(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"




U 



t 



Given By 



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-SIXTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

PURSUANT TO SENATE RESOLUTIONS 74 AND 221, 85TH CONGRESS, 
AND SENATE RESOLUTION 44, 86TH CONGRESS 



JANUARY 30 AND FEBRUARY 4, 1959 



PART 44 



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 IMPEOPEE ACTIVITIES IN THE 

LABOE OE MANAGEMENT FIELD 

EIGHTY-SIXTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

PURSUANT TO SENATE RESOLUTIONS 74 AND 221, 85TH CONGRESS, 
AND SENATE RESOLUTION 44, 86TH CONGRESS 



JANUARY 30 AND FEBRUARY 4, 1959 



PART 44 



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




UNITED STATES 
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
36751 WASHINGTON : 1959 



Boston Public Library 
Superintendent of Documents 

DEPOSITORY 



SELECT COMMITTEE ON IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR 
OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 

JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas, Chairman 
KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota, Vice Chairman 
JOHN F. KENNEDY, Massachusetts BARRY GOLDWATER, Arizona 

SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., North Carohna CARL T. CURTIS, Nebraska 

FRANK CHURCH, Idaho HOMER E. CAPEHART, Indiana 

Robert F. KENNEDr, Chief Counsel 
^.UTH YouKO Watt, Chief Clerk 



CONTENTS 



United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America and Charles 

Johnson, Jr. 

Page 

Appendix 16337 

Testimony of: 

Baum, Rolland O 16304 

Bourke, Clyde E. 16272 

Dugan, Harold H 16257, 16261 

Durkin, William A. 16262 

Guckert, John Paul 16267 

Hamilton, Frank J 16293 

Hansen, Odin 16290 

Harold, John R 16206 

Hennessy, E. W 16246, 16247 

Herzfeld, Nathan E 16213 

Lochary, Dean 1 6296 

MacLeod, John H 16285 

Martin, James P 16243 

Murphy, John J 16253, 16255 

Owens, G. Guy 16300 

Prinos, John 1 6242 

Ranstad, Harold 1622 1 

Rowley, Ronald H 16326 

Tierney, Paul J 16221, 16254, 16312 

Weiss, Edward H 16226 

Weiss, Emanuel 16317 

Weiss, Phihp 16317 

Wolfe, Charles E 16246, 16252, 16260, 16298 

EXHIBITS 

61. Second portion of address of General Executive Board 

Member Charles Johnson, Jr., made at the convention introduced Appears 
of New York State Council of Carpenters in Glens Falls, on page on page 
N.Y., on Oct. 16, 1953 16221 (*) 

62. Statement of Charles Johnson, Jr., to district attorney of 

Westchester County, White Plains, N.Y., Oct. 9, 1953.. 16226 (*) 

63. Letter dated Jan. 8, 1954, addressed to Walsh-Langen- 

felder Co. Mountainville, N.Y., from Bernard H. 
Murray, business agent, United Brotherhood of Car- 
penters and Joiners of America, local union No. 301 16257 16337 

64. Memorandum dated June 1, 1956, addressed to Mr. R. T. 

Jenkins from J. P. Guckert, concerning Penn Products 

Co 16269 (*) 

65. Memorandum dated Apr. 13, 1955, addressed to Mr. C. A. 

Newland, Re: Penn Products Co., signed by C. E. 

Bourke 16273 (*) 

66. Memorandum dated Apr. 14, 1955, addressed to Mr. J. H. 

MacLeod, Re: Penn Products Co., signed by C. E. 

Bourke 16276 (*) 

67. Memorandum dated Apr. 20, 1955, Re: Penn Products Co., 

signed by C. E. Bourke 16277 16338 

68. Telegram dated Apr. 21, 1955, addressed to E. A. Weiss 

from C. E. Bourke 16280 16339 

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

m 



IV 



CONTENTS 



EXHIBITS— Continued 

69. Memorandum dated Apr. 22, 1955, addressed to J. H. introduced Appears 

MacLeod, Re: Penn Products Co., signed by C. E. on page on page 
Bourke 16282 16340 

70. Letter dated Apr. 22, 1955, addressed to Mr. O. H. Hansen, 

Re: Penn Products Co., signed by J. H. MacLeod for 

C. A. Newland 16287 16341 

71. Handwritten memorandum dated Apr. 18, 1955, to C. E. B. 

from J. H. MacLeod 16290 (*) 

72. Letter dated Apr. 28, 1955, addressed to Esso Standard 

Oil Co., New York, subject: Fuel oil and lubricants, 
Patapsco Tunnel project, Baltimore, Md., from G. Guy 
Owens, procurement manager, marine and heavy con- 
struction, Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp 16291 16342 

73A. Gulf Oil Corp. form dated September 1955, "Bulk Oil Con- 
tract," signed by F. J. Hamilton, manager. Gulf Oil 
Corp 16294 16343 

73B. Purchase order of Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp., dated 

Sept. 29, 1955 __. 16294 16344 

73C. Amendment to purchase order, dated Nov. 8, 1955 16294 16345 

74. Letter dated Dec. 28, 1955, addressed to Gulf Oil Corp., 

Philadelphia, Pa., Re: Fuel oil and diesel oil for Patapsco 
Tunnel project, signed by G. Guy Owens, procurement 
manager, Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp 16295 16346 

75. Diary of Charles Johnson, Jr., in connection with telephone 

calls received from Phil Weiss, Ed Weiss, and Maxwell 

C. Raddock 16326 (*) 

Proceedings of' 

Jan. 30, 9')9 16205 

Feb. 4, 1959 16267 

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



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



FRIDAY, JANUARY 30, 1959 

U.S. Senatp., 
Select Committee on Improper AcTRTriES, 

IN THE Labor or Management Field, 

Washington^ D.C. 

The select committee met at 10 :30 a.m., pursuant to Senate Resolu- 
tion 221, agreed to January 29, 1958, in room 3302, New Senate Office 
Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select com- 
mittee) presiding. 

Present : Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas ; Senator 
Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Democrat, North Carolina; Senator Frank Church, 
Democrat, Idaho ; Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota. 

Also present: Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel; Paul J. Tierney, 
assistant counsel; Harold Ranstad, assistant counsel; Charles E. 
Wolfe, investigator ; Jolin Prinos, investigator ; Ruth Y. Watt, chief 
clerk. 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

(Members of the select committee present at the convening of the 
session were Senators McClellan and Ervin.) 
• The Chairman. Mr. Counsel, call your first witness, or do you have 
a statement you wish to make with respect to the proceedings today ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we began an investigation and held 
some hearings on Mr. Charlie Johnson, vice president of the Carpen- 
ters, last year. We were not able to complete the hearings because 
Mr, Johnson became ill at the time just prior to the day he was 
expected to testify. We expected to resume the hearings this week 
and notified Charlie Johnson to that effect, and he then gave us or 
submitted a doctor's certificate saying he was too ill to testify. 

We had him examined by a Government physician who agreed that 
he could not testify. 

I might say, however, that since the time he became ill before the last 
hearings, and today, he has been a very active figure in the Carpenters 
Union. He is the one that gave the nomination speech for Mr. Hutche- 
son before the international convention several months ago. 

The Chairman. Was that convention subsequent to the hearings 
we held on this matter ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. And it was where Mr, Hutcheson 
was elected once again as international president of the Carpenters 
Union. 

But Mr. Charlie Johnson gave the nomination speech and stated 
that no derogatory information had been found on Mr. Hutcheson, 

16205 



16206 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

and came out very actively and vociferously for Mr. Hutcheson's 
nomination. 

We are going into Mr. Charlie Johnson's activity anyway, and I 
would like to call the witness who will give some background infor- 
mation regarding Mr. Charlie Johnson, and that witness is Mr. John 
Harold, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. May I inquire while the witness is coming around, 
you are satisfied now Mr. Jolinson is not able to attend the hearings ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. 

The Chairman. The doctors feel he should not be required to 
testify? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Will you be sworn, please. 

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

Mr. Harold. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN R. HAROLD 

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

Mr. Harold. My name is John R. Harold, and I am an attorney 
admitted to practice in the State of New York, and I live at 95 Rock 
Ledge Road, Bronxville, N. Y. 

The Chairman. Thank you. Will you proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been an attorney ? 

Mr. Harold. Since 1938, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What has been your practice, generally ? 

Mr. Harold. My specialty is representing trade unions, and since 
the outset of my practice I have represented trade unions. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is, in the New York area ? 

Mr. Harold. Only in the New York City metropolitan area, pri- 
marily local unions and district councils. 

Mr. Kennedy. What are some of the unions you represent? 

Mr. Harold. We represent a Teamster Union, and we are proud 
of it, and it is a good one. 

We represent biscuit and cracker workers, and we represent about 
25,000 municipal employees in the State, county, and Municipal Em- 
ployees Union, a district council, and we represent as we are needed 
in Westchester several of the construction trade unions. And we rep- 
resent an lATSE, Film Editors, and some others, and I could take 
the time to recall them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have occasion in 1949 and 1950 to represent 
a Teamsters Union in Westchester ? 

Mr. Harold. Our office represented Local 456 of the Teamsters 
Union in Westchester County, and it might be represented that Ed 
Doyle of that union was a prior witness at this committee. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was the head of that union ? 

Mr. Harold. John Acropolis was the president of that union then. 
At the same time he was also president of the Westchester Federation 
of Labor, the labor organization representing all of the AFL unions 
in Westchester County. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16207 

Mr. Kennedy. That, Mr. Chairman, is the John Acropolis about 
whom we liave already had the testimony in connection with the cartage 
industry in Westchester. He was murdered in what year ? 

Mr. Harold. In 1951. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you, as a representative of Mr. Acropolis and 
Local 456 of the Teamsters, have occasion to have conferences with 
what later became the Yonkers Raceway ? 

Mr. Harold. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Would you relate that situation to us ? 

Mr. Harold. Fine. Surely. 

In the fall of 1949, the old Yonkers track was being renovated in 
preparation for the track becoming a night harness racing track. 
Construction work was in progress, and substantial construction work. 

The Teamsters Union Local 456 and Mr. Acropolis was concerned 
as to what unions would represent the various workers when the track 
opened. In behalf of his own local union, he made an appointment 
with officials of the Yonkers Track Association and went to meet with 
them to ask concerning the future of the track. 

A Mr. Thome from the Moving Picture Operators Union, also a 
client of our in Yonkers, also attended that first meeting. 

That first meeting was primarily in their own interest as local 
unions. 

They met with a Mr. Burton, who, at that time — and this was 
January 31, 1950 — said in substance that he himself did not know 
about the total plans of the racetrack, and that everything was indefi- 
nite, and that they might well be contracting out all of the aspects 
of the track to different subcontractors, and so that they might have 
very few employees themselves. 

It is also, I think, worth noting that at this particular time there 
were only seven employees, direct employees, of the racetrack. They 
had been groundkeepers that had been there for years. All of the 
other employees were employees of subcontractors. 

A claim for representation was made by Mr. Thome, and Mr. Acrop- 
olis. Mr. Burton said, "Let me find out what it is all about and we 
will have another meeting." 

Mr. Kennedy. That is Mr. T-h-o-m-e ; is that right ? 

Mr. Harold. That is right. We asked Mr. Burton if perhaps he 
could not have a table of organization for us, and he said he did not 
have one. He told us, however, that Local 32E of the Building Service 
Employees Union, which was then led by their president, Tom Lewis, 
had made a claim for jurisdiction, and that we would have to consider 
the fact that they also claimed representation. 

We then advised Mr. Burton that he should not sign any contract 
with the Building Service local or with our local, and that if there 
were any jurisdictional questions it would be readily taken back to the 
Westchester Federation of Labor, and in the council of that body we 
could determine which of the several unions had proper jurisdiction. 

A meeting was then scheduled and the next meeting came on Febru- 
ary 21. However, before that meeting the Building and Construction 
Trades Council elected a committee from among its members and the 
Westchester Federation of Labor elected a committee from among its 
members, to jointly meet with management so that there would be no 
argument and no argument and no confusion over jurisdiction. 



16208 lA'IPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

On the 15th of February — and this date is important — the race- 
track, and the Yonkers Trotters Associatiton, was advised in writing 
of the existence of these two committees, and the claim of these two 
councils. 

At the meeting of February 23, and I was in error, we met again 
with Mr. Burton, with the two committees from the council, and Mr. 
Buck and Mr. Wolf of the association and again we then put forth a 
claim for jurisdiction. 

At that time, despite our earlier position we were advised that the 
track had already signed a contract with Building Service Union 
Local 32E, and a blanket contract for all employees to be hired by 
the racetrack when it opened. 

Of course, the unions of these councils were critical of favoring one 
union which was incidentally a Bronx Building Service Union, and 
as we will later see, it was rather clear why the racetrack favored such 
a union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that the union headed by Mr. Tommy Lewis ? 

Mr. Harold. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened to Mr. Tommy Lewis ? 

Mr, Harold. He was murdered. 

Mr. Kjennedy. When was he murdered? 

Mr. Harold. I am not sure of the date. I think around 1953. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was shot in his home ? 

Mr. Harold. He was. 

We asked to see the contract and they refused to give it to us, and 
we asked to have them describe the job classifications which were cov- 
ered in the contract, and they refused to give it to us. 

Another meeting was scheduled to discuss the problem further on 
March 1 at the racetrack, and again the committees were there repre- 
senting the union, and Mr. Burton, Mr. Wolf, and Mr. William 
Blakely, who was general counsel for the track. 

Agam we asked for the blanket contract and we asked to see the 
contract, and again it was refused. 

Mr. Blakely said, however, that since he had just come into this part 
of the problem he wanted more time to talk with his clients, and he 
would let us know their final position. 

He informed us the following day that the client would not show 
the contract to us and would not give the contract to us, and he saw 
no purpose for any further meetings. But he did tell us that further 
labor relations problems of the racetrack would now be handled by 
one Joseph Pizzo, a labor relations consultant from the Bronx. 

Mr. Kennedy. How do you spell his name ? 

Mr. Harold. P-i-z-z-o. 

So that our next meeting was with Mr. Pizzo. A meeting was 
scheduled at his office on March 6 and again we criticized the fact 
that we were blanketed out of any claim to represent the employees 
at the racetrack. 

Mr. Pizzo said, "We really take this problem up with Mr. Lewis. 
AVhy don't you gentleman go see Mr. Ijcwis?'" 

The labor leaders who did represent the parent organization saw 
no good reason to go and talk to another local union that had in their 
opinion usurped their proper prerogatives. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16209 

Mr. Kennedy. Just breaking in again, Mr. Pizzo was a very close 
friend of Mr. Lewis, was he not? 

Mr. Harold. Vei-}' close friend and business associate, and I do 
not know whether your records disclose, and I think that they do, 
that they were copartners in a welfare fund and insurance company 
venture, in respect to the funds of local 32E in the Bronx. 

Of course, it is kind of hard to represent labor when you are so 
entwined with the management consultant, and it seems impossible 
to my mind. 

We then had to put teeth in our position, and after several further 
meetings with Mr. Pizzo we presented them, the racetrack, with a 
memorandum of understanding in which we asked them to sign, so 
that they would recognize organized labor and they would leave to 
the council the resolution of any jurisdictional problems, and we 
would assure them they would have no work stoppages based upon 
any jurisdictional problem, and they would be settled within the house 
of labor, and that they would recognize the status of the two councils, 
the "Westchester Federation of Labor and tlie Construction Trades 
Council. 

They refused to change their position, and they refused through Mr. 
Pizzo to meet with us. 

It then became necessary for the councils to take action. They 
reported their circumstances back to their full bodies, and the full 
bodies authorized the committees to take whatever action was neces- 
saiy. And about March 16 a strike of the racetrack took place called 
by, authorized by, the "Westchester Federation of Labor and the Build- 
ing and Construction Trades Council of "Westchester. 

The strike was from a labor's point of view, very successful. Con- 
struction stopped, all of the contractors who were working at the 
racetrack had their work stopped, and as was intended, we hoped 
that this would cause the management of the racetrack to do business 
with the top councils in "Westchester County. 

However, about 2 days after the strike started, the local Carpenters 
"Union in "VVestchester went through the picket lines, and went back 
to work. This, of course, from a labor point of view, was a very 
serious blow to the strength of the organized group on the outside. 

Secondly, on the I7th of March, a judge in Westchester County 
signed an ex parte stay of all picketing and made the return date 
10 days later before a hearing would normally, under the terms of 
that order, be had. 

So that the unions in question were now under terrific pressure. 
One had gone back to work, and they could not picket, and they were 
very anxious too, to get the strike settled. 

As an aside, and I suppose it is not important, the question whether 
to appeal that order came up, and it was the opinion of John Acropo- 
lis that the strike could successfully still continue without a picket 
line, and it did, except for the Carpenters. 

Then there was a threat that the Engineers local in Westchester 
County would go back to work, and that threat was taken care of by 
organized labor so that they did not go back to work and there was 
some talk of putting the New York Engineers from a New York 
local on their jobs but this never came about. 



16210 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

But it is illustrative of the terrific pressure which was on top of 
John Acropolis and the Federations to give in and to capitulate. 

Obviously, like in any labor situation, labor too is interested in 
getting a settlement, and there is no profit in a strike for anybody. 
It was at this time that Mr. Charles Johnson appeared on the scene. 

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

Mr. Harold. I believe he was then international vice president, or 
at least was an international representative of the Carpenters. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was a member of the General Executive Board 
of the Carpenters. 

Mr. Harold. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was not a vice president at that time. 

Mr. Harold. I didn't know for sure. The labor unions involved were 
very pleased to have a mediator, and Mr. Johnson represented himself 
to these labor unions involved that he had friendly relations with the 
racetrack, and that they respected him, and that they would sit down 
with him and perhaps he could bring about a meeting of the parties, 
which he did. There were several meetings held. 

Mr. Kennedy. Whom did you understand he was representing ? 

Mr. Harold, At that time, and until some time later, I think several 
years later, everybody in that situation at that time understood only 
one thing, that he was an international representative of a labor union 
and he was representing the laborer's position in this matter, and to 
use his good offices to get it settled. 

There was not the slightest doubt in anybody's mind, and I was in 
close consultation with all of the people involved, which for the moment 
suggested that he was a management representative. 

Mr. Johnson did bring about a meeting, and Mr. Johnson and Mr. 
Pizzo did attend meetings, and did bring about a settlement. The 
nature of the settlement was such that the Building Service Union was 
required to give up some of the jurisdiction normally recognized by 
the craft unions, and so you had electricians, and you had moving 
picture operators and you had carpenters and you had laborers and 
so on, supplied by the various Westchester unions working then and 
thereafter permanently at the racetrack, although Mr. Lewis kept a 
very substantial part of the area. 

Lastly, the question of representation of the parking lots attend- 
ants was involved, and the stipulation of understanding which settled 
it stated that the Teamsters Union would have jurisdiction of that. 
And, I remember it very clearly and very shockingly, at a very late 
date, when this settlement was arrived at, Mr. Pizzo then infomied 
us that he forgot to tell us that about a month before, local 445 of 
the Teamsters Union in Westchester County, had claimed jurisdiction 
of the parking lot attendants and thus, regretfully, he couldn't do 
business with John Acropolis ; he wouldn't prefer one Teamster union 
over another. 

We never heard of 445 in the picture until this late date. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who did they sign the agreement with ? 

Mr. Harold. The original agreement for everybody was signed 
with the councils, Westchester Federation of Labor and the Con- 
struction Trades Council. 

Mr. Kennedy. Which Teamster decided it ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16211 

Mr. Harold. The International appointed a body to hear it, a three- 
man board, and they determined that the jurisdiction belonged to local 
445, and the record of the officials of local 445 is before this committee, 
I believe. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is Mr. Stickles and Mr. Massielo ? 

Mr. Harold. That is ri^ht. 

Mr. Kennedy. Both ot them were subsequently sent to the peni- 
tentiary for receiving money from employers ? 

Mr. Harold. That is right. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. This is the union that was selected over Mr. Acro- 
polis? , 

Mr. Harold. Yes. And incidentally — well, I better not get into 
that. It is not part of this inquiry. 

The Chairman. Were you folks satisfied with the arrangements 
worked out by Mr. Jolinson ? 

Mr. Harold. Well, I believe that labor accepted the settlement. 

The Chairman. I asked if you were satisfied with it. You may 
have had to accept it. 

Mr. Harold. I doubt very much if labor was satisfied. The groups 
that I represented were very disappointed that the Building Service 
Unit in the Bronx should take so much of the jurisdiction there, 90 
percent of it. 

We were very unliappy about that. But the pressure was such, 
with an injunction over our heads, with the unions all threatening to 
throw in the sponge, or some of them, that this was the best bargain 
we could make under the circumstances. That is about all we can say. 

Finally, and because of the purpose of the inquiry, I assume that 
you will later show, as we later learned, that Mr. Johnson was an 
employee of the racetrack and paid by the racetrack. 

The Chairman. Do you mean at the time he was negotiating ? 

Mr. Harold. I cannot be precise. But he was then, and he has him- 
self said so, that he was talking about being retained, and he was 
paid — you would have to depend on other records — something like 
$36,000 by the racetrack as a labor relations consultant; I presume 
and believe covering this service. 

The Chairman. You thought he was representing the union ? 

Mr. Harold. Yes, sir ; no doubt about it. 

The Chairman. You fomid out he was being paid by the other 
side? 

Mr. Harold. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Harold. Well, let me say this: As an attorney I would not 
have lasted very long if, while I was representing a union dealing 
with management, I had even the slightest business relation with that 
same management, unrelated to labor matters. We attorneys could 
never have such a dual purpose. 

The Chairman. I think there will be further testimony. This is 
just preliminary. 

Mr. Harold. The last and final tiling which I think, as a labor 
lawyer who believes that a labor movement is a movement, the most 
pathetic thing of the whole problem is that Mr. Jolmson went to a 
council in New York State, the Council of Carpenters, and there not 
only admitted but boasted that when he worked for anybody he 



16212 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

charged very good fees, and he was very proud of the fact that because 
of his years of training and his experience in the labor movement, 
he was able to charge a high fee for representing the Yonkers Race- 
track, and he was proud of it, and he would take care of his family 
any time he got any further opportunity. The concluding problem, 
and it is theirs to decide, the members employed him. 

