetings. 

Mr. Kennedy. Some of the meetings. 

When the loan was made to the Winchester Village? 

Mr. Hoffa. I was there during the discussion. 



15232 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand that an investigation had been 
made of the background of the individuals who were to receive this 
million dollar loan? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I understood this, so we will get it straight: First of 
all, let's put it this way: They came in and discussed the question 
of the loan with the trustees, and I was in the meeting, discussed the 
question of the loan. The questions were asked whether or not they 
could be properly secured, were the individuals reliable, and we were 
assured they were, and whether or not there was sufficient collateral. 
We were assured there was. The trustees asked questions, we all 
asked questions, because I have a stake in local 299 in the welfare 
fund in Michigan. I have the largest local there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you suggest or approve of the loan ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I had no way of approving the loan. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, did you suggest that it be granted ? 

Mr. Hoffa. If all the facts were true that we were told, when the 
question was put to me did I think it was a good loan. I said "If 
what they are saying is true, I believe it is a good loan." 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand that any check had been made 
in the background of any of these individuals? 

Mr. Hoffa. You are talking about the personal check on the in- 
dividuals? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Green and Mr. Winshall. 

Mr. Hoffa. I understood that they were men of experience and 
integrity, and that people who represented them were well known to 
our lawyer, to other lawyers. I also understood from the informa- 
tion they brought that day to our office that it was a loan that was 
properly secured. If I remember your own testimony, right from 
Bellino, he said at that time that the loan was properly secured and 
was a good loan. 

Mr. Kennedy. The agreement, I believe, he said was a good agree- 
ment. 

Mr. Hoffa. No, he did not. Check your own record. He said 
the loan was a good loan at that time, and it was properly secured. 
Now, check your record. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa 

Mr. Hoffa. I knew you were going to ask me this, so I made it 
my business to read what was said. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, it was brought out and developed that 
no check had been made into the background of these individuals, 
that the liabilities exceeded their assets by approximately $10,000. 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator McClellan, that was not the question directed 
to me. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am asking you whether any check had been made 
into the background of these individuals. That is the question. 

Mr. Hoffa. That isn't the question that I answered, Senator 
McClellan. The question was, was I informed had there been a check 
made on the individuals, and I answered that they were qualified 
and had the integrity that was necessary to me to make a loan to them, 
and they had checked 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15233 

The Chairman. Mr. Hoffa, you were asked if a check had been 
made. You didn't answer yet whether a check 

Mr. Hoffa. I can't, because I must take other people's word for 
the fact that it was, Senator. I didn't personally check it, no. It 
wasn't my responsibility. 

The Chairman. Your answer is you don't know whether a check 
was made or not ? 

Mr. Hoffa. He didn't ask me that question. If he asked me, do I 
know, I would have said "No." But he did not ask me that question. 

The Chairman. He asked you, according to your statement, was a 
check made. 

Mr. Hoffa. If you ask me do I know a check was made, I have to 
say no. 

The Chairman. All right; was a check made on these indivduals 
as to their background, Green and Winshall ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Of my own personal knowledge, I do not know. The 
answer would be "No." 

The Chairman. Then the answer is, at the time you didn't deter- 
mine that such action had been taken ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I didn't. 

The Chairman. Period. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you informed by anyone that such a check 
had been made ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I answered that, which got us into this argument, by 
saying that I had been told that it had been checked. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who told you that? 

Mr. Hoffa. Mr. Fitzgerald and — I don't know if there was another 
lawyer there or not. 

The Chairman. Is that your attorney, Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. I think there was somebody else there. 
I can't think of the fellow now who was at that meeting. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Fitzgerald also tell you about the fee that 
he was receiving ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No. 

The Chairman. May I ask you at this point : Do you regard that 
as a proper fee, where he was representing the welfare fund? 

Mr. Hoffa. Do you mean do I now regard it as such ? 

The Chairman. Well, then or now. 

Mr. Hoffa. Then I didn't, no. 

The Chairman. But being a fact established, and I don't think 
it is denied, it is admitted by all concerned that he did receive or 
that there was a $35,000 fee paid to his firm, or which he got $15,750 
while at the same time he was on a retainer fee basis and representing 
this welfare fund. Would you say that was a proper charge? 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, I think that is a matter of lawyers' ethics, and 
I am not qualified to talk. But insofar as the question of him getting 
$35,000 

The Chairman. Let's take it from a standpoint of clients' ethics. 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, if he was working in behalf of 

The Chairman. He was working for your fund ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. 

The Chairman. Being paid by the fund ? 



15234 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Hoffa. No, I don't think so. I don't think he was working 
for the health and welfare, sir. He was working for the union or the 
joint council. 

The Chairman. Well, working for the union. 

Mr. Hoffa. Or the joint council. 

The Chairman. And that fund belongs in the union ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No, it is a separate trust instrument, completely sepa- 
rated from the union. 

The Chairman. My recollection is that he was getting paid out 
of this fund. 

Mr. Hoffa. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was supposed to be paid out of the fund, Mr. 
Chairman, out of the fund for the money that was used on the loan. 
As far as his getting a fee, he was getting paid by joint council 43. 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. But the question of whether or not it 
was right or wrong — well, I have been doing business with lawyers 
quite a while, and most of the lawyers are either getting forwarding 
fees for cases or commissions on most of the cases they work on. 

The Chairman. I hope it is not a fact that lawyers, most of them, 
are getting fees from both sides. 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't think this was from both sides. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed. 

Mr. Hoffa. I think he did extra legal work for the individuals that 
paid him. 

The Chairman. You said you knew nothing about it at any rate? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is what I said. 

The Chahiman. And he did not disclose that fact to you? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. 

The Chairman. Do you feel that he should have ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I think as close as we are, it wouldn't have hurt him to. 

Senator Ives. I understand, Mr. Hoffa, that you have a welfare fund 
of which you are quite proud ; is that correct I 

Mr. Hoffa. It compares with the best. 

Senator Ives. I think you testified about the fund at one of the 
earlier hearings, and in that connection I would like to inquire 
regarding the amount of that fund in dollars and what percentage 
is in personal investments of your own, and in speculations that you 
are connected with. I do not mean that you have a controlling inter- 
est in all of them. 

Mr. Hoffa. Not a dollar, Senator. 

Senator Ives. Not a dollar? 

Mr. Hoffa. No. 

Senator Ives. How much of the funds are in speculations of one 
kind or another, or developments, let us say ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Developments for whom ? 

Senator Ives. Real estate developments, for one thing. 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, let me see. I think in the Michigan conference 
there is, I think, maybe three at this time. 

Senator Ives. Three what? 

Mr. Hoffa. Investments in real estate. 

Senator Ives. How much do they amount to ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I would say probably, just off the top of the hat, one 
million and a half or one million and three-quarters. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15235 

Senator Ives. How much is your total fund ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Around $5 million. , 

Senator Ives. On that basis, you have about 30 percent of your fund 
invested in what I would call utter speculations, is not that true* 

Mr. Williams. He said real estate. 

Senator Ives. Well, real estate in the sense 

Mr. Hoffa. We have a motel, and it isn't speculative. 

Senator Ives. Is it operating? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ives. Is it making money ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir, and payments are right up to date. 

Senator Ives. Is all of that 30 percent in the black ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I say the payments on the motel are up to date, and 1 
believe we have one apartment house which we have some money in- 
vested in, and payments are up to date, and it is making money. The 
only problem we ran into in the welfare fund was this particular loan 
here. 

When I listened to the loan, and the arrangements that came out 
of this hearing, we are now in a process of adjusting that situation, 
and in my opinion at the end of 2 years we will have made a quarter 
or half a million dollars on the investment. 

Senator Ives. Let me ask you this about that: That is under the 
laws of Michigan, is it not? " I understand that is under the laws of 
Michigan. . „ 

Mr. Hoffa. What is that? What is under the laws of Michigan? 

Senator Ives. You operate under the laws of Michigan, do you not? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. 

Senator Ives. Are not the laws of Michigan regarding trust funds 
and funds of that kind rather strict? 

Mr. Hoffa. I understand they are. I am not a lawyer, but 1 un- 
derstand they are. . 

Senator Ives. I think New York has some pretty good laws in that 

Mr. Hoffa. I think we are about comparable to the situation in 
New York. 

Senator Ives. And knowing a little bit about Michigan, I would 
think so. Now, in New York State you cannot possibly invest in that 
kind of property and have it legal under the laws of the State for 
trust funds. 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't believe that is right, sir. 

Senator Ives. Oh, yes, it is. They have a whole list of legal in- 
vestments, and they are bonds and certain stocks, and where you can 
and cannot invest. 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't believe it. 

Senator Ives. I know something about the laws of New York State, 
and I do not think the laws of Michigan are much different. I think 
in that connection, I am just assuming now that in what you have 
done, you have been prudent. 

Mr. Hoffa. What is that? 

Senator Ives. You have been prudent, and I am giving you a com- 
pliment whether you like it or not, and it is unusual, coming from me. 

Mr. Hoffa. I am familiar with the rules. 



15236 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Ives. I would suggest in matters of that kind you check 
your laws of Michigan and see that your funds are invested in places 
legal for trust funds. 

Mr. IIoffa. I have checked them. 

Senator Ives. Have you checked to make sure they are legal for 
trust funds under the laws of the State of Michigan ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. 

Senator Ives. That seems rather inconceivable to me. I do not 
think speculations are, and that development that we have been con- 
sidering here certainly is a speculation 

Mr. Hoffa. No, sir. 

Senator Ives. If there ever was one. 

Mr. Hoffa. This was never a speculative investment when the loan 
was made. 

Senator Ives. Well a speculative investment is nothing short than 
a speculation, and you can call it a speculative investment if you want 
to. I will not harp on this, but I was just curious to know how much 
of your money was in that kind of undertaking. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just on the question of these loans, has the Central 
States Southeast-Southwest Trust Fund made a loan to the Cast- 
aways Hotel down in Florida ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much is that loan? 

Mr. Hoffa. I think one million and a half, and again it is off the 
top of the head. 

Mr. Kennedy. $1,500,000 ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Don't hold me to this, and if you told me you wanted 
this, I would have given you a list. 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe it is $1,250,000. 

Mr. Hoffa. I know you have the figures, because Mr. Aporta was 
in our office for a considerable period of time. All of the books were 
made available to him, and I am sure you have the figures without me 
guessing at them. 

Mr. Kennedy. When was that loan made ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Again you have the figures, and I would estimate 2 
years ago, but again you have the dates. I think there were two sepa- 
rate loans, weren't there ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Two separate loans, and the first one was May 29, 
1957. 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. $750,000. 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. At 6 percent interest. 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right, and currently it is paid up, and it is a 
property worth $6 million for a first mortgage, at 6 percent, by the 
way. 

IVfr. Kennedy. And $500,000 was loaned on March 13, 1958. 

Mr. Hoffa. That was for the new addition. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that where the Teamsters stay when they go to 
Miami ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Some of them. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then the Cleveland Raceways, is there a loan? 

Mr. Hoffa. $1 million. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15237 

Mr. Kennedy. To the Thistledown Raceways? 

Mr.HoFFA. $1 million at 6 percent. 

Mr. Kennedy. Thistledown and Cranwood Racetracks in Ueve- 

lfl Mr Hoffa. Just a minute. Let us clear this up. There wasn't 
any loan made to a racetrack. It was a real estate loan made and 
in making the real estate loan there was a provision put in that the 
permit from the State to operate a racetrack had to be tied m where 
it would be used on the properties that we loaned the money on. bo, 
it wasn't a racetrack loan. It was a real estate loan wherein they 
used the real estate for racing purposes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And to do some construction or pay oft the debts 
of some of the construction of the racetrack? 

Mr Hoffa It was a consolidation of construction loans we made 
into a single loan, properly secured and with collateral, and a $4 mil- 
lion appraisal for the $1 million loan. ■.__,■-■-, T » 

Mr. Kennedy. And the loan was to the Cleveland Raceways, Inc.? 

Mr. Hoffa. I believe so. ,•.,■•«, , 1C1W • +w 

Mr. Kennedy. That was obtained m February of 1957, is that 

11 Mr' Hoffa Yes. Well now there are two of them, and there are 
two loans. Maybe you are right, there is one. This is the raceways, 
there is one loan of $1 million. , 

I want to also say in this loan of the race track Mr. Godfrey of the 
race track enterprise also signed a personal note for $1 million and he 
is well worth over $1 million himself. 

Senator Ives. Is that raceway making money ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Nothing but. • ■■*>•■., 

Senator Ives. I know that most of them are, and I was ]ust curious. 

Mr Kennedy. We were talking before about the use of union funds, 
and you stated that you have had blanket authority to use the union 
funds as you see fit. 

Mr. Hoffa. In my local union. . . 

Mr. Kennedy. What provision in your local union constitution 
gives you that ? 

Mr. Hoffa. It is in the bylaws. You have a copy ot it. 

Mr. Kennedy. I do not happen to have a copy of it. . 

Mr. Hoffa. Otherwise, I have to say it is in the bylaws and also m 
the minutes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Maybe someone behind you has one. 

Mr. Hoffa. You have it. It is in the minutes and in the bylaws. 

Mr. Kennedy. I just don't happen to have it. 

Mr. Hoffa. I can only tell you it is in the minutes and the bylaws 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know where in the minutes and the bylaws ( 

Mr. Hoffa. If you show it to me 

Mr. Kennedy. Maybe someone behind you has a copy ot your con- 
stitution. 

Mr Hoffa. I don't have my bylaws and my minutes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you tell us what provision in your bylaws or 
your constitution gives that authority? . 

Mr. Hoffa. Out of memory I can't tell you what section or what 
article, but give me the bylaws and I will read it to you. 

Mr. Kennedy. When were the bylaws changed to give you the 
power ? 



15238 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. IIoffa. When were they changed ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't think since 1952. 

Mr. Kennedy. Weren't they changed in 1954 ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't believe so. They may have been, but I doubt 
it. If you have it there, let us see it. 

Mr. Kennedy. All I have, Mr. Hoffa, is some proposed changes to 
the bylaws, and I don't have all of your bylaws and I don't have the 
constitution. 

Mr. Hoffa. I would like to see what is proposed. I don't think our 
bylaws were changed. They may have been, and if they were, I would 
be glad to go over them with you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you ask back there? Mr. Williams, would 
you find out if they have anything? 

Mr. Hoffa. We didn't think this question was going to come up, 
and I didn't bring it with me. I know what I brought. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you look at this, please ? 

The Chairman. The Chair hands you a letter dated March 5, 1954, 
from Mr. David Previant, whom I assume is your attorney, addressed 
to you, together with a letter of May 1-3, 1954, from you to him, and 
a list attached of proposed changes to bylaws of local 299, to which 
Mr. Previant's letter refers. 

I will ask you to examine these and state if you identify them, 
Mr. Hoffa. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Williams. Do you have any particular bylaw in mind ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I am trying to find out about the provision dealing 
with giving him the authority to spend money. 

The Chairman. Mr. Hoffa has testified that he has, as I under- 
stand his testimony, unlimited authority with respect to any expendi- 
tures or investments that he might make out of the funds of his 
union, local 299. Now, there is a letter or an exchange of letters 
together with a list of changes submitted by counsel for the local, 
changes in bylaws to give Mr. Hoffa apparently more power, sub- 
mitted at the time the letters are dated. 

Mr. Hoffa. I think you first have to take the letters, Senator Mc- 
Clellan, to see about the changes. 

The Chairman. Just identify the letters so I can make them ex- 
hibits. 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The two letters, and the attachment with pro- 
posed changes may be made exhibit 199. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibit 199'' for 
reference and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. Now then, the letters may be discussed. I wanted 
to get them in the record. 

Mr. Hoffa. You will note on May 13, 1954, I addressed a letter to 
Previant : 

Enclosed find copy of old bylaws, local 299, plus additional sections and 
amended sections that yon recommend that we have passed at our membership 
meeting so the bylaws could be redrafted to submit to the International Union. 
You will note we had the bylaws changed in the first meeting when we read 
off the amendments so this would only take two more meetings to approve the 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15239 

amendments and all of the meetings of local 299 have approved such action. I 
Xdd^PPreciate it if yon would revise the bylaws in the proper form for the- 
printer. If there are any questions, please ask me. 

Previant answered back, and this should have been read first. I am 



sorry. 

I have been rechecking the bylaws of local 299 for the purpose of determining 
wheSaTamendmeni should be made at this time particu la, y m view 
of the action taken by the executive board of the local union de^atang ^further 
authority to the president of the organization respective to expenditures. 1 am 
attaching my recommendations hereto, and the important changes are underlined. 
Then there is my letter back to him, and here are the original 
changes suggested by Previant here. 

The Chairman. The question I think we were interested m was. 
Were the bylaws changed at that time to give you this authority, this 
extraordinary power? 

Mr. Hoffa. On the second page, the middle ot the page : 
The president shall have the authority to disburse or order disbursement of all 
money? ne cessary to pay the bills, obligation and debts of the local union in- 
ching sx'ch amounts which in his judgment would further the best interests of 
the union subject to approval of the executive board. 

Then it goes on down and it talks about the secretary-treasurer, and 
then again there was a change added : 

The president may take such action as in his judgment will further the best 
interests of the union, which action shall include but not be limited to the expend- 
tares of money for such purposes subject to the approval of the executive 
board u™ action may include aid or assistance, monetary or otherwise to 
such other persons or organizations which the president may feel are deserving 
of such aid in the best interests of the labor movement. 

Now when I talk about, "I have the authority," my executive board 
meets in January of each year, after having a financial report made to 
the membership, and they concur in the expenditures made tor the 
prior vear and authorize me to operate the union in the same fashion 
that I operated it in the past, and the executive board meets and gives 
me the authority to carry out the expenditures of money without call- 
mo- the board into session unless it is a special or particular instance, 
and I carry on the business of the union, and I have tor a number ot 
vears. . „ T ,, 

* The Chairman. What I wanted to ascertain was: Were those 
amendments adopted, as recommended ? 

Mr Hoffa. Yes; and they are in book form and are available to any 

member that desires a copy, and we have membership meetings and 

we have them on the desk with the international constitution and our 

bylaws, and a copy of the annual report, they can have if they desire. 

The Chairman. Was that in 1954 % 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes; this was true likewise beyond that date, but the 
amended one is 1954. . ' . 

The Chairman. That is what I mean. That is when the amend- 
ments were made, in 1954 ? 
Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Prior to that time, you did not have such authority « 
Mr. Hoffa. Yes ; I had the authority. _ 

The Chairman. Why was it necessary then to revise the bylaws and 
amend them \ 

21243— 50— pt. 40 20 



15240 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Hoffa. There was some question concerning — and it is too bad 
we don't have the old bylaws here, and maybe I can answer in just a 
moment if I look again at this thing. 

I think the answer is this: If you look on page 3, yon will find 
that — 

The president may take such action as in his judgment will further the hest 
interests of the union members, which action shall include but not be limited to 
the expenditures of money for such purposes, subject to approval of the executive 
board. 

Now r , for clarification purposes, as to what the question of expendi- 
tures of money meant, the attorney added the words : 

such action may include aid and assistance, monetary or otherwise, to such other 
persons or organizations which the president may feel are deserving of such aid 
in the best interests of the labor movement. 

The Chairman. That is the purpose of the amendment ? That was 
the extraordinary power? 

Mr. PIoffa. I don't think it actually spelled out any additional 
power, and I think it simply clarified the power as mentioned above 
in the second paragraph on page 3. 

(Members of the select committee present at this point in the pro- 
ceedings : Senators McClellan, Ives, and Church.) 

The Chairman. To clarify the power as you had previously been 
exercising it? 

Mr. Hoffa. And as we believed was the interpretive right under 
this section approved by the membership. 

The Chairman. Some question arose about it, obviously, or there 
wouldn't be a question about your counsel suggesting the changes. 

Mr. Hoffa. No ; I don't think so. If you look at the Labor Board 
decisions, court decisions, many times it makes it necessary to change 
your bylaws which you wouldn't have had occasion to change if it 
hadn't come out of the Labor Board. 

The Chairman. I say that something arose which prompted the 
change. 

Mr. Hoffa. I thought you meant within the union. You are right 

The Chairman. I don't know whether in the union or outside. But 
something arose to prompt your counsel, alert to his responsibilities, 
I assume, to suggest the change. 

Mr. Hoffa. You are right, sir. 

The Chairman. Senator Ives. 

Senator Ives. I would like to ask, Mr. Hoffa, about this attorney, 
Mr. Previant. Did he represent you personally ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No ; he represents the union, sir. He has represented 
me personally, too. 

Senator Ives. Does he represent you as well as the union or does he 
represent both of you? In this instance, who was he representing, 
you or the union ? 

Mr. Hoffa. The union, sir. 

Senator Ives. It occurs to me in that extension of your bylaws by 
which you were given almost the absolute power over the expenditures 
and use of money, that the welfare of the members themselves is being 
highly disregarded. Instead of doing something in extending your 
bylaws and modifying your bylaws to protect further the members 
of your union, what you have done with these changes is to go in ex- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15241 

actly the opposite direction. Isn't that right? Yon wanted more 

power. . . • • -i « 

Mr. Hoffa. No ; I don't agree that it is right, Senator. 

Senator Ives. It may not be right to do. No; I am not talking 

about that. If that is what you mean by that statement, I agree with 

y °Mr. Hoffa. I don't mean that it isn't a protection for the member- 

S Senator Ives. To have all this power put in your hands without 
their having anything to do with it? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes; I think so, and I will tell you why. 
When we have an executive board meeting, or I make a decision, 
or I spend money, it is reported back to the membership, either by 
minutes or by a form of expenditure to the Government, where they 
have a right to accept or reject my actions. 

Senator Ives. After you have taken it, That is like locking the 
barn after the horse has been stolen. 

Mr. Hoffa. So far the horse hasn't been stolen, and they are happy. 
They are happy with it, Senator. . 

Senator Ives. I hope they are. I simply wanted to point that out. 
Mr Hoffa. Remember, Senator, the membership at 3 meetings, 
not 1, but at 3 meetings, had the bylaws read to them, and approved 
these bylaws. You know, there is such a thing, Senator, and some- 
times a lot of people don't want to believe it, there is such a thing that 
union members are smart enough to run their own business. 

Senator Ives. I never questioned in my life about union members 
l>eing smart enough to run their own business. I never raised that 
point. The point I do raise is they aren't interested enough to run it, 
Mr. Hoffa. That isn't true. 

Senator Ives. Well, a lot of them aren't, That is one reason—— 
Mr Hoff\. I will call a membership meeting in Detroit, and I will 
have there thousands of people, and I will debate this issue with any- 
body here, in front of my membership, take a vote when it is over, and 
I will abide by the vote of my membership m 299. I say mine, 
because I am a member of 299. # 

Senator Ives. That may be true in your own union, your own local. 
Mr. Hoffa. I will be very happy to do it to clear up this question. 
Senator Ives. I am not disputing your power as to your own local. 
Mr Hoffa. What local do yo*want me to have a vote in ? 
Senator Ives. You look at the unions in this country, and the great 
cause of our being in the condition we are, with respect to gangster- 
ism, racketeering, and so forth, that has gotten into them, is due to the 
fact that the union members as a whole aren't taking enough active 
interest in them. 

Mr Hoffa Senator, we try to get as many members to the meet- 
ings as possible. I agree with you that the better attendance the 
membership is, the stronger the union. I recognize something else 
which you probably don't recognize. That members today, working 
an 8-hour day and a 40-honr week, have time to themselves tor the 
first time in their life, and, likewise, they have other things to do in 
connection with their recreation facilities, and their families, which 
keep them from attending meetings. But they do one other thing 
which you overlook. The membership reserves the right to elect 



15242 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

stewards and committeemen. If you will come to one of my meeting's, 
and I extend an invitation to you 

Senator Ives. You have before. I appreciate it. 

Mr. Hoffa. If you will come to my meeting, you will find that for 
almost every company we represent, the steward or the committeeman 
is at that meeting. When he is there, he is speaking for that entire 
group of employees of the employer that belong to our union, and 
bringing the complaints to our membership meetings, to be corrected, 
if any. 

In addition to that 

Senator Ives. You are talking about 299 ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right, sir. In addition to that, he takes back 
to this particular company the results of that meeting. If you know 
anything about truckdrivers at all, you will know that you may have 
50 men at a meeting when there isn't anything of importance on the 
street or any problems. But you let a rumor or a whisper be on the 
street about anything that affects their contract or them personally in 
regards to their union, and you better have a hall to hold 90 percent 
of your members. They will be there. 

Senator Ives. That is based on your experience with 299. 

Mr. Hoffa. My local, that is right. And I am only responsible 
for my local. 

Senator Ives. My knowledge of truckdrivers is not too extensive, 
but what I know of them leads me to believe they are very honorable 
men individually. I know of no profession where the individuals are 
higher in character than they are in that profession of truckdriving. 

Mr. Hoffa. Thank you. We agree with you. 

Senator Ives. That does not always apply to the officers, however. 

Mr. Hoffa. I want to say to you that maybe your judgment isn't 
shared by the people you claim are honest 

Senator Ives. Look at the witnesses we have had before us. 

Air. Hoffa. And I will say further to you that I am going to a 
meeting Friday night of an individual that was here before this com- 
mittee and took the fifth amendment, a special-called meeting. I am 
going to discuss his entire testimony in front of this committee, page 
by page, question by question, in that membership meeting. 

" He is going to have an opportunity to explain his position. Then 
we are going to take a vote of that membership to determine their 
position in regards to his right as a free American citizen to exercise 
his right under the fifth amendment, or whether or not they believe, 
as apparently this committee believes, that certain officers of unions 
are not entitled to the full American constitutional rights they were 
born with. 

Senator Ives. I don't think that is the way to put the question at all. 
I think the fifth amendment has been greatly abused before this 
committee. 

Mr. Hoffa. They will have a right to vote whether or not it was 
proper in this instance. 

Senator Ives. If you state it properly, they will vote properly. 

Mr. Hoffa. Why don't you come down and state it ? 

Senator Ives. Where is it ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Cleveland, Ohio. 

Senator Ives. I can't make it. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15243 

Mr. Hoffa. I will set the date up to where you can make it. 

Senator Ives. Can you move it to New York? 

Mr. Hoffa. I will be happy to see that you get there, and I will 
change it to your convenience. 

Senator Ives. I have an appointment on that date. 

Mr. Hoffa. I will change the date. 

Senator Ives. We will get together on that. . . 

Mr Hoffa. I will call at noon, and cancel the meeting, and call it 
at your convenience. I want you to get the reaction of Teamsters. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, I have just a few last matters 

Mr. Allen Dorfman is the broker in the insurance, is he not i 

Mr. Hoffa. He is the agent. . 

Mr. Kennedy. The agent on the insurance. Now, prior to that 
being awarded to his company, did you assure Allen Dorf man or 
Paul Dorf man that you would do everything m your power to give 
the insurance to the Union Casualty Co. ? That is the question. 

Mr. Hoffa. I would like to have just a moment, please. 

Mr Kennedy. Did you, prior to the contract being awarded, did 
you assure Allen or Paul Dorfman that you would do everything 
in your power to give the insurance to the Union Casualty Co.* 

Mr. Hoffa. I told Allen Dorfman and Doc Perlman, that if they 
were competible with the other companies who were going to submit 
their bids, they would get the business. If they couldn't meet the 
competition, they wouldn't get the business. 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't assure them that you would help and 
assist them to get the business? . 

Mr. Hoffa. There Avas no help or assistance promised by me. It 
was a question of them presenting to the committee the proper pro- 
posal, and if it met the qualifications and was on a competible basis, 
they would get the business. . . 

If you care, it might be of interest to this committee, Mr. Chair- 
man . . v 

Mr Kennedy. I just want to get the answer to the question. lou 
did not assure them that you would help and assist them to get the 

IvilSlYlBSS 

Mr. Hoffa. If you want to call help and assistance, I told them 
that if they were in a competible position that I would try to get for 
them the insurance business. But only if they were competible. 

I have here, Mr. Chairman, if we are going to go into welfare, a 
summary of the history of the welfare plan, which may enlighten 
the Senators concerning this problem and bring them up to date with- 
out having confusion cast on our welfare fund. m 

The Chairman. That document, if you care to submit it as such, 
may be made exhibit No. 200. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 200 tor 
reference and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Hoffa. I have one for each Senator. . 

The Chairman. I am making it an exhibit, so it can be official, 
since you submitted it. . 

Mr Hoffa. Here are four copies also of the Michigan conference 
which involves Allen Dorfman, as well as the central conference. 

The Chairman. That copy may be made exhibit No. 200-A. 



15244 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 200-A" for 
reference and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, we had some testimony also before the 
committee regarding certain investigations that were conducted by 
the Teamsters or by the attorneys of the Teamsters. One of the in- 
vestigations was into a credit check on the jurors in the trial down 
here in Washington. 

Could you tell the committee why that was done? 

Mr. Hoffa. I suggest you ask the lawyers. It was a legal pro- 
ceeding. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was that suggested by ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Hoffa. I am trying to find out from the lawyers, and it was 
brought up in a lawyers' meeting. There doesn't seem to be any 
clear opinion from the lawyers exactly who suggested it. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was a decision by your lawyers that it be done? 

Mr. Hoffa. It necessarily would be. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they discuss it with you ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Certainly. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us what the reason was to make the 
check on the jurors? 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, I think we are entitled to know whether or not 
a person is antiunion, union, or whether or not he is a respected per- 
son, whether he has been a strikebreaker, if possible, whether he is 
an antiunion employer, an employer who had a strike. I listened 
very carefully to Mr. Williams' questioning of the prospective jurors, 
and he asked several questions, of very much importance to a labor 
leader on trial, as to whether or not the person ever had a strike, par- 
ticipated in one, whether or not he was antiunion, whether he was 
prounion, and about a hundred other questions. 

Mr. Kennedy. This was just part of the check on the jurors, was 
it? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Fishbach continue to work for the Team- 
sters after March or April of 1957 ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I think he finished up some business. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was he doing for the Teamsters? 

Mr. Hoffa. Offhand I can't tell you. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much money did the Teamsters Union pay 
him? 

Mr. Hoffa. I can't tell you that either. You have the records. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have that he received from the Central States 
Drivers Council, $5,000 on February 23, 1957. In the middle of 
April 

Mr. Hoffa. I think that was the initial payment, 

Mr. Kennedy. In the middle of April 1957 he received $4,637.75 
from joint council 43, and in the end of 1957, from the Central States 
Drivers Council, $5,124.79, making a total of $14,762.54. 

What was he doing for the Teamsters for that latter part in the 
end of 1957? 

Mr. Hoffa. Idon"tknow. Just a moment. 

(The. witness conferred with his counsel.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15245 

Mr Hoffa. I am told that it was the catchup of the payments of 
work that he had done previous to the time the checks were issued. 
In addition to that, he went over the operations of our union, made 
some suggestions. 

Mr. Kennedy. What sort of operations ? . 

Mr. Hoffa. The question of the total operations ot our union, the 
way a man joins, how he comes in, and so forth. 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 
Mr. Kennedy. He was making that kind of a check ? 
Mr. Hoffa. This, I understand, was cumulative prior to the trial, 
and we paid him after. That is what I understand. 

Mr. Kennedy. What experience had he had along those lines prior 
to that time? 

Mr. Hoffa. To do what? 
Mr. Kennedy. In this field. 
Mr. Hoffa. To do what? 
Mr. Kennedy. Well, whatever he was doing. 
Mr. Hoffa. Well, he was a lawyer. . 

Mr. Kennedy. Checking on people coming into the union and that 
kind of thing? ■ 

Mr Hoffa The question was we asked him, and he had some ex- 
perience, I understand, the same as you are learning to have as the 
chief counsel, that he had had some experience m that operation, and 
we asked him to check into our bookkeeping system, and the operation 
of our union so we would be in a position, recognizing that eventually 
we would have to be called upon, as we are here now today, on our 
operations. . . , 

I think he simply looked it over, asked questions, made recommenda- 
tions, and I believe worked with Fitzgerald on some questions of law. 
Mr. Kennedy. Did he ever remove any of the records from the 
union ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever instruct him to remove any records or 
destroy any records from local 299 ? 
Mr. "Hoffa. Of the union? 
Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 
Mr. Hoffa. I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever instruct anyone to destroy any records 
after they had been subpenaed ? 

Mr. Hoffa. After they had been subpenaed ? No. 
Mr. Kennedy. Excuse me. 

Mr Hoffa. The ones that had been called by the subpena, no. 
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever instruct anyone to destroy any records 
in connection with an investigation that was being made ? 
Mr. Hoffa. During the investigation ? 
Mr. Kennedy. Yes ; in connection with an investigation. 
Mr. Hoffa. Nope. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never told anybody to destroy any records i 
Mr. Hoffa. Nothing. m . . . 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, on the question of the investigation into 
individuals, I have just a final question. Have you instructed an 
investigation to be made of any of the monitor* ? 
Mr. Hoffa. Havel? 



15246 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Air. Kennedy. Yes. 

Air. Hoffa. I don't need to. Tliey are pretty well known publicly. 
You don't need to make any. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you instructed any investigation to be made of 
any of them? 

Mr. Hoffa. No. Why should I? 

Mr. Kennedy. Specifically, did you or a representative of yours, go 
to an investigative agent here in Washington, D.C., to have an investi- 
gation made of Mr. Godfrey Schmidt \ 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, if they did, I didn't know about it. 

Mr. Kennedy. When that agent turned it down, did you approach 
or have a representative 

Mr. Hoffa. I turned it down, do you say ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Godfrey Schmidt. 

Mr. Hoffa. Did you say that I turned it down ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No. I say after the first investigative agent turned 
it down, did you approach or have a representative of yours approach, 
a second investigative agent to have them conduct an investigation of 
Mr. Godfrey Schmidt? 

Mr. Hoffa. Just a minute. Let us see what you are talking about. 
I don't know. Just a moment. Maybe somebody can enlighten me. 

He says did I have somebody do it. Somebody may have did it 

The Chairman. The question is: Did you personally or did you 
have someone representing you or representing your union go to an 
investigative agency to try to arrange with it to investigate Godfrey 
Schmidt ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I say I would like to check with the lawyers, Senator, 
because it may have come up in a discussion in an offhand w T ay. But 
I don't recall at this moment. 

I may get you your answer. 

The Chairman. You may discuss it with your lawyer, and the next 
question will be, and you can discuss that, too: Did the first agent 
turn it down, and did you go to another ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I have to find out first what we are talking about. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel^) 

Mr. Hoffa. There is a motion going to be filed to remove him for 
conflict of interest, but I personally don't know of any investigation 
that was made. Nobody consulted me with it. 

The Chairman. The question is : Did you personally, or did any- 
one representing you, within your knowledge, go to an investigative 
agency — here in Washington? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. I think a telephone call was made, and the 
investigative agent on one instance came to the office of the attorneys, 
and in the other instance came to the Teamsters building. 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, you got me. 

Mr. Williams. Could you fix the date of that, Mr. Kennedy ? 

The Chairman. Within the last 2 months. We will put it that 
way. 

The question is : Did you or anyone at your request or with your 
knowledge, representing you or representing the union, contact an 
investigative agency with a view of enlisting its services to investi- 
gate Godfrey Schmidt ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I didn't. And I don't know of anybody who did. I 
will have to put it that way. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15247 

The Chairman. You did not? 