Mr. Kennedy. I might read that to you. It is an executive board 
meeting, Executive Board Member Charles Johnson's speech made 
at the convention of the New York Council of Carpenters at Glen 
Falls, N. Y., October 16, 1953, in which he said, in part : 

Everybody in Westchester kidded me how lucky I was. I did not think I was 
lucky. I thought I would get a whole lot more than I did — 

and then everyone applauded. 

Mr. Harold. In conclusion, I think it would be unfair if the news- 
papers pictured this as a fight between John Acropolis and Tom Lev^is. 
As everyone knows in the labor movement, and I have to saj' this, 
John Acropolis was an extremely honorable, tough, militant trade 
unionist, who is my opinion was murdered because he was stopping 
too many shakes in Westchester County. 

The Chairman. Too many shakedowns ; do you mean ? 

Mr. Harold. Yes, sir. I know of my own knowledge, and records 
have already been stated, of the many instances that he used his offices 
as president of the Westchester Federation of Labor, to stop shakes. 
It is my honest opinion that the people who killed him were paid by 
many people. 

I can prove nothing, of course. But I do knoAv that there were 
many people who would gladly have contributed to a pot to hire a 
killer. His murder has never been solved. 

The Chairman. Does that mean in some areas if you are a labor 
official, you have to be crooked or you stay honest at the risk of your 
life? 

Mr. Harold. In some limited areas. We must always be careful. 
Senator, as you know. Ninety-nine percent of the labor movement is 
a pretty wonderful instrument. 

The Chairman. But if it happens in any area, if that condition 
prevails anywhere, in any area, one area, that is too many. 

Mr. Harold. Particularly for Mr. Acropolis. 

The Chairman. I gather from your testimony that that is the situa- 
tion that prevailed in that particular area at that time. 

Mr. Harold. In respect to certain unions; that is correct. 

Lastly, in justice to 32E of the Building Service Union, they have 
a new president, and I think it is a pretty good union. I think it is 
honorably and decently run at the moment. I wouldn't want to 
leave an inference on my remarks against them. Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tommy Lewis' murder has not been solved either; 
has it? 

Mr. Harold. Let me pause. Wasn't somebody convicted in the 
Tommy Lewis murder ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe maybe one of the killers was shot by a 
policeman, but they never found out who was the other. 

Mr. PIarold. My recollection is not good. I will take yours. I 
certainly wouldn't differ with it. 

The Chairman. Are there any questions. Senator Ervin ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16213 

Senator Ervin. No questions. 

Tlie Chairman. All right. Thank you very much, sir. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Nathan Herzfeld. 

The Chairman. Be sworn, please. 

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

Mr. Herzfeld. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF NATHAN E. HERZFELD, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 

LOUIS HATMOFF 

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

Mr. Herzfeld. My name is Nathan Herzfeld. I live at 299 Park 
Avenue, New York City. My occupation is a real estate investment 
company. General Investors Co. 

The Ch-virman. You have counsel present. 

Mr. Comisel, will you identify yourself for the record, please? 

Mr. Haimoff. I am Louis Haimoff, of the firm of Sylvester & 
Haimoff , 501 Fifth Avenue, New York City. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Herzfeld, you were the principal stockholder 
in 1949 in the Algam Corp. ? 

Mr. Herzfeld. I was one of tlie principal stockholdei-s ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the Algam Corp. ? 

Mr. Herzfeij). The Algam Corp. was a real estate firm which pur- 
chased the old Empire City Racetrack and then made an arrange- 
ment with Mr. Cane, who held the license to operate a harness track 
in New York City. We made a lease with Mr. Cane. I have for- 
gotten the name of his operating company at that time. 

It was the Goshen Mile Track Association. That was the name of 
his license at the time we made the lease with him. He moved that 
license up to the Empire City Racetrack, and it then became known 
as the Yonkers Trotting Association. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you and several others, including a man by the 
name of Joseph Henschel, had an interest in the Algam Corp.? 

Mr. Herzfeld. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you, in turn, entered into an agreement with 
an organization which ultimately became the Yonkers Trotting 
Association ? 

Mr. Herzfeld. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was to lease the track after you reconditioned 
it ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Herzfeld. We reconditioned it jointly. 

Mr. Kennedy. And it was for the purpose of being prepared for 
racing on April 28, 1950 ? 

Mr. Herzfeld. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. You began the reconstruction of the track. Were 
there then some discussions with representatives of various labor 
unions as to who would represent the employees ? 

Mr. Herzfeld. Yes, sir; there was. 



16214 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Did you participate in those discussions? 

Mr. Herzfeld. I think I sat in on some of them, but I wasn't very- 
active in preliminary discussions. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. The Westchester County Federation of Labor and 
the Building Trades Council attempted to negotiate a contract; is 
that correct? 

Mr. Herzfeld. So I understand, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then subsequently they were informed that a 
contract had already been signed with 32E ? 

Mr. Herzfeld. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How was it that the contract was signed with 32E ? 
How did that come about? 

Mr. Herzfeld. I don't know, sir; but I assume because they were 
assumed to be the most logical union. 

Mr. Kennedy. While you were having negotiations with these 
other labor bodies, why was suddenly 32E — why was that contract 
with 32E suddenly signed ? 

Mr. Herzfeld. I do not know. I wasn't very active in those negotia- 
tions. It was mainly the prerogative of the licensee. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was the local that was headed by Tommy 
Lewis. Did Mr, Lewis suggest that you hire a labor consultant ? 

Mr. Herzfeld. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he suggest Mr. Joseph Pizzo ? 

Mr. Herzfeld. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you hired Joseph Pizzo ? 

Mr. Herzfeld. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much money was paid to Mr. Pizzo for repre- 
senting you ? 

Mr. Herzfeld. To the best of my knowledge, sir, about $90,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. For representing you in this matter? 

Mr. Herzfeld. For representing us in a strike, a jurisdictional 
strike, which took place during the construction period; that is, he 
represented 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know at that time Mr. Pizzo and Mr. Tommy 
Lewis were partners in an insurance welfare company? 

Mr. Herzfeld. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. But it was Mr. Tommy Lewis, the union official, who 
suggested Mr. Pizzo be hired ? 

Mr. Herzfeld. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you also bring in Mr. Charlie Johnson to assist 
you in settling this jurisdictional strike? 

Mr. Herzfeld. Mr. Johnson was brought in ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was brought in ? 

Mr. Herzfeld. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How was he brought in ? 

Mr. IIerzfkld. One of our directors, Mr. Ilenscliel, suggested INIr. 
Johnson would lend his good offices to mediate this thing and be 
helpful. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it Mr. Henschel who suggested him or was it 
you that suggested him ? 

Mr. Herzfeld. It was Mr. Henschel that suggested him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you known Mr. Charlie Johnson? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16215 

Mr. Herzfeld. Well, I hadn't known him. I may have met him, like 
you meet many people, but I don't know him like you know somebody. 
I never had an appointment with him or broke bread with him, and 
so forth. I may have met him. 

Mr. Kennedy. You may have met him ? 

Mr. Herzfeld. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't remember it ? 

Mr. Herzfeld. I don't remember definitely. I don't remember 
definitely that I ever did, but I may have. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you been social friends prior to this ? 

Mr. Herzfeld. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. When Mr. Johnson made this statement before the 
convention in New York State Council of Carpenters on October 16, 
1953, he said — he states here on page 2 — 

For about 15 to 20 years I have enjoyed the friendship of two men who are 
not engaged in the construction business. We have been social friends. My 
wife and the wife of one of these two men knew each other long before I met 
him. Their names are Joseph Henschel and Nate Herzfeld. 

Is his statement here that he had known you for 15 or 20 years, and 
you had been social friends prior to that time, is that statement correct? 

Mr. Herzfeld. If the beginning of a social friendship is breaking 
bread even once or even having one appointment with the man, I would 
say ''Yes." What was the juncture 

Mr. Kennedy. I don't regard that as a social friend, somebody that 
you might have met during the previous 15 years, where you can't 
remember. 

Mr. Herzfeld. Then I stand on my statement, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He goes on 

The Chairman. In other words, the statement that Johnson made 
there is not true, according to you ? 

Mr. Herzfeld. Yes, sir; Senator. 

The Chairman. In other words, that is not accurate. 

Mr. Herzfeld. As to me. 

The Chair^han. As to you, that is not true ? 

Mr. Herzfeld. That is right. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Mr. Chairman, we also liave a statement that Charlie 
Johnson, Jr., made to the district attorney of Westchester County, 
Wliite Plains, N.Y., which he signed and swore to. On page 10 of 
that statement he was asked : 

Had you knov?n Herzfeld before? 

His answer is : 

For many years my wife and his are very friendly, and I have been frienaiy 
with him and met him at various places in New York, although I had never been 
to his home or he had never been to my home. 

Question. You had know him the same way that you had known Henschel, is 
that it? 

Answer. That is right. 

Is that statement by him correct, that for many years his wife and 
your wife had been very friendly ? 

Mr. Herzfeld. I have no knowledge of that, and I am sine "very 
friendly" must be wrong. I don't know whether this — they might 
have had a beaaty parlor acquaintance or something of that sort, but 
I am sure not in the sense vou are asking:. 



16216 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. You know of no friendship betwen Ms wife and your 
wife ? 

Mr, Herzfeld. I know of no friendship ; no, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. So to the best of your knowledge that statement is 
also incorrect? 

Mr. Herzfeld. To the best of my knowledge, it is ; yes. sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have here an affidavit from Mr. 
Joseph Henschel, wliich also conflicts with some of the statements that 
have been made. We have tried to subpena him but we have not been 
able to locate him. But we had procured an affidavit fi-om him some 
time ago. 

The Chairman. The affidavit from Mr. Henschel will be placed in 
the record in full at this point. 

(The complete affidavit follows :) 

State of New York, 

County of New York: June 9, 195S. 

I, Joseph Henschel, having been duly sworn, voluntarily make this statement 
to Anthony J. DiSalvo who has identified himself to me as a staff investigator 
for the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in tlie Labor or 
Management Field. I am cognizant of the fact that this statement may be used 
in open hearings before the committee. 

I did not know Charles Johnson prior to 1949. It is possible that he knew 
me because I was active in public life, but certainly we did not know each other 
socially until I was introduced to him in late 1949 or early 19ri0. 

I did not introduce Charles Johnson to the management of Algam Corporation 
or the Yonkers Trotting Association. I met him for the first time at the time of 
the strike at the track. This was some time between December 1949 and March 
1950. We met in a large room where Mr. Cane, Mr. Hertzfeld, Mr. Wolf, and 
several other people from various unions and I were discussing labor difficulties. 
I do not know who invited Mr. Johnson to this meeting or how he got there. 

In regard to a telephone call which Mr. Johnson says I made to him, this 
occurred after my introduction to him at the track. I could not have called him 
before that time because I did not know him. 

(Signed) Joseph Henschel. 

Sworn to before me this 9th day of June, 1958. 

[seal] (Signed) Dorothy Fundler, 

Notary Public, State of New York, No. 60-6431700, Qualified in West- 
chester County. 

Term expires March 30, 1960. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to point out the number of conflicts that 
there are in the testimony already, and conflicts with Mr. Charlie 
Johnson's statement both to the carpenters' convention and also to the 
district attorney, for he states first at the carpenters' convention, and 
I repeat what I read before : 

For about 15 to 20 years I have enjoyed the friendship of two men who are 
not engaged in the construction business. AVe have been social friends, and my 
wife and the wife of one of these two men knew each other long before I met 
him. 

Now, the two men he identifies as Joe Henschel and Nate Herzfeld, 
and yet in the affidavit that we have here from Mr. Henschel he states 
that he did not meet Mr. Charlie Johnson until their meeting at the 
racetrack. 

I also point out on page 8 in the statement of Mr. Jolinson to the 
district attorney, he was asked on page 8 who was Joe Henschel, and 
he answered : 

He is an old friend of mine for over 15 or 20 years, and I believe he is a stock- 
holder or connected with one of the corporations that owns the racetrack. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16217 

Question. Had you had any business dealiuss with him? 
Answer. No business dealings prior to his calling me up on this. 
Question. Yes, I understand. Well then, was your acquainttiuce purely 
social V 
Answer. Purely social. 

Mr. Ilei'zfeld. you testified here that it was Mr. ITeuschel who 
brought Mr. Charlie Johnson into this situation, and Mr. Henschel 
states in his aflichivit that he did not bring- Mr. Cliarlie Johnson in, 
and that you were with Mr. Charlie Johnson prior to his even meeting 
Mr. Jolmson. 

Mr. IIkkzfeld. I am positive of my statement, sir. Frankly, Mr. 
Kennedy, and Senator, I see no point in denying him, and if I knew 
him and I thought he could be helpful I would bring him in and I 
would have brought him in to help. We were not very choosy who 
we brought in to help us out of this terrible situation. 

Mr. Kexxedy. Evidently. 

Mr. IIerzfeld. Well, we had very little choice. 

The Chairman. Your contention is that you have no reason for 
saying you did not know him 15 years before and knew him socially ? 

Mr. Herzfeld. That is right. 

The Chairman. You were in a difficult situation up there, and your 
point was to get anybody to help you, labor officer or anylx)dy else, 
and you were ready to hire, fire, or do anything? 

Mr. Herzfeld. If somebody had mentioned Charlie Johnson to me 
as a man who could help, a labor official or labor leader, I would 
have called him up and introduced myself, and I have no reason to 
say that I was not social with him if I were. That would seem to 
me to answer it. 

The Chairman. What reason would he have to say you were if 
you weren't ; do you know ? 

Mr. Herzfeld. What is that? 

The Chairman. What reason does he have for saying that you 
were if you were not? 

Mr. Herzfeld. I can't understand it and it does not make any sense, 
and I cannot understand it. 

The Chairman. Somebody is not telling the truth, obviously. 
Everybody cannot be telling the truth. 

All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Xow, why was Mr. Johnson brought into this 
situation ? 

Mr. Herzfeld. He was suggested as a man, sir, who might help to 
mediate this situation by virtue of his knowledge or contacts with 
labor. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was he suggested by ? 

Mr. Herzfeld. Mr. Henschel. 

Mr. Kennedy. This, of course, is denied by Mr. Henschel, but that 
is your recollection ? 

Mr. Herzfeld. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could it be anybody else ? 

Mr. Herzfeld. I can't think of anybody else that had anything to 
do with it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it discussed at that time how much Mr. John- 
son was to be pa^d for this service ? 

36751—59 — pt. 44 2 



16218 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Herzfeld. No, sir ; it was not discussed, and it was our under- 
standing that he was doing this as a service to labor in general, and to 
us as a favor. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was known at that time that he was an official of 
the Carpenters Union? 

Mr. Herzfeld. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you remember what his official position was at 
that time, that particular time ? 

Mr. Herzfeld. No, sir; I do not think that I ever did know his 
official position. 

The Chairman. But you understood he was an official of the Car- 
penters Union ? 

Mr. Herzfeld. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And you are speaking of the International now, 
are you ? 

Mr. Herzfeld. Yes, sir. I know it was of the larger body, and I 
just do not know what it is called. 

Mr. Ivennedt. He was a member of the general executive board of 
the Carpenters Union, and president of local 1456 of the Carpenters 
Union in New York. 

Now, was Mr. Johnson able to settle the problem ? 

Mr. Herzfeld. Well, sir, the strike was settled, and, of course, a 
number of people took credit for its settlement after it was settled, 
and I was not present when it was settled, and I learned about it a day 
later, but it was settled subsequent to Charlie Johnson offering us his 
services. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Johnson ask for a payoff for that ? 

Mr. Herzfeld. Subsequently, Mr. Cane asked me to come into a 
conference, and he said that Mr. Johnson had made a request or de- 
mand for compensation and, of course, this thing was discussed, and 
we reiterated our stand among other things that we did not know 
there would be any compensation involved, and it was finally settled 
for $30,000. 

The Chairman. How much did he demand ? 

Mr. Herzfeld. Well, if we settled it at that figure, I am sure that 
the demand was greater than that ; that is my best recollection, but I 
can't remember exactly. 

Tlie Chairman. I assume maybe it was, but you finally settled for 
$30,000? 

Mr. Herzfeld. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And what demand or request had he made upon 
which you based that settlement? 

Mr. Herzfeld. You mean the original demand ? 

The Chairman. His original demand. 

Mr. Herzfeld. I don't recall, but I assume it was in excess of 
$30,000, if that is what he eventually received. 

The Chairman. You seem to me like you would recall about that. 
Did it come to you as a surprise he was making any demand or claim 
at all? 

Mr. Herzfeld. It came as a great surprise, and you see, he had 
this conference first with Mr. Cane, because by this time the track 
was operating, and as a licensee Mr. Cane had full right — in fact, 
under the terms of the license, the landlord couldn't interfere, where- 



IIVIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16219 

as we had a special interest during tlie construction stage because 
we were contributing to it. At that time our only interest was in 
the net proceeds from which we derived our rent, and so that to 
that extent we sat in, but to all intents and purposes all decisions 
were made by the operating company, which was Mv. Cane. 

So I was called in at one time, and now whether he had had a 
conference previous to that I don't recall. 

Just how much he asked for of which $30,000 was the result, I 
also do not remember, but I assume it was more. 

The Chairman. Now, at the time that you paid him the $30,000, 
or agreed to pay him the $30,000, you knew him to be a representative 
of the union ? 

Mr. Herzfeld. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That placed him in a position of trying to serve 
two masters, did it not ? 

Mr. Herzfeld. Excuse me, sir. The licensee, Mr. Cane, paid him 
as an expense of the raceway. We didn't pay him as Algam, but it 
aifected us in our rent, because if the expenses were larger, naturally 
the net profits would be smaller. But we didn't pay it to him. 

The Chairman. But actually half of it was charged to you, and 
you had to reimburse for half of it. 

Mr. Herzfeld. It had an effect upon the net profits. 

The Chairman. Fifty percent of the total, you mean ? 

Mr. Herzfeld. Something like that ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That is about right ? 

Mr. Herzfeld. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Had you loiown in the beginning at your first 
conference, when Johnson came into the picture, that he represented 
labor, that he was a labor official, and that he was going to render 
this service but expected you to pay him for whatever service he 
rendered in this connection? Would you have engaged him if you 
had known he was going to charge you ? 

Mr. Herzfeld. Well, it is very hard to answer in retrospect. Sen- 
ator. I try to be perfectly sincere and honest about it, and it is so 
difficult for me to say now what my opinion would have been 10 
years ago in a situation like this. 

The Chairman. All right, and come down to this situation : You 
realize when you did agree to pay him that you were paying off a 
union official whose duty it was to protect the union men? 

Mr. Herzfeld. I personally did not regard it that way at all, sir. 

The Chairman. How would you regard paying another fellow's 
attorney ? 

Mr. Herzfeld. He did not represent the union. You see, we had 
no dispute with the union, sir, and the unions were disputing with 
each other, and the jurisdictional strike was there, and he made a 
peace. 

The Chairman. Wasn't his primary duty to the imion men, even 
if they were fighting among themselves, his duty as a union official 
for which he was getting paid, to try to settle it without charging 
the employer who was involved? 

Mr. Herzfeld. I would have preferred, sir, had he followed that 
course, which is what we originally expected. 

The Chairman. That was a legitimate course for him to follow? 

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



16220 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. And it was an improper course for him to make 
a demand upon you folks for payment for his services after they 
were performed? 

Mr. Herzfeld. I agree with that. 

The Chairman. That is fine. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that all of the money received? 

Mr. Herzfeld. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. AYas he paid any further sums of money ? 

Mr. Herzfeld, For the strike, you mean, sir ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he paid any other sums of money ? 

Mr. Herzfeld. He was subsequently hired by Mr. Cane as more 
or less permanent labor consultant, and to the best of my recollection 
in a very short time Mr. Cane dispensed with his services. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much money did he receive for that? 

Mr. Herzfeld. I do not remember, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did he receive ? 

Mr. Herzfeld. I think it was $10,000, but I am not sure. 

Mr. Kennedy. Actually he served for less than a year ; is that not 
correct ? 

Mr. Herzfeld. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. So that he ultimately received about $7,000 more? 

Mr. Herzfeld. That sounds right. 

Mr. Kennedy. So altogether he received from you and the Yonkei*s 
Raceway, some $37,000 ? 

Mr. Herzfeld. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. His services were discontinued in September of 
1951 ? 

Mr. Herzfeld. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, was that money paid directly to him, all of 
this money? 

Mr. Herzfeld. I understand it was paid to Mr. Jolinson and a 
son, or sons. 

Mr, Kennedy. To a son. The checks came to him at two separate 
times, did they not ? 

Mr. Herzfeld. I believe so, 

Mr. Kennedy. One group of checks came, $5,000 to his brother, 
and $5,000 to him, and $5,000 to his son, in June of 1950. 

Mr, Herzfeld. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And in December of 1950 each one of those three in- 
dividuals received $5,000 more ; is that not correct ? 

Mr. Herzfeld. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Perliaps first payment was in August. 

Mr. Herzfeld. I know it was just about that time, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. To whom was the other $7,000 paid ? Was that paid 
directly to him ? 

Mr. Herzfeld. May I inquire of my counsel ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Herzfeld. I don't know, and I am sorry I don't know, Mr. 
Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe, Mr. Chairman, the record showed the 
last payment of $7,000 was paid monthly directly to him. 

That is all. 

The Chairman. Are there any questions of this witness ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16221 

Thank you very much. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Johnson made a statement 
also — I will find the place in here — to the convention that he was 
receiving only $175 a week from the Carpenters Union after taxes, 
and that he needed this extra money. I would like to call a witness to 
place in the record liow mucli money he was receiving from the Car- 
penters Union at that time, and also place in the record the amount 
of money that ]Mr. Jolmson receives from the Carpenters Union at the 
present time. 

The Chairman. xVll right. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Ranstad, will you come around, and also Mr. 
Paul Tierney. 

The Chairman, You gentlemen have not been sworn in this par- 
ticular hearing. 

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

Mr. Ranstad. I do. 

Mr. Tierney. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF HAEOLD RANSTAD AND PAUL J. TIERNEY 

The Chairman. Mr. Tierney, how long have you been an employee 
of this committee ? 

Mr. Tierney. Since its inception. Senator. 

The Chairman. And in what capacity ? 