Mr. Hoffa. I didn't. 

Mr. Chairman. And you know of no one who did ? 

Mr. IIoffa. It hasn't been brought to my attention, Senator. 

The Chairman. All right. That would apply also, too, if the first 
one turned it down, whether you contacted the second one, in either 
instance ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I really don't know what we are talking about. I 
will have to say "No." I will say this, that Godfrey Schmidt is so 
well known that I don't know why anybody would want to investigate 
him. 

The Chairman. Could be. 

Is there anything further ? 

The connnittee stands in recess until 2 o'clock. 

(Thereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the select committee recessed, to recon- 
vene at 2 p.m., the same day. 

(Members of the select committee present at the taking of the 
recess were: Senators McClellan, Ives, and Church.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

The committee reconvened at 2 p.m., upon the expiration of the 
recess. 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

(Committee members present in the hearing room: Senators 
McClellan and Ives.) 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES R. HOFFA— Resumed 

The Chairman. Mr. Hoffa, I understand you wanted to make some 
clarification of your testimony this morning. 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, I did, but I wonder if Mr. Williams could make 
the clarification, because it involves actually the lawyers in handling 
a situation which I was unaware of. 

The Chairman. We have to keep sworn testimony here, and you 
confer with Mr. Williams, and you can give his version of it as you 
understand it. 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator, I made a response that I knew nothing about 
the question of hiring investigators, nor did anybody who worked for 
the Teamsters, I believe, to that extent. At lunch it bothered me, 
and I went back to the building and I was inquiring around as to 
what brought that question about, and I found out that there was a 
meeting in our building with the lawyers concerning the question of 
challenging the bills or expense account that had been submitted by 
Mr. Schmidt. 

The Chairman. Challenging expense accounts submitted by whom ? 

Mr. Hoffa. By Mr. Schmidt to us, the Teamsters. One of the law- 
yers had brought along an investigator named Mr. Bob Maheu, whom 
I thought was a lawyer in the meeting, as well as sometimes doing 
investigative work for lawyers, and they discussed the question of 
challenging the bills that had been submitted by Schmidt. 

I came in late to the meeting, but I find out the question was in- 
volved in investigating those bills, so that Mr. Williams, our attorney, 



15248 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR EIELD 

could go to courl and present his arguments as to why we should not 
pay the expense accounts as they were. 

The Chairman. Thar is the expense account of one of the monitors? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes. sir. 

The Chairman. Who was submitting expense hills to the union for 
payment ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Thai is correct. Then I round out later on that Maheu 
wasn't engaged but that there is still under consideration, and in con- 
nection with the bills, they are filing some sort of a motion with the 
court, and they are now contemplating and have discussed with peo- 
ple in New York the question of investigating further the claims that 
are made by Schmidt and what other matters they may deem neces- 
sary for the trial. 

The Chairman. Who was present at the meeting, Mr. Hoffa? 

Mr. Hoffa. Again I will have to give you this. We tried to put 
our heads together, and if I leave somebody out, it isn't because it is 
intentional, and it is because the meeting was one of those things. 
There was Edward Cheyfitz, George Fitzgerald, this fellow Maheu, 
Moss Herman, Jack Cunningham, and that is the best we can put it 
together. 

They were present. I don't think anybody else was there, and it 
was in our building in the lunchroom that we had the meeting. 

Senator Ives. I wanted to ask Mr. Hoffa if his contention is that the 
charges made by Mr. Schmidt are excessive. Is that right ? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is right. 

Senator Ives. There is nothing dishonest about them, just excessive. 
I happen to know Mr. Schmidt pretty well, as probably you know. 

Mr. Williams. I would hope you wouldn't ask questions that would 
produce evidence in this hearing which should properly go before 
the court, because I don't think we should air charges against Mr. 
Schmidt here. 

Senator Ives. I think that you are right. 

Mr. Williams. I hope you won't pursue it. 

Senator Ives. I respect your wishes. 

The Chairman. Mr. Ploffa has stated that he now, upon inquiry, 
recalls that possibly at a meeting in the Teamsters Union a Mr. Maheu 
was there, who he learns possibly was an investigator, in the investi- 
gative field, and there was discussion at least with respect to investi- 
gating expense accounts being submitted by Godfrey Schmidt. 

Mr. Hoffa. And then the second fellow. 

The Chairman. And since Mr. Maheu did not accept the assign- 
ment, further discussion was had, or some other arrangements made 
seeking to procure the services of an investigating agency in New 
York. 

Mr. Hoffa. With the lawyers, and I had no part of that investiga- 
tion or that discussion. 

The Chairman. You were present? 

Mr. Hoffa. Not at the second one, Senator. 

The Chairman. Y r ou were at the first? 

Mr. Hoffa. Y r es, sir. 

The Chairman. But you understand it was pursued since Mr. 
Maheu did not accept the assignment? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir. * 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15249 

The Chairman. With a view of procuring maybe an agency in 
New York to make such investigation? 

Mr. Hoffa. That is correct, Senator. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Was there also going to be an investigation gen- 
erally of Mr. Schmidt and his financial transactions ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I did not understand that to be the fact. It was not 
the meeting that I was at. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was not discussed with the investigator while 
you were there ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't recall it. As a matter of fact, Senator, I was 
on and off the telephone handling my own business, and the lawyers 
were handling it, and maybe that is one of the reasons it slipped my 
mind, and there could have been discussion that I don't have in mind 
concerning what happened at that meeting, but I didn't even recall 
the meeting until I got back to the building and inquired whether 
there was such a meeting. Because Mr. Kennedy said that one of 
meetings took place in our building. 

The Chairman. That is the one you attended ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes. 

The Chairman. Or you were present there. 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who brought Mr. Maheu over there? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't want to get held to this, but I believe Mr. Ed 
Cheyfitz, because I wasn't there when they came in. The meeting 
was in progress when I came in. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have the Teamster used Mr. Maheu on other 
occasions ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Just a moment.. Not that I know of. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Hoffa. Our attorney, Mr. Williams, is of the opinion that 
former President Beck may have used Maheu for an investigation. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was that in connection with ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't know. I just gathered that from Mr. Williams. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you find that out from Mr. Williams, too? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't know if he knows. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Hoffa. I understand that former President Beck thought his 
apartment wires were tapped and that he engaged Maheu to try and 
find out whether or not they were. Again I think both of these are 
coming from something that we can't positively say. 

Mr. Kennedy. Has he been used on any other occasion ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't know. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Have you used him since you became president? 

Mr. Hoffa. I haven't used him. 

The Chairman. You know of no one in your organization that has 
used him for union purposes and he was being paid by the union 
since you became president ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No ; I don't know of any instance where he was ever 
used. 

The Chairman. The Chair might make this observation about it. 
This committee would certainly not at the moment be interested one 



15250 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

way or the other in the expense accounts Mr. Schmidt has submitted, 
because I am quite sure they are under the jurisdiction of the court 
that appointed the monitors, and it would be the province of the court 
to determine the reasonableness or unreasonableness of those expense 
accounts. 

At the moment this committee would have no interest in the sub- 
ject matter. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have an investigator or get an investigator 
to look into Barney Baker's expense accounts when that was brought 
to your attention ? 

Mr. Hoffa. No, I told you I didn't, 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever hire an investigator to look into any of 
the improper activities of any of your union officials ? 

Mr. Hoffa. They were not involved in a question of expense ac- 
counts that dealt with a court order. 

Mr. Kennedy. What I am asking you is if you ever got an investi- 
gator to look into any of the improper or criminal activities of any 
of your union officials ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I did not; not that I can ever recall. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just in that connection, are you going to take any 
action against Mr. Triscaro, or do you plan to do anything against 
Mr. Triscaro? 

Mr. Hoffa. I said this morning that I was going to Mr. Triscaro's 
meeting Friday night, at a specially called meeting of his member- 
ship, to take the entire proceedings that took place here and read the 
questions and answers to the members assembled. I will discuss the 
question, and Triscaro will discuss the question, and we will let the 
members make a decision concerning Triscaro's actions here at this 
committee meeting. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you personally going to take any action to have 
him removed as a union official in view of the testimony before the 
committee ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I will decide that after I have gone into the facts con- 
cerning the alleged arguments here the other day. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you disapprove of the union officials having an 
interest in the trucking company ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I positively will never agree that it is immoral or im- 
proper for a person to have outside interests as long as it does not 
affect his collective bargaining. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, what if the outside interest is such that the 
company has a contract or should have a contract with the union 
which this official represents ? 

Mr. Hoffa. If they were paying the standard wage, hours and 
conditions, and complying with the contractual relationship that 
other employers had to comply with, I would look into the question. 
But if it was proper would not find any fault with it, because in 
many instances it is educational and beneficial to the members for a 
business agent to be able to know as much or more about the em- 
ployer's business at the bargaining table than the employer. And 
the only way he can find out the practices of an employer or the op- 
erations of an employer is to actually find that he has to meet a pay- 
roll. Then he becomes pretty well educated as to the responsibilities 
that he has not only to getting wages, hours, and conditions for his 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15251 

members, but the responsibility of not putting the employer out of 
business and having the employees without a job. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you sort of encourage your officials to get into 
these businesses ? 

Mr. Hoffa. I don't encourage them; they didn't ask me. But I 
think now that you have brought it up it should be a matter of record 
that Triscaro disposed of his operations concerning the question of 
a trucking concern that was engaged in the business that his local 
union's charter covered. He disposed of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was in his brother's name. The trucking com- 
pany was disposed of, and he received the money. 

Mr. Hoffa. In his brother's and in his wife's name. I didn't know 
the total sales price and I don't know the arrangements, but I know 
that he disposed of it, based upon what was said here, and is out of 
that business, so he has no conflict of interests, if you want to call it 
as such, in regard to his local union at the present time. 

Mr. Kennedy: Well, there were three or four, I believe, trucking 
companies. That was one of them. 

Mr. Hoffa. I think if you will check into it, it is all tied in to one 
situation, and I intend to ask Triscaro to be ready to discuss with 
the membership the total connection of the various units mentioned 
here in regard to that particular truck company. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you going to hire an investigator to see whether 
there was a contract or whether the contract was lived up to in this 
case? 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, I intend to be at the meeting personally. The 
drivers who drove those trucks will be there. If they have any com- 
plaints I will accept their complaints, check into them and do what- 
ever is necessary to correct them. 

Mr. Kennedy. I just want to find out whether you are going to 
hire an investigator to find that out. 
Mr. Hoffa. If I find it necessary I wouldn't hestitate to. 
Mr. Kennedy. Do you plan now to ? 

Mr. Hoffa. At this moment, there isn't any need, because I have 
no reasons to believe that I will not be able to uncover whatever is 
necessary in this particular meeting tomorrow night. 
The Chairman. Have you any questions, Senator? 
Senator Ives. Yes; I want to ask Mr. Hoffa a question. 
As I recall when Mr. Triscaro was before us, he took the fifth 
amendment, consistently, all the way through. 
Mr. Hoffa. Yes. 

Senator Ives. I am not discussing the right or lack of right to take 
the fifth amendment. I just want to make the comment that I cannot 
understand why he would take the fifth amendment consistently and 
why you, yourself, never take it. 

Mr. Hoffa. Well, Senator, I didn't want to say this, but you brought 
it, up — - 

. Senator Ives. I am disturbed about you in all of this thing. These 
people are taking the fifth amendment all the time, where you are 
involved, and giving you kind of a black eye. 

Mr. Hoffa. I discussed this problem with both Mr. Presser and 
Mr. Triscaro after they came off of the stand, and wondered some- 
what myself. But their position was that they had a right, without 



15252 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

my consent, to do what their conscience dictated, and that they would 
be responsible to their membership if they did anything contrary to 
the desire or the pleasure of their membership. 

So it is very difficult for me to be able to have anv control over a 
situation which is their individual right and determination. 
Senator Ives. Do they not have any regard for you ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator, sometimes it becomes necessary to regard your- 
self over and beyond anybody else, I suppose. 

Senator Ives. Well, that is very true. Nobody can get around that, 
when exceptional cases arise, but here is a situation where you, your- 
self, apparently are perfectly willing to talk freely and where Mr. 
Triscaro was not. I cannot understand it. 

Mr. Hoffa. I can't either. 

Senator Ives. Well, I wanted to point that out. They are doing 
you a great disservice. 

Mr. Hoffa. I would like also, Mr. McClellan, to have in the record 
one more name to the list we submitted the other day. Anthony 
"Ducks" Corallo has severed his relationship with the Teamsters 
Union. I would also, if you please, Mr. Chairman, like to have Mr. 
Kennedy give me the names that he claimed I had left off of the list 
that I submitted here so we can further check into it and make a re- 
port without looking as though we were trying to pick certain par- 
ticular localities, but give you the overall picture. 

Mr. Kennedy. We are in the midst of preparing the list. We will 
have it ready for you tomorrow morning. 

The Chairman. In the meantime, how about this fellow Presser: 
He impressed me as being quite a character. Will you keep him? 

Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir ; I certainly will. 

Bill is a very capable organizer, a very capable administrator. I 
believe you will find that the unions and the membership in Ohio 
have a high regard for Preiser's honesty and integrity. 

The Chairman. How can you justify keeping a man when asked 
about the finances of a union and by a tribunal that has the jurisdic- 
tion, authority, and duty to inquire into it — how can you justify 
keeping a man that cannot answer questions without incriminating 
himself about the handling of union funds ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator, he will have to answer that question himself, 
not only here, but our committee set up for this purpose 

The Chairman. He did not answer here. 

Mr. Hoffa. I said he would have to. I didn't say he did. He 
will have to answer that question himself. 

Also, our committee set up to handle these problems will also have 
an investigation of that particular situation along w r ith other 
problems. 

The Chairman. That is one of the very things we have pointed 
out, that unless this trend is checked, you are undertaking to set up a 
supergovemment in this country. You come up here and defy, in a 
sense, the constituted governmental authorities when they have a duty 
to inquire into these things, you go out and set up a commission of 
your own and say, "Well, we are going to look after it ourselves. We 
will take the fifth amendment when we come up before you." 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator, I think if you will look around you will find 
(hat other unions, besides the Teamsters, have arranged for the same 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15253 

type of process, of grievance process for complaints, process of indi- 
viduals. 1 haven't heard anybody complain about that situation. 

The Chairman. I am not justifying or vindicating the action of 
any other union wherever it conflicts with these concepts that I am 
expressing. I would condemn another union just as quickly as I 
would yours. The Teamsters is no anathema to me as such. It is the 
practices that I may regard as improver and such things as that that 
I seek to find an answer to and to correct. But I just cannot under- 
stand, unless you do feel and unless the whole attitude is that "We 
are going to put ourselves above and beyond the reach of the law and 
be a government of our own and run our own affairs. What we do 
is nobody's business." 

Yet you get the sanction of Government for collective bargaining 
that carries with it a trust and responsibility and an obligation to 
the union member who, in many instances has to join and has to pay 
his dues, or otherwise they do not eat. I think this has become the 
crux of this investigation. The problem that confronts our Govern- 
ment is : Your union is going to be immune, can they set up their own 
government, can they be super to the Government of our country, 
and can they defy it and say, "You have no authority over us." I 
think it is serious. I really think it is serious. 

I am not trying to lecture you. I am pointing up here in the record 
just the situation as it is impressing me in these hearings. 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator, I would like to send over to you, and I think 
you will appreciate it when you see it, a compilation of bylaws of 
various large international unions in the United States, where we have 
compared our constitution and our procedure to those large interna- 
tional unions. And after investigating it, I think you will have to 
agree that far over and above constitutions of the other international 
unions, our constitution is a model constitution. I will be happy to 
send it over to you so you can have an opportunity to look it over. 

The Chairman. I think we have a good many constitutions. I am 
not comparing your constitution with others, whatever they provide. 
Yours may be as good as theirs. No constitution is better than the en- 
forcement of it. 

Mr. Hoffa. There is no question about that. 

The Chairman. I have pointed that out here before. I just can't 
understand the position, though, when those who can give us informa- 
tion, who are under your jurisdiction, come up here and take the fifth 
amendment. They are retained and they go right on. But that is 
your viewpoint, that they are entitled to it. I am entitled to disagree 
with it. I think Congress is entitled to disagree with it, and probably 
will. I think the American people generally do not appreciate that 
attitude. 

Senator Ives? 

Senator Ives. I would like to ask Mr. Hoffa, who are the members 
of this committee to whom he refers ? 

Mr. Hoffa. Ex-Senator Bender, Judge Jayne, who was chief justice 
for a long number of years in the circuit courts of Michigan, and Mr. 
F. J. Donohue, of Washington, D. C, a prominent lawyer, and who 
I understand was a commissioner. 

Senator Ives. I would like to ask you who pays the members of 
this committee? 



15254 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. IIoffa. Necessarily we would have to pay them. 

Senator Ives. What salary do they get for compensation? 

Mr. IIoffa. They will get $250 a day for their compensation. 

Senator Ives. Do you mean every day or when they are actually 
working? 

Mr. Hoffa. When actually working, Senator, and they expect to 
work a very limited number of days a month. 

Senator Ives. In that connection — and of course the question I raise 
is that I cannot see how anybody that is being paid by you, and I say 
you advisedly because I am assuming you are paying them as head 
of the union 

Mr. Hoffa. You can assume wrong, because the union is going to 
pay them, not Hoffa. 

Senator Ives. All right. I cannot understand why you are opposed 
to the Kennedy-Ives bill, which actually does, by law, what I assume 
you anticipate that this committee is supposed to do. 

Mr. Hoffa. Senator, I don't want to get into a long discussion. We 
have a lot of work. 

Senator Ives. I don't want to discuss the whole bill with you, but 
you are opposed to the bill and have been right along, and I have been 
wondering why. All these other labor leaders of these great unions 
to which you have been referring have been favoring that bill. 

The only other one who has not has been Mr. Lewis. 

Excuse me for interfering. 

Mr. Hoffa. The administration of a law once passed by Congress 
becomes very flexible, according to the administration that admin- 
isters the law. I have had my experience with Taft-Hartley, the 
Wagner labor law, and various other laws passed by State and Fed- 
eral legislatures. I have never yet found that the law meant the 
same thing when you changed the chairman of the Commission or 
changed the structure of the political party that controlled the selec- 
tion of the committee. So I am opposed to a law which could be 
passed in all good conscience and faith for the benefit and protection 
of the working people and the unions of this country, but I am op- 
posed to the fact that some administrator can change the effect and 
the intent of the individuals who passed the law, and could very con- 
ceivably wipe out all of the gains made by labor, and could very con- 
ceivably destroy organized labor in the United States. 

Senator Ives. May I reply to that ? 

I have taken that aspect of the matter into consideration, and I 
know of nothing in that bill which could be so interpreted that it 
could be administered to the detriment of labor, nothing whatever. 
After all is said and done, I think I am just as much interested in the 
welfare of organized labor as you are. Perhaps in reality as much. 

Mr. Hoffa. I would question in reality as much. 

Senator Ives. That is another point where we may disagree. 

The Chairman. You gentlemen are in disagreement as to who loves 
labor the most. I think what we ought to do is love our country 
more, be sure that labor, business, and everybody else, conducts them- 
selves with that propriety that is befitting a good citizen of this 
country. 

Mr. Hoffa. The Teamsters agree. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15255 

All right, call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Richard Pastor. 

The Chairman. Mr. Pastor, you do solemnly swear the evidence 
you shall give before this Senate select committee will be the truth, 
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Pastor. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF RICHARD PASTOR, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
FRANK J. DONNER 

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

Mr. Pastor. My name is Richard Pastor. My residence is 65-96 
160th Street, Flushing, N.Y. 

The Chairman. What is your business or occupation ? 

Mr. Pastor. My employer is Local 1-S of the Retail, Wholesale and 
Department Store Union, AFL-CIO. 

The Chairman. Local what ? 

Mr. Pastor. 1-S. I would like to say, if I may, Mr. Chairman, at 
this point 

The Chairman. I didn't get this clear. Local 1-S of what union? 

Mr. Pastor. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Pastor. I would like to just make an observation at this 
moment, that this is a union which has a 20-year tradition of fighting 
for democracy and decency. 

The Chairman. Well, we will find put just what it is. 

Mr. Pastor. I just want to add, if I may, that I have done nothing 
to, in any way, damage that prestige. 

The Chairman. All right. We will see. I am sure you will be glad 
to tell us about it. 

Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you editor of the news of Local 1-S News? 

Mr. Pastor. Mr. Chairman, I would feel compelled at this point 
to call your attention to the fact that, if you are not already aware, 
that this question, and many others, has been the subject of a grand 
jury questioning. I have been notified by the grand jury that I am 
subject to recall. 

I therefore feel that I must decline to answer this question at this 
time. 

The Chairman. The question is : Are you editor of this paper? 

Mr. Pastor. I respectfully decline to answer that question, sir. 

The Chairman. You are ordered and directed to answer the ques- 
tion, with the permission of the committee. 

We are trying to get your connection with the labor movement so 
that we can interrogate you further about it. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Pastor. Mr. Chairman, this question does fall directly within 
the scope of the grand jury inquiry. 

The Chairman. There is no reason why this committee cannot in- 
quire into anything a grand jury is inquiring into, so long as it comes 
within the purview of the mandate given this committee by the resolu- 
tion creating it. 

21243— 59— pt. 40 21 



15256 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Pastor. Well, I would say, then, in view of the fact that an 
answer to this might tend to incriminate me, that 1 would have to 
decline to answer on the grounds of the fifth amendment, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you honestly believe that if you gave a truthful 
answer to the question: Are you the editor of the — what is the name? 

Mr. Kennedy. Local 1-S News, United Department Store Workers 
Union, AFL-CIO. 

The Chairman. That a truthful answer to that question might tend 
to incriminate you ? 

Mr. Pastor. I believe it would. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have had, over the period of the 
past several weeks, certain testimony regarding Mr. Hoffa's attitude 
toward courts, grand juries, prosecutors, and judges. 

An approach was made to a juror in a wiretap trial in New York 
City that took place in connection with Mr. Hoffa last year. The 
information we have was that the man who made the approach was 
Mr. Richard Pastor, and was identified as such by the jurior that was 
approached. 

I would like to ask Mr. Pastor why it was that he made this contact 
with the jurior which was sitting on the trial of Mr. James Hoffa. 

Would you tell us that, Mr. Pastor \ 

Mr. Pastor. I am afraid, sir, that I will have to decline to answer 
that, for the same reasons. It falls within 

The Chairman. State your reasons. 

Mr. Pastor. It falls within the scope of the inquiry of the grand 
jury, sir. 

The Chairman. That reason is overruled. 

Mr. Pastor. And my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. If he thinks it might incriminate him, he answers 
the question truthfully, I assume. 

Is that right? You think a truthful answer might tend to incrimi- 
nate you ? 

Mr. Pastor. That is what I say. 

The Chairman. That is what you are stating under oath. 

Mr. Kennedy. According to the information we have, Mr. Pastor 
was born in 1918; that he was an active member of the Communist 
Party, at least during the lOlO's. 

Is that correct, that you were an active member of the Communist 
Party during the 1940's", Mr. Pastor \ 

Mr. Pastor. I would like at first to ask what pertinency a question 
like that has in this connection. 

The Chairman. The pertinency of that question is whether there 
has been an infiltration in any area in the labor movement of subver- 
sive elements. That is the pertinency of it. We asked you whether 
you were editor of this paper. You first said you were in — in what 
position of the union \ 

Mr. Kennedy. We have him as editor of the local paper, Mr. Chair- 
man. The reason it is of such interest, particularly, is because of the 
tie which Mr. Hoffa acknowledged the other day with Mr. Harry 
Bridges 1 union on the west coast, where you have on one hand cor- 
ruption and gangsterism and on the other hand a certain amount of 
communism. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15257 

Mr. Hoffa acknowledged meeting with Mr. Velson, who has been 
an active member of the Communist Party in New York. Here you 
have during the same period of time a member of the Communist 
Party approaching a juror. 

I think what we would be inquiring into is whether there is now 
going to be a connection between the subversive groups of the Com- 
munist Party in this country with the gangster or hoodlum-run op- 
erations. 

Mr. Pastor can throw a lot of light on this subject. 

The Chairman. We will be very glad to have your testimony, 
Mr. Pastor. 

Mr. Pastor. Mr, Chairman, I feel again that I have to say that 
this also fell within the scope of the grand jury inquiry. 

The Chairman. That objection is overruled. 

Mr. Pastor. And since I am subject to recall to the grand jury, I 
must decline to answer that question. 

The Chairman. You are ordered and directed to answer the ques- 
tion with the approval of the committee. 

Mr. Pastor. Then I will have to decline on the ground it might 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, according to our information, he 
was a member of the East Side Club of the Communist Party, as 
well as the Westchester County Club of the Communist Party during 
the 1940's, at various times during the 1940's. Is that correct? 

Mr. Pastor. I will once again have to say that this falls within the 
scope of the questioning before the grand jury, and since I am subject 
to recall there, I must decline to answer the question. 

The Chairman. That reason is overruled. 

Mr. Pastor. I must decline to answer on the ground it might tend 
to incriminate me. 

Senator Ives. I would like to ask Mr. Pastor where the headquar- 
ters of the club to which the counsel referred is located in Westchester 
County. Is it in White Plains or some other place '( 

Mr. Pastor. I wouldn't know. 

Senator Ives. You would not know? 

The Chairman. The Chair must interrupt for a moment. I be- 
lieve you have counsel with you — and Mr. Counsel, I apologize to 
you, I overlooked having you identify yourself to the reporter. 

Mr. Donner. My name is Frank Donner, of 342 Madison Avenue, 
New York. 

The Chairman. It was an oversight on the part of the Chair. 1 
did not mean any discourtesy, and it was an oversight. 

Senator Ives. I am curious to know why Mr. Pastor does not know. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Pastor. Excuse me for one moment, please. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Pastor. I will have to decline to answer that question, sir on 
the grounds it falls in the same category of political interrogation 
which the previous questions do, and which w r as indicated at the grand 
jury and on the ground of my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Ives. All right, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Do you know Mr. James Holla ? 



15258 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Pastor. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You never met him ? 

Mr. Pastor. No, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did you call Miss Catherine Barry on the 
jury, Mr. Pastor ? Why did you make the call to her ? 

Mr. Pastor. Mr. Chairman, this is again the point that has been 
made painfully clear to me by the grand jury, and I have been ques- 
tioned on it, and I again say that I have been notified that I am sub- 
ject to recall before the jury, and I decline to answer on the grounds 
it might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Mr. Pastor, is it a fact that you did undertake to 
contact the juror in violation of law, and therefore, for that reason 
you do not want to testify or cannot testify without the possibility 
of self-incrimination ? Is that a fact ? 

Mr. Pastor. Excuse me for one moment. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Pastore. That is essentially the same question that I had just 
declined to answer, sir. 

The Chairman. I asked it in a little different form. We are try- 
ing to get the same information, that is true. What is your answer? 

Mr. Pastor. In that case I will have to decline to answer this 
question on the same grounds. 

The Chairman. On what grounds? 

Mr. Pastor. My answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I see. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, you called this lady and stated to her that you 
wanted to interview her in connection with her jury service; did you 
not, Mr. Pastor? 

Mr. Pastor. This again falls in the same category of question, and 
I must again decline to answer on the ground that my answer might 
tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell the committee who suggested to you 
that you call this juror? 

Mr. Pastor. I must again respectfully decline to answer that ques- 
tion on the same grounds. 

The Chairman. On the grounds it might tend to incriminate you ? 

Mr. Pastor. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did any member of the Communist Party suggest 
that you make the call to this juror? 

Mr. Pastor. Excuse me a moment. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Pastor. Well — excuse me. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Pastor. I must again decline to answer, sir, on the same 
grounds. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Pastor, I would like to ask you if there is such 
a thing as a Communist Party in New York State? 

Mr. Pastor. From what I read in the newspapers. 

Senator Ives. That is all you know about it? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15259 

Mr. Pastor. I think that this is going around the long way back 
to the same questions as were asked before, sir, and I think that I 
must again decline to answer. 

Senator Ives. For what reason ? 

Mr. Pastor. On the grounds it might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Ives. If you acknowledged there is a Communist Party in 
New York State? ' 

Mr. Pastor. It might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Ives. Well, I think you know that we know there is one, 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

All right, stand aside. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to just call Mr. Carmine Bellino for a few 
questions. 

Mr. Chairman, during the course of these hearings and the hear- 
ings last year, there was some question raised regarding whether 
the loans, so-called loans, Mr. Hoffa stated he received from the busi- 
ness agents were in fact loans or whether this was an excuse by Mr. 
Hoffa to explain large sums of cash that he had in 1952 and 1953. 

We have put in evidence the fact that he filed this statement with 
the banks, in which he did not list these loans just prior to his testi- 
mony here before the committee. We have some further information 
in that connection that I would like to have Mr. Bellino put in the 
record at this time. 

TESTIMONY OF CARMINE S. BELLINO— Resumed 

The Chairman. Have you made further investigation with respect 
to the loans Mr. Hoffa claimed he received from certain business 
agents, that he testified to in a previous hearing ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us what you found ? 

Mr. Bellino. In this connection, we find that the salary and ex- 
pense checks which Mr. Hoffa received from December 30, 1952, 
through September 3, 1953, were retained by him and cashed on 
October 14, 1953. These checks amount to $4,826.81. In other words, 
if he was in such dire need of cash, he had checks in his pocket which 
he could have cashed and used. 

Mr. Kennedy. At the time he was doing this borrowing, and time 
he claimed this borrowing was made, he was not cashing his salary 
checks? They had accumulated, from December 30, 1952, up to 
October 14, 1953, when he cashed them, to the amount of $4,826.81 ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes. 

In addition he had his four salary checks from local 299 which he 
received in January of 1953, and the testimony has been that the money 
he borrowed was from the latter part of 1952 and the early part of 
1953. He had four salary checks which were not cashed until January 
29, 1953, amounting to $1,115.80. 

The Chairman. That is in addition to the other amount you have 
given now ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Those are additional checks? 



15260 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. That is for the month of January only 
of 1953. 

Mr. Kennedy. This, of course, was when he stated he had to go to 
these business agents and he got these loans in cash because he was 
in dire need of this money. 

Mr. Bellino. That is up to the early part of 1953. 

Mr. Kennedy. To January of 1953 ? 

Mr. Belltno. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Have you determined how many loans he was 
claimed to have received during that period of time, in amount? 

Mr. Bellino. I believe it was around $30,000, if I recall, or $38,000 
in the latter part of 1952 and the early part of 1953, if I recall 
correctly. 

Mr. Kennedy. None of which had any evidence, and there were 
no notes on any of them and it was all in cash. 

Mr. Bellino. All in cash, and no notes, and no receipt of it or any 
record of money — just coming out of a tin box or stashed away at 
home somewhere. 

Mr. Kennedy. During a period of time in which some of these busi- 
ness agents who made these loans had bank accounts? 

Mr. Bellino. Bank accounts and they also were borrowing, them- 
selves, from the union. 

The Chairman. All right. Is there anything further? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hoffa submitted this morning 
a memorandum regarding the insurance of the Central States Con- 
ference, and I would like to call in connection with that matter 
Professor Mayerson. 

We expected also, I might say, Mr. Chairman, to have the Dorf- 
mans; but there has been a death in the family, as T have explained 
to you, and they are unable to appear at this time. So they will have 
to appear at a later time. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you: Is Professor Mayerson here? 

Will you come around, please ?* Will you be sworn ? 

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

Mr. Mayerson. I do. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could we also have Mr. Martin Uhlmann, of the 
committee staff, who has spent a considerable amount of time study- 
ing this? 

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

Mr. Uhlmann. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF MAETIN S. UHLMANN AND PROF. ALLEN MAYERSON 

The Chairman. Beginning on my left, state your name and your 
place of residence and your present business or occupation. 

Mr. Uhlmann. Martin S. Uhlmann. I live at 3923 North Fifth 
Street, in Arlington, Va., and I am a member of the Senate select 
committee investigating staff. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15261 

The Chairman. Now, the gentleman on my right, Professor Mayer- 
son, will you give your name? . 

Mr Mayerson. Allen Mayerson, and I am an actuary and assist- 
ant professor of insurance and actuarial mathematics at the Univer- 
sity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 

The Chairman. You gentlemen waive counsel, 1 assume? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Uhlmann, I might ask about your background 
and experience. How long have you been working for the t ederal 
Government ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. 25 years. . 

Mr. Kennedy. And what kind of work have you been doing 
generally? n . . 

Mr. Uhlmann. In the main, finance and accounting and investiga- 
tion and audit work. 

Air. Kennedy. And you are a certified public accountant I 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes, sir. . 

Mr Kennedy. You have been working for a period of almost a year 
now on Allen and Paul Dorfmans' arrangement in connection with 
the Central States Conference; is that right? 

Mr. Uhlmann. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. The insurance that they have ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Professor, could you tell us a little bit about 
your background ? 

Mr. Mayerson. I am a fellow of the Society of Actuaries, the pro- 
fessional body of actuaries in the United States and Canada, and I 
am also a fellow of the Casualty Actuarial Society, and I am a mem- 
ber of the actuarial bodies of France, Great Britain, Spam, and 
Switzerland, and I am the former principal actuary of the New York 
State Insurance Department, before I became professor at Michigan. 

Mr. Kennedy. You spell your name M-a-y-e-r-s-o-n ? 

Mr. Mayerson. That is right, 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been with Michigan ? 

Mr. Mayerson. I have been at Michigan for 2 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Professor, have you made a study of the in- 
surance of the Central States Conference of the Teamsters? 

Mr. Mayerson. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you made a study of the selection of the car- 
rier of that insurance ? 

Mr. Mayerson. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, when was the contract awarded m connection 
with the Central States Conference of Teamsters ? 

Mr. Mayerson. Bids were first called for in January of 1950, and 
the contract was finally awarded soon after, I guess, March 14, 1950, 
and the final bids were submitted March 14, 1950. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you give me those dates again ? 

Mr. Mayerson. There were three bids. There was a bid in Jan- 
uary which was thrown out, and another in February which was also 
thrown out, and the final bids were submitted on March 14, 1950. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who were the three low bids? Who submitted the 
three low bids ? 

Mr. Mayerson. In the final bidding in March, the three lowest 
bidders were the Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co., a combined bid 



15262 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

of the Union Casualty with the United States Life Insurance Co., and 
the third was the Continental Assurance Co. They were the third 
bidder. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Chairman, we have an affidavit here from 
Kalph J. Walker, vice president of the Pacific Mutual Life Insur- 
ance Co. 

The Chairman. This affidavit may be made exhibit 201. 

(The affidavit referred to was marked "Exhibit 201" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. You may read excerpts from it. 

(Members of the select committee present at this point in the pro- 
ceedings : Senators McClellan, Ives, and Church.) 

Mr. Kennedy. I will read the whole thing, Mr. Chairman. It will 
put the situation in perspective, with background. It is from Ealph 
J. Walker, vice president of Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. 
[Reading :] 

In the early part of 1950, Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. was one of several 
insurance companies requested to bid on a health and welfare plan covering 
Teamster Union members employed by employers in 22 Central and Eastern 
States. The risk was known as the Central States Drivers Council and included 
the Southeast and part of the Southwest. 