Mr. Tierney, As an assistant counsel. 

The Chairman. The other gentleman, will you state your name? 

Mr. Ranstad. Harold Ranstad. 

The Chairman. How long have you been an employee of this 
committee ? 

Mr, Ranstad. Eighteen months, sir. 

The Chairman. And in what capacity ? 

Mr. Ranstad. Assistant counsel. 

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

Mr, Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, this statement is made on page 4 
of this portion of the address of Charlie Johnson at the convention 
in New York City. 

The Chairman. Since that has been referred to, can one of these 
witnesses identify the photostatic copy so that we can make it an 
exhibit. 

Mr. Ranstad, do you identify this as a photostatic copy of the ad- 
dress of Mr. Johnson ? 

Mr. Ranstad. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. At the time referred to ? 

Mr. Ranstad. That is what it purports to be. 

The Chairman. "Wliere did you procure it ? 

Mr. Ranstad, It was given to us by a former Congressman, Andrew 
Jacobs, who was a practicing attorney at Indianapolis, and who repre- 
sented members of the Carpenters Union in various actions. 

The Chairman, It is represented to be that, and it may be made 
exhibit No. 61. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 61" for reference, 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 



16222 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. He states : 

My salary from the United Brotherhood when the tax is taken out is about 
$175 a week. 

Then he goes on to say : 

The newspapers contend that is all the money I should ever make. Accord- 
ing to them I cannot go before a board of directors and offer to give my services 
in my spare time. All the newspapers say that is wrong. 

Can you tell us what, in fact, he was making at that time ? 

Mr. Ranstad. We have ascertained from his income tax returns 
that in 1950 he received $7,497.40 in take-home pay from Carpenters 
Union, Local 1456 ; $5,870.10 from Timbermen's Union, Local 1536 ; 
and $7,833.80 from the Carpenters International, the International 
Brotherhood of Carpenters. 

That is a total of $21,201.30, or more than $407 week. In addition, 
he received some allowances for expenses. These were not reimbursed 
expenses, but allowances for expenses. He received $2,650 as his 
expense alowance from local 1536, and $6,975 from local 1456 as an 
expense allowance. 

He also receives commissions of $2,700 from Penn Products. 

Mr. Kennedy. We will not go into that. We will put those figures 
in later. 

Mr. Ranstad. Very well. 

The Chairman. $21,000-plus is a little more than $175 a week. 

Mr. Ranstad. About $407 a week. 

The Chairman. And that had been deducted and this is exclusive 
of his withholding ? 

Mr. Ranstad. Yes, sir ; after taxes. 

The Chairman. Very well. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Tierney, could you tell us what Charlie Jolmson 
is making at the present time in the Carpenters Union ? 

Mr. Tierney. Yes, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have a 3-year period, 1955-57. 

Mr, Tierney. During the year 1955, Mr. Johnson received as total 
salaries — these salaries are from positions he holds in various local 
unions as well as the international. I might explain those positions. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you explain his positions and then would you 
explain where the salaries come from and give the totals ? 

Mr. Tierney. Mr. Johnson is a member of the General executive 
board of the international. He is president of local 1456, the dock 
builders local in New York City, dock builders of the Carpenters. 

They have described him as a negotiator emeritus of local 1536 of 
the Timbermen's local, and his duties there for which he receives salary 
and expenses are those of counseling on organizational or jurisdic- 
tional or negotiatmg matters. He is now, and has been since 1957, the 
president of the district council in New York, which is the body 
superior to all locals in the five boroughs of New York City. 

From all of these sources he has received salary and expenses, and 
the salaries and expenses I will give will be a total from those sources. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you give us from each source ? 

Mr. Tierney. Yes. In 1955, he received a total of $26,700 in salary 
and expenses from the United Brotherhood of Carpenters. Of that 
amount, $6,800 is a 7-day miscellaneous allowance given to all members 
of the general executive board. It is just a flat allowance; that is a 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16223 

flat allowance. That is the only flat allowance from the international. 

From dock and pier local 1456, he received a salary of $15,200. 
Katlier, his salary and expenses totaled $22,300. Of that amount, 
$3,900 was flat expenses. 

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

Mr. TiERNEY. From timbermen's local 1536 he received salary and 
expenses totaling $21,500, and of that amount, $4,000 was flat expenses. 

From the New York District Council, he received $5,000, of the 
Carpenters. 

The Chairman. How much ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. $5,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the total for him ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. The total salary was $52,900. Total salary and 
expenses was $75,500. Total salary and flat expenses was $63,300. 

The Chairman. How many different organizations did he draw 
that salary from ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. From four different organizations. Senator. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just of the Carpenters, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. That is, of Carpenter organizations. 

Mr. TiERNEY. That is right. 

The Chairman. All right. His total salary, is that for the year 
1955? 

Mr. TiERNEY. 1955 ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. His total salary was how much ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. $52,900. 

The Chairman. And his expenses were what ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. Well, the flat expenses — in other words, expenses 
which he didn't have to account for, flat allowances — were $10,400. 

The Chairman. Any other expenses ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. Yes. His other expenses amounted to — I will have 
to add them up. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Give the total expenses. 

Mr. TiERNEY. The total expenses, including flat expenses, were 
$22,600. 

The Chairman. $22,600. That makes a grand total of $75,500; 
is that correct ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. That is correct, salary and all expenses. 

The Chairman. That is only for the year 1955 ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. That is correct. Senator. 

The Chairman. He drew it from Carpenter Union organizations, 
a total of $75,500, of wliich $52,900 was salary ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Was this after taxes ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. No ; this is before taxes. 

The Chairrian. This is before taxes ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. Yes. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. He draws from the same organizations. Perhaps, 
Mr. Chairman, we can put those in as an exhibit. However, perhaps 
Mr. Tiemey can give the total for the other years. 

The Chairman. Just give the grand total for 1956, 1957, and 1958^ 
if you have it. 

Mr. TiERNEY. I have just 1956 and 1957, Senator. 



16224 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 



The Chairman. All right. Just give the grand total from the same 
sources for 1956. What did that total ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. In 1956 he received a total of $76,400 in salary and 
all expenses. 

The Chairman. That was an increase of $900 over the preceding 
year ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. Yes. 

The Chairman. Now, 1957. What was the grand total ? 

Mr, TiERNEY. In 1957 he received a total of $72,700 in salary and 
all expenses. 

The Chairman. You do not have it for 1958 ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. I do not. 

The Chairman. Do you have a breakdown of it there that you have 
prepared ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. I do, Senator ; yes. 

The Chairman. Tliat breakdown of this income of this man John- 
son for the year 1955, 1956, and 1957 may be printed in the record 
at this point. 

(The table referred to follows :) 

Schedule of moneys paid to and for Charles Johnson, Jr., hy Carpenter 
organizations for the years 1955, 1956, and 1957 





United 
Brother- 
hood 


Dock 
and 
Pier 

Local 
1456 


Timber- 
man's 
Local 
1536 


New 

York 

District 

Council 


New 
York 

State 
Council 


Total 


1955 
Salary . - . - 


$15, 200 

2 6, 800 

2,800 

fiOO 

5 1,300 


$15, 200 
3 3, 900 


$17, 500 
M,000 


1 $5, 000 




$52,900 


Weekly expense allowance 




14 700 


Transportation paid by union 






2,800 












6(H) 


Special expense allowances 


5 3, 200 








4,500 












Total. 


26, 700 


22, 300 


21,500 


5,000 




75,500 








1956 
Salary 


15,600 

2 6,600 

3,000 

2,400 

5 300 


15,700 
3 3,900 


19,000 
< 6, 000 




$200 


50,500 


Weekly expense allowance 




16, 500 


Transportation paid by union . 






3. 000 












2,400 


Special expense allowances 


5 2, 000 






1,700 


4,000 










Total 


27,900 


21, 600 


25, 000 




1,900 


76,400 








1957 
Salary . 


6,000 
2 3, 000 
3, 500 
1,600 
5 300 


12,800 
3 3,500 


11,000 
3 2, 600 


23, 300 
*4,000 




53,100 


Weekly expense allowance 




13, 100 


Transportation paid by union 




3, 500 










1,600 


Special expense allowances 


5 400 




700 




1,400 










Total. 


14, 400 


16, 700 


13, 600 


28,000 




72,700 









> Gift from district council in appreciation of his efforts. 

2 $7 a day miseellaneotis allowance every day of the week and $15 a day additional when traveling. 

3 $75 a week. 

* $'00 a week. 

5 For conventions, board meetings, conference, et cetera. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you put what the salary was in 1956 and 
1957, and wliat the flat expenses were? 

Mr. TiERNEY. Yes. In 1956 his salary was $50,500 from all sources 
in the Carpenters, and his flat expenses were $12,400, or a total of 
$62,900 in salary and flat expenses. 

In 1957 his salary was $53,100 ; flat expenses were $12,600, for a 
total of $65,700 in salary and flat expenses. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16225 

Mr. Kennedy. When you talk about flat expenses, you mean ex- 
penses he doesn't have to account for ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. Keguhir allowances like $100 a week or $75 a week or 
$7 a day. 

Mr. Kennedy. In addition to that, he had additional expenses? 

Mr. Tierney. Yes, on transportation and hotel bills. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have had the testimony before the coimnittee 
that his son and his brother also receive money from the raceway. 
Did they appear on the payroll of the Carpenters Union? 

Mr. Tierney. They do. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us how much money they receive from 
the Carpenters? 

Mr. Tierney. Yes. Robert Johnson is a brother of Charles John- 
son. He is president of local 1536, the timbermen's local of the Car- 
penters in New York City, and he is secretary-treasurer of the New 
York District Council of the Carpenters in New York City. This is 
another relative. 

In 1955 Mr. Robert Johnson received total salary and expenses from 
the local 1536 and the District Council of Carpenters of $37,000. In 
1956 he received a total salary and all expenses of $45,000. In 1957, 
he received a total salary and all expenses of $38,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell us what 

Mr. Tierney. William R. Johnson 

Mr. Kennedy. What is that a total for ? 

Mr. Tierney. It is a total of $120,000 for the 3-year period. 

Mr. Kennedy, What w'as the total for Charlie Johnson for the 3- 
year period ? 

Mr. Tierney. $224,600, salary and all expenses. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who else is on the payroll ? 

Mr. Tierney. William R. Johnson, brother of Charles Johnson, is 
financial secretary of local 1456 in New York City. He holds no other 
positions in the Carpenters. 

For the years 1955, 1956, and 1957, he received total salary and 
expenses of $19,000 during each year, or a total of $57,000 for the 3- 
year period. 

Mr. Kennedy. $57,000 ? 

Mr. Tierney. $57,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is he one of those who received $5,000 ? 

Mr. Tierney. Yes ; he is. 

Mr. Kennedy. From the raceway ? 

Mr. Tierney. $10,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. $5,000 on two separate occasions ; $10,000 altogether? 

Mr. Tierney. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is there another Johnson ? 

Mr. Tierney. Yes. Charles Johnson, Jr.'s son, Charles Johnson 
III, is a business agent for local 1536, the timbermen's local in New 
York City. He received in salary and expenses in 1955, $14,500 ; in 
1956, $14,500 ; and in 1957, $17,500, or a total of $46,500. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the total for all of the Johnsons that they 
received from the Carpenters in the New York area for the 3-year 
period ? 

Mr. Tierney. In the 3-year period, a total of $448,100 for all salary 
and expenses. 



16226 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. KEisrisTEDY. For Mr. Johnson and his family ? 

Mr. TiERNET. That is correct. 

(At this point Senator Ervin left the hearing room.) 

The Chairman. Are there any questions, Senator Mundt? 

Senator Mundt. No questions. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, may I also place in the record an 
exhibit for reference, the statement of Charlie Johnson to the district 
attorney ? 

The Chairman. Wliich one of you can identify this ? 

Mr. Ranstad. Senator, that is also a photostatic copy of a trans- 
script that was furnished us by Mr. Jacobs, of Indianapolis. 

The Chairman. Who is Mr. Jacobs? 

Mr. Ranstad. Andrew Jacobs is a practicing attorney at Indian- 
apolis, a former Congressman. He has represented several members 
of the Carpenters Union in various law suits. 

The Chairman. In other words, he has been a representative of the 
Carpenters Union? 

Mr. Ranstad. Of some of the members. 

The Chairman. This may be made exhibit No. 62. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 62" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. Exhibit No. 62 will be for reference only. 

Is there anything further of these witnesses? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

Mr. Ranstad. Senator, I was thinking of another document, I 
believe. This is a copy of the transcript that was furnished by the 
Weschester County district attorney. 

The Chairman. That statement from the district attorney's office in 
Westchester County ? 

Mr. Ranstad. That is right. 

The Chairman. It is part of his records in the case ? 

Mr. Ranstad. Yes. 

The Chairman. Very well. The record will be corrected according- 
ly, pertaining to exhibit No. 62. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, the next witness is Mr. Edward 
Weiss. 

The Chairman. Come forward, Mr. Weiss. Will you be sworn ? 

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

Mr. Weiss. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF EDWARD H. WEISS, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 

HOWARD RUBIN 

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

Mr. Weiss. Edward H. Weiss, 107 Monadnock Road, Newton, Mass. 
I am in the gasoline and oil business. 

The Chairman. In the gasoline and oil business ? 

Mr. Weiss. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You have counsel. 

Mr. Counsel, will you identify yourself for the record ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16227 

Mr. Rubin. Howard Rubin, 82 Devonshire Street, Boston. 

The Chairman. Mr. Kennedy, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Weiss, you are president and treasurer of the 
Penn Products Corp. ? 

Mr. Weiss. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is a New York corporation ? 

Mr. Weiss. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are treasurer of the Mercury Oil Co., Inc. ? 

Mr. Weiss. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that right ? 

Mr. Weiss. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. That is a Massachusetts corporation ? 

Mr. Weiss. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. TV^iere is the place of business? That is, for the 
Mercury Oil? 

Mr. Weiss. 94 Vernon Street, Somerville, Mass. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are president and treasurer of Penn Products 
Co. ; is that right ? 

Mr. Weiss. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is also in Somerville, Mass. ? 

Mr. Weiss. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Can you tell us what the Penn Products Corp. does, 
and what the Mercury Oil Co. does; what their business is? 

Mr. Weiss. We sell gasoline and oil. 

Mr. Kennedy. To whom do you sell gasoline ? 

Mr. Weiss. Principally to contractors and to any type of fleet 
owners, all types of users of the products. 

Mr. Kennedy. "When was the Penn Products Corp., the New York 
corporation, formed ? 

Mr. Weiss. Sometime in early 1949. 

Mr. Kennedy. And when did you meet Mr. Charlie Johnson? 

Mr. Weiss. Shortly prior to that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. ^Yho introduced you to Mr. Charlie Johnson ? 

Mr. Weiss. My brother. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Did you determine or did you decide that you would 
go into business together with Mr. Charlie Johnson? 

Mr. Weiss. He was going to represent us. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now would you relate to the committee how that 
came about? 

Mr. Weiss. Well, Mr. Johnson said that he had been friendly with 
a great many contractors over a great many years, and he thought he 
would be in a position to see to it that we were put on the invited list 
of bidders of these various contractors in the area, that he knew them, 
and that we would have an opportunity to submit proposals to supply 
their gasoline and lubricating oil requirements. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you known Charlie Johnson prior to having 
this conversation with him ? 

Mr. Weiss. I did not. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you at that point : Was the contractor 
a contractor with whom his union had bargaining contracts ? 

Mr. Weiss. I did not know that. 

The Chairman. What kind of contractors were they ? 



16228 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Weiss. Well, we didn't know what contractors he knew. He 
said he had a great many friends. I didn't know whether his union 
had contracts with them or whether they did not. 

The Chairman. You did know he was a union official ? 

Mr. Weiss. I did, sir. 

The Chairman. And he was going to use that connection in rela- 
tion to this business enterprise ? 

Mr. Weiss. No ; he was going to use his friendship in these things, 
not his union position. 

The Chairman. Just his friendship ? 

Mr. Weiss. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That would have no relation, of course, to the 
position he occupied in unionism ? 

Mr. Weiss. This I would not laiow. This is his decision. 

The Chairman. You could not know, but you have a strong sus- 
picion. Well, I think we agree. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who introduced you? Did you say your brother? 

Mr. Weiss. Yes, my brother. 

Mr. Kennedy. And his name is what? 

Mr. Weiss. Philip Weiss. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had Mr. Philip Weiss and Mr. Charlie Johnson 
been in business prior to this time ? 

Mr. Weiss. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. What has been the business of your brother? 

Mr. Weiss. He was a salesman. 

Mr. Kennedy. For what company ? 

Mr. Weiss. I do not know. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't know what company your brother 
worked for ? 

Mr. Weiss. No; I don't. I would like to read a statement here, 
gentlemen, if I may. 

Before answering any questions, my brother, Philip Weiss, is under 
Federal indictment in proceedings in Michigan. I hope the com- 
mittee will understand my reluctance to testify about any matter 
which might in any way be prejudicial to his rights in proceedings 
now pending before the U.S. court in Michigan. 

I respectfully ask that I be excused from answering any questions 
which involve any activities of my brother. 

Senator Mundt. For what is your brother indicted? Is it some- 
thing relevant to this ? 

Mr. Weiss. In some parts matter in Michigan. I am not familiar 
with all the details. 

Mr. Kennedy. Stolen automobile parts? Is that correct? 

Mr. Weiss. It was automobile parts, some automobile parts. 

Mr. Kennedy. It has nothing to do with this, really. 

Mr. Weiss. No, nothing at all to do with this matter. 

The Chairman. Mr. Counsel, you may proceed to interrogate the 
witness regarding any transaction involving the miion and this par- 
ticular company. There is no immunity for a witness to testify to any- 
thing he might know because of his brother. Sometimes they hate to 
testify against their friends. We understand, we are not going into 
an irrelevant matter, possibly the stealing of automobile parts or some- 
thing somewhere else. We are not going into that. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16229 

But anything related to the subject matter of this inquiry the wit- 
ness, of course, will answer if interrogated about. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not going to go, Mr. Chairman, into detail 
about his brother with this witness. There were just some preliminary 
questions that I wanted to get straightened out because it was through 
his brother, Phil Weiss, that Mr. Ed Weiss met Charlie Johnson, Jr. 
1 am not going to embarrass him by going into any detailed questions 
about him. 

The Chairman. Well, avoid those. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. If I could have just what he did and what his busi- 
ness was. Mr. Phil Weiss is a key figure in this hearing, and he has 
been a key figure in hearings that we have held over the period of the 
past 2 years. 

It is unfortunate that these questions must come up, but I have to 
ask -them beicuuse of the fact that Mr. Charlie Johnson first came into 
this company through the introduction of Phil Weiss. 

Wliat was Mr. Phil Weiss' position at that time? 

Mr. Weiss. He was a salesman for the oil companies. 

Mr. Kennedy. What oil company ? 

Mr. Weiss. Penn Products Co. and Mercury Oil Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. What other financial interests did he have? 

Mr. Weiss. Where? 

Mr. Kennedy. Anywhere. 

Mr. Weiss. None that I know of. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know what connections he had with the steel 
company, for instance ? 

Mr. Weiss. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if he had any interest in any steel 
company ? 

Mr. Weiss. No knowledge of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know what other financial interests he had 
other than working for your company as a salesman? 

Mr. Weiss. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was his relationship with your company as 
far as imancial compensation was concerned? 

Mr. Weiss. We paid him a commission on whatever sales were 
made. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he an officer of one of these companies? 

Mr. Weiss. He was not. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have these companies been in existence? 

Mr. Weiss. Mercury Oil Co., to the best of my knowledge, was 
formed in 

Mr. Kennedy. Just approximately. 

Mr. Weiss. Sometime in 1947-48, and Penn Products Co. quite a 
number of years prior. 

Mr. Kennedy. So that we get the situation, the Penn Products Co. 
which, of course, is in Somerville, and Penn Products Corp., of course, 
is in New York, we will be talking chiefly about the Penn Products 
Corp. from New York. 

These other companies in which you had a financial interest had 
been in existence during the 1940's; is that right? 

Mr. Weiss. Wliat other companies ? 

Mr. Kennedy. The Penn Products Co. and the Mercury Oil ? 



16230 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Weiss. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you had been selling to contractors during that 
period of time ? 

Mr. Weiss. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Charlie Johnson was to introduce you to various 
of the contractors ? 

Mr. Weiss. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He stated to you that he was friendly with some of 
the contractors ? 

Mr. Weiss. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How was he going to be compensated for the work 
that he did? 

Mr. Weiss. He was going to receive what our usual commission 
arrangement was, which is 50 percent of the net job profit or the net 
profit of any products that were sold. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he was to become, in fact, a salesman for your 
company ? . 

Mr. Weiss. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that for the Penn Products Co. of Somerville ? 

Mr. Weiss. Penn Products Co. of Somerville — no, that was for the 
Penn Products Corp., which was formed at that time, and for the 
Mercury Oil Co., which was in existence at that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. The Penn Products Corp. was formed, then, in New 
York, in order to make this arrangement with Charlie Johnson ? 

Mr. Weiss. It was formed after the arrangement was made with 
Charlie Johnson. 

Mr. Kennedy. In order to put into effect this arrangement with 
Charlie Johnson ? 

Mr. Weiss. Yes, to operate through a New York corporation. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he obtain an interest in the corporation? 

Mr. Weiss. He did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did any of his relatives ? 

Mr. Weiss. His wife did. 

Mr. Kennedy. What interest did she have? 

Mr. Weiss. Twenty-five percent. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did she put up some money for that ? 

Mr. Weiss. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much money ? 

Mr. Weiss. To the best of my recollection, $250. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then did Mr. Charlie Johnson proceed to obtain in- 
troductions for you with various contractors ? 

Mr. Weiss. He did, sir, 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have a list of the contractors from which he 
was able to obtain accounts ? 

Mr. Weiss. The list was submitted to the committee and I believe 
my attorney has a copy of it. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. To get one thing clear that I am not sure about, 
you said arrangements were with Mr. Johnson to have 50 percent of 
the profits. 

Mr. Wktss. Of the net profits of any products sold. 

The Chairman. Did that include all of the i^roducts sold by the 
Penn Products Co. which was formed right after this arrangement was 
made? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16231 

Mr. Weiss. No. That was only to those accounts that Mr. Jolmson 
was responsible for. 