There were preliminary negotiations designed primarily to determine upon 
a plan of benefits to be submitted for sealed bids. By letter from Mr. Hoffa 
and Mr. Healey in early February, our company was requested to submit a 
sealed bid on a specific plan of benefits. We did so and I presented our bid in 
multiple copies in Chicago on or about February 27, 1950. The sealed envelope 
was marked by time and date of submission. The bids were considered at a 
union-employer meeting at the Hotel Morrison in Chicago on or about March 
6, 1950. I was present in the hotel, but I do not recall having been invited 
into the meeting. 

It is my recollection that our bid for the complete plan of benefits was $3,955 
per insured employee per month. According to a list of bids that I later 
received, ours was the lowest bid. 

For unstated reasons, all bids were tossed out and new sealed bids were 
requested immediately thereafter, by letter from Hoffa and Healey. Sealed 
bids were to be presented at three different locations : A union office in Detroit, 
a union office in Chicago, and the headquarters of the Employer Council in 
Madison, Wis. Our bid was personally delivered by our men in each of the 
three locations, just prior to the deadline. Our bid was $3.78 monthly per 
insured employee. 

The second bid was considered at a meeting of employer and union represent- 
atives at the Morrison Hotel around the middle of March 1950. The four lowest 
bidders were invited into the meeting room, one at a time. I was so invited and 
was told by Mr. Hoffa, who appeared to be chairman of a committee, that our 
bid was unacceptable because our company had had financial troubles in 1936 
and welshed on its noncancelable accident and health policies. I told him that 
there was a satisfactory explanation and that I would like to present that ex- 
planation. He told me that the matter was closed and that our bid had been 
rejected. I asked him if he was both judge and jury and he replied that he 
was both. I left the meeting. Subsequently, I was informed that Pacific 
Mutual was the low bidder. 

To both of our bids had been attached a condensed financial statement show- 
ing the condition of the company as of December 31, 1948, copy of which is 
attached. 

Our company has not been able to comply with the subpena and produce its 
correspondence files in connection with this case because of a destruction pro- 
gram that we have in effect. 

I will skip five or six lines. 

The above statement is true and correct to the best of my present recollection. 
The amounts of the bids are definitely recollected by me because of the unusual 
circumstances surrounding the rejection of our final bid and the fact that the 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 



15263 



ployee per month on the second round. 

Have you made a study of the awarding of this contract, is that 
right, Professor? 

Mr. K™y: Irf'the'facts that are related here correct, as you 

kl Mr. Mayerson. As far as I know them, yes. But, of course, I have 
no firsthand knowledge of this. I base my study on various facts 
o/iven to me, one of which was . 

Mr. Kennedy. The fact that certain of the bids were thrown out, 
did you find that to be correct? 

Mr. Mayerson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you find out the explanation as to why they 
were thrown out? m . T , nm 

Mr Mayerson. No explanation was ever given, as far as 1 know. 

Mr Kennedy. Could vou tell us who the three lowest bidders were * 

Mr Mayerson. The "lowest bidders were the Pacific Mutual, 
Union Casualty, and United States Life, and the Continental 

As far as the bids are concerned, there are two things that have to 
be considered: The premium rate, the gross premium rate, and the 
company's retention. Apparently the committee was most interested 
in the gross premium rate. They had so much money to spend and 
they weren't willing to go above a certain figure. So they first cut 
everything down to the three or four lowest bidders m terms of the 
gross premium rate. ,,•' , ; ' i . j „ 

But it is also important to look at the retention because the retention 
is the amount the company keeps for its expenses, contingency re- 
serves, profit, and so on. Since the premium rate is usually calculated 
with a certain amount of conservatism because no company wants to 
lose money, the retention is important to the group insured, because 
this is going to determine, really, their true cost of insurance. 

The Pacific Mutual bid a premium rate of $3.78 per month per em- 
ployee, with a retention, an average over 5 years retention of 7.1 
percent of the premium. . . 

The Chairman. They first gave a low rate or gave their rate ot 
premium that they would charge per member; is that correct* 
Mr. Mayerson. Yes, sir. . 

The Chairman. Then the next and the most important thing or one 
of the most important things is how much they would retain out of the 
fund for operating expenses and profit? 
Mr. Mayerson. Right. 
The Chairman. All right. 

Mr Mayerson. And both have to be considered together, lhey 
both have a bearing on cost, and you have to really weigh the two 
together. The Pacific Mutual bid $3.78 a month, with a 7.1 percent 
"T^tpntion 

The Union Casualty and United States Life bid $3.80 per month, 
with a 17.5 percent retention. . • 

The Continental Assurance Co. bid $3.85, with a retention ot 13.5 
percent of the premium, plus 10 percent for profits. 



15264 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Ives. I would like to know what that 10 percent would 
amount to insofar as increasing the 13.5 percent retention. 

Mr. Mayerson. Well, we would have to make an assumption. If 
you assume that claims were, say, to make it easy were 62.5 percent 
of the premium, which is a reasonable assumption, they would pay the 
claims, pay the 62.5 percent. I should have made it 61.5 so it comes 
out even. They would then deduct their 13.5 percent, and then that 
totals 75. There is 25 percent left. They keep 2.5 and return 22.5. 

So on the assumption of approximately a 60 percent loss ratio, that 
13.5 percent would come up to 16 percent. But it would be very hard 
to get it much higher than that. 

The Chairman. The other two did not have plus 10 percent of 
profits, as I understand. 

Mr. Mayerson. That is right. 

The Chairman. Only the Continental Assurance Co. ? 

Mr. Mayerson. That is right. 

The Chairman. So that brought its retention, in effect, up to about 
16 percent ? 

Mr. Mayerson. Well, depending upon the loss ratio. It could be 
13.5. I would say a range from 13.5 to 16. 

The Chairman. I mean based on your general expectancy and an- 
ticipation of claims and losses. 

Mr. Mayerson. Yes, that is right. But, of course, if the actual 
experience were worse than expected, it would be worse. 

The Chairman. But you can't anticipate that they are going to be 
worse or better. You have to take the overall average and what can 
be reasonably anticipated in submitting a bid of this kind. 

Mr. Mayerson. That is right. 

The Chairman. I assume all bids are submitted on that basis. If 
you write a life insurance policy, the expectancy of life of the in- 
dividual may be 40 years, but he may not live 40 days. That is a 
part of the risk. But on the overall average through the years, you 
find that to be substantially true, that you can anticipate over a 
period of time what the losses will be. 

All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you make an examination, Professor, into the 
financial stability of each one of these companies? 

Mr. Mayerson. Well, I didn't go directly to original sources, but 
I checked in "Best's Life Reports," which is the standard life in- 
surance work, and I took down the total assets in capital and surplus 
of each of these companies. The reason I did this was because the 
particular group under consideration, the Central States, had a 
premium the first year of something over a million dollars. It is at 
present running over $10 million a year. In addition to the premium 
rate and the retention, another very important consideration for the 
person placing the insurance, or the committee placing the insurance, 
is the financial stability of the carrier. 
You will see what I mean when you see the results. 
The Pacific Mutual had assets in, I guess, at the end of 1949, be- 
cause this was early 1950 that the bids were submitted, of about $377 
million, with capital and surplus of $13.5 million. 

The Union Casualty had assets of $768,000, and capital and surplus 
of $310,000. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15265 

The United States Life had assets— which, of course, was together 
with the Union Casualty on the bid— the United States Life had 
assets of $38 million— well, say nearly $39 million, and capital and. 
suralus of $2.25 million. .,,. , ., , 

The Continental Assurance had assets of $148 million and capital 
and surplus of $14 million. . p ,_. 

So even adding the United States Life and the Union Casualty to- 
gether, their assets were about 10 percent of those of the Pacific 
Mutual, and about 25 percent of those of the Continental Assurance 
and, similarly, their capital and surplus was about 12 to 15 percent 
of die capital and surplus of either of the two companies, lhat is 
adding the two together. . 

Taking the Union Casualty alone, of course, it was very much less.. 
The Union Casualty had surplus of only $300,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. Which company had the low bid * 

Mr. Mayerson. The lowest bid was the Pacific Mutual 

Mr Kennedy. Which company had the best financial stability * 

Mr' Mayerson. I would say the Pacific Mutual and the Continental 
Assurance were pretty much neck and neck on that, of those three. 
Of course, there were many other companies that bid that were not 
considered. 

Mr Kennedy. To whom was the contract awarded? 

Mr. Mayerson. The contract was awarded to the Union Casualty 
and United States Life. 

Senator Ives. That was m the worst condition, wasn t it I 

Mr. Mayerson. That is right. . 

Mr Kennedy. Yet, according to the affidavit, Mr. Hoffa turned 
down the low bidder on the grounds they did not have the financial 
stability and financial background. ,,,*',, wi 

Mr Mayerson. I believe he said— I was told that he turned them 
down' on the groimds that they had had a financial reorganization 
in 1936, 1 believe. . . .. 

Mr Kennedy. That was some 14 years prior to that time. 

Mr. Mayerson. Yes; and 7 years before the Union Casualty was 
ever organized. . \ ■ „ . , 

Mr. Kennedy. When did the Union Casualty Co. come into 

existence ? 

Mr. Mayerson. I think 1943, approximately. 

Mr. Kennedy. So their trouble financially or the reorganization, 
had occurred some 7 years prior to the time that that company was 
organized ? 

Mr. Mayerson. Yes, sir. . 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell the committee what it has cost the 
welfare fund as a result* of the selection of the Union Casualty Co. 
over the period? I believe you have done it for a period of the first 

The Chairman. Over the Pacific Mutual. I guess that is the one 
you are making a comparison with. , . 

Mr Mayerson. This is a matter, of course, of taking Pacific Mu- 
tual's retention of 7.1, and the Union Casualty's of 17.5, and since 
the premium rate was very close, assume that was the same, and 
expressing the retention in dollar terms. 



152G6 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Over the iirst 3 years, the actual premiums were about $8.5 million, 
and the actual retention of the Union Casualty and United States 
Life together was about $1.25 million— $1,263,000. 

I think the Pacific Mutual's retention would have been about half 
that. So it looks as though the Union Casualty retained some $640,- 
000 more than the Pacific Mutual would have in the first 3 years. 

The Chairman. That would be something over $200,000 a year. 

Mr. Mayerson. Yes; except that it didn't run that way, because 
the group grew. 

The Chairman. I understand, but on the average. 

Mr. Mayerson. On the average about $200,000. 

The Chairman. This retention, that is the company retaining it, 
and that becomes company assets ? 

Mr. Mayerson. That is right, 

The Chairman. There is no dividend declared out of it back to the 
insured ? 

Mr. Mayerson. No; the retention is what the company keeps, and 
the dividend is the premium less the claims and less the retention. 

The Chairman. But they keep that much 

Mr. Mayerson. For their expenses, contingency reserves, commis- 
sions, taxes, and so on. 

The Chairman. That is more than twice. That is about 2^2 times 
as much as the Pacific Mutual was going to retain. 

Mr. Mayerson. At least twice, yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Well, twice 7.14, 14.28, against 17.5. 

Mr. Mayerson. There is one difficulty there. In the third year, 
the experience was not quite as good as it had been, and the Union 
Casualty didn't get its full 17.5 percent. In the third year they only 
got about 11.5. But taking the actual results, it was about twice. 

But you are correct on the basis of the bids. 

The Chairman. I am talking about on the basis of the bid. And 
also you say that $3.78 as against $3.80, you just didn't consider that 
as so close ? 

Mr. Mayerson. Well, I think I would have if I were on the com- 
mittee, but for purposes of the calculation, yes. 

The Chairman. But for the purposes of this calculation, you just 
waived the 2-cent difference in the premium ? 

Mr. Mayerson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What has been the total loss, then, for the first S 
years? 

Mr. Mayerson. Between $600,000 and $650,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. To the welfare fund ? 

Mr. Mayerson. To the welfare fund, as compared to the cost they 
would have had if Pacific Mutual had been chosen. 

Senator Ives. I wonder if the professor found any evidence of any 
kick-back here. 

Mr. Mayerson. No, sir, I wasn't investigating anything of that. 

Senator Ives. You weren't investigating anything of that nature? 

Mr. Mayerson. No, sir, that is not an actuarial question. 

The Chairman. Pardon ? 

Mr. Mayerson. That is not an actuarial question. I have no evi- 
dence on that. 

The Chairman. Senator Church ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15267 

Senator Church. Professor Mayerson, what kind of insurance is 
it ? Is this health an accident insurance, or is the coverage broader 
than that? 

Mr. Mayerson. There is life insurance, accidental death and dis- 
memberment, hospital, surgery — it is pretty broad. 

Senator Church. It is pretty broad as a plan to give both accident 
protection and casualty protection ? 

Mr. Mayerson. Yes, sir. 

Senator Church. And your testimony here is merely based upon a 
comparison between what the cost would have been had the decision 
been to give this insurance package to the lowest bidder as compared 
to what the cost actually was with the insurance company with whom 
the business was written ? 

Mr. Mayerson. That is right. Of course, I have to assume that 
the business was the same, all other things being equal. 

Senator Church. And that cost, you testify, was somewhere be- 
tween $600,000 and $650,000 to the union? 

Mr. Mayerson. Approximately that ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened after the first 3 years ? 

Mr. Mayerson. In the fourth year, the experience got quite bad and 
instead of having any retention at all, the Union Casualty and United 
States Life had a substantial loss on the business. I am not sure how 
much. I think, taking account of the retention, the overall loss was 
something like $700,000 in the fourth year. 

The Chairman. What? 

Mr. Mayerson. About $700,000. The experience turned bad. The 
claims exceeded the premiums by about $150,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. What if that had happened in the first year ? What 
would have happened to the Union Casualty ? 

Mr. Mayerson. I think it would have bankrupted the Union Cas- 
ualty if it happened in the first year. They had capital and surplus 
of $310,000. Of course, United States Life was on the risk. They 
have the life completely and also are on accidents and health as rein- 
surer, so they would have had to make good a substantial part of it. 
I believe on the actual loss that did occur, United States Life got stuck 
with a substantial part of it, and Union Casualty didn't go under. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about the commissions that were paid? 
Could you give us a report on that, whether the commissions that were 
paid to the Dorfmans were excessive? 

Mr. Mayerson. Yes ; the commissions paid — there were two sets of 
commissions. Commissions were paid to the union insurance agency, 
which, I believe, was run by the Dorfmans, and commissions of a 
smaller amount were paid also to the United Public Service Corp., 
which was kind of a general agency run by Dr. Perlman, who is also 
executive vice president of the company. The total commissions to 
both of those agencies for the first 7 years from April 1, 1950, March 
or April, I am not sure which, 1950, down through 1957, 7 year's, com- 
missions of about $1,400,000 was paid to those two agencies. 

The Chairman. What are those, just brokerage commissions? 

Mr. Mayerson. Agency commissions, $1,400,000. 

The Chairman. That is pretty much net profit; isn't it? 

Mr. Mayerson. Well, the agent usually has a certain amount of 
expense in getting the business and in running his office, and in serv- 
icing, and so on. 



15268 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Church. How does that compare to the total amount of 
premiums paid during that period? 

Mr. Mayerson. Let me get that for you. May I make one correc- 
tion to that? That $1,400,000 includes not only the Central States, 
but also the Michigan Conference of Teamsters. The bidding, the 
part I talked about, about retention and bidding, and so on, referred 
only to the Central States. But later on the Michigan Conference of 
Teamsters also came into the Union Casualty. 

Now T have that lumped together with the Central States. The 
total premiums on the two groups together were about $58 million 
during those 7 years, about $58 million in premiums and about $1,400,- 
000 in commissions. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much, under ordinary circumstances, Profes- 
sor, would a commission be paid ? 

Mr. Mayerson. Well, to get a judgment on that, I took the commis- 
sion scale of six other life insurance companies. I went back and got 
the commission scale they were using at this time. Commissions have 
come down some since then, so I went back to about 1951, 1952, 1953. 
It seemed to me that — well, first of all, we have to split this commis- 
sion figure into two pieces. The company, even though they paid 
$1,400,000 in commissions on the two cases, they only charged to the 
cases $650,000. The other $700,000 or $750,000 was not charged di- 
rectly to the cases as commission. The way they did this was by 
applying the standard company commission scale to the cases, even 
though the actual commissions paid were greater. 

Mr. Kennedy. I will go back into that. 

The total commission paid was $1,400,000. 

Mr. Mayerson. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much would actually be paid on the study that 
you made of the other companies ? 

Mr. Mayerson. On the basis of the six companies studied — of 
course, you have to take a range — the six companies would have paid 
something between $160,000 and $380,000 in commissions over that 
7-year period. In other words, the company scales vary. The lowest 
was about $160,000, and the highest about $380,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. The highest of any of the six other companies you 
looked at was $380,000? _ 

Mr. Mayerson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Over this 6-year period ? 

Mr. Mayerson. Seven. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much did the Dorfmans and Dr. Perlman 
receive ? 

Mr. Mayerson. $1,400,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. So they received almost $1 million in excess, is that 
right? 

Mr. Mayerson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now you were explaining about the fact that all of 
that $1,400,000, they split it up, is that correct? 

Mr. Mayerson. Yes, and only about $650,000 was actually charged 
to the two funds. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you explain the situation, what the laws are 
about charging? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15269 

Mr. Mayerson. New York State had an antidiscrimination law, and 
I guess that is a dirty word now, but it requires that any commissions, 
or a commission charged to a group must be uniform, and a company 
is not allowed to have two groups of similar types and on one charge 
a commission of 10 percent and on another charge, a commission of 
5 percent. Whatever commission scale the company files with the 
New York Insurance Department, the company must then use that 
same commission scale across the board. 

This does not say they have to pay it, and for example, it is con- 
ceivable that a case will walk into the company and there will be no 
agent at all, and they won't pay any commission. They still have 
to charge against that group this standard commission scale, in order 
to avoid that group's having an advantage against another. 

The Union Casualty did, as far as I can see, comply with that, and 
they used their standard commission scale here, although in this case 
they paid substantially more than that. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the standard scale that they should have 
charged ? 

Mr. Mayerson. What they did charge was about $650,000 accord- 
ing to their scale. 

Mr. Kennedy. Which was still about twice as much as any other 
company would have charged ? 

Mr. Mayerson. About twice as much as the highest of the other 
companies I studied. 

Mr. Kennedy. Which was the most they could charge under the 
law? 

Mr. Mayerson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then they billed the difference between $650,000 
and $1,400,000 to the company ? 

Mr. Mayerson. Yes, and the company just made the payments, but 
these amounts were not directly charged to the groups concerned. 

Senator Church. What explanation was given on the books of the 
company ? Did you examine the books of the company ? 

Mr. Mayerson. No, sir; I did not. I discussed it with them, and 
I did not have time to examine the books, but I was told that these 
were payments made by the company to the Dorfman Agency and to 
Perlman, and that these did not concern the welfare funds since the 
payments were not charged against them, and the payments were a 
private matter between the company and its agent. 

Senator Church. In other words, there was no real explanation 
given other than the fact that they were just supplementary pay- 
ments made by the company to these agents ? 

Mr. Mayerson. No explanation was given to me. 

Senator Ives. Is not that a form of kickback? It looks pretty 
nearly like it. 

Mr. Mayerson. Except that it was made, or payments were made 
by the company to their duly licensed agent. 

Senator Ives. I understand that, but they are away in excess of the 
ordinary commission, though. By the way, what is the rate on com- 
missions, and does that drop from year to year? 

Mr. Mayerson. It is usually higher in the first year than renewal 
years, and it decreases with the size of the premium. It will run 
something like 20 percent on the first $5,000 of premium, and by the 



15270 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

time you get over $1 million, it is down to half or a quarter of 1 
percent. 

Senator Ives. Apparenly what they did with their commission, was 
to take the top figure and continue it right on for all 7 years, plus 
these other things. 

Mr. Mayerson. No; they used a regular renewal scale, but instead 
of paying a quarter of 1 percent or so on the excess over $1 million, 
they were paying 1 percent or thereabouts. So they just did not chop 
it off at the high amounts as most companies will. 

Mr. Kennedy. What percentage of the business do the Teamsters 
have of this company ? 

Mr. Mayersox. The two groups, the Central States, and the Michi- 
gan conference together comprise about 80 percent or at that time 
comprised about 80 percent of the company's business. 

Mr. Kexxedy. So this excess amount that they paid actually had 
to come really from the Teamsters indirectly \ 

Mr. Mayersox*. I don't see where else it could have come from. 

Senator Ives. Who owned these companies I 

Mr. Mayersox. Well, there were various people had stock in that,, 
and I don't know exactly. 

Senator Ives. They are stock companies? 

Mr. Mayersox. The Union Casualty is a stock company; yes. 

Mr. Kexxedy. So it would appear that there was over $1 million in 
excess commissions that have been paid over the period of the past 7 
years ? 

Mr. Mayersox". That is right, about $1 million more than another 
company would have paid. 

Mr. Kexxedy. Looking at it from the other side, it would appear 
that the welfare fund paid, for the first 3 years alone, some $650,000 
more than they had to pay or would have had to pay if he had taken 
the lowest bid. 

Mr. Mayersox'. Yes, if they had taken another company, namely, 
the Pacific Mutual, and if all other conditions had remained the same, 
and the claims were the same. 

Mr. Kexx'edy. The same people were covered ? 

Mr. Mayersox - . Presumably, yes. 

Senator Ives. Air. Chairman, I would like to ask counsel who owns 
these companies. 

Mr. Kexxedy. The Dorfmans, as we will go into a little bit now 
and more extensively later on when the Dorfmans can testify, but 
Allen Dorfman was able to get this insurance for this company. 

Air. Uhlmann, how long had Allen Dorfman had a license at the 
time that he received this insurance ? 

Mr. Uhlmax^. Well, Allen Dorfman initially had a temporary 
license in March of 1949. 

Mr. Kex'X'edy. So he had had the license for only a year? 

Mr. Uhlmann. A little less than a year, when he had the contract. 

Mr. Kexxedy. That was a temporary license and when did he get 
his permanent license ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. July 1, 1949. 

Mr. Kexxedy. So he had his permanent license for about 9 months? 

Mr. Uhlmanx. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. When he got this insurance ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR EIELD 15271 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. We might also point out that the Dorfmans have 
been in business with Mr. Jimmy Hoffa, as well as Dr. Perlman has 
been in outside businesses with Jimmy Hoffa, and were in businesses 
after they received this insurance. 

Senator Ives. I understand all of that, but as I understand, this 
insurance constituted about 80 percent of the business of these two 
companies; is that right? 

Mr. INIayerson. Of the Union Casualty, and the United States Life 
is a much bigger company. 

Senator Ives. Then who really controlled it? 

The Chairman. The Casualty is the one that really got the business, 
and the United States Life underwrote it ; is that right? 

Mr. Mayerson. They underwrote the life insurance and reinsured 
the Union Casualty. 

Senator Ives. Who actually controlled the smaller company, Union 
Casualty? 

Air. Mayerson. I don't have any firsthand knowledge, but I think 
Dr. Perlman controlled the company substantially. 

Senator Ives. It would be very interesting to know that, because 
whoever controlled it must have been involved, too. 

Mr. Mayerson. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. But this was a real windfall for this company, was 
it not ? As they pointed out, this was 80 percent of the business plus 
the great premiums and the great commissions that were paid, with 
the business as well as the commissions. 

We have some correspondence, Mr. Chairman, which would bear a 
little bit on this situation as to the collusion that existed with the 
Dorfmans, and the favoritism that was given to the Dorfmans by 
Mr. Hoffa. As I said, we expected to have the Dorfmans here, in 
which case we were going to go into many other matters extensively 
in connection with this, but we have some letters here that might 
throw a little light and show you about it. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me ask you, when you went through the Union 
Casualty files, did you find that the bids from certain of the other 
companies, the rival companies, did you find their bids in the Union 
Casualty's office? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes ; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. You found several of these other companies' bids 
in the Union Casualty's files ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes ; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us about that ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Well, yes; and, of course, the files do not indicate 
when these bids were actually furnished. However, I did find them, 
and in one instance there was a telegram addressed to Mr. Hoffa at 
the Bismarck Hotel in Chicago, that was sent by the Continental 
Assurance Co., and the essence of it was their bid in response to the 
January 1950 bid invitations on the Central States contract. I have 
a copy of that telegram here. 

The Chairman. All right. That wire may be made exhibit 202. 

(The wire referred to was marked "Exhibit 202" for reference and 
may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

21243— 59— pt. 40 22 



15272 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you find any others? 

Mr. UhlmaNn. Yes; we have a letter that was sent again by Conti- 
nental Assurance addressed to Mr. Hoffa at Detroit, in which their 
bid with respect to the second round of bid invitations had been sub- 
mitted. That, too, was in the file. 

The G i i.mr max. That letter may be made exhibit SOP*. 

(The letter referred to was marked "Exhibit 203" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. We will put in some of these other documents now, 
Mr. Uhlmann, that we picked out before. 

Mr. Uhlmann. With respect to some correspondence that seem to 
have a bearing on this insurance, there is a letter I have here that was 
dated February 2, 1950, written by Allen Dorfman to Dr. Perl man, 
who at the time was executive vice president of the Union Casualty 
Co. and in which he said, in part : 

From all indications it appears that our efforts to land the Central States 
business will be successful. 

Senator Ives. That will be exhibit 201-A, I believe. 

(The letter referred to was marked "Exhibit 204-A'' for reference 
and may be found in the file of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the date of that ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. February 2, 1950. 

Mr. Kennedy. Sometime before the bids were awarded, is that 
right ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Just about 6 weeks ; yes. 

On February 13, 1950, or just about a month before the award was 
made, another letter by Allen Dorfman was sent to Dr. Perlman in 
which he said, in part : 

The big thing for us to consider here, Doctor, is to get the contract first. Once 
we are established with the Central States, the rest will be worked out. That is 
the main point to be emphasized and is the point that was emphasized for me 
by Mr. Hoffa as well as Mr. Flynn. They said, 'Tell Doc to get us the Central 
States Drivers' contract and, once we are in, the rest will be good going." 

Senator Ives. That will be exhibit 204-B. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 20-1— B ,? for ref- 
erence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I have here an excerpt from the testi- 
mony of Willys J. McCarthy at a congressional hearing in November 
of 1953, and he was a trustee, and he was asked some questions about 
the awarding of this business to Dr. Dorfman and the Union Cas- 
ualty Co., and the following exchange took place; he was asked a 
question : 
Whom did you think was trying to throw it to the Union Casualty? 

And he answered : 

I thought James Hoffa was trying to throw it to Union Casualty, and I thought 
Tom Flynn very definitely was trying to throw it to Union Casualty. 

These documents that are being put in at the present time support 
that situation and that claim, and the testimony of the professor of 
.course shows what the result of it was. 

Senator Ives. Are there some more documents ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15273 

Mr. Uhlmann. I have a letter dated March 8, 1950, written by 
Allen Dorfman to Dr. Perl man, and he says, in part : 
You will note that they mnke reference — 

and he was referring, if I may say here, to the bid invitation of the 
Central States Drivers Council — 
they make reference to the average premium age of 43. 

He was referring here to the life insurance. 

I might say that the bid invitation made it very clear that there 
was to be no modification insofar as the bidding itself was concerned 
with respect to any feature of the specifications in the invitation itself. 

Notwithstanding that, the bid that came from Union Casualt} 7 
quoted a life rate of age 39 instead of 43. 

Mr. Dorfman continues : 

In my conversation with Jimmy Hoffa, he said that it would be all right to 
quote a lower rate for the life insurance but, if you do quote a lower rate and 
they find that the average rate is in the vicinity of 43 years, we will have to go 
along on a basis of the average age we submitted in our bid. Use your own 
judgment along these lines but bear in mind to cut somewhere along the life 
insurance rate instead of 43, quote a figure as you have in the past and we 
will be in pretty good shape. 

I might add this : 

In my conversation — 

again quoting from the letter — 

with Mr. Hoffa, he said there will be a minimum of 30,000 people to be cov- 
ered, and in a very short time it should be increased to well over 100,000. 

Senator Ives. Have you any of those documents of that same type 
to go in ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. No, I do not. 

Senator Ives. That will be exhibit 205-A. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 205-A" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the tiles of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have some other documents ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes, I do have a document which has a bearing on 
the letter I just quoted from, to this effect. 

Senator Ives. If you are going to have that, we had better make 
the last one 205-A and the one you are about to read will be 205-B, if 
it relates to the other. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 205-B" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Uhlmann. On March 13, 1950, the actuary of the United States 
Life Insurance Co., which as Professor Mayerson pointed out earlier 
had the life portion of this total insurance, addressed a letter to Dr. 
Perlman. We must remember that this was a day or two before the 
award of this insurance. 

In this letter, he said this : 

In accordance with our telephone conversation this morning, we wish to 
authorize you to delete from our proposal to the Central States Drivers Council 
group case the page showing the amount of insurance that the deposit rate of 
65 cents for $1,000 is predicated upon age 39. 

I would like to comment in this respect. By quoting it or by using 
this rate at age 39, it was possible for Union Casualty to come up with 
a combined bid for the accident, health, and life rates at a figure that 



15274 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

was just below the Continental Assurance Co., which proved to be the 
third highest bid of the three, but in reality, if the age 43 rate had 
been used, at the statutory minimum required by New York State, 
then Union Casualty would have been the third highest bidder and 
not the second. They would have been behind Continental Assurance. 

Senator Ives. Have you anything further ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. I have a copy of a letter here found in the files of 
the Union Casualty Co. that is dated January 26, 1949, written by 
Mr. Hoffa to Dr. Perlman, and the letter states, in part : 

We wish to inform you that we have an understanding with our employees 
by having them contribute 1 cent an hour to an accident, health, and death bene- 
fit fund to be established by this organization. We intend to provide approxi- 
mately $1,000 of life insurance, and we would appreciate your information by 
return mail as to what hospital and surgical benefits could be obtained for 
$1.25 per month per member. 

Senator Ives. That will be exhibit 206-A. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 206-A" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Uhlmann. On February 2, 1949, Dr. Perlman responded to 
Mr. Hoffa's letter and furnished the information that had been 
requested. 

I might add that the files were incomplete as to how Mr. Hoffa was 
aware of Mr. Perlman and the Union Casualty Co. at that time. 

The Chairman. That letter may be made exhibit 206-B. 

(The letter referred to was marked "Exhibit 206-B'' for reference, 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Uhlmann. On February 23, 1949. Dr. Perlman wrote Allen 
Dorfman in Chicago, who at that time was on the payroll of the Union 
Casualty Co. at the salary of $100 a week as an insurance trainee, and 
he did not have a license at the time. This letter to Allen Dorfman 
reads as follows : 

I intend to be in Detroit on Tuesday, March 1. I think it would be advisable 
to conclude the Teamsters group in Detroit and take up other matters pertaining 
to contemplated groups. 

The Chairman. That may be 206-C. 

(The letter referred to was marked "Exhibit 206-C'' for reference, 
and may be found in the files of the select committee. ) 

Mr. Uhlmann. This, I believe, is the last letter : On March 17, 1950, 
Allen Dorfman wrote Dr. Perlman as follows, in part. The subject is : 

Re Jimmy Hoffa, 10,000 men group, State of Michigan. They are giving the 
insurance of the above-mentioned group to the Continental Casualty Co. 

May I add parenthetically that reference is made here to the Michigan 
Conference of Teamsters coverage. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is to be contrasted with the Central States 
conference, which ultimately became Southeast and Southwest, and 
then also there was another group entirely unrelated which was the 
Michigan conference, and that is what he is talking about at this time. 
That had the Continental Assurance Co. They had as their carrier 
the Continental Assurance Co., and then for a very strange reason, 
as we will develop now, they switched over to the Union Casualty Co. 
and the Dorfmans. 

Mr. Uhlmann. I should like to clarify this for a moment, if I may. 
In April of 1949, the Michigan conference had awarded its first insur- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15275 

ance contract, group insurance contract, to Continental Assurance. 
In March of 1950, it was renewed, and this letter relates to the first 
renewal of the Continental policy. It was written because of Dr. 
Perlman's rather keen disappointment in not having had the award 
made to his company, you see, and he had already just had the Central 
States insurance awarded to him just 2 days before. 
Now, if I may continue with the letter : 

They are giving the insurance of the above-mentioned group to the Continental 
Casualty Co. — 

it should read Continental Assurance Co. — 

who had submitted a bid of $3.75. The reason for this is that they want to show 
whomever might have questioned the Central States conference deal that it was 
to be given to the lowest bidding company. 

Now Jimmy has made the following statement to me which he has brought 
before his board, and has been agreed upon by both them as well as the 
employers, that if their experience this coming year with Continental does not 
prove to meet with their satisfaction, Union Casualty will then assume the risk. 

It proved to be the fact. They got it the next year. 

The Chairman. That letter may be made exhibit 206-D. 

(The letter referred to was marked "Exhibit 206-D" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. This is extremely important, Mr. Chairman, once 
again to show that there were collusion and fraud involved in the 
awarding of these contracts. It has cost the Teamsters Union and the 
welfare fund hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars. Even 
back just after they awarded this insurance with this group to the 
Continental Assurance Co., they were even then making a deal and 
arrangement that when the year was up they were going to switch over 
to Union Casualty Co., with nothing to do with who was the low 
bidder. 

Senator Ives. I wonder if Mr. Bellino has figured out how much it 
has cost. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think the actuary, who is an independent authority 
on this, can do that. 

Senator Ives. Do you know ? 

Mr. Mayerson. It is impossible to say exactly, and the big question 
is how much of these payments which the company claims were not 
directly charged to the groups, how much of this was indirectly 
charged to them, and this is impossible to determine without actually 
examining the books. 

Mr. Kennedy. The great problem here is that Mr. Dorfman has 
how many companies % 

Mr. Uhlmann. Insurance and some others, 22 or 23 companies. 

Mr. Kennedy. All of which were necessary to go through, and as of 
this time he will not allow us to examine the claims; isn't that correct? 

Mr. Uhlmann. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have information and evidence to indicate that 
the claims are fraudulent and that they put in these claims when the 
claims do not actually exist, but yet Mr. Dorfman will not allow us to 
examine the claims or the correspondence files as of this time. This 
is the group that is covering this millions of dollars worth of insur- 
ance. How much in premiums have gone through Mr. Do rf man's 
office? 



15276 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Uhlmann. Well, some $89 million from May of 1949 up to a. 
very recent date, of which some 90-odd percent represents the Michigan 
conference and the Central Slates group policies alone. 

(Members of the select committee present at this point in the pro- 
ceedings were : Senators McClellan, Ives, and Church.) 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman, 1 would like to ask Professor Mayer- 
son a question about that. 

Isn't Mr. Dorfman licensed to do business under the laws of the 
State of Michigan? 

Mr. Mayerson. I don't think so. He is licensed under the laws of 
the State of Illinois, and I believe all of these contracts were written as 
Illinois contracts. 

Senator Ives. As Illinois contracts? 

Mr. Mayerson. I believe so; I am not sure. 

Senator Ives. Has anything been done to bring this to the atten- 
tion of the superintendent of insurance or the commissioner of insur- 
ance, whoever he is, of the State of Illinois ? 