The Chairman, Where you gave him credit for getting the account, 
he was to receive 50 percent ? 

Mr. Weiss. Of the net profit. 

The Chairman. Yes, of the net profit. In addition to that, his wife 
received 25 percent of the other profits because she had put up $250 
for a 25 percent interest ? 

Mr. Weiss. Correct, sir. 

The Chairman. Now we have the picture. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have a list there ? 

Mr. Weiss. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you submit that to the chairman, please? 

Mr. Weiss. Yes. 

The Chairman. According to the copy of the list I have here, and 
you can check it there, there are 19 different companies or accounts on 
the list ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Weiss. Correct, sir. 

The Chairman. The first one you list is Corbetta Construction Co.^ 
New York City ? 

Mr. Weiss. Correct. 

The Chairman. And the last one is Walsh Construction Co., New 
York City ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Weiss. Correct, sir. 

The Chairman. This list may be published in the record at this 
point, the list of 19 accounts. 

(The list referred to follows :) 

Corbetta Construction Co. Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. 
Drake-Grafe-Winston-Tecon-Conduit John Peterson Construction Co. 

Cos. Poirier & McLane. 

Andrew Gull Corp. Raymond Concrete Pile. 

Hendrickson Bros. Slattery Contracting Co., Inc. 

Hoffman & Elias, Inc. Frederick Snare Corp. 

Horn Construction Co., Inc. Underpinning Foundation Co. 

Johnson, Drake & Piper Charles F. Vacharis. 

MacLean, Grove & Brewster Walsh, Connelly, Singer & Palmer Co. 

Frank Mascoli. Walsh Construction Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. I notice that of the 19 companies, they are all con- 
struction companies. 

Mr. Weiss. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was understod by you that Mr. Johnson, as a Car- 
penter Union official, had contracts or his union had contracts with 
all of tliese construction companies ? 

Mr. Weiss. I did not know whether he did or not. I did not know 
that. 

jMr. Kennedy. Did you understand that to be a fact ? 

Mr. Weiss. I did not know that. 

Mr. Kennedy. You knew that construction companies had con- 
tracts with the Carpenters Union ? 

Mr. Weiss. Some of these construction companies, I believe, had. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the procedure that was followed as far as 
Mr. Johnson was concerned? Would he telephone the officer, the 
president, or another officer, of one of these construction companies,, 
and tell them about your company ? 



16232 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Weiss. I don't know what his procedure was. I do know that 
he would say that we would hear of a job, because they are all pub- 
lished in public records, we would hear of a low bidder on a job, and 
we would call Mr. Johnson and tell him such and such company was 
low bidder on the job, and if he knew them he would call and we would 
get a message back that we could go in to see them and submit a 
proposal to them. 

Mr. Kennedy. If you didn't have that telephone arrangement made 
by Mr. Johnson, you couldn't have submitted a bid ? 

Mr. Weiss. Most of these construction companies have a very lim- 
ited invited list of bidders and we have never been able to submit 
successful proposals to them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Successful, did you say ? You had been in business 
since 1940, had you not? 

Mr. Weiss. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you had some business with a good number of 
these companies, had you not ? 

Mr. Weiss. 1 believe, to the best of my knowledge, with only one 
of these companies. 

Mr. Kennedy. What company was that? 

Mr. Weiss. Merritt-Chapman & Scott. 

Mr. Kennedy. The name of Merritt-Chapman & Scott is on this 
list. What did he do for you in the case of Merritt-Chapman & 
Scott? 

Mr. Weiss. We did business with Merritt-Chapman & Scott when 
they were in a joint venture with J. A. Fuller Co. constructing the 
Naval Base at Quonset, R.I. I had a friend of mine who was very 
friendly with the officers there, and through him we submitted a pro- 
posal and we were successful bidders and supplied that project with 
their lubricating oils and greases. Subsequent to that, for a period 
of years, we were never able to sell Mei'ritt-Chapman & Scott again. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did Charlie Johnson do for you in that case ? 

Mr. Weiss. Wlien he started with us, he introduced us to people 
there on the first job that they had, and we submitted a proposal on 
the job. 

Mr. Kennedy. You already knew Merritt-Chapman & Scott. 

Mr. Weiss. This was a totally different group that were in control 
at that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you mean a construction company would not take 
a bid from a company such as yours, that could submit a low bid and 
which was a reputable company for a period of some 10 years? 

Mr. Weiss. The gasoline and oil business is a very minor part of the 
operation of any of these construction jobs, and receives practically no 
consideration. 

Mr. Kennfj)y. You are not answering my question, Mr. Weiss. I 
asked you if you meant to tell the committee that a contractor, a con- 
struction company, would not accept a bid from a company such as 
yours that had been in business some 10 3'ears without being intro- 
duced bv an official of tlie Carnoiitors TTpion. 

Mr. Weiss. Being an official of the Carpenters Union was not an 
essential. If they were friendly they would have accepted the bid. If 
they were not, they would not have accepted it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Even if you were the low bidder ; is that correct ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16233 

Mr. Weiss. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. They would not accept your hid ? 

Mr. Weiss. Definitely. 

Mr. Kennedy. Even though, for instance, you had done business 
witJi one of these companies, at least, for over a period of some 10 
years? 

Mr. Weiss. Once a^rain, Mr. Kennedy, the oil business is a very 
minor part of their operation. They usually get operating with one 
company. They don't listen to proposals or prices from another com- 
pany, and they go for a })eriod of a great many years in just buying 
their products from one company. 

When a new job comes up, the other companies — someone in their 
organization just calls up and says, "We have another job; put in 
your tanks and go ahead and proceed." 

Mr, Kennedy. So they do not have it on the basis of bids ? 

Mr. Weiss. All the major companies submit proposals. They all 
send their men in to tiy to sell these jobs and somehow or other they 
are never successful. They generally go to the same supplier. 

Mr. Kennedy. If that is the case, Mr, Charlie Johnson as an official 
of the Carpenters T'nion could perform a major service for your com- 
pany, because if it is based on friendship that these contracts are 
awarded, then the contract could be awarded to your company, even 
though it might not be the low bidder. 

Mr. Weiss. This I wouldn't know. This is a policy of the com- 
pany to determine. We submit the proposals. We submit the best 
price we can on every project. We hope to get every one of them. 
We do not. 

Mr. Kennedy. You explained the whole procedure just a minute 
ago. You said that you did know. 

So these construction companies do not accept bids from anybody; 
IS that correct ? 

Mr. Weiss. I am speaking of only the net results. What they do 
in their practice I would have no way of knowing. 

Mr. Kennedy, The fact is they do not pay any attention to it, they 
just award the contract to whomever seems fit ? 

Mr. Weiss. From sitting on the outside, this seems to be the pro- 
cedure. I cannot tell you. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did you arrange for the commissions to be paid 
to Mr. Johnson ? How did you figure out the commissions to be paid ? 

Mr. Weiss. At the end of each month, I would take the volume of 
business done, take the costs, the various expenses involved in it, the 
difference was the net profit, and he would get a check for 50 percent 
of that. 

Mr. Kennedy, If he introduced you, for instance, to the Corbetta 
Construction Co. of New York City, from then on did he receive 50 
percent of the profits of all of the work that you did for the Corbetta 
Construction Co. ? 

Mr. Weiss. Whatever business we did, the same as any of our other 
salesmen. If any of our salesmen sell anyone, that is their account, 
until such time as they are no longer with us, and they receive their 
commissions. 

Mr. Ivennedy. The same thing for Merritt-Chapman & Scott? 

36751 — 59 — pt. 44 3 



16234 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Weiss. Correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. The same thing for Raymond Concrete Pile Co. ? 

Mr. Weiss. Correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. The Walsh, Connelly, Singer & Palmer Co., all of 
those companies, that would be the arrangement ? 

Mr. Weiss. Yes, sir ; it is a very normal one. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where would you receive j^our oil and gasoline that 
you would sell to these construction companies ? 

Mr. Weiss. We are jobbers in the oil business. We receive it from 
a great many sources, depending entirely upon the location of the job 
and the availability of supply. We have no one supplier. 

Mr. Kennedy. For instance, would you receive your oil and gaso- 
line from the Shell Oil Co. ? 

Mr. Weiss. We receive some of it from them. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then you in turn would sell it to the construc- 
tion company ? 

Mr. Weiss. Correct, sir. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Wouldn't it often happen that the Shell Oil Co. 
would place a bid with the construction company themselves? 

Mr. Weiss. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. So Shell Oil Co. would place a bid with say, the 
Merritt-Chapman & Scott, and you would also place a bid? 

Mr. Weiss. We never placed a bid — that is true, but we never 
placed a bid under Shell Oil Co. products. We have our own brand 
names and we place a bid under our own brand names. 

Mr. Kennedy. I understand. But could you tell the committee 
how it could be that where you have to receive your gasoline products 
from a company such as the Shell Oil Co., and the Shell Oil Co. is 
bidding on a job, how you could possibly go lower than they? 

Mr. Weiss. We are jobbers in the oil business and there is also a 
margin between what a commercial consumer can purchase and what a 
jobber purchases. 

Mr. Kennedy. That would be on oils and grease. But that would 
not be necessarily true on gasoline and diesel, is it? 

Mr. Weiss. It is true in gasoline and diesel. 

Mr. Kennedy. On every case of gasoline and diesel fuel, you recei^'e 
jobber prices? 

Mr. Weiss. In some places we received lower than jobbei- ]>rices. 

Mr. Kennedy. But did you always receive a lower price than a 
construction company could purchase the gasoline and oil for? 

Mr. Weiss. I have no knowledge of what the construction company 
receives. We always received a lower price than what we sold it for. 
We always made a profit. 

Ml-. Kennedy. I understand that you would always make a ]ii*ofit 
on it. According to our investigation, these oil companies, on gasoline 
and diesel fuel, would be placing a bid in competition with you. In 
that case, they would not grant a special price when they were selling 
it to you. 

Mr. Weiss. That, in practice, is not true. We never go to an oil 
company prior to placing a bid and get a commitment from them. 
When we are successful bidders on a job and we have the jo}>, we 
tlien go to tlie various oil companies and Ave then make our deal. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16235 

Mr. Kennedy. How could it be that a construction conii)any could 
ever grant a contract to you when they could get the oil and gasoline, 
the diesel fuel and gasoline, directly from the big oil company at a 
cheaper price? 

Mv. Weiss. They couldn't necessarily get it at a cheaper price. 

Mr, Kennedy. Why were they going through a middleman, or a 
third party? 

Mr. Weiss. This is general practice in the industry, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What other company is there similar to yours in the 
cases of gasoline and diesel fuel? 

Mr. Weiss. Probably 10,000 in the country. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tell us one other company that makes the same kind 
of bids that you do with some of these construction companies. 

Mr. Weiss. Well, the Fisher-Hill Oil Co., Andy's Service Station. 
I could go on and get you a list in the National Petroleum News and 
give you a list. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am talking about major construction projects, 
where they will have the competition of a large oil company such 
as Shell. 

Mr. Weiss. I am speaking of exactly the same type. Jobbers submit 
proposals on all jobs. There are no jobs in the gasoline and oil 
business that are too big or too small. Once you put the tanks in, 
it is just a question of delivery of products and this is usually done 
by outside carrier. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. If Shell Oil, for instance, wanted to place a bid for 
work for the Fredrick Snare Corp. of New York City, they would 
place a bid at the lowest possible price. Why would they put a bid 
in, have you gone a little underneatli them on a bid, and have you in 
turn purchased your oil and gasoline from them ? 

Mr. Weiss. At the time they place the proposal and we place the 
proposal, they don't know wiiether we are going to do business with 
them or do business with someone else. The two of them have no 
relationship with each other at all. If we are successful bidders, we 
go out into the market and try to buy the products at the best price 
we can. It may be from Shell, it may be from a half dozen other 
people. We have no definite commitments anywhere. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Tell me this: How many times have you success- 
fully competed with a major oil company in this kind of situation? 

Mr. Weiss. How many times ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is, based on price alone. 

Mr. Weiss. I would assume that based on price and service, and 
service is a very essential part 

Mr. Kennedy. We will go into that question of services, but I am 
talking about price. 

How many times have you successfully competed with a major 
company based on price alone ? 

JNIr. Weiss. To my loiowledge every time we have been successful 
bidders. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is separate and apart from servicing? I am 
talking just about price, not including servicing of any kind. 

Mr. Weiss. To my knowledge, every time we are successful bidders. 
I have no knowledge and I have no particular interest, once we get 
a job, to find out what somebody else bid. 



16236 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you offer service on these construction jobs? 

Mr. Weiss. Today, essentially that is our main business. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Servicing. Do you offer servicing on every job? 

Mr. Weiss. On every job that lends itself to that type of service. 
Some projects do and some do not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me ask you this, Mr. Weiss : Prior to the time 
that Mr. Johnson came into the picture, were you able to sell diesel 
fuel and gasoline? 

Mr. Weiss. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you able to sell in the New York area, diesel 
fuel and gasoline, prior to Mr. Johnson coming into the picture? 

Mr. Weiss. We didn't operate in the New York area at that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why, then, was it necessary if you could sell gaso- 
line and diesel fuel on a competitive basis, why was it necessary to 
bring Charlie Johnson into the picture ? 

Mr. Weiss. Because we wanted an entry into these accounts and an 
opportunity to submit proposals. 

Mr. Kennedy. If your company had been in existence for some 10 
years, Mr. Weiss, and had been successful, and had done work for 
large construction companies in one section of the country and you 
are able then to come in and offer a competitor's low price, certainly 
the construction companies would have taken your bid, you didn't 
need Charlie Johnson. 

Mr. Weiss. That was not our experience. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had not been successful ? 

Mr. Weiss. We had not been successful. 

Mr. Kennedy. When Charlie Johnson came into the picture, you 
found you were successful ? 

Mr. Weiss. We obtained many contracts. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is not what you answered at the beginning. 
After Charlie Johnson came into the picture you were able to obtain 
these contracts ? 

Mr. Weiss. Definitely. 

Mr. Kennedy. Prior to his bein^ there, you were not able to? 

Mr. Weiss. We were not operating in that market, and we didn't 
solicit these particular accounts. 

Mr. Kennedy, Wliy bring Charlie Johnson in if you had not tried 
to do it without him ? 

Mr. Weiss. Because we knew enough about the oil business, I had 
been in it for 30 years, and now it could not be accomplished without 
some kind of a contract in to see the people. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is not a question of the competitiom, then, but it 
is a choice of the contractor ? 

Mr, Weiss. The question of competition is one for tlie construc- 
tion company to decide and not for us to. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you know as a practical matter, evidently from 
your answers, anyway, that it is not a question of low bid, but it is 
a question of who tlie contractor likes? 

Mr. Weiss. I tliink it is a combination of both. We always try to 
be low bidders. 

A[r. Kennedy. T understand that. But you also testified before the 
committee that it is a question of whom the contractor wants on the 
job. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16237 

Mr. Weiss. Very definitely. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then we have the picture, No. 1, that in these kinds 
of contracts it is a question of not so much who is the low bidder, but 
to whom the contractor wants to ffive the job; that is your testimony; 
and, No. 2, that you were not able to get the jobs prior to Charlie 
Johnson coining to work for you; and, No. 3, that you were able to 
get Ihe jobs after he came to work for you. 

Mr. Weiss. I think there are several irrelevancies there. 

Number one, we assumed that wherever we are successful bidders, 
that we have been the low bidder on the project. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Weiss, I am taking it from your own testimony. 
You testified here, and I did not make the statement, but you testified 
here before the conmiittee, that this was a question of who he con- 
tractor wanted to give the contract to ; that it was not a question of 
low bidding. You said that was the practice in this trade. That is 
your testimony. 

Well, go ahead. 

Mr. Weiss. I have nothing further to say. 

Mr. Kennedy. IMr. Chairman, we will have some other witnesses on 
these matters. 

]\Ir, Chairman, I have some ajHidavits here. 

The Chairman. Are you through with this witness? 

Mr, Kennedy. For now. 

The Chairman. We have an affidavit from Mr. William L. Streuk- 
ens, a salesman of the Christenson Oil Co. The affidavit is dated the 
15th da}^ of May 1958. This affidavit may be printed in the record 
at this point. You may read the pertinent part. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is Mr. Manny Weiss another brother ? 

Mr. Weiss. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Manny Weiss is also a salesman for the com- 
pany? 

Mr. Weiss. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Tierney, would you read the pertinent parts of 
that affidavit? 

Mr. Tierney. Mr. Streukens is manager of the Christenson Oil Co. 
plant in Portland, Oreg. On one occasion this affidavit relates to a 
conversation that JNIr. Streukens had with Mr. Emanuel Weiss in 
1953 during that time. The affidavit reads : 

One day in 1953 I asked Manny Weiss how he was able to obtain contractor 
business which we (Christenson Oil Co.) had solicited and had been unable to 
obtain even at lower prices. 

Manny Weiss told me that he would go out to the construction site with a 
union official and talk to the boss on the job or the foreman about purchasing 
greases and gear oil from his firm. He said that if needed the union could 
apply the pressure on the company's labor relations with the union. I do not 
know what union officials were involved nor do I know to what union they 
belonged. 

(The affidavit referred to is as follows :) 

AFFiDAvrr 
County op Mitltnomah, 
State of Oregon, ss: 

I, William L. Streukens, salesman, Christenson Oil Co., 3821 Northwest St. 
Helens Road, Portland. Oreg., hereby make the following voluntary statement: 

I was manager of the Christenson Oil Co. plant, 3030 Commodore Way, 
Seattle 99, Wash., from March 1951 to May 1953, the entire period of its 
existence. 



16238 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

One day in 1953, I asked Manny Weiss how he was able to obtain contractor 
business which we (Christenson Oil Co.) had solicited and had been unable to 
obtain even at lower prices. 

Manny Weiss told me that he would go out to the construction site with a 
union oflBcial and talk to the boss on the job or the foreman about purchasing 
greases and gear oil from his firm. He said that if needed the union could 
apply the pressure on the company's labor relations with the union. I do not 
know what union oflScials were involved nor do I know to what union they 
belonged. 

I do not know a Frank M. Chapman. I have never heard of his name men- 
tioned by the Weisses. I do not know of a Harvey Bernhard, care of the Nettleton 
Garage, Ninth and Madison, Seattle, Wash., even though I have been told that 
he submitted purchase orders to our Portland. Oreg., office for Penn Products Co. 

I have read the foregoing statement, consisting of two pages, and it is true and 
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 

William L. Stketjkens. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me, John P. Colman, an investigator, U.S. 
General Accounting Office, under authority of section 297, Revised Statutes, as 
amended by section 304 and 311(e) of the Budget and Accounting Act, 1921, 
this 15th day of May 1958, at Portland, Oreg. 

John P. Colman, 
Investigator, U.S. General Accounting Office, Seattle, Wash. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have another affidavit. 

The Chairman. This is an affidavit from Mr. Carl Theodore Chris- 
tenson, Jr., manager of Christenson Oil Co., dated the 15th day of 
May 1958. This affidavit may be printed in the record at this point. 
Counsel may read excerpts from it. 

Mr. TiERNET. This affidavit of Carl Theodore Christenson, Jr. — 
by the way, Penn Products Co. did business with the Christenson 
Oil Co. 

The pertinent part of this reads as follows : 

One day at luncheon I asked Manny Weiss how the company could operate 
so far away from the home office and expect to get business from lar,ce con- 
struction jobs against such competition as the major oil companies with their 
better service and price. His answer was that he had good union support. 
Whether the union was financially involved I do not know, because Manny did 
not tell me anything more. 

(The affidavit referred to is as follows :) 

Affidavit 
County of Multnomah, 

State of Oregon, ss: 

I, Carl Theodore Christenson, Jr., manager, Christenson Oil Co., 3821 North- 
west St. Helens Road, Portland, Oreg., hereby make the following voluntary 
statements : 

The Christenson Oil Co. was established in 1932 by my father, who was the 
sole owner. In 1945 he sold the company to Mr. Phil L. Polsky, who operated 
it until his death on December 31, 1956. The name of the company has never 
been changed. 

I have been employed by the company since 1932, except while in the maritime 
service from 1943 to 1945. Prior to December 31, 1956, I was the sales manager 
for the company. 

The Christenson Oil Co. blends, compounds, and packages motor oils and 
greases. The company is known in the industry as an independent packager and 
compounder. 

In 195.'^ Mr. Polsky was contacted by two brothers, Edward and Emanuel 
Weiss, of the Penn Products Co. Emanuel was known as Manny. Later I was 
introduced to Manny and thereafter I had several contacts with him. 

My understanding of the business arrangement entered into between Christen- 
son Oil Co. and Penn Products Co. was that it would send us purchase orders 
or call and place an order. We would ship the orders for oils and grease under 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16239 

the labels of Penn Products Co. to designated accounts, and bill Penn Products 
Co. I thinlv all freight was prepaid and billed to Penn Products Co. It paid 
us once a month. 

One day at luncheon I asked Manny Weiss how the company could operate so 
far away from the home office and exj^ect to get business from large construc- 
tion jobs against such competition as the major oil companies with their better 
service and price. Ills answer was that he had good union support. Whether 
the union was financially involved I do not know, because Manny did not tell 
me anything more. 

The correspondence in the files refers to attempts to secure Government 
contracts ; however, to my knowledge we w-ere never successful in getting a 
Government contract. To my knowledge there never was any joint or special 
bank account established by the Christeuson Oil Co. in either Oregon, Washing- 
ton, or any other State, as a clearing account even though the correspondence 
files suggested that this be done. To my knowledge Christenson Oil Co. had 
no other business transactions except as shown on the ledger cards which cover 
the period from February 27, 1953, to January 29, 1954. 

Neither of the Weisses ever mentioned the name of Frank M. Chapman nor 
do I know a Frank M. Chapman. 

I think the reason the business relationship ended was because Manny Weiss 
was called back East to work. Penn Products Co. business had not proven 
satisfactory. 

My understanding was that Penn Products Co. bought from other companies 
also. In the East it bought protlucts from the Shell Oil Co. or a distributor of 
Shell products. After it stopped doing business with us, one of the Weisses 
asked us to send the stencils to Continental Oil Co., Butte, Mont., attention : Mr. 
Willis Johnson, which we did on March 22, 1955. 