Mr. Mayerson. I don't know about that. I do know that Mr. 
Dorfman did hold a New York license which was revoked. 

Senator Ives. I assume it would be, in New York. 

Mr. Kennedy. The important thing is, Mr. Chairman, that the 
Teamsters and Mr. Hoffa, even though his license was revoked, con- 
tinued to have him. There has been nothing done about it. 

Senator Ives. I want to point out that apparently it has not been 
revoked in Illinois ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Mayerson. That is correct. 

Senator Ives. Something should be done by Illinois in a matter 
like this. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could we just trace through briefly for you with 
correspondence what happened on this Michigan Conference of Team- 
sters Welfare Fund ? 

You see from this letter that Mr. Uhlmann placed in the record, 
that even a year prior to this time, or just after the contract was 
awarded, they were discussing changing the carrier over to the Union 
Casualty Co. 

I would like to have Mr. Bellino put in what other documents we 
have to show that when the year was up they did switch over and 
did give the insurance to Union Casualty Co. 

TESTIMONY OF CARMINE BELLINO— Resumed 

Mr. Bellino. We have a copy of a letter dated March 5, 1951, from 
Ralph C. Wilson Associates, Inc., who were representing the Con- 
tinental Assurance Co., to the Michigan Conference of Teamsters 
welfare fund, in which they state : 

Due to your favorable loss ratio, the Continental Assurance Co. has agreed to 
increase the benefits under the various policies — 

and then they list the various increases that they are going to make, 

and they state that — 

the monthly rate for this coverage will remain the same, at $3.75. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is after Continental Assurance had this busi- 
ness for about 2 years, and they wrote and said because of the ar- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15277 

pangement that they would be able to increase the benefits and they 
wouldn't have to increase the premium ? 

Mr. Bellino. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that correct? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. That letter is dated March 5, 1951. 

The Chairman. That letter may be made exhibit 207-A . 

(The letter referred to was marked ""Exhibit No. 207-A" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Bellino. On March 8, 1951, Mr. Hofl'a, who has nothing to 
do with the Michigan Conference of Teamsters, is not a trustee of 
the welfare fund, sends a letter to Ralph C. Wilson Associates, and 
signs it as president, Michigan Conference of Teamsters, and he says: 

This is to notify you of the desire of the Michigan Conference of Teamsters 
on behalf of its affiliated local unions to discontinue the various policies. The 
above-mentioned policy numbers take in all policies which have been contracted 
for between your agency and the Michigan Conference of Teamsters. 

In other words, it goes on that it cancels the welfare fund of the 
Michigan Conference of Teamsters, and on the very same day, with- 
out any bids of any kind, they send a $50,000 check to the Union 
Casualty Co., dated March 8, 1951, which $50,000 ends up in the 
Un'ted Public Service. Dr. Perlman's service company. 

Mr. Kennedy. And at that time, Mr. Hofl'a had no official position 
with the Michigan Conference of Teamsters welfare fund ? 

Mr. Bellino. That is correct. He had no authority. 

Mr. Kennedy. And yet he is the one that wrote the letter canceling 
the business? 

Mr. Bellino. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And on the same day, $50,000 was sent to the other 
insurance company ? 

Mr. Bellino. That is correct. 

The Chairman. That letter may be made exhibit No. 207-B. 

(The letter referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 207-B" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Bellino. As of April 1, that year, the Union Casualty became 
the carrier for the Michigan Conference of Teamsters welfare fund. 

On July 13, 2 months later, 1951, the Michigan Conference of 
Teamsters sent a check for $250,000 to the Union Casualty Co., buying 
some of their stock. We find a letter which Mr. Uhlmann located in 
the files of the Union Casualty Co., addressed to Alfred — I believe it 
is Alfred Lewis — from Dr. Perlman. It is dated July 16, 1951. 

With reference to our discussion Friday morning with regard to the increase 
of surplus and capital of the company, I wish to advise you that we received to- 
day a check in the amount of $250,000 issued by the Michigan Conference of 
Teamsters Fund, Inc. 

It. is signed "Leo." 

There is a note from Alfred to Leo: 

Dear Leo, this is really wonderful news. Now you can begin to go places 
financially. 

It is signed "Alfred." 

The Chairman. That letter may be made exhibit 207-C. 
(The letter referred to was marked "Exhibit 207-C" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 



15278 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. So the Teamsters took $250,000 and invested it in 
this company, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Ives. 

Senator Ives. While there is a pause in the testimony, I would like 
to hark back a little bit to the testimony I believe Professor Mayerson 
gave, when he stated he understood that Mr. Dorfman's license had 
been suspended or revoked by New York State. 

Mr. Mayerson. This was several years ago, October 1954, I am 
told. The New York State Insurance Department, as I remember 
it, wanted to look at his books and he refused to let them see it. His 
license was then revoked. He later applied for relicensing 

Senator Ives. Reinstatement? 

Mr. Mayerson. Reinstatement — thanks. 

For reinstatement of his license, but he did not offer to submit his 
books at that time, and I believe the New York department took no 
action. 

Senator Ives. I have just been advised that that was the situation. 
I would like to bring that to the attention of the authorities in 
Illinois. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Chairman, there is one other phase. Not 
only is there loss of money to the welfare fund by making this ar- 
rangement, the excessive premiums, the benefits for the Dorfmans, 
but what was the result, as far as the individual Teamster member 
was concerned, on some of these things ? 

Mr. Uhlmann, can you give us some information regarding whether 
the benefits for the individual teamster had to be decreased for at 
least one of the policies ? 

TESTIMONY OF MARTIN S. UHLMANN— Resumed 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes. In the case of the Michigan Conference of 
Teamsters policy 

Mr. Kennedy. Which is the one we just discussed. 

Mr. Uhlmann. It was up for renewal on April 1, 1952. In other 
words, they had the first policy year run from April 1, 1951, to March 
31, 1952. In light of what Dr. Perlman represented to be a rather 
high loss ratio, that is, the claims he alleged were too high for him 
to absorb in order to also manage that 17.5 percent retention, he in- 
sisted upon an increase in the premium rates as well as a reduction 
in the benefits for particularly the dependents of the members. He 
got both. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was an increase in the rates and a reduction of 
the benefits ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to ask the Professor, just to break in for 
a moment : 

Professor, did you find from your summary that there was a high 
loss ratio and that this step was necessary, in the Michigan con- 
ference ? 

Mr. Mayerson. I really didn't examine the Michigan conference 
quite that closely. I have some figures here, though, and I can take 
a quick look at them. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15279 

In the very first policy year, the premiums were $1,080,000 on the 
accident and health part of the Michigan conference. The claims 
were $1 million. The retention was sufficient to pay commissions, 
other acquisition costs, premium taxes, and claim expenses. But ac- 
cording; to these figures which, by the way, were furnished by the 
company, I just took them as they gave them to me, the company had 
a negative, a deficit of $1,714 to apply against their home office ex- 
penses, and so on. So apparently there was a deficit in the first 
policy year. 

The Chairman. That is, there was a deficit according to their 
bookkeeping and the claims that they allowed? 

Mr. Mayerson. According to their figures, yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Go ahead. And what was the reduction that they 
gave in the Michigan conference ? How did they reduce the benefits ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. The premium rates were increased by 25 cents per 
member per month, which is quite an item, and the dependents' bene- 
fits were reduced, so that the surgical schedule, for example, which 
had a maximum of $300, was cut by one-third, or a limit of $200, and 
some of the maternity benefits were rather materially reduced. 

The Chairman. What benefits ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Maternity. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have a memo on that ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Not for that year. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let's have those figures, the situation. 

Mr. Uhlmann. In the files of Union Casualty Co. there was 
found a memorandum, a confidential memorandum, dated October 
17, 1956, written by an officer of the company to the president of the 
company, in which he makes reference to a testimonial dinner that 
was given for two officials of the International Brotherhood of Team- 
sters. They were Mr. English and Mr. Conklin. 

The Chairman. English and who ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Conklin. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is a vice president up in New Jersey. The im- 
portant thing is 

Mr. Uhlmann. Then he proceeds to say that he received a con- 
fidential telephone call from Mr. Holmes, who, at the time, was a labor 
trustee on the Michigan Conference of Teamsters welfare fund. He 
received that call on the morning of October 17. He says this : 

Mr. Holmes advised me that the trustees at their meeting today agreed as 
follows. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the meeting was with Mr. Hoffa; was it not? 
Mr. Uhlmann. Yes. 
Mr. Kennedy. All right. 
Mr. Uhlmann [reading] : 
1. Effective December 1, new enrollees — 
new members — 

would receive only 50 percent of the benefits as were enumerated in the policy. 
When I pressed him as to which plan they adopted as outlined in the report 
which was prepared by Mr. Kunis — 

he, incidentally, was the actuary for the company — 

he informed me this was unimportant, but the important thing was that they 
agreed to cut the benefits in half for these new members. 



15280 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Then lie went on to say they agreed to cut the miscellaneous hos- 
pital charges from $160 to $25. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the second one? 

Mr. Uhlmann. The second cut. 

Mr. Kennedy. The second was the tonsils from $160 to $25? 

Mr. Uhlmann. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the third reduction ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. They agreed 

Mr. Kennedy. The baby charges ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes, in the case of baby charges, that they had a 
cut made there from $150 to $100. 

Mr. Kennedy. They agreed to eliminate baby charges 

Mr. Uhlmann. I am sorry. To eliminate baby charges alto- 
gether. 

Mr. Kennedy. Under the maternity clauses for dependents? 

Mr. Uhlmann. That is right. 

The Chairman. What other substance is left in a maternity clause 
if you take the babies out? 

Well, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the fourth one, they agreed that hospital out- 
patient charges for both the member and the dependent should be 
reduced from $160 to $25 ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they would not agree to any change in a sur- 
gical schedule as it pertains to appendectomy? 

Mr. Uhlmann. That is right. I think it is important to point out 
that this letter, as I stated, this memorandum, rather, as stated earlier, 
was dated October 17, 1956, in relation to benetits that were going to 
be cut effective December 1, 1956. 

The Chairman. That memorandum may be made exhibit No. 208. 

(Memorandum referred to was marked ''Exhibit No. 208 ? * for ref- 
erence and may be found in the tiles of the select committee.) 

Mr. Uhlmann. So far as the amendment to the contract was con- 
cerned, it was not executed until June of 1957, but made retroactive to 
December 1, 1956. I might add that by that time they were in a new 
policy year because the policy year begins April 1, or did begin April 
1, 1957. Yet they made it retroactive to December 1 of 1956. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tell me this, on the $250,000 that the Teamsters 
invested in this company, have they received any dividends on that 
$250,000? 

Mr. Uhlmann. No; they never have. The investment initially was 
made in July or August of 1951, and they have never received a 
dividend to date. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have they invested more money in the companj'? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes; they have. On December 31, 1955, they in- 
vested an additional $100,000 to convert the preferred stock which 
they held into common. 

Mr. Kennedy. So they have $350,000 ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. They have $350,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have they received any benefits on it, any premium ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Not at all ; no dividends. 

Mr. Kennedy. When you went through all the documents of the 
union, did you find the pertinent documents were still available, some 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15281 

of the documents that you quoted from today, the letters? Were 
they missing or were they there ? 

Mr. Ultimann. Well, I would say that the files were rather in- 
complete, largely because, I would presume, that Dr. Perlman, who 
was acting in a dual role as executive vice president of the insurance 
company, which is the underwriter, and at the same time as executive 
vice president of the United Public Service Co., which, incidentally, 
was the managing agent for this insurance company and, of course, 
received substantial commissions on all business that was done by the 
Union Casualty Co. It is from that company that Dr. Perlman had 
derived some $600,000 in total income over a period of years, on an 
investment of $60, by the way. 

The Chairman. How much ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. $60. 

The Chairman. $60? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And pyramided it into $600,000? 

Mr. Uhlmann. At least that ; yes. 

The Chairman. At least that much? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes; he is still deriving some $5,000 to $10,000 a 
year from that company. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am thinking chiefly about the Michigan Confer- 
ence of Teamsters welfare fund. Was any of their correspondence, 
any of their documents, memorandums, during this pertinent period 
of time available? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes, they were, to a degree. 

Mr. Kennedy. Prior to 1953 ? . 

Did you make a study of that? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. None of these documents were available m 
the Michigan Conference of Teamsters welfare fund. The early 
correspondence nor the minutes of 1953 of the Michigan Conference 
of Teamsters welfare fund have never been made available. 

Mr. Uhlmann. I am sorry, I didn't understand your question. I 
was not in the welfare fund office at all. I am sorry. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have also made some study of the 
degree of entertainment that was going on in this period of .time, 
when the insurance was granted to these individuals. We will have 
more information at a later time regarding the payments of moneys. 
I would like to have Mr. Findlay give some testimony in connection 
with that. 

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

Mr. Findlay. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN P. FINDLAY 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your 
present employment. 

Mr. Findlay. My name is John P. Findlay. I reside at Freeport, 
N.Y. I am a CPA and on the temporary staff of the committee. 

The Chairman. You are with the General Accounting Office here? 

Mr. Findlay. I am with the Department of the Army, the Army 
Auditing Agency. 



15282 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. But you are a CPA ? 

Mr. Findlay. That is right. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. The Secretary of the Army was kind enough to loan 
him to the staff of the committee, and he has been working on the 
Dorfman investigation for some months, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chah*man. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you give us any information, Mr. Findlay, in 
connection with the amount of charges for entertainment during the- 
period of time that these bids were in to the Teamsters in connection 
with the awarding of this contract? 

And could you also tell us whether you have any records to show 
who was being entertained during this period of time? 

Mr. Findlay. The Department of Insurance of the State of New 
York requested Dr. Perlman to furnish them with information in 
connection with disbursements which he had made without submitting 
vouchers in support thereof. 

A letter of July 25, 1952, from Dr. Perlman to Sidney E. Gaines, 
of the Insurance Department of New York, indicated that in the pe- 
riod 1950-51, Dr. Perlman had expended $34,000 on entertainment 
in connection with new business, principally union business. Of the 
$34,000, in 1950 there was $5,350 in connection with the entertain- 
ment of individuals. In 1951 there was a total of $31,950 entertain- 
ment of union officials. 

In addition to that, in 1950, there was $7,000 spent for Christmas 
gifts, and $7,700 for Christmas gifts. 

The Chairman. Two items ? 

Mr. Findlay. $7,700 in 1951 on Christmas gifts. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much in 1950 ? 

Mr. Findlay. In 1950, $7,000. 

Dr. Perlman states : The Christmas gifts given both in 1950 and 1951 ranged 
from expensive writing sets, wristwatches, luggage sets, liquor, shirts, ties, and 
men's jewelry — 

And he submits a schedule showing the names of the individuals 
who got the Christmas gifts in both years. 

In 1950 there are 60 individuals listed, and 1 union. 

Included in this 1951 listing are the names of Bert Brennan, James 
Hoffa, Don Peters, Cabell Cornish, Kobert Holmes, Frank Fitz- 
simmons, and local 259. That is 60 names for $6,000, and 1 local. 

In 1950 there are 73 names, and 2 locals, local 813, Christmas party ; 
local 259, Christmas party. And included in the 73 names are those 
of Bert Brennan, James Hoffa, Don Peters, Frank Fitzsimmons, Joe 
Jacobs, Mr. and Mrs. Allen Dorfman, and Tom Flynn. 

With respect to the individual vouchers for which he had made no 
submission, he gives the date of entertainment. 

In 1950 he said, "Statement of disbursements for the year 1950 for 
which no vouchers were submitted," and there are seven dates given, 
January 15 to the 17 in Chicago : 

Preliminary negotiations on the Central States drivers, 22,000 members. En- 
tertained Bert Brennan, James Hoffa, Don Peters, Ed Fenner, Morris B. Sachs, 
Joe Jacobs. Allen Dorfman. Entertained at Chez Paree, Shangri-la, Swiss 
Chalet. Spent approximately $400. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15283 

On January 30 to February 3, in Chicago : 

Preliminary negotiations on the Central States drivers. Entertained James 
Hoft'a, Tom Flynn, Michael Healey, Phil Goodman, Allen Dorfman, Lynn Wil- 
liams, Mr. and Mrs. Paid Dorfman, William Smith. Entertained at Chez Paree, 
Fritzl's, Miller's Steak House. Spent approximately $600. 

That is a sample of the vouchers. 

The Chairman. That letter and the attached documents to it from 
which you have been testifying may be made exhibit 209. 

(The letter and attached enclosures were marked "Exhibit No. 209" 
for reference and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. Are there any questions on this ? 

Senator Church. Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Senator Church. 

Senator Church. Has counsel concluded with the witnesses, or are 
there further witnesses ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I think that summarizes it, that that is the situation 
as far as we can go without the Dorf mans. 

Senator Church. I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, that in these 
last 2 days, the disclosures, the shocking disclosures, that have been 
made here before the committee, seems to indicate that there is just no 
end to the scandal in the Teamsters Union. 

I want to commend the investigative staff of this committee for the 
very thorough and penetrating work that they have done. Evidently 
the treasury of the Teamsters Union seems to have attracted a host of 
parasites, like a strong arc light attracts bugs. They are eating away 
on the body of the Teamster membership, who just must not realize 
how they are being ill used. I think that the investigative staff is de- 
serving of the strongest commendation for the thorough work that has 
been done here. I am certainly hopeful that these exposures will alert 
the membership and the people of the United States in such a way as 
to furnish an adequate remedy. 

The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Church. 

Senator Ives ? 

Senator Ives. I want to join Senator Church in his remarks, be- 
cause the farther we have progressed in this whole investigation, not 
just this particular one, dealing with Mr. Hoffa himself, but the whole 
thing, the more I have become impressed with the great job which our 
staff has been doing. Without this staff we wouldn't have gotten 
anywhere. 