In regard to the two invoices, No. 57454, dated March 11, 1953, and No. 62716, 
dated June 26, 1953, relating to the sale of oil and lubricants to Pope & Talbot, 
Inc., the price charged Penn Products Co. for these items was the standard price 
that we charged all jobbers. Our consumer prices were higher. Our barrel 
price on oil to a consumer at that time was 85 cents per gallon and lubricants 
were 13 cents per pound. These consumer prices would have been the same 
for the entire period from February 1953 through January 1954. Our prices 
during this period would have been about 10 percent lower than the major oil 
companies for comparable items. We did not know what Penn Products was 
charging their customers for the oil and lubricants. It did not seem strange 
to me that practically all the sales were made to construction companies because 
the Weisses said they specialized in sales to construction companies. 

I have read the foregoing statement, consisting of three pages, and it is true 
and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 

C. Theodore Christenson. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me, .Tohn P. Colman, an investigator, U.S. 
General Accounting Office, under authority of section 297, Revised Statutes, as 
amended by section 304 and 311(e) of the Budget and Accounting Act, 1921, 
this loth day of May 1958, at Portland Oreg. 

John P. Colman, 
Investigator, U.S. General Accounting Office, Seattle, Wash. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any other union officials as salesmen 
for you ? 

Mr. Weiss. From time to time. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Wlio else did vou have ? 

Mr. Weiss. I think :Mr. Blai'r. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is his position? 

Mr. Weiss. Mr. Blair at that time represented the Carpenters in 
Philadelphia. I don't know what his official position was. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is his position at the present time in the 
Carpenters Union? 

Mr. Weiss. In Indianapolis. I believe he is an official of the Car- 
penters Union. I do not know. 

Mr, Kennedy. He is a members of the general executive board of 
the Carpenters Union ? 



16240 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Weiss. This I do not know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he receive compensation from your company? 

Mr. Weiss. Yes ; he did. 

Mr. Kennedy. As a salesman ? 

Mr. Weiss. Yes ; he did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have anybody else as a miion official selling 
oil for you ? 

Mr. Weiss. I don't recall any. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have Mr. Frank Chapman ? 

Mr. Weiss. I met Mr. Frank Chapman. I don't believe Mr. Frank 
Chapman ever received any compensation. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Frank Chapman try to sell some oil for 
you on the west coast ? 

Mr. Weiss. He may have. That was a gi-eat many years ago. 

Mr. Kennej^y. Don't you know that to be a fact? 

Mr. Weiss. I don't recall. 

Mr. Kennedy. You do not remember that at all? Wlien I talked 
to you yesterday you remembered something about it. 

Mr, Weiss. I said I remember meeting Frank Chapman when I 
was out in Seattle and established our thing there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you make an arrangement with him at that time 
that he should sell oil for you? 

Mr. Weiss. I think Mr. Johnson had spoken to him, but to my 
knowledge I don't know whether he ever sold any oil for us or not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Frank Chapman at this time was treasm'er of 
the International Union of Carpenters? 

Mr. Weiss. I don't know that. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have an affidavit, Mr. Chairman, which bears on 
Mr. Frank Chapman trying to sell oil for the Penn Oil Co. 

The Chairman. This affidavit is from Mr. Hillman Lueddemann, 
vice president and general manager, lumber division and Puget Mill 
division, vice president and Northwest manager, steamship division, 
Pope & Talbot, Inc. It is dated the 13th day of May 1958. 

It may be printed in the record at this point. Counsel may read 
excerpts from it. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is from Mr. Hillman Lueddemann, vice presi- 
dent and general manager of the lumber division of Pope & Talbot, 
Portland, Oreg. He states, in talking about Mr. Frank Chapman: 

Mr. Chapman contacted me about December 15, 1952, and introduced me 
to E. H. Weiss of Penn Products Co- Soraerville, Mass. 

That is you, is it not? 

Mr. Weiss. E. H. ? That is me. I don't recall the meeting. It 
could be E. A. I don't recall. 

Mr. TiERNEY. The affidavit goes on : 

Chapman said that Mr. Weiss wanted to break into the marlcet in this area, 
and that he had offered to help Mr. Weiss by introducing him to his (Chap- 
man's) friends in the lumber business. Chapman said, "I will tell ytni frankly 
that I am getting a commission; can you see anything wrong with that?" I 
said that as far as the commission is concerned, that is between you and Mr. 
Weiss, but if I were in your position, I would get an approval from my employer. 
He made no answer to me in regard to this matter. 

I explained that we were pretty well tied to the big oil companies on a 
reciprocal basis because they (the oil companies) shipped oil in our vessels. 
Chapman said that you don't have to give them all of your business, do you? 
I said that we don't have to give them anything unless we choose to do so. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16241 

Mr. Weiss then gave me a sales talk about his products. I called in our 
purchasing agent, B. E. Hearn, and said that all things being equal, to give them 
a small trial order. Mr. Weiss visited Mr. Hearn several times. On February 
24, 1953, he gave Weiss a small order (Penn Products Co. invoice No. 764G), 
and on June 26, 1953, he gave Weiss a second order (Penn Products invoice 
No. 8474). 

Sometime later, Mr. Chapman telephoned me and said that you are not 
doing much for my friend, Mr. Weiss. I said that we gave him two orders. 
He said that is a drop in the bucket compared to what we could give him. 

(The afSdavit referred to follows :) 

Affidavit 
countt of multnosiah, 
State of Oregon, ss: 

I, Hillman Lueddemann, vice president and general manager, lumber division 
and Puget Mill division, and vice president and Northwest manager, steamship 
division. Pope & Talbot, Inc., Portland, Greg., hereby make the following volun- 
tary statement: 

Mr. Chai)man contacted me about December 15, 1952, and introduced me to 
E. H. Weiss of Penn Products Co., Somerville, Mass. Chapman said that Mr. 
Weiss wanted to break into the market in this area, and that he had offered to 
help Mr. Weiss by introducing him to his (Chapman's) friends in the lumber 
business. Chapman said, "I will tell you frankly that I am getting a commis- 
sion: can you see anything wrong with that?" I said that as far as the com- 
mission is concerned, that is between you and Mr. Weiss, but if I were in your 
position, I would get an approval from my employer. He made no answer to me 
in regard to this matter. 

I explained that we were pretty well tied to the big oil companies on a re- 
ciprocal basis because they (the oil companies) shipped oil in our vessels. Chap- 
man said that you don't have to give them all of your business, do you? I said 
that we don't have to give them anything unless we choose to do so. 

Mr. Weiss then gave me a sales talk about his products. I called in our pur- 
chasing agent, B. E. Hearn, and said that all things being equal, to give them 
a small trial order. Mr. Weiss visited Mr. Hearn several times. On Februai-y 
24, 1953. he gave Weiss a small order (Penn Products Co. invoice No. 7646), 
and on June 26, 1953, he gave Weiss a second order (Penn Products Co. invoice 
No. 8474). 

Sometime later, Mr. Chapman telephoned me and said that you are not doing 
much for my friend, Mr. Weiss. I said that we gave him two orders. He said 
that is a drop in the bucket compared to what we could give him. Our total 
volume of oil purchases for the year 1953 for all three mills and the wood pre- 
serving plant was $175,000. Chapman's remark riled me and I explained to him 
about the oil companies which were using our vessels. We were using oil from 
the Quaker State Oil Co. which was a heavy shipper on our vessels, and we did 
not wish to discontinue our purchases from them. So I said to Chapman that 
this is all we can do for you, and I told Mr. Hearn not to give Weiss any more 
business. 

The quality of the oil received from Penn Products Co. was satisfactory. 

This was our only dealing with Mr. Weiss and Mr. Chapman on oil purchases. 

I have read the foregoing statement, consisting of two pages, and it is true 
and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 

HUXMAN LtTEDDEMANN. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me, John P. Colman, an investigator, U.S. 
General Accounting Office, under authority of section 297, Revised Statutes, as 
amended by section 304 and 311(e) of the Budget and Accounting Act, 1921, this 
13th day of May 1958, at Portland, Oreg. 

John P. Colman, 
Investigator, U.S. General Accounting Office, Seattle, Wash. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say jNIr. Chapman never received a commission ? 
Mr. Weiss. Not to my knov^ledge, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. But Mr. William Blaier did, for the sales that he 
made? 

Mr. Weiss. Yes. 



16242 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to call a witness, Mr. Chairman, show- 
ing the amounts of money that were received by Mr. Charlie Johnson 
and Mr. William Blaier from this company. 

The Chairman. You may stand aside for the present, Mr. Weiss. 
We will not need you until this afternoon. Will you check with 
counsel at the noon recess ? 

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. Prinos. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN PRINOS 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your 
present employment. 

Mr. Prinos. My name is John Prinos, and I live in New York City. 
I am an auditor with the General Accounting Office, on loan to the 
committee since April 1957. 

The Chairman. How long have you been with the General Ac- 
counting Office ? 

Mr. Prinos. Since June of 1956. 

The Chairman. That is 2^^ years ? 

Mr. Prinos. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell the committee what the total com- 
missions and expenses were that Mr. Charlie Johnson has received 
from the Mercury Oil Co., and from the Penn Products Corp? 

Mr. Prinos. Yes. Mr. Jolinson, Jr., received a total of $96,572 from 
the two companies from May of 1950 to November of 1957. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, in November of 1957, he broke off his relation- 
ship with the company ? 

Mr. Prinos. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. And that was shortly after Mr. Charlie Johnson's 
books and records were subpenaed and he was interviewed; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Prinos. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much of that was commissions and how much 
for expenses ? 

Mr. Prinos. With Penn Products Corp., if you want each com- 
pany, there was a total of $50,000 commissions. 

The Chairman. That is $50,050 as commissions ? 

Mr. Prinos. Yes, sir, and $10,095.60 in expenses. 

The Chairman. Let me get that down. What year was this ? 

Mr. Prinos. That is from 1950 to 1957. 

The Chairman. From 1950 to 1957? 

Mr. Prinos. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. It was $50,050 commission, and that 
was from Penn Products Corp. 

Mr. Prinos. Penn Products Corp., yes. 

The Chairman. And $10,095.60 as expenses? 

Mr. Prinos. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much was it from Mercury Oil ? 

Mr. Prinos. Commissions amounted to $30,180.37, and expenses 
were $6,246.03. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16243 

Mr. Kennedy. How much did Mr, O. William Blaier receive? 
Mr. Prinos. Mr. Blaier received from Mercury Oil Co., from July 

1951 to August of 1953, a total of $8,752.82 in commissions. 

The Citaikman. That is commissions? 

Mr. Prinos. Yes; and expenses were $2,610.25. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Do we find Mr. Chapman received anything? 

Mr. Prinos. No. 

Mr. IVENNEDY. That is all. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further? 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have the total gross sales of those companies 
that he received commissions on ? 

Mr. Prinos. Yes. Of the 19 companies, from 1949 to 1957, the 
gross sales amounted to $3,782,263.25. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Thank you. 

I just have one other witness and he will be relatively short. 

Mr. Martin, will you come forward, please. 

The Chairman. Will you be sworn. 

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

Mr. Martin. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES P. MARTIN 

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

Mr. Martin. My name is James P. Martin, and I reside at 5 Hill- 
crest Avenue, Larchmont, N.Y., and I am employed by the General 
Contractors Association of New York, at 341 Madison Avenue, as a 
director of labor relations. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Martin is being called not be- 
cause he is involved in this matter at all, but just to give us a back- 
ground on Mr. Charlie Johnson and the relationship of Charlie John- 
son to these companies, and the position of Charlie Johnson in the 
Carpenters Union. 

Now, you are the director of labor relations for the General Con- 
tractors Association ? 

Mr. Martin. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. The membership of the General Contractors Asso- 
ciation does heavy construction ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Martin. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is construction work on piers, dams, bridges, 
docks, and things such as that ? 

Mr. Martin. Yes, sir; and we have turned over the list of our 
membership. 

Mr. Kennedy. And everything other than the work on buildings; 
is that right? 

Mr. ]VL\RTiN. That is correct. 

Mr. I^nnedy. The employers who do work on buildings are repre- 
sented by the Building Trades Employers Association ? 

Mr. ]\Iartin. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, is the Carpenters Union of great importance 
to contractors in heavy construction work ? 



16244 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Martin. Yes ; they are. 

INIr. Kennedy. They are the piledrivers and the marine divers and 
the timbermen ? 

Mr. Martin. And include the dock builders, and the divers and 
timbermen. 

Mr. Kennedy. They are the key workers in heavy construction 
work ? 

Mr. Martin. Very much so. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, the contractors who are members of the Gen- 
eral Contractors Association elect a negotiating conmiittee; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Martin. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they conduct the negotiations for a contract? 

Mr. Martin. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then it is signed by each individual contractor? 

Mr. Martin. Unless they authorize me to sign it for them; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. The principal unions in negotiations conducted are 
the Hod Carriers and Operating Engineers and the Carpenters? 

Mr. Martin. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, for many years the Carpenters have been rep- 
resented by Mr. Charlie Johnson, Jr. ? 

Mr. Martin. Well, I forget what year it was, in 1957 he became 
president of the Carpenters District Council in New York City. 

Mr. Kennedy. He always represented local 1456; is that correct? 

Mr. Martin. Yes. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Which is the most important local of the Carpenters 
because of its jurisdiction over piledrivers? 

Mr. Martin. Primarily employed on heavy construction. 

Mr. Kennedy. As far as your group was concerned ; is that so ? 

Mr. Martin. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. So he has represented them since 1937, and he has 
been president of all of the carpenters in the New York area since 1957 
or 1956? 

Mr. Martin. I think that that is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, during the negotiations, your last negotiations 
in 1957, it was Charlie Johnson who represented the New York District 
Council of Carpenters? 

Mr. Martin. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he did the negotiating with your group ; is that 
right? 

Mr. Martin. Yes, sir; that is in the combined group, the unions 
and the heavy construction contractors and the building contractors. 

Mr. Kennedy. The building contractors were brought in during 
these negotiations ? 

Mr. Martin. The building contractors' offices had much more space 
than we have, and it was a combined meeting. 

Mr. Kennedy. The two associations were brought in for these ne- 
gotiations in 1957? 

Mr. Martin. Yes, sir. 

INIr. Kennedy. And Mr. Charlie Johnson representing the Car- 
penters Union in those negotiations? 

Mr. Martin. That is ricrht. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 16245 

Mr. Kennedy. And is it not a fact also that he was the chief 
spokesman for all of the unions that were represented in those ne- 
gotiations ? 

Mr. Martin. He was the chairman of that group and spoke for 
them, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is also president of the Concrete Alliance, is he 
not? 

Mr. Martin. Ygs, sir. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Which is the organization which represents the five 
building trades unions? 

Mr. Martin. "Well, it represented more unions than we dealt with. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to give you a list of some companies. 

The Chairman. The Chair hands you for your inspection a list of 
accounts that has already been printed in the record, and the list of 
accounts presumably secured by Mr. Johnson for the Penn Products 
Corp. or tlie Mercury Co. 

Will you examine that list of accounts for the purpose of being in- 
terrogated about it ? 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Out of that list of 19 companies, how many of them 
are members of your General Contractors Association ? 

Mr. Martin. Sixteen. 

Mr. Kennedy^. Sixteen of the nineteen ? 

Mr. Martin. No, it is 16 out of the 18. 

Mr. Kennedy'. Sixteen out of those eighteen are represented by 
your General Contractors Association ? 

Mr. Martin. Yes, sir, and they have membership in the General 
Contractors Association. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the group that j'^ou describe as having this 
relationship or having the negotiations with Charlie Johnson? 

Mr. M.\RTiN. We have a good many more than this. 

Mr. Kennedy. I understand that, but the other two companies, from 
your Ivuowledge, do they have contracts with the Carpentei-s Union, 
the two that are not members of j^our association ? 

Mr. Martin. I wouldn't be able to assure you, but I would sup- 
pose Corbetta Construction has, and he is a member of the Building 
Employers Association. The other one, I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. I do not think that we have that information. At 
least 17 out of the 18 have contracts with the Carpenters Union. 

Mr. Martin. I would assume that and I know definitely 16 do. 

Mr. Kennedy. You know 16 out of the 18 have, and you believe that 
thel7thonehas? 

Mr. Martin. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe that is all. 

The Chairman. Are there any questions ? 

All right. Thank j^ou very much. The committee will stand in re- 
cess until 2 : 80 p.m. 

(Whereupon, at 12 : 30 o'clock p.m., the committee recessed, to re- 
convene at 2 : 30 p.m., the same day. ) 



16246 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

The Chairman, The committee will be in order. 

(Members of the select committee present at the convening of the 
afternoon session were Senators McClellan and Church.) 

Call your next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. I will call Mr. Hennessy. 

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. Hennessy. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF E. W. HENNESSY, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 

JOHN J. WILSON 

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

Mr. Hennessy. My name is E. W, Hennessy. I live at 47 Carmen 
Road, Scarsdale, N.Y. My occupation is I am a district manager 
for the Shell Oil Co. This territory is all of Queens, the Borough 
of Queens in New York City, and that territory lying south of 125th 
Street in Manhattan. 

The Chairman. All right, sir. Do you have counsel ? 

Counsel, will you identify yourself ? 

Mr. Wilson. My name is John J. Wilson. I am a Washington 
lawyer, and my address is 815 15th Street NW. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have had testimony this morning, Mr. Chair- 
man, that the Penn Products and Mercury Oil Co. had acquired 
some $3.7 million worth of business through the efforts and contacts of 
Mr. Charlie Johnson, Jr. We are now going into several of the cases 
where the Penn Products Co. was able to get these contracts. 

Prior to doing so, Mr. Chairman, I would like to just ask Mr. 
Charles E. Wolfe, of the committee staff, a question, regarding the 
$3.7 million. 

The Chairman. Will you be sworn. 

You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this 
Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and noth- 
ing but the truth ? 

Mr. Wolfe. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF CHARLES E. WOLFE 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your 
present employment. 

Mr. Wolfe. My name is Charles E. Wolfe. I live in New York 
City, and I am employed as supervisory investigator in the New York 
regional oifice of the General Accounting Office. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

How long have you been with the General Accounting Office? 

Mr. Wolfe. Twenty-three years. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been working witli our 
committee ? ' 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16247 

Mr. Wolfe. About a year and a half. 

Mr. Kennedy. What percentage of all of the business acquired by 
Penn Products and Mercury Oil was this $3.7 million that Charlift 
Johnson brouglit in ? 

jVIr. Wolfe. About 40 percent. 

Mr. Kennedy. Forty percent of all of their business was brought in 
by Mr. Johnson ? 

Mr. Wolfe. Yes. 

TESTIMONY OF E. W. HENNESSY— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Hennessy, could you tell us what con- 
tacts you had with the Penn Products Co. and Mr, Edward Weiss 
and when they originated ? 

Mr. Hennessy. Yes. I was appointed the commercial manager for 
the Shell Oil Co. in the New York division in late March of 1951. 
Later that month I met Ed Weiss at the Stacy-Trent Hotel in Trenton. 
At that time we talked about the new steel plant, the Fairless works 
on the Delaware River to be constructed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you then enter into an arrangement witli Penn 
Products to supply them with gasoline, diesel oil, and lubricating 
oil? 

Mr. Hennessy. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. The lubricant you would supply at jobber prices, 
and diesel oil and the fuel oil would be at regular prices; is that 
right? Regular prices you would charge construction companies? 

Mr. Hennessy. Yes. The prices or the destination prices for de- 
livery to Morrisville were figured on the gasoline side at a discount 
over the commercial structure while the diesel fuel prices were at the 
consumer prices at destination. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, when Mr. Weiss first spoke to you about the 
situation at Morrisville in the Fairless Steel plant, what did he state 
to you about that contract ? 

Mr. Hennessy. You mean as to his capacity to deliver the business? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Hennessy. Yes; he said that he could produce or deliver the 
business, if we could get together as to prices. 

Mr. Kennedy. He said he could get the contract ? 

Mr. Hennessy. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well now, ordinarily would you have bid on this 
contract yourselves? 

Mr. Hennessy. I doubt it. I doubt it in that particular case. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that because of his statement to you ? 

Mr. Hennessy. Not necessarily, Mr. Kennedy. Of course I was 
brandnew at the time, and I doubt if I would have gone to MorrisviUe 
to solicit the business. 

Mr. Kennedy, Didn't you state to me yesterday that you would 
have ordinarily bid on a business such as this ? 

Mr, Hennessy. No, I said this to you yesterday, that we would 
have quoted the same pricing to the contractor if we had had the 
opportunity of bidding on the business. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Then the reason you didn't bid on the business 
was that Mr. Weiss told you that he already had the business? 

Mr. Hennessy. Well, yes, that is right. 



16248 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the reason you didn't bid on the business; 
was it? 

Mr. Hennessy. I think that you said something like this, "Would 
you have bid on the business if you knew that Weiss had it?" and I 
said something like this, "No, since we had opened negotiations with 
Weiss, we would not." 

Mr. Kennedy. I understand that. But the reason that you did 
not bid on this business was because of Mr. Weiss's assurances to 
you that he already had the business. 

Mr. Hennessy. I can't say that, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, Mr. Weiss came to see you regarding this 
job. Now, he told you at that time that he was in a position to 
deliver this business ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Hennessy. He did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you inquire further as to how he was going to 
be able to deliver the business ? 

JSIr. Hennessy. I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was doing the constructing work at this steel 
plant? 

Mr. Hennessy. Well, it was a joint venture, and the Walsh Con- 
struction Co. of Davenport, Iowa, along with S. J. Groves of Minne- 
apolis, Perenni & Sons of Farmington, Mass., and Slatter}^ of New 
York City. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was the Walsh Construction Co. the one primarily 
in charge? 

JNIr. Hennessy. That is my understanding. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you inquire of Mr. Weiss what contacts he had 
with the Walsh Construction Co. that would permit him to be able 
to deliver this business ? 

Mr. Hennessy. I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. After he assured you that he had the business, you 
decided not to put a bid in ? 

Mr. Hennessy. ,That is right. 

Mr. Kennp:dy. If he had not been able to assure you that he had 
the business, you would have placed a bid ? 

Mr. Hennessy. If we had been invited. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, wouldn't you ordinarily have been invited or 
are you invited on these matters ? 

Mr. Hennessy. Wei, you see, as I explained to you yesterday, my 
company had witlidrawn from the Pennsylvania market in tlie 30's, 
and we regarded Pennsylvania as sort of a "no man's land" for us, 
and we could not be competitive with refiners south of Philadelphia. 
It was only after I had my first discussion with Mr. Weiss that I 
studied the transportation rates. 

Our point of origin was in Jersey, at Sewaren, and I related my 
transportation costs to jVIorrisville against those of the South Phila- 
delphia refiners, and I found then tliat I could be competitive with 
material moving out of South Philadelphia. 

Mr, Kennedy. Ordinarily, tlien, everything being equal, you would 
have placed a bid on this kind of work, if you had not received tlie 
assurances from Mr. Phil Weiss? 

Mr. Hennessy. If we had been invited. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16249 

Mr. Kennedy, Was it Mr. Phil Weiss or Mr. Ed Weiss that gave 
you this information ? 

Mr. IIennessy. Ed Weiss. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you then enter into an arrangement with 
him for the sale of tlie oil and the petroleum ? 

Mr. Hennessy. For gasoline and diesel fuel and lubricants. 

Mr. Kennedy. If you liad made a bid on the job with the Walsh 
Construction Co., would you have quoted the same prices that you 
quoted to the Penn Products Co. 

Mr. Hennessy. I would have for gasoline and for diesel fuel. 

]Mr. Kennedy. And what would have been different; which aspect 
of it would have been different? 

Mr. Hennessy. On the lubricant side. 

Mr. Kennedy. You gave him a better price than you would have 
given the Walsh Construction Co. ? 

Mr. Hennessy. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. So that the Walsh Construction Co. could have pur- 
chased these products directly from you ? 

Mr. Hennessy. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And tliey would have received the same price that 
the Penn Products Co. had except for the lubricants ? 

Mr. Hennessy. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You would sell the lubricants to the Penn Products 
Co. at a cheaper price than you would have sold to the construction 
company ? 

Mr. Hennessy. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was because they were a jobber; is that right? 
You would have given it to them at jobbers' prices ? 

Mr. Hennessy. We sold them on a jobber structure; that is right, 

Mr. Kennedy. The other prices would have all been the same? 

Mr. Hennessy. The gasoline and the diesel fuel; that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. At what prices would you have sold the lubricants 
to the Walsh Construction Co. ? 

Mr. Hennessy. There were two products, Shell Rotella Oil and 
Golden Shell Motor Oil which were the two big items sold there, and 
if they had bought in full truckloads as did Penn Products, the prices 
there for the Rotella grade would have been 53 cents a gallon and the 
Golden Shell grade would have been 46 cents a gallon. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you inquire further into how Mr. Weiss could 
have the assurances that he would be able to get this contract with the 
Walsh Construction Co. ? 

Mr. Hennessy. I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know at that time of the comiection of 
Charlie Johnson with the Penn Products Co. ? 

INIr. Hennessy. I did not. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Didn't it interest you that somebody such as this 
company could come in and discuss this matter with you and say 
they would be able to deliver this contract? 

Mr. Hennessy. I was curious about it; yes, I was. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Did you inquire further into it? 

Mr. Hennessy. No, I didn't, in that connection. We made the 
usual checks for credit ])ni-|u)ses, and tlie credit seemed to be satisfac- 
tory, the credit status. 

36751— 50— pt. 44 4 



16250 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Does that happen vei-j^ often, that a company will 
be able to come in and say, "We are going to be able to deliver this 
contract" ? 

Mr. Henntissy. It is rather unusual. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never received even a request for a bid from 
the Walsh Construction Co. ? 

Mr. Hennessy. Well, usually, Mr. Kennedy, it works the other way 
around. We usually go out after the contractor. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Why didn't you go out after the contractor in this 
case ? 

Mr. Hennessy. Well, in this case, as — perhaps I didn't make it 
clear. We regarded that territory as an area where we wouldn't be 
competitive. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you found out after you figured these prices 
out that you could be competitive. 

Mr. Hennessy. Well, I think at that time we had opened negoti- 
ations with Mr. Weiss, and we regarded him as a customer. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. But you had given him no assurances until after 
you figured out what your bid was going to be. Why didn't you 
submit the bid directly to the Walsh Construction Co. ? _ _ 

Mr. Hennessy. Well, of course, I had opened negotiations with 
Mr. Weiss at that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. There couldn't have been very many negotiations 
because you didn't even know you would be able to do any work 
down there. You had to figure out what the price was going to be 
first. Once you found out by comparing with other companies 
that you could be competitive, why didn't you submit a bid right 
to the Walsh Construction Co. ? 

Mr. H]<:nnessy. Well, I suppose we could have gone to Walsh. 

Mr. Kennedy. It seems to me that Mr. Weiss must have said some- 
thing beyond the fact that, "We are certain we are going to get this 
contract," that you would enter into this arrangement with him with- 
out even inquiring further to find out how this man was going to be 
able to deliver the contract to this large construction program. 

Mr. Hennessy. Well, I took him at his word. He was a brand 
new contact as far as I was concerned. I was getting my pricing 
and, candidly, I was, as an individual, willing to let it go at that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know there was a union official associated 
with this company ? 

Mr. Hennessy. No, I didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you learn that subsequently ? 

Mr. Hennessy. I did. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Wlien did you learn that ? 

Mr. Hennessy. Last summer. You must remember, as far as I 
am concerned, I was removed from tliis work about 9 months later 
and went into an entirely different field for this company, so I was 
disassociated with 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not know him during that period ? 

Mr. Hennessy. I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. He, then, gave it to you in very definite and strong- 
fashion, that he would be able to deliver this contract ? 

Mr. Hennessy. Well, he assured me that he could get it. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was at least able to convince you ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16251 

Mr. Hennessy. Yes. I must say this, however, on the fuel side, 
for gasoline and diesel fuel, there was some question as to whether he 
could get the lubricants business or not, and I recall bringing an 
engineer into the jobsite and we talked to some operating employees 
of Walsh and we sold them on the quality of our product and we 
started to make deliveries. 

Mr. Kenxedy. What did you do ? You make this arrangement with 
him and then what did you do with the oil ? Did you deliver it to 
Penn Products ? 

Mr. Hexnessy. Yes. We installed large bulk storage tanks on the 
site of the works. 

Mr. Kexxedy. Did you deliver to Penn Products or did you deliver 
right to the job ? 

Mr. Hexxessy. We delivered to the jobsite. 

]Mr. Kexxedy. So that the oil went directly from your tanks to the 
tanks at Morrisville ? 

Mr. Hexxessy. That is right. 

Mr. Kexxedy. To the Walsh Construction Co. ? 

Mr. Hexxessy. That is right. 

Mr. Kexxedy. Then the only think that Penn Products handled 
was some paperwork ? 

Mr. Hexxessy. We invoiced — yes, we invoiced Penn Products. 

Mr. Kexxedy. You invoiced them and delivered it to the jobsite? 

Mr. Hexxessy. To the jobsite ; yes. 

Mr, Kexxedy. You performed all the services. They just were 
the middleman and did some paperwork ? 

Mr. Hexxessy. We delivered the product at destination ; yes. 

Mr. Kexxedy. Was it delivered in Shell tanks or Shell trucks? 

Mr. Hexxessy. No. The diesel fuel and the gasoline was delivered 
by a company, E. Brook Matlack. That was the oil transporter for 
the bulk, and the Schine's Express Co., of Trenton, delivered the 
lubricating oil. 

Mr. Kexxedy. Were the storage tanks there your storage tanks? 

Mr. Hexxessy. We installed them ; yes. 

Mr. Kexxedy. They were Shell storage tanks ? 

Mr. Hexxessy. They were ours. They were on loan. 

Mr. Kexxedy. They were marked "Shell Storage Tanks" ? 

Mr. Hexxessy. There is no identification on them. They are just 
4,000-gallon black tanks. 

Mr. Kexxedy. But they were yours ? 

Mr. Hexxessy. They were ours. 

Mr. Kexxedy. How was it arranged so far as the delivery slip ? Did 
you show that it was delivered by you people ? 

Mr. Hexxessy. Yes. As I recall the operation, and I may not be 
exactly right, but it was about like this: We had a supply of Penn 
Products delivery slips, and a copy of that delivery slip or a set of 
the slips would be signed on the jobsite, and that would show evidence 
of the delivery of the product. 

Mr, Kexxedy. So you would deliver your oil to your tanks and give 
the Walsh Construction Co. 

Mr. Hexxessy. That slip and we would get a signature from them 
and then we in turn would invoice Penn Products. 



16252 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that done on the instructions of the Penn Prod- 
ucts Co., that you use their slips? 

Mr. Hennessy. Yes ; that was. 

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

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? If not, you may stand 
aside. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like now, Mr. Chairman, to call Mr. Wolfe, 
who made a comparison of the prices, to show what Walsh Construc- 
tion Co. could have purchased this for. 

The Chairman. You have been previously sworn, Mr. Wolfe ? 

Mr. Wolfe. Yes. 

TESTIMONY OF CHARLES E. WOLEE— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Wolfe, you have made a study as to what price 
the Shell Oil Co. charged Penn Products and what Penn Products 
charged Walsh Construction Co, ? 

Mr. Wolfe. Yes ; I have. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell us what those figures reveal ^ 

Mr. Wol™. You would like the like the unit prices ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Tell us what the differential was and what the sav- 
ings to Walsh Construction Co. would have been if they had pur- 
chased it directly. 

Mr. Wolfe. Do you want totals or byproducts ? 

Mr, Kennedy, Give me a total first, 

Mr. Wolfe, On Shell products, diesel fuel, gasoline, and motor oil, 
the Walsh cost was $544,726.52, They could have purchased it directly 
from Shell at a cost of $494,871.96, In other words, thev could have 
saved $49,834.56. 

The Chairman. $49,000 what ? 

Mr. Wolfe. $49,834.56. 

The Chairman. In other words, if the contractor had bought these 
products direct from the Shell Oil Co. instead of buying it throui;]i 
Penn Products Co., they would have saved $49,834, or approximatoly 
$50,000 in round numbers ? 

Mr. Wolfe. That is correct. 

The Chairman. In other words, out of a transaction of $550,000, 
$50,000 of it was unnecessary expense ? 

Mr. Wolfe. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there another savings ? 

Mr. Wolfe. Yes. In addition, Penn Products furnished to Walsh 
other quantities of diesel fuel, gasoline, and motor oil which they 
obtained from other sources. The Walsh cost on these products was 
$101,889.47. If they had bought the products directly from Shell, 
they coi]ld have purchased them for $95,079.99. They would have 
saved $6,809.48 on these products. 

The Chairman. Why did it cost more to go through this Peun 
Products Corp. ? In other words, their profit was added to it? 

Mr. Wolfe. Because tliey marked up the prices. 

The Chairman. In other words, the contractor could have pur- 
chased it from Shell Oil at the same price that Shell Oil sold to 
Penn? 

Mr. Wolfe. In the case of diesel fuel and gasoline, Walsh could 
have purchased at the same price that Shell sold Penn. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16253 

The Chairman. Walsh is the contractor ? 

Mr. Wolfe. Yes. In the case of motor oil, they would have had 
to pay about 10 cents a gallon more than Penn paid for it. 

The Chairman. You have taken all of that into consideration? 

Mr. Wolfe. I am taking that into consideration. 

The Chairman. That is, in arriving at thes'3 figures ? 

Mr. Wolfe. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. So in order for Penn to make a profit, and this 
union leader — what is his name? — Johnson, Charlie Johnson, to make 
all the money he did out of it, tliat arrangement was made, costing 
the contractor something in excess of $56,000 ; about $57,000 in round 
numbers ? 

Mr. Wolfe. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. And all of that was done to accommodate, appar- 
ently, this labor man and let this Penn Co. make its profit. 

Mr. Wolfe. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Was there any other reason, excuse, or justifica- 
tion for a company paying out of a $G44,000 transaction nearly $60,000 
more for the product than they could get it for if they bought directly? 
What can be the justification for that ? 

Mr. Wolfe. I can think of no other justification, sir. 

The Chairman. There is no proper business propriety or efficiency 
or economy that dictates such a course, is there? 

Mr. Wolfe. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. All right. Thank you. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Murphy. 

The Chairman. Mr. Murphy, 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. MuRrHY. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN J. MURPHY, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 

MARK R HUGHES 

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

Mr. Murphy. My name is John J. Murphy. I live at 27 

The Chairman. You live where? 

Mr. Murphy. 27 Malvern Lane, Scarsdale, N. Y. 

The Chairman. "Wliat is your business or occupation ? 

Mr. Murphy. I am vice president of the Walsh Construction Co. 

The Chairman. Vice president of Walsh Construction Co. ? 

Mr. INIuRPHY. Yes. 

The Chairman. Thank you. sir. You hf vp counsel present. 

Mr. Counsel, identify yourself. 

Mr. Hughes. INIy name is Mark F. Hughes. I am a member of the 
firm of Wilkie, Farr, Gallagher, Walton & Fitzgibbon, of 15 Broad 
Street, New York City. I am a member of the New York Bar. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Murphy, how long have you been with the Walsh 
Construction Co. ? 



16254 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Murphy, Since 1940. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were the project manager for a period of time 
on the construction work that was done in this joint venture for United 
States Steel ? 

Mr. Murphy. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And involved with you were the companies men- 
tioned by Mr. Hennessy ? 

Mr. Murphy. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. But the Walsh Construction Co. was the one in 
charge ? 

Mr. Murphy. The sponsoring company. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were not the project manager originally? 

Mr. Murphy. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. The original project manager was Harry H. Dugan ? 

Mr. Murphy. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. The Walsh Construction Co., as the sponsor, was 
responsible for the purchases of all the petroleum products, as well 
as a lot of other matter? 

Mr. Murphy, Yes, sir. 

Mr, Kennedy. Penn Products was awarded that contract ; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Murphy. Yes; they were. 

Mr. Kennedy. AVho was the one that made the final decision for 
Penn Products? 

Mr. Murphy. Mr. Dugan. 

Mr. Kennedy. As the project manager? 

Mr. Murphy. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. While you were down there as project manager, did 
you know Mr. Charlie Johnson, Jr., or O. William Blaier, two Car- 
penter officials connected in any way with this Penn Products Co. ? 

Mr. Murphy. I heard through the trade, shall I say, I heard rumors 
that Mr. Charles Johnson was connected with Penn Products. I 
never Iniew a Bill Blaier until I talked to you folks in New York 
several months ago. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it common knowledge in the trade that Charlie 
Johnson was connected? 

Mr. Murphy. That he had an interest in Penn Products ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr, Chairman, there are some diary entries of Mr. 
Charlie Johnson, a diary that he kept in his office, in connection with 
the Walsli Construction Co., that I would like to have made an ex- 
hibit, or I offer it to you as a possible exhibit. 

The Chairman. Wlio can testify to it? 

Mr. Kennedy, Mr, Tiemey. 

Tlie Chairman. Mr. Tierney, you have been sworn in this hearing ? 

Mr. Tierney. I have. Senator. 

The Chairman. Remain under the same oath. Wliat do you know 
about a diary of Mr. Charles Johnson, Jr., the Carpenter official we 
have been discussing here in the course of this hearing? 

TESTIMONY OF PAUL J. TIERNEY— Resumed 

Mr. Tierney, During the course of our investigation, Mr. Charles 
Johnson, Jr., furnished us his business diary, and from an examina- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16255 

tion of the dairy we obtained those excerpts which you see there on 
that pa^je. 

The Chairman. Tliis list of excerpts were taken from the diary? 

Mr. TiERNEY. Directly from the diary. 

The Chairman. They are accurate and correct ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. They are, sir. 

The Chairman. These excerpts may be placed in the record at this 
point. They may be printed in the record at this point. 

(The excerpts referred to are as follows :) 

Entries in Diaries of Charles Johnson, Jr. 



July 27 : "Ed Weiss called. Spoke to INIr. Durkin — needs Carpenters for Downs- 

ville job." 
Aug. 25 : "Phil Weiss — home after 4 :30 — Reminder to call Mr. Durkin." 
Aug. 27 : "Phil Weiss — C. J. to call Mr. Dugan of Walsh. He is taking bids on 

Kingston job." 
Sept. 14 : "Phil Weiss — reminder re Durkin & Corbetta — call Phil this A.M. re 

seeing Durkin." 
Dec. 15 : "Ed Weiss re C. J. making appt. with Mr. Durkin on Newburgh job." 
Dec. 16 : "Ed Weiss called re making appt. with Mr. Durkin." 



Jan. 15 : ""Phil Weiss received call from Jack Murphy who received letter from 
Bernard Murray that rates are increased as of Jan. 1st. Murphy said agree- 
ment was to be for life of contract." 

Jan. 18 : "Phil Weiss called. Spoke to Jack Murphy yesterday. Letter sent out 
by Bernard Murray evidently pertains to building contractors in Newburgh." 

1956 

Jan. 13 : "Manny Weiss called, Reminder to call Mr. Durkin." 

The Chairman. Now, Mr. Counsel, you may interrogate about it. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN J. MURPHY, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
MARK F. HUGHES— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Murphy, did you contact anyone from the Penn 
Products Co. about any labor difficulties that you were having? 

Mr. Murphy. Not that I know of. 

Mr. Kennedy. I call your attention to the entry on January 15, 
1954, which states that Phil Weiss — do you know Phil Weiss ? 

Mr. Murphy. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you known Phil Weiss ? 

Mr. Murphy. I have known Phil Weiss for several years. 

Mr. Kennedy. You knew he was connected with the Penn Products 
Co.? 

Mr. Murphy. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. The entry states : 

Phil Weiss received call from Jack Murphy who received letter from Bernard 
Murray that rates are increased as of January 1. Murphy said agreement was^ 
to be for life of contract. 

This is an entry in the diary of Charles Johnson on January 15, 
1954. Could you explain to us what that entry means? 

Mr. Murphy. I don't ever remember calling Phil Weiss. I remem- 
ber calling Charles Johnson. 



16256 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you speak to Mr. Phil Weiss about a letter that 
you received from Bernard Murray? 

Mr, Murphy. I never did. 

Mr. Kennedy, "V\^io was Bernard Murray ? 

Mr. Murphy. Mr. Murray was a delegate up in Xewburgh. 

Mr. Kennedy, What union ? 

Mr. Murphy. The Carpenters Union in Newburgh. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did it mean that the rates are increased as of 
January 1? 

Mr. Murphy. We bid that job in September of 1953, and when we 
bid the job the rates for carpenters in that location was $2.75 an hour. 
When we started the job in November, Mr, Murray said that the rate 
would be $3 an hour, which we paid. 

The following March, Mr. Murray said that a new rate went in of 
$3.12. We immediately got together. There were two contractors 
on the job, Wescott, from INIassachusetts, and Mr. Aborio, from 
Poughkeepsie, who were working in Mr. Murray's district. 

We sat down and had a meeting and we all tliought we had a firm 
price when we got the $3, and we paid the $3 going in, for the dura- 
tion of the job. We were very concerned about this other raise. The 
raise was agreed to by a building group in Newburgh and we weren't 
consulted. 

I called Charlie Johnson's office. I got his girl and she said that 
Mr. Johnson was out, but he would call me back. The next day we 
had another meeting and we asked Mr. Johnson to come up and sit 
in the meeting. I think the following day he did come up and sit 
in at the meeting. 

Mr. Murray, Mr. Johnson, the three contractors and myself were 
present. After we had the meeting, it was agreed that we had to 
pay the 12 cents. 

The Chairman. Wliat is that? 

Mr. Murphy. The raise that was put in at that time we had to pay. 
Senator. In other words, instead of paying the $3 we thought we 
were all right on, we had to pay $3.12. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliy was Phil Weiss getting involved in this? 

Mr. Murphy. I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, the records show that you received a letter 
on January 9, 1954, informing you of this situation. Did you then 
call Phil Weiss to intervene and assist you? 

Mr. Murphy. I do not remember the call, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, these are taken from Mr. Johnson's diary. 

Mr. MuTJ'HY. I see they are, but I don't remember making the 
call. 

Mr. Kennedy, And here is another entry, on January 18, 1954: 

Phil Weiss called. Spoke to Jack Murphy yesterday. Letter sent out by 
Bernard Murray evidently pertains to building contractors in Newburgh. 

Wliat does that mean ? 

Mr. Murphy. The only thing it could mean would be that maybe 
his brother was on that job, and knew about it, and he had called his 
brother, but T didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. He said. 

Spoke to Jack Murphy yesterday, 

and on the other one also, he says that 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16257 

Phil Weiss received call from Jack Murphy who received letter from Bernard 
Murray, 

and we have a letter here that was sent to you from Bernard Murray, 
on January 9, 1954. 

What were you doing contacting Phil Weiss about the situation ? 

Mr. Murphy. I don't remember. 

The Chairman. Let me present this letter to you, which appears to 
be a carbon copy of the letter, and I will ask you to examine it and it 
is dated January 9, and addressed to your company, from Bernard H. 
Murray, business agent, 193 North Street, and I will ask you to ex- 
amine it and state if you recall this letter, and you can identify it. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Murphy. The letter is correct. 

The Chairman. What is that? 

Mr. Murphy. The letter is correct. 

The Chairman. Do you recall the letter now, do you ? 

Mr. Murphy. I recall the letter, yes. 

The Chairman. The letter may be made exhibit No. 63. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 63" for reference 
and will be found in the appendix on p. 16337.) 

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

The Chairman. Is there anything further? Thank you very 
much. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. The next witness is Mr. Harry Dugan. 

The Chairman. Will you be sworn. 

You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this 
Senate Select Committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and noth- 
ing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Dugan. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF HAEOLD H. DUGAN, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 

MARK F. HUGHES 

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

Mr. Dugan. Harold H. Dugan, 55 Mohigan Road, Larchmont, N.Y. 
I am a vice president of the Walsh Construction Co. 

The Chairman. All right. You have the same counsel appearing 
for you, Mr. Hughes, as appeared for Mr. INIurphy. Let the record so 
show. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Dugan, how long have you been with the Walsh 
Construction Co. ? 

^Ir. Dugan. Thirty-two years. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were with the project manager at the work done 
at the Fairless Steel Plant, United States Steel, in Morrisville, N.J.? 