We have uncovered a great record of misconduct, if you want to be 
gentle in the phrase, which we have presented to the American people. 

I join my friend from Idaho in hoping that the American people 
will rise up and demand that this thing be corrected. 

Again I reiterate what I said the other day, that the place to start 
this business is on the home ground, right at the grassroots. Insist on 
law enforcement, because more damage is being done in this field by 
lack of law enforcement than because of any other reason. Then on 
top of that, I think, Mr. Chairman, we are going to have to have some 
legislation. We tried to get some this year. We didn't succeed very 
far. On the whole, I think that, as far as we have gone into this whole 
thing, what we have done is a vindication of our efforts and shows the 
great need for the investigation which has been made. 



15284 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

I want to congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, as I close, on the way in 
which you have handled this work. It lias been arduous, long, and 
trying for you. I know at times it has been very painful to you, one 
way or another, to have to sit here through all these long hours, as you 
have had to be the one who has had to do it. I don't think any of us 
can express adequately our feeling of appreciation for what you have 
done. It has been a magnificent job and a tremendous servk-e to the 
people of the United States. 

Senator Church. On that, Mr. Chairman, I want to join with my 
colleague, Senator Ives, in giving you my fullest commendation for 
the work you have done. 

The Chairman. The Chair wishes to thank his colleagues for their 
complimentary references to his efforts in presiding over the hearings 
and directing the strenuous and arduous task of this committee. 

I may say that no chairman, however, could direct or conduct an 
effective investigation and keep it on the track and on a plane of 
dignity and decorum except that he has the cooperation and support 
of the other members of the committee. 

The Chair has been very fortunate in having not only the sympa- 
thetic understanding of the problems and difficulties inherent in this 
job from his colleagues, but we have enjoyed splendid and most excel- 
lent cooperation; we have all been working as a team in carrying out 
the assignment entrusted to us by the Senate of the United States. 

I feel that we have observed the bipartisan aspects of the duties as- 
signed to us. The things that we have been inquiring into, the crimi- 
nal and improper practices that we have exposed, that these investi- 
gations have revealed, particularly those that are definitely repre- 
hensible, and those that come within the purview of questionable, 
transcend in importance and ultimate consc iuences any partisan ag- 
grandizement or self-serving effort. This is an effort for all Ameri- 
cans, through their chosen representatives in the U.S. Senate, regard- 
less of party. It is a labor that will inure greatly to the benefit of 
working people in this country, assuming that our work here conies 
into fruition with the character of legislation that these revelations 
indicate is needed. 

It will be the working people of this country, the dues-paying 
members of labor organizations, that will reap the most good from 
the services this committee has humbly tried to perform. 

The Chair will insert into the record as a closing statement a sum- 
mary of these hearings, what has been established, and what the rec- 
ord will reveal, with some observations of his own with respect thereto. 

In the course of that comment, the Chair will make reference to 
those members of the staff who have so faithfully and devotedly done 
the work, the detail work and the organization work, in searching out 
the information these hearings have disclosed. Without a staff that 
is competent, without a staff that is loyal and devoted and vigilant, we 
could not possibly bring these facts to the Congress and to public 
attention. The searching out and the getting of this information, and 
the coordinating it and piecing it together so you can see the true 
picture of these activities and practices, is not an easy task. It takes 
skilled, competent, able staff members to do it. 

I have said before, and I say again, that we have been most fortunate 
in the staff members that we have had helping us, that we were able 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15285 

to procure; and that applies both to the professional and also to the 
clerical staff. 

When we close this series of hearings — I understand Mr. Previant 
wishes to address the Chair about something — when we close these 
hearings today, it is anticipated as of now that we will not resume 
public hearings, until possibly the week of the 10th of November. 
That does not mean if some situation arises where a session of the 
committee may be needed that the Chair will not call it sometime 
before that date. 

We will adjourn subject to call, but we are hopeful that nothing 
will arise that will necessitate our resuming public hearings until 
the week of November 10. 

Is there anything I have overlooked ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I haven't said anything about any member of the 
staff in prior hearings, but we have had a large number of people 
that have worked on this investigation, and I just wanted to mention 
Mr. Bellino particularly, who spent so much time over the period of 
the past months working on this investigation. He has been away 
from his family for most of the year, and he has spent to my knowl- 
edge every Saturday and Sunday for a period of 7 or 8 months at 
least in connection with this matter. His courage and work and inter- 
est in the subject has been invaluable to all of us, and I think it has 
been an inspiration to every other member of the staff, including 
myself, in connection with this investigation. 

The Chairman. The Chair would make it very plain that when he 
refers to the staff of the committee. I am not only including the staff 
regularly employed by the committee, but the able people who have 
been made available to us by other agencies of the Government, and 
particularly the General Accounting Office, the Department of the 
Army, and the Department of the Treasury, and other agencies that 
have so well cooperated with us. 

In appreciation of our task and the importance of it, they have 
made available to us some of their very best people. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman, I wish to associate myself with the 
remarks of yourself and the counsel, which are so deservedly made. 
The work that they have done more than deserves the remarks we 
have made, and I do not think we can fully express what they 
actually deserve. 

The Chairman. Now, Mr. Previant, will you come around for a 
moment, please? 

STATEMENT OF DAVID PREVIANT 

Mr. Previant. My name is David Previant. 

The Chairman. Do you want to testify ? 

Mr. Previant. I want to make a short request of the committee in 
connection with the last testimony. 

The Chairman. You represent Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. Previant. I have represented Mr. HofFa in these proceedings, 
and at this time I make this request on l>eha]f of the many unions 
that participate in these health and welfare funds which were the 
subject of the last testimony. Now, I make it for this reason: I ap- 
preciate the fact that counsel pointed out that this presentation was 



15286 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

rather sketchy, and it was not as complete as lie had hoped he would 
be able to make it. I have no reason or any basis for challenging at 
this time either the accuracy or the competency of the testimony that 
was offered here. However, I believe that it is not complete, and I 
believe that there is very much more to the story, and I know, for 
example, that Professor Mayerson and the actuary for the insurance 
company worked together on this problem for many months last year, 
and I believe that their ultimate conclusions on the overall history 
of these funds over a period of 8 years was not a very divergent one 
and their points of view are not very far apart. 

That part of the story we don't have. The story about the reduc- 
tion in benefits is incomplete. The story about fraudulent claims, I 
am not so sure that I understood this, but I know that Mr. Aporta 
of your staff has been in the Central States office for several months 
very carefully checking our claims procedures. I don't know whether 
any reflection was intended on those claims or the method of handling 
or there was any suggestion that there was any fraud in that con- 
nection. 

Mr. Kennedy. We can quickly clean that up. Could you guaran- 
tee to us that we can make an examination of the claims in connection 
with this insurance ? 

Mr. Previant. I can speak for the fund itself and its trustees, and 
I cannot speak for the insurance agency. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is what the testimony was about, and that was 
such a key question here. 

Mr. Prevl\nt. I think all of the claims are recorded in our fund 
office, and I believe they were all traced, or at least samples were 
traced through by Mr. Aporta. That is my information from Mr. 
Aporta. 

Mr. Kennedy. We need the details, and I think it would be very 
helpful to the attorneys and anybody who was interested in the in- 
surance, and the members of these unions getting the best possible 
coverage, if they could press for the opportunity to make an exami- 
nation of these claims; I think that we can come up with some in- 
formation. 

Mr. Previant. That is the point. We have some 100,000 families 
involved, and I would not want the press or this committee to get the 
impression that their interests or stake in these funds is in any way 
jeopardized by what has been going on in those funds. I think that 
in fairness to the employer trustees and to the union trustees, the 
staff of this committee should not close this record on this point 
without assuring us the opportunity to present the full story so that 
there be no loss of assurance among the very many beneficiaries of 
these funds. 

The Chairman. You take this record and you can look into it, and 
if you find any real errors in it, you submit that information to the 
committee, and we will consider it. 

Mr. Previant. I was not suggesting errors. I was suggesting in- 
completeness. 

The Chairman. If you find it is incomplete, where the completion 
of it will present an entirely different picture to that which has been 
portrayed here, you submit that to the committee, and the committee 
will consider further hearings. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15287 

Mr. Previant. This is the opportunity we would like. 

Thank you. 

The Chairman. The committee now concludes 7 weeks of public 
hearings, in which it has taken volumes of testimony on the practices 
and policies of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- 
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and that union's general 
president, Mr. James R. Hoffa. 

The extraordinary powers of the Teamsters Union are such that it 
can exercise dominant control over the Nation's entire economy. As 
Mr. Hoffa stated recently in Seattle, the Teamsters Union could, at 
its will, shut down the commerce of the Nation. 

This excessive power is within itself frightening, but when re- 
posed in men who are unscrupulous in its use, it signals grave danger 
of more than disturbing proportions. 

Mr. Hoffa has not hidden his ambition to increase and fortify these 
vast powers through alliance with other transportation and seafaring 
unions. Already he has implemented this plan by a pact with the 
National Maritime Union, the development of a closer understanding 
with the racket-controlled International Longshoremen's Association 
on the east coast, and preparations for meetings with the leftwing 
controlled International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union 
of Harry Bridges on the west coast. The welding of Hoffa's powers 
with those inherent in these other organizations has grave implica- 
tions for the destiny of our national economy. 

No family in this country, no matter where they may live, can 
escape the repercussions. All of our lives are too intricately inter- 
woven with this union to sit passively by and allow the Teamsters 
(under Mr. Hoffa's leadership) to create such a superpower in this 
country — a power greater than the people and greater than the Gov- 
ernment. This situation even now is critical for the Nation. 

Let us examine the record of testimony before the committee : 

Mr. James R, Hoffa has not only placed hoodlums and men with 
criminal records in key positions in the union, but he and his chief 
lieutenants have consorted with the major racketeers and gangsters 
in the United States from New York to California, from Florida to 
Michigan. 

The record is replete with testimony that Mr. Hoffa considers the 
International Brotherhood of Teamsters as his personal union — to do 
with what he will. He spends the union's funds as if they were his 
own, and handsomely takes care of his cronies and friends. The ac- 
cessibility of these vast funds to Hoffa and his friends is something 
akin to again finding "the goose that laid the golden egg. v 

As George Meany, the president of the AFL-CIO, stated to a union 
convention several weeks ago : 

Not a single union that came under the control of this man that he didn't in 
some way dip into its treasury and use its money for some purpose other than 
a trade union purpose. And in using this money there was always some little 
gimmick there for himself and his hoodlums connected with him. 

When Hoffa was asked why he had deposited $300,000 in a Florida 
bank, the Teamster leader answered, "Because I wanted to." This 
was his answer in connection with over a quarter of a million dollars 
in union funds. However, it is deeper than that. It is typical of 

21243 O— 58— pt. 40 23 



15288 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Hoffa's arrogant disrespect for the members of his union, for the gen- 
eral public, and for the U.S. Government. 

This $300,000 was part of a half million dollars in union funds 
moved by Hoffa to the Florida National Bank in Orlando, Fla., where 
no interest was paid to assure the lending by the bank of a similar 
amount to Sun Valley, Inc., a land scheme being promoted by Henry 
Lower, a Florida Teamster official. While blandly asserting that all 
he wanted to do was help Teamster members buy lots and prepare for 
retirement in the Florida sunshine, Hoffa admitted that he and his 
partner, Owen Bert Brennan, had an option to buy 45 percent of the 
Sun Valley Development at its original cost — an option they surely 
would have exercised at a tremendous profit to themselves, had not 
this committee begun an investigation into the transaction. By 
diverting some $300,000 of Sun Valley funds to other speculative 
enterprises in Michigan and other places, Lower bankrupted the 
Florida development project. The Teamster member arriving in 
Florida to start his long-awaited retirement can now only gaze across 
acres of undeveloped land. 

Here are other examples of how union funds have been used under 
Hoffa's direction. 

1. $1 million in funds of the Michigan State Conference of Team- 
sters Welfare Fund was loaned to the Winchester Village land de- 
velopment in Detroit, Mich. The loan was based on fraudulent 
representations by the land scheme promoters — representations which 
could easily have been checked, and the fraud involved discovered. 
Through unbelievable negligence or dishonesty, not 1 penny of the 
million-dollar principal has been returned to the Teamsters, and some 
$60,000 to $70,000 of interest is now in default. 

During this same period, some $1,200,000 has gone to the promoters 
of this land development scheme — money which rightfully belongs 
to the Teamsters. As of now, the union has been forced to foreclose 
in order to salvage what they can, and the loss to the Teamsters obvi- 
ously will exceed some $700,000. 

2. The Michigan Conference of Teamsters Health and Welfare 
Fund loaned $1,200,000 to the John W. Thomas Department Store in 
Minneapolis, Minn., a store which Hoffa's friend, Benjamin Dranow, 
had acquired with an investment of slightly more than $14,000. That 
enterprise, too, is in bankruptcy. Dranow has disappeared with 
more than $100,000 of the store's funds, and the union again faces long 
litigation in an effort to get back its investment, 

3. Hoffa's local 299, Brennan's local 337, and the Michigan Confer- 
ence of Teamsters Welfare Fund loaned $175,000 to the Marberry 
Construction Co. in which Teamster Attorney George S. Fitzgerald 
and Teamster Accountant Herbert Grosberg had a financial interest. 
In addition, the Michigan Conference of Teamsters Welfare Fund 
loaned $135,000 to Grosberg's father, Benjamin Grosberg, for invest- 
ment in the Union Square Agency, an insurance setup in which 
George S. Fitzgerald, Teamster attorney, and Herbert Grosberg, 
Teamster accountant, had an interest. 

4. $1 million in funds of the. Teamsters Central States Southeast - 
Southwest Health and Welfare Fund was loaned to two Cleveland 
racetracks, and another $1,250,000 to a luxury Miami hotel. 

5. There was clear testimony that the $1,400,000 paid in health and 
welfare fund commissions to Allen Dorfman's Union Insurance 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15289 

Agency in Illinois for the last 7 years exceeded by $1 million the 
commission which should have been paid. There is also clear testi- 
mony that Mr. Hoffa, by awarding the health and welfare fund to 
Union Casualty Co. — even though it was not the lowest bidder — caused 
the welfare fund to suffer a loss of some $600,000, in the first 3 years 
of its operation. 

6. Two close friends of James Hoffa, James Hannan and John 
McElroy, were able to build the Maybury Grand Sanitarium without 
putting up a penny of investment. The Teamsters Union put up the 
money to originally purchase the building, and $240,000 more came 
from the funds of the Michigan Conference of Teamsters health and 
welfare fund to remodel and furnish the sanitarium. This money was 
loaned on the basis of an appraisal which Mr. Hoffa and other 
Teamster officials knew were false. Furthermore, it was explained to 
the promoters that if the tenure at any time went sour, the Teamsters 
would take it over, but otherwise it would remain in their hands. 

Union funds have been loaned to gangsters and racketeer friends 
of Hoffa, and have been used for Hoffa's personal benefit. There is 
testimony in the record that union funds were used to pay Teamster 
business agents while they were working on Mr. Hoffa's summer hunt- 
ing camp and that union funds were used to purchase supplies for 
his camp. 

When Hoffa and Brennan took over the management of prize fighter 
Embrel Davidson, he was placed on the payroll of the Michigan Con- 
ference of Teamsters health and welfare fund at a salary of $75 a 
week. In the 2 years that this arrangement lasted, the fighter was 
paid some $8,000, while admittedly doing no work other than an 
occasional trip to the racetrack to help Brennan with his horses. 

Mr. Hoffa evidenced complete lack of respect for human integrity 
and a defiant attitude toward the Government itself. In his world, 
he appears to labor under the belief that there is nothing that cannot 
be fixed. Always around him for the protection of himself and his 
hoodlum friends is a staff of a dozen highly paid attorneys, costing 
the union hundreds of thousands of dollars each year. 

His moral standards appear to countenance the cheat, the lie, the 
steal and violence to gain his ends; and he evidences shock and 
amazement that anyone should think there is something wrong with 
these practices, or that they do not believe in that way of life. 

The committee has established substantial evidence that Mr. Hoffa 
did not tell the truth before the committee when he stated that his 
only interest in David Probstein's State Cab Co., was an $8,000 loan. 
He repeatedly denied that he had any further financial interest in 
that company. 

The committee has sent to the Department of Justice the records 
indicating that the State Cab Co., which allegedly belonged to David 
Probstein, was, in fact, set up, established, and financed by Mr. Hoffa 
and Mr. Bert Brennan. We hope the Justice Department will pursue 
expeditiously this apparent willful perjury. 

The recent hearings have again demonstrated the continuing lack 
of democracy within the Teamsters Union through oppressive tactics 
against rank and filers seeking to oust corrupt leaders placed in locals 
under the trusteeship of Hoffa and his principal lieutenants. The low 
percentage of votes at the international convention of the Teamsters 



15290 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Union in Miami last October, which can be shown to be legal, is 
another indication of this lack of democracy. 

When Mr. Hoffa was before the committee last year, he promised 
to take steps to clean up the Teamsters Union. If he has made any 
effort, in that direction — and none is apparent — he has miserably 
failed. 

While generally it is hoped that improvement can be made in the 
worst of any bad situation, that small hope, in this instance, grows 
dimmer with each succeeding revelation made with respect to Mr. 
Hoffa's administration and the improper practices and activities that 
he either condones or approves. 

Corruption breeds corruption; violence breeds violence. The fla- 
grant disregard for the fundamental rights of human beings and 
union members seems to be enmeshed throughout the hierarchy of the 
Teamsters Union. Like a cancer or any malignant growth, it must 
be attacked at its source — and the source of the cancer in the Interna- 
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters today obviously stems