Mr. Dugan. That is correct. 

;Mr. Kennedy. You were the first and initial project manager? 

Mr. Dugan. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you were succeeded by the previous witness, 
Mr. Murphy ? 

Mr. Dugan. That is richt. 



16258 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. As project manager, you had the fmal responsibility 
for the selection of the company that was going to supply petroleum 
products ? 

Mr. DuGAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. As well as many other responsibilities ? 

Mr. DuGAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were the one who selected the Penn Products 
Co.? 

Mr. DuGAN. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive any request or urging from anyone 
in the Walsh Construction Co. to select the Penn Products Co. ? 

Mr. DuGAx. I received a telephone call, if I remember correctly, 
wherein Mr. Tom Walsh suggested that all things being equal, he would 
like to see the business go to Penn Products. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlio is Mr. Walsh ? 

Mr. DuGAN. Chairman of the board. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is he still ? 

Mr. DuGAN. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he explain what the purpose or reason for that 
was? 

Mr. DuGAN. I don't recall that he did. He may have mentioned 
the Penn Products was doing a good job at Roscoe, and why change 
horses. 

Mr. Kennedy. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that we might have had 
Mr. Walsh or requested him to come down, but this is information 
that we just received today ourselves. 

Did you receive some bids from other companies ? 

Mr. DuGAN. Yes ; we had bids from as near as I can remember, four 
or five companies. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have copies of any of the bids ? 

Mr. DuGAN. Unfortunately, we don't. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't have copies of any of the bids ? 

Mr. DuGAN, I don't know what has happened to them, but we 
have tried to dig them up out of the warehouse. 

Mr. Kennedy. Unfortunately Penn Products doesn't have copies 
of any of its bids in its files either. 

Do you know if any assurances were given to the Penn Products 
Co. that they were, even before they put a bid in, that they were 
going to be the ones to receive this contract ? 

Mr. DuGAN. Not that I know of. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not give them any assurances? 

Mr. DuGAN. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. If the assurances were given, they were given by 
someone other than yourself? 

Mr. DuGAN. That is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if Penn Products was the low bidder? 

Mr. Dug AN. They were the low bidder, based on the way we evalu- 
ated the prices we had. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did you evaluate them? 

Mr. Dugan. We had a lot of unit prices, and we had to guess. 

The Chairman. I am having trouble hearing you. 

Mr. DuoAN. We had a lot of unit prices from the various suppliers, 
and we had to estimate or guess what quantities we would use, in order 
to make a tabulation to determine the low bidder. 



IMPROPER ACTRITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1G259 

Mr. Kennedy. We have had tlie testimoii}' of a prior witness from 
the Shell Oil Co., that in bidding such as this they would have been 
the low bidder on every one of the units. 

JVIr. DuGAN. Well, I listened to that testimony, and they said they 
•did not submit a bid. Had you asked me, I couldn't have told you 
-whether they did or not. I don't remember who the bidders were. 

INIr. Kennedy. Are you sure, therefore, that Penn Products was the 
low bidder? 

Mr. DuGAN. To the best of my recollection. 

Mr. Kennedy. But vou don't have any papers or anything to show 
that? 

Mr. DuGAN. No; I don't. As a matter of fact, I never saw any 
of these quotations. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was done by someone else? 

Mr. DuGAN. The purchasing agent brought me a tabulation of 
prices that he had received, and I set up the quantities to extend these 
prices to determine which was the best bid. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember what Penn Products bid on any 
•of these things ? 

Mr. DuGAN. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. The only thing that you say that you can remem- 
ber is that to the best of your recollection they were the low bidder? 

Mr. DuGAN. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. You can't remember anything else about it? 

Mr. DuGAN. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What were some of the other companies that bid 
on it? 

Mr. DuGAN. I don't remember their names. 

Mr. Kennedy. How can you remember that they were the low bid- 
der if you can't even remember one company that bid? 

Mr. DuGAN. Because I had to pick out whom to give it to. 

Mr. Kennedy. You picked it out, and you got a teleplione call from 
the head of the board of directors of the Walsh Construction Co. urging 
jou to give it to Penn Products Co. I would think there wasn't much 
more that you needed. 

Mr. DuGAN. It wasn't that kind of a direction, and he said, "All 
things being equal." 

Mr. Kennedy. W\\j would ho call at all if it wasn't some kind of 
a direction ? ^Vliy would the head of the construction company enter 
into this at all ? 

Mr. DuGAN. I wouldn't know that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know that Charlie Jolmson with whom the 
Walsh Construction Co. had a contract had an interest in this 
company ? 

]Mr. DuGAN. Only by hearsay. 

Mr. Kennedy. You understood that, though, and it was known in 
the trade ? 

Mr. DuGAN. I wouldn't say that. 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't go in and examine the books and records, 
but it was generally understood in the trade that Charlie Johnson had 
an interest in this company ? 

Mr. DuGAN. I wouldn't say that it was generally understood, but I 
would say that I had heard such a rumor. 



16260 I2V1PR0PER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, did you know why there were contracts with 
Mr. Phil Weiss of that company about labor difficulties or problems 
that you were having '^ 

Mr. DuGAN. As far as I know, there were no such things. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, that is another representative of the Walsh 
Construction Co., according to the records. He indicates that he had 
contacts with Mr. Phil Weiss, who in turn contacted Charlie Johnson 
about the labor diiSculties of the Walsh Construction Co. 

Mr. DuGAN. I believe that is the te^^timony that was brought out with 
the last witness ; is that right ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. 

Mr. DuGAN. That date was 1954, wasn't it ? 

Mr. Ke nnedy. That is correct. 

Mr. DuGAN. Well, I had left Morrisville in 1952, so at the time I was 
there I don't know of any contact ever being made. 

Mr. Kennedy. We are talking about generally, what the situation 
and the relationship between the Walsh Construction Co. and the 
Penn Products Co. was. 

Now whether there was a favor done back in 1951, it was quite a 
considerable favor because it brought $51,000 to the Penn Products 
Co., that is $51,000 that Walsh Construction Co. would not have had 
to pay otherwise for doing absolutely no work. Penn Products did no 
work for that, and there was a considerable favor. 

Then we find in 1954 that a representative of the company is con- 
tacting Mr. Pliil Weiss of the Penn Products Co. about labor 
difficulties. 

Can you explain any of that to us ? 

Mr. DuGAN. I have no explanation. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you about the testimony here. 

I understand the Walsh Construction Co. purchased in the course 
of the construction of this project about $645,000 worth of oil and 
merchandise from the Shell Oil Co. through the Penn Oil Co. ; is that 
about correct ? 

Mr. DuGAN. Well, the figure surprises me, because I checked in New 
York to see what that figure was in round numbers, and someone gave 
me $490,000. 

The Chairman. Well, it is $544,000 on one group of it, and some 
$101,000 on another. According to the testimony here, I think that 
is right. Is that from their books ? 

TESTIMONY OF CHARLES E. WOLFE— Resumed 

Mr. Wolfe. It is from the invoices of the Penn Products Co. to 
Walsh. 

The Chairman. From the invoices of Penn Products Co. to Walsh. 
In other words, Walsh paid for the amount that you have shown 
here. 

Mr. Wolfe. That is right. 

The Chairman. Now, let me ask you, on that basis according to the 
testimony here, there was $60,643 more paid for these products than 
they could have been purchased for directly from the Shell Oil Co. 

Now, can you give any explanation for that, and why any such 
excess payments were macle ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1G261 

TESTIMONY OF HAROLD H. DUGAN, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
MARK F. HUGHES— Resumed 

Mr. l)u(;.\N. From tlie testiinoi\y that 1 just heard, Shell did not 
quote us, and you are saying that we could have bought it. 

The CiiAiKMAX. I understand you to say they didn't bid, and ap- 
parently one of the reasons they did not Avas because of this arrange- 
ment. The other fellow was going to get the contract and they wanted 
to sell to him. It just seems to me on a transaction like that, and you 
folks are supposed to be businessmen — and by the way, may I ask, 
was this one of these cost-plus jobs, or fixed-fee jobs? 

Mr. DroAx. No, sir. 

The Chairman. It was a flat bid ? 

Mr. DiGAX. It was a unit price bid. 

The Cii AiRM AX. A unit price bid ? 

Mr. DuGAX. Yes, sir. 

The Chairmax. Tlien you would have certainl}" been interested, 
your company, in making a saving, would you not? 

Mr. DuGAX. Absolutely. 

The Chairmax. On all of these purchases ? 

Mr. DuGAX'. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How can you account for its being willing to pay 
some $56,000, in round numbers, above what would be its fair market 
price that you could obtain these goods for ? 

Mr. DuGAx\ In the first place, at the time we got this job, no one 
knew the magnitude of the job. The plans were not completed. The 
only way we could determine oui- oil requirements and fuel require- 
ments was to make a rouixh estimate based on an estimated job cost 
of $30 million. 

The Chaujmax. What is that ? 

Mr. DuGAN. $30 million. 

The Chairmax. That was the overall estimated cost of the job? 

Mr. Dugan. That is correct. 

The Chairman. At the time that you got it ? 

Mr. Dugan. Yes. The final overall cost was somewhere around $80 
million. 

The Chairman. Around $80 million ? 

Mr, Dugan. Yes, sir. And so we are dealing with two different sets 
of figures. 

The Chairman. I know, but how would that make any difference 
in the price of gasoline ? 

The project cost starts off to cost $30 million, and finally it costs 
$80 million. How does that affect the price of gasoline? 

Mr. Dugan. It does not affect the price of gasoline. 

The Chairman. I did not think so. If you bought more of course 
you paid for what you got, but so far as the price per gallon, it would 
not make any difference, would it? 

Mr. Dugan. Not a bit. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. Didn't it occur to you that it would be better for 
your company to go directly to the super on a matter such as this, 
rather than to go through a third party such as Penn Products, in view 
of the fact that Penn Products in turn would have to get this oil and 
gasoline from a supplier such as Shell ? 



16262 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. DuGAN. Yes, it occurred to me, but as I said, their price was 
low on our tabulation, and so that was all I cared about. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would really like to see that tabulation. 

Mr. DuGAN. I would, too. I mean that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, what we have here from the testimony of the 
witnesses is first an assurance from the representative of the company 
that they were going to receive the contract and there were assurances 
to the Shell Oil Co. ; and. No. 2, they received the contract at an excess 
of payment to them for just paperwork of some $56,000, and they re- 
ceived a contract on the urging ; No. 3, of the claim of the Board, Mr. 
Walsh ; and No. 4, it was general knowledge among all of you people 
that Charlie Johnson was connected with the Penn Products Co. 
Then afterward we find that there are contracts by officers of the 
Walsh Construction Co. with officers of the Penn Products Co., re- 
garding their labor difficulties. They in turn contacted Charlie Jolm- 
son of the Carpenters. 

Do you want to say anything about that ? 

Mr. DuGAN. I have nothing to say about it. 

Mr. EIennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Senator Church. No, Mr. Chairman, I have no questions. 

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. The next witness is Mr. Durkin. 

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. DuRKiN. I do. 

TESTIMONY OP WILLIAM A. DURKIN, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 

MAEK P. HUGHES 

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

Mr. DuRKiN. William A. Durkin, 165 Sandra Avenue, White Plains, 
N. Y.; with the Walsh Construction Co., chairman of the executive 
committee. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. You have the same counsel 
representing you ? 

Mr. DuRKiN. Yes. 

The Chairman. Let the record show that Mr. Hughes is the counsel 
for the witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been with the Walsh Construc- 
tion Co.? 

Mr. Durkin. Forty-five years. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you one of the foundei-s of the Walsh Con- 
struction Co. ? 

Mr. Durkin. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you one of the originators of the Walsh Con- 
struction Co. as it is today? Were you one of tliose who were in- 
volved in a merger back some 40 or 45 years ago ? 

Mr. Durkin. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, how did you start with the Walsh Construc- 
tion Co.? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16263 

Mr. DuRKiN. It was 47 years ago ; I started in as an employee. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is your present position with the company ? 

Mr. DuRKiN. Chairman of the executive committee. 

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

Mr. Durkin. Two or three years. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Wliat were you prior to that time ? 

Mr. Durkin. President. 

Mr. Kennedy. For how long were you president ? 

Mr. Durkin. Eight or nine years. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Durkin, do you know Mr. Ed Weiss? 

Mr. Durkin. I know the Weiss brothers, but I wouldn't know Ed 
from any of the others. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Phil Weiss and Manny Weiss, the two 
other brothers ? 

Mr. Durkin. I don't know one from the other, and I have met the 
three of them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Charlie Johnson ? 

Mr. Durkin. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KLennedy. How long have you known him ? 

Mr. DuTtKiN. Eighteen or twenty years. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know he Avas connected with the Perm Prod- 
ucts Co. ? 

Mr. Durkin. Yes. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Did he call you at various times to suggest or point 
out that the Penn Products Co. were bidding on particular jobs ? 

Mr. Durkin. If I were called, he did, and I am not definite. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you speak to Mr. Ed Weiss or Mr. Phil Weiss 
regarding any of the labor difficulties that you were having ? 

Mr. Durkin. Never. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Ed Weiss or Mr. Phil Weiss ever bring 
Mr. Charlie Johnson into your office ? 

Mr. Durkin. One brother and Johnson came in together, and I 
don't know which one of the brothers. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you talk at that time about Mr. Johnson's in- 
terest in the Penn Products Co. ? 

Mr. Durkin. I don't recall ; I may have. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't remember anything about it? 

Mr. Durkin. I recall that the two came in at one time, and men- 
tioned about getting business for the company. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know what the basis would be for Mr. 
Weiss' assurances to the Shell Oil Co. that they would be able to get 
a contract dealing with the Walsh Construction Co. down in Morris- 
ville ? 

Mr. Durkin. To my knowledge, there is no basis. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know why Mr. Walsh would call down to 
the Morrisville project manager and tell him that if all things were 
equal, to give the work to Penn Products Co. ? 

Mr. Durkin. Xo ; I have no idea why. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, the diary, and I believe you have it before you 
there, of Mr. Charlie Johnson indicates, for instance, on July 27, 
1953— 

Ed Weiss called, spoke to Mr. Durkin — needs carpenters for Downsville job. 



16264 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr, DuKKiN. I don't understand the wording of that. What does 
it mean ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is what I was going to ask you. 

Mr. DuRKiN. I don't understand what that means. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't know ? 

Mr. DuRKiN. No. 

Mr, Kennedy. Did you have any work at Downsville ? 

Mr. DuRKiN. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you need carpenters ? 

Mr. DuRKiN. At various times ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, I suppose that is what it means, that Ed 
Weiss called, and he spoke to you, and you told him you needed 
carpenters at the Downsville job. 

Mr. DuEKiN. Ed Weiss never spoke to me about the carpenters. 

Mr. Kennedy. How would he find out? This is according to his 
message to Charlie Johnson, who was head of the Carpenters. Spoke 
to Mr. Durkin — 

Needs carpenters for Downsville job. 

and it seems quite clear. 

Mr. DuKKiN. I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever talk to him about this ? 

Mr. Durkin. Never. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know where he would receive that informa- 
tion? 

Mr. Durkin. I have no idea. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know why he would be calling Mr. Charlie 
Johnson saying he spoke to you, and that you needed carpenters at 
the Downsville job ? 

Mr. Durkin. I have no idea. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then on August 25, 1953 — 

Phil Weiss, home after 4 :30, reminder to call Mr. Durkin. 

What does that mean ? 

Mr. Durkin. I don't know who is the reminder and what it is. 
I don't know. I can't understand what it is. 

Mr. Kennedy. You can't understand that, either? 

Mr. Durkin. No, and who reminded him to call me. 

Mr, Kennedy, I think it is a reminder to Charlie Johnson to call 
Mr. Durkin. Did he call you ? 

Mr. Durkin. If he did, I don't recall it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, maybe we have a little clarification in the next 
entry. Look at that one, August 27, 2 days later. 

"Phil Weiss," and then "C. J.," which stands for Charlie JohnsoUj 
to call Mr. Dugan, of Walsh, "He is taking bids on Kingston job.'' 

Mr, Durkin, We never had a job in Kingston. 

Mr, Kennedy, Did you take bids of any kind ? 

Mr. Durkin, I don't recall whether we did on the Kingston job or 
not, but we never had to my knowledge a construction job at King- 
ston. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't know about that? 

Mr. Durkin, Wliat kind of a job was it, do you know ? 

Mr, Kennedy. We are trying to get tlio information from you as 
president. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16265 

Mr. DuRKix. I am sorry. 

Mr. Kennedy. Phil Weiss, September 14 — 

iReminder re Durkin and Corbetta — call Phil this a.m. re seeing Durkin. 

Do you know what that means ? 

^Call Phil Weiss re seeing Durkin. 

Did he make appointments? Did Mr. Johnson make an appointment 
with you for you to see Phil Weiss or Ed Weiss ? 

Mr. Durkin. If I recall, at one time, about the only time that I do 
recall, it was when they came in together, and I don't know who 
made that appointment. I am pretty sure Johnson made the ap- 
ipointment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, it certainly would indicate that in the two 
entries on December 15 and December 16 — 

Ed Weiss, re C. J. making appt. with Mr. Durkin on Newburgh job. 

Then on December 16 — 
Ed Weiss called re making appt. witli Mr. Durkin. 

Mr. Durkin, I never talked to anyone on the Newburgh job, and 
that was handled by someone else. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Charlie Johnson ever call you about that? 

Mr. Durkin. Not to my knowledge, and he may have. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you deny that he called you? 

Mr. Durkin. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. That would be January 13, 1956 — 
Manny Weiss called, reminder to call Mr. Durkin. 

Do you remember that? 

Mr. Durkin. No; these are remindei*s, but I don't recall any follow- 
through on these notes that they called. 

Mr. Kennedy. You can't remember anything ? 

Mr. Durkin. Yes, I can. 

Mr. Kennedy. You can't remember anything about this? 

Mr. Durkin. Wliat is that? 

Mr. Kennedy. You can't remember anything about this? 

Mr. Durkin. No; I cannot in 1956. I can't remember whether 
■Charlie Johnson called, and I had very little contact with him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you think it was a bad business deal not to get 
this oil at a saving of $56,000 for the Walsh Construction Co. 

Mr. Durkin. Just listening to the testimony there, you are using a 
price which we didn't have, and not knowing anything about the com- 
parisons. You are using a price that we didn't have, that a fellow 
said that he would have, against a price that was presented in arriving 
at a conclusion when actually you have no price to start with. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have two factors, though, two very important 
factors: The first is that of Mr. Weiss' assurances to the Shell Oil Co. 
that he could get this contract, and then the very important one of a 
telephone call from Mr. Walsh urging that the contract be given to the 
Penn Products Co. Beyond that, that this company would liave to 
go to a large distributor such as Shell or Esso in order to buy tliis oil, 
should have been on the face of it enough evidence that the best way 
of proceeding was to purchase the oil and petroleum products directly. 
Is that right? 

36751 — 59 — pt. 44 5 



16266 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. DuRKiN. Wliat is the question ? 

The Chairman. On the face of it, it looks like good business judg- 
ment and prudence would have dictated that you would have gotten 
the product as cheaply as you could. Isn't that correct? 

Mr. DuRKiN. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Well, now, here you spent about $56,000 more than 
was necessary to get the products. To use this as an illustration, 
instead of buying it wholesale, you chose to go through a retailer to 
buy what you could have gotten, in effect, wholesale. 

I don't mean wholesale in the sense it was actually wholesale, but 
you paid a premium over what you could have bought it for by buying 
direct, a premium amounting to some $56,000. That is the way it looks. 

Mr. DuRKiN. That is the figure that you are presenting, and I don't 
know. 

The Chairman. And we cannot find the record of the bids. We 
cannot find the bids that were submitted either from your company or 
from the Penn Oil Co. 

Is that right? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

The Chairman. In other words, the records are all gone, or we can't 
find them. But on the face of it, it indicates that you paid some 
$55,000 more for the oil petroleum products that you used there than 
was necessary, and, in addition to that, w^e find you are dealing with 
a union official who is involved in this who is making a tremendous 
profit out of it, and you are dealing with him in order to get your labor 
problems settled. That is the picture. 

Is that all? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. All right. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock 
Tuesday afternoon. 

(Members of the select committee present at time of recess : Senators 
McClellan and Church.) 

(Whereupon, at 4 :15 p.m. the select committee recessed, to reconvene 
at 2 p.m., Tuesday, February 3, 1959.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1959 

U.S. Sknate, 
Select Committee on Improper Activities in the 

Labor or Management Field, 

Washington^ B.C. 

The select committee met at 10 :30 a.m., pursuant to Senate Resolu- 
tion 44, agreed to February 2, 1959, in room 3302, New Senate Office 
Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select com- 
mittee) presiding. 

Present: Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Sen- 
ator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Democrat, North Carolina; Senator Karl E. 
Mundt, Republican, Soutli Dakota. 

Also present: Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel; Paul J. Tierney, 
assistant counsel; Harold Ranstad, assistant counsel; Charles E. 
Wolfe, investigator; Jolm Prinos, investigator; Ruth Y. Watt, chief 
clerk. 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

(Members of the select coimnittee present at the convening of the 
session were Senators McClellan and Mundt. ) 

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. We are going into a new phase of the situation in- 
volving the Penn Products Co. This company was owned, at least in 
part, by Charlie Johnson's wife, Charlie Johnson being a vice presi- 
dent of tlie Carpenters, and receiving a certain percentage of the com- 
missions for all of the oil and petroleum products that he sold. 

We fomid, according to our investigation, that products were sold 
in large part to construction companies. Today we are going to dis- 
cuss the situattion mvolving the Merritt-Chapman & Scott Co., and 
the building of the tunnel in Baltimore, Md. The first witness this 
morning is ^Ir. Guckert. 

The Chairman. Will you be sworn ? 

You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this 
Senate select connnittee shall be tlie truth, the whole truth, and noth- 
ing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Guckert. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN PAUL GUCKERT, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL. 

RICHARD KERESEY 

The Chairman. Mr. Guckert, sta.te your name, your place of resi- 
dence, and your business or occupation. 

16267 



16268 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. GucKERT. My name is John Paul Guckert, and I reside at 7006 
York Road, Baltimore, Md., and I am industrial salesman for the Esso 
Standard Oil Co. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. Do you have counsel 
present '^ 

Mr. Guckert. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Counsel, identify yourself for the record. 

Mr. I^RESEY. My name is Richard Keresey, and I am associate gen- 
eral counsel of Esso Standard Oil Co. 

The Chairman. What is vour address ? 

Mr. Keresey. 15 West 51st Street, New York City. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been with the Esso Standard Oil 
Co.? 

Mr. Guckert. Approximately 46 years. 

Mr. Kj:nnedy. In May of 1956, or prior to May of 1956, had the 
Esso Co. been supplying petroleum products to Merritt-Chapman & 
Scott at the Patapsco Tunnel project at Baltimore ? 

Mr. Guckert. Well, Mr. Kemiedy, I am not certain of that date, but 
we did supply products, and if the letter says so, I will accept that as 
being correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, the Patapsco Tunnel project was a tunnel 
underneath Baltimore ? 

Mr. Guckert. Underneath the harbor ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Approximately May of 1956 were you concerned with 
the fact that the volume of petroleum sales to the Merritt-Chapman & 
Scott Co. had fallen off ? 

Mr. Guckert. Yes, sir; I was. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you then call on an official of the Merritt- 
Chapman & Scott Co. to determine whv the sale of petroleum products 
had fallen off? 

Mr. Guckert. Well, sir, I called on their purchasing agent. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was his name ? 

Mr. Guckert. Mr. Lundberg. 

Mr. Kennedy. A. B. Lundberg, L-u-n-d-b-e-r-g; is that correct ? 

Mr. Guckert. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. You spell your name G-u-c-k-e-r-t ? 

Mr. Guckert. Yes ; that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, would you relate to the committee what your 
convereation was with Mr. Lundberg? 

Mr. Guckert. Well, sir, I called on him a number of times and I 
attempted to ascertain why our volume had fallen off, without any 
success, and then my company, by letter, asked me if I would so down 
and give them a detailed report. You have my report dated June 1 of 
my conversation with Mr. Ivundberg. 

The Chairman. T hand you here a photostatic copy of a document 
and ask you to examine it. It appears to be dated June 1, 1956, and 
it is on interoffice correspondence stationery. 

Mr. Guc'kekt. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. I wish you would examine it and state if you iden- 
tify it. 

Mr. Guckert. Yes, sir, that is my letter. I have a copy of it here. 

The Chairman. Do you have a copy of it ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16269 

Mr. GucKERT. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman, You identify this that I present to you as a copy of 
your report ? 

Mr. GucKERT. Yes, sir, that is a copy. 

The Chairman. It may be made exhibit No. 64. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 64" for reference 
and may be found in the tiles of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, this also contains a memorandum dated June 
1 that you wrote based on your conversation with Mr. Lundberg ? 

Mr. GucKEKT. Yes, sir, that is right. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. And the first two paragraphs of the memorandum 
indicate the problem that you had been encountering, and the fact that 
the sales to the Merritt-Chapman & Scott Co. had fallen off; is that 
right ? 

Mr. GucKERT. That is right. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Then you relate your conversation with Mr. Lund- 
])erg, and you state here : 

I have talked to the purchasing agent, Mr. A. B. Lundberg, ^from time to time 
regarding the possibility of our getting a portion of the motor oil and grease, and 
so on. To use Mr. Lundberg's words, he said, "I have nothing to do with the 
purchasing of oils, grease, or any petroleum products, and it is a hotbed of poli- 
tics. The whole thing stinks." 

He further advised that he receives all of his orders from his New York oflSce, 
and he cannot understand why they buy from us for a while, and then tl&e prod- 
ucts come in apparently from Penn Products, and then from United Oil, and then 
back again to Penn Products. He said it is all a mystery to him. This is the 
story and it is just one of those things that we have been unable to control. 

Did he make that statement to you ? 

Mr. GucKERT. Yes, sir, he did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ask him anything further about why this 
whole thing stinks ? 

Mr. GucKERT. Mr. Kennedy, I really don't remember. That has 
been 4 years ago, that my conversation was, but at the time I wrote 
this letter that is what he told me, exactly what I said here, as I 
remember it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you remember anything else about the conver- 
sation ? 

Mr. GucKERT. No, sir, I cannot. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he give you any further explanation as to what 
the situation was regarding the purchasing of oil by Merritt-Chapman 
& Scott? 

Mr. GucKERT. Not that I remember, sir. 

Senator Mundt. "What ditl you tliiuk ihal he meant by being a 
hotbed of politics? Do you think he was talking about partisan 
politics, or State politics, or national politics, or some kind of internal 
favoritism being displayed to one group as against another, that type 
of politics? 

Mr. GrcKEirr. Honestly, sir. as I mentioned, 4 years ago, it would 
be very difficult for me to attempt to remember exactly what he meant. 
I really don't know. T think if I had had an opinion at that time, 
I believe I would have put it in my letter. 

Senator Mundt. If you were in that much doubt 

Mr. GucKERT. I beg your pardon ? 



16270 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. If you were in that big a doubt, you probably 
asked him what he meant. 

Mr. GucKEKT. I really don't remember, sir, whether I did or not. 

Senator Mundt. If you were in a complete stage of puzzlement as 
to what he meant, I would think the logical thing would have been to 
try to clarify it in your mind by asking him what he meant. 

Mr. GucKERT. I would agree that that would be the logical thing, 
sir, but to answer you honestly and truthfully, I really don't 
remember. 

Senator Mundt. You don't know whether you asked him any 
further questions or not ? 

Mr. GucKERT. No, sir ; I do not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know at that time of Charlie Johnson's 
connection with the Penn Products Co ? 

Mr. GucKERT. No, sir ; I didn't hear of Charlie Johnson's connection 
with it until I read it in the paper last Saturday in Baltimore, and I 
think it was in the Baltimore Sun. Excuse me, sir, I heard it in 
New York the week before that, a man named Johnson. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you hear anything during this period of time 
that there was a union official connected with this company? 

Mr. GucKERT. No, sir ; I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have here an affidavit from Mr. Lundberg. 

The Chairman. Just one moment, Mr. Guckert. I have an affidavit 
here that I will order printed in the record at this point. It is from 
Mr. Albert B. Lundberg, and this is the pertinent part of it. He says : 

To the best of my knowledge and belief, I never at any time complained, nor 
have I heard anyone else complain, to any individual, or representative of a 
major oil company concerning the company's procurement policy regarding 
petroleum products used on the Patapsco project. 

To the best of my recollection, I never made the remark, nor have I heard it 
said, that the situation regarding oil "stinks" — or that it was a "hotbed of 
politics." 

This affidavit was exec'uted on the 28th of January 1959. Do you 
wish to make any further comment about it? 
Mr. Guckert. No, sir ; none. 
The Chairman. You state it was made? 
Mr. Guckert, Yes, sir; that is right. 
The Chairman. All right. Proceed. 
(The affidavit referred to follows:) 

Affidavit 
State of Arizona, 
City of Page, County of Coconino, ss: 

Albert B. Lundberg, being duly sworn, deposes and says : 

That I am presently employed by Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. as a field 
purchasing agent on its Glen Canyon Dam and powerplant project, at Page, Ariz. 

That prior to this assignment I was employed on its Patapsco Tunnel project, 
Baltimore, Md., also in the capacity of field purchasing agent. 

That while I was so employed at Patapsco, I had nothing to do with the 
issuance of the original i)urchase orders for the delivery of petroleum products 
at the job. This procurement function was performed entirely in the New York 
office of the company. I did however, make isolated purchases from time to time 
for the immediate needs of the project. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 1G271 

To the best of my knowledge and belief, I never at any time complained, nor 
have I heard anyone else complain, to any individual, or representative of a 
major oil company concerninj;; the company's procurement policy regarding 
petroleum products used on the Patapsco project. 

To the best of my recollection, I never made the remark, nor have I heard it 
said, that the situation regarding oil "stinks" — or that it was a "hotbed of 
politics." 

[seal] (Signed) Albert B. Lundbekq. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2Sth day of January 1959. 

(Signed) Ruth L. Lundblade, 

Notary Public in and for the County of Coconino, State of Arizona. 
My commission expires March 21, 1962. 

Mr. Keresey. There is another letter with that memorandum, and 
was that identified? 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe the letter and the memorandum were 
identified. 

The Chairman. I understand the letter and memorandum were 
identified, and they are made exhibit No. 64. That is both the letter 
and memorandum. 

Mr. Keresey. Mr. Guckert didn't have the letter there, Senator, and 
he was referring I am sure just to the memorandum. 

The CHAiR:\rAN. He does not identify the letter. 

Come around again, Mr. Guckert. 

\^Tiat were you identifying when I held up the document to you, the 
memorandum or the letter or both ? 

Mr. Guckert. My letter of June 1, sir. 

The Chairman. What is that? 

Mr. Guckert. My letter to my company dated June 1. It is a 
memorandum. 

The Chairman. That is all ? 

Mr. Guckert. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The letter attached to it that I have here then is 
not a part of the exhibit 64. Exhibit 64 is a 2-page document. 

Mr. Guckert. That is not my letter. 

The Chairman. Only the memorandum will be made the exhibit. 

Mr. Kennedy. I might explain about the situation involving Mr. 
Lundberg. We would have ordinarily had him as a witness, but he is 
now working out on a dam site some 300 miles from the nearest town, 
and our investigator finally located him and talked to him on the tele- 
phone, and he denied having this conversation. 

As long as he was going to deny the conversation, we arranged for 
him, rather than to come in, to put it in the form of an affidavit. 

The Chairman. He prepared the affidavit himself and sent it to 
you? 

Mr, Kennedy. Or it was done through the company. 

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. C. E. Bourke. 

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. liouKKE. I do. 



16272 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

TESTIMONY OF CLYDE E. BOURKE, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL,. 

RICHARD KERESEY 

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

Mr. BouRKE. My name is Clyde Bou.rke, and my residence is 61 
Broom Trails, Vernon Park, Md. My occupation at the time we are 
talking about, or at the time we are speaking of, in 1955, 1956, my 
title was bulk sales manager for Esso Standard Oil Co., of the Dela- 
ware-Maryland-District of Columbia Division. 

The Chairman. What is your present occupation ? 

Mr. BouRKE. The same thing, except that now there is another 
change in the title, called reseller manager, which covers the same job, 
only a change in title. 

The Chairman. Your duties are substantially the same as they 
were then ? 

Mr. BouRKE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. You are just given a different title ? 

Mr. BouRKE. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You have counsel, the same counsel as the previous 
witness. The same counsel appears for this witness as for the pre- 
ceding witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, with the next few witnesses we are going to in- 
quire into the situation as it was described, at least according to Mr. 
Guckert's testimony, as it was described to him by Mr. Lundberg. 

Mr. Bourke, on April 13, 1955, did My. Emanuel Weiss call upon 
you? 

Mr. Bourke. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you relate to the committee what he said to 
you at that time? 

Mr. Bourke. I could read it from a copy of the report which I 
have in front of me, to be more exact. 

T talked to Mr. Weiss and I questioned him as to the fact that he said 
Penn Products would control the petroleum requirements of the tun- 
nel job at the Merritt- Chapman & Scott at the Baltimore Harbor 
Tunnel. 

Mr. Kennedy. He told you when he visited you that his company 
was the one who was going to receive the contract ? 

Mr. Bourke. Yes, sir; and he told me the volume of the gasoline 
and diesel, and he told me that, or this memo says, they have competi- 
tive prices and things of that nature, yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was Emanuel Weiss, or who did you understand 
him to be at that time ? 

Mr. Bourke. Who was he? He said he represented the Penn 
Products Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. And what did he want from you ? He said his com- 
pany was going to obtain or get the contract for the supplying of the 
oil and petroleum products on the Patapsco Tunnel job, which was 
being done or handled by Merritt- Chapman & Scott Co. What did 
he say he wanted from your company ? 

Mr. Bourke. He wanted to know if we would sell him as a bulk 
plant reseller, as a reseller as the term is called, a man who can buy 
it and resell it, and he also quoted me competitive prices that he said 
he had secured from competition. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16273 

He said several other things about wanting the billing done in a 
•certain manner on his billhead. 

Mr. Kenxedt. What did he say about that ? 

Mr. BouRKE. He said he wanted us to use his delivery ticket and 
make a delivery to the Perm Products on the job and he said he would 
supply those books. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. That you would make the deliveries, and he would 
give you the delivery ticket to use with your deliveries ? 

Mr. P>oriavE. Yes; and that our delivery ticket, if any, should not 
show any prices or anything else on the ticket. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ask him how he would be able to deliver 
this rather large contract ? 

Mr. BouRKE. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. How he would be able to procure it ? 

Mr. BouRKE. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did he say ? 

Mr. BouRKE. He said that he would be able to procure it. He didn't 
exactly go into too much detail. He indicated something about the 
machinery, that certain contractors might need over and above the 
amount they might have for a job, and that he would be leasing such 
equipment to them, or had such equipment to lease or controlled such 
equipment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Prior to bids being received by the Merritt-Chap- 
man & Scott, prior to the time that they were analyzed and it was 
determined who was the low bidder, did it strike you as strange or 
peculiar that he was going to be able to obtain this contract or state 
that he was able to obtain the contract ? 

Mr. BouKKE. It struck me as funny or strange that he could. I 
asked him how, and that was the answer I got. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you go into it in any further detail ? 

Mr. Bourke. I didn't think it was that strange or peculiar that 
I would go into it any more than to ask him a question and I took 
his answer as he gave it to me. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have a memo based on that conversation of April 
13. 

Mr. Bourke. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could we have that made an exhibit, Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. I hand you here a photostatic copy of what pur- 
ports to be a memorandum addressed to IVIr. C. A. Xewland. It 
appears to have been signed by vou, Mr. C. E. Bourke. It is dated 
April 13, 1955. 

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

( The document was handed to tlie Avitness. ) 

^Ir. Bourke. I do. 

The Ciiair:max. Is that a photostatic copy of the memorandum that 
you prepared and issued at that time ? 

Mr. Bourke. That is, sir. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 65. 

(The memorandum referred to %vas marked "Exhibit No. 65'" for 
reference and may be found in the tiles of the select committee.) 

The CiiAiRZMAN. Let me ask you, Mr. Bourke, is this supplying of 
gasoline or petroleum products for a project or operation of this size 
ordinarily accommodated or taken care of by resale agents, or do they 



16274 IMPROPER ACTivrnES m the labor field 

usually make this contract and procure their supply directly from the 
producers of oil ? In other words, on a job that size, I am thinking in 
terms that you ought to be able to get your products at pretty well 
wholesale prices directly from the producer. 

Mr. BouRKE. It is done both ways, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. I do not know. I am asking. In other words, 
what is there, if anything, strange about this transaction that Penn 
Oil Co. could get your product when they could have gotten them 
directly from you ? 

Mr. BoTTRKE. In a lot of instances the contractor makes his own 
deal with his petroleum supplier. In some instances the reseller buys 
from us and sells to such contractor, due to the fact that there are 
certain delivery problems, such as the major oil company might op- 
erate a very large truck that might not be able to get over certain 
newly constructed roads, and things of that nature, whereas a smaller 
truck might. 

Certain resellers have smaller equipment than a major oil company. 
Therefore, some of it is done through a reseller. But most all con- 
tractors have some connection with a major oil company. A major 
oil company salesman calls on him. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Senator Mundt. Are those sales usually made by competitive bids 
or are they done by private negotiations ? 

Mr. BouRKE. Both ways, sir. 

Senator Mundt. You say they usually have a connection of some 
kind with the major oil companies. 

Mr. BouRKE. They might have a preference. They might know 
their products better, or things of that nature. They can buy it from 
■whom they wish. 

Senator Mundt. They might have prevailing agreement that if they 
buy their oil from a major oil company they get it at a certain discount 
or certain prices ? 

Mr. BouRKE. Yes. They could have either or none. 

Mr. Kennedy. On April 14 you had a further conversation with 
Mr. Weiss ? 

Mr. Bourke. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you also wrote a memorandum based on that 
conversation ? 

Mr. BouRKE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did he relate to you ? What did he tell you 
and ask of you at that time ? 

Mr. Bourke. That we give him a quotation to meet competitive 
offers that he had, and that we do certain things in reference to billing 
the diesel fuel; that we should deliver No. 2, for example, and bill 
it as a diesel fuel. No. 2 fuel oil, a heating oil. 

Mr. Kennedy. And bill Merritt-Chapman & Scott as No. 2 diesel 
oil? 

Mr. BouRKE. Not Merritt-Chapman & Scott, sir. Penn Products. 

Mr. Kennedy. That you should deliver fuel oil to Merritt-Chap- 
man & Scott and bill as No. 2 diesel oil ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Bourke. That was his request. One moment. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Bourke. Deliver on the job of the tunnel job, but bill Penn 
Products. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16275 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Although you delivered fuel oil, you would bill it 
as diesel oil ? 

Mr. BouKKE. That was the request. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was the request ? 

Mr. BouRKE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the differential in price between fuel oil 
and diesel oil ^ 

Mr. BouRKE. It was at that time, and had been for quite some 
period of marketing in the oil industry', about four-tenths of a cent 
a ffiiUon higher for the diesel. 

Mr. Kennedy. It would appear, then, on the face of it, tliat Penn 
Products in this method was attempting to sell a cheaper brand of 
oil as a more expensive oil ? 

Mr. Boukke. Mr. Kennedy, I can't answer what it would appear 
to them, but I would say that Esso's method of marketing is that 
we have a separate product for diesel fuel, as a diesel fuel, than we 
do as an ordinary furnace heating oil. 

What he understood or what other major oil companies do, I can- 
not answer. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you give us any other explanation other than 
the fact that they were attempting to make an extra profit by chang- 
ing the delivery slips on the kind of oil that was being delivered? 

Mr. BouRKE. I couldn't make any other explanation. That was 
his request. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you agree to label this fuel oil as diesel oil, or 
diesel oil as fuel oil ? 

Mr. BouRKE. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not? 

Mr. BouRKE. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you turn him down right at that time? 

Mr. BouRKE. No, sir. We discussed it with him and discussed it 
with my 

Mr. Kennedy. "Why didn't you turn him down right at that time? 

Mr. BouRKE. Why did I? 

Mr. Kennedy. Why didn't you ? 

Mr. Bourke. "Wliy did I not ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Bourke. I wanted to discuss it with my management, tell them 
of the competitive quotations and discuss what I knew, after my 
conversation with him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you feel that was an improper suggestion ? 

Mr. Bourke. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why didn't you turn him down ? 

Mr. Bourke. I wanted to acquaint my management with it and 
discuss it with them. 

Senator Mundt. Was that contact that you had with Mr. Weiss on 
April 13, 1955, your first introduction to Mr. Weiss? Was that the 
first time you had ever met him ? 

Mr. Bourke. Yes, sir. I received a call from my Boston office that 
indicated he was going to call on me. That was my first meeting 
with him, on the 13th. 

Senator Mundt. Was it also the first business you had had with 
the Penn Products Co. ? 



16276 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. BouRKE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. I notice here in this memorandum dated April 14, 
the second paragraph, you say : 

In connection with your billing Penn Products with No. 2 diesel (which we 
will fill with No. 2 heating oil) do we want to have a written understanding 
with Penn Products that this is a satisfactory arrangement so that at some 
future date they cannot complain to us that we billed them with diesel and did 
did not supply a diesel product? 

Did I read that correctly ? 

Mr. BouRKE. I think you did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then it states further in the fifth paragraph : 

It was further requested that all products delivered be signed for on the Penn 
Products Co.'s delivery tickets and no price shown on any ticket left on the job. 
These delivery ticket books to be supplied by the Penn Products Co. The only 
prices involved will be between Esso and Penn Products Co. 

Had you talked to your superiors about this situation ? 

Mr. BouRKE. Did I ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. BouRKE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you talk to Mr. 

Mr. BouRKE. I made that memorandum out and passed it in and 
talked to them ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I hand you here another memorandum which ap- 
pears to be from you, addressed to Mr. J. H. MacLeod, dated April 
14, 1955, and ask you to examine it and state if you identify it. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

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

Mr. BoTjRKE. I identify it, sir. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. G6. 

(The memorandum referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 06'' for 
reference and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. Is that the one about which you have been inter- 
rogated by counsel ? 

Mr. BouRKE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. So at least as of this time you were contemplating 
going in and making this contract with the Penn Products Co. for the 
supplying of the oil for the Merritt-Chapman & Scott work I 

Mr. Bourke. We were discussing it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were contemplating entering into a contract to 
thatefi'ect? 

Mr. Bourke. We were discussing it from that angle, I would say. 
I wouldn't say any more than that. I wouldn't say we were about to 
do it. We were discussing it. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you have the situation, first, of Weiss coming in 
and saying he was associated with the Penn Products Co. nnd they 
were going to be able to get this veiy large contract. 

The second situation you have is where Mr, Weiss suggests that 
although fuel oil should be delivered on the job, that the bill should 
be set up as if diesel oil had been delivered. That is correct? He 
made that suggestion, that that is the way they wanted it handled? 

Mr. Bourke. That is where the suggestion came from. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the third idea that Mr. Weiss had was that there 
should be no delivery tickets, or that Penn Products delivery tickets 
should be used, rather than the Esso delivery tickets ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16277 

Mr. BoFRKE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. AVe liave a nieinorandnm of April 20. AVas that also 
prepared by you ? That is, in roiiiiection with this matter? 

Mr. Boi UKE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that indicates that you were about to enter into 
this contract ; does it not, with Mr. AVeiss? 

Mr. BoiKKE. 1 don't believe that it does, Mv. Kennedy, 

The Chairman. Just a moment. You identify this memorandum of 
April 20 ; do you, sijjned by yourself ? 

^Ir. lioi KKE. I hav'en't seen it, sir. 

(Tlie document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. BouRKE. Yes, sir: 1 identify it. 

The Chairman. That may be nuide exhibit Xo. 07. 

(The memorandum referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 67" for 
refei-ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 16838.) 

Mr. Kennedy. This is a memorandum dated April 20, Baltimore, 
Md. It is from Mr. Bourke, and it reads : 

In a discussion with Sir. Emauuel Weiss last night from my home, he promised 
to mail us at once a letter for our files stating the competition which we are 
experiencing in securing his business. He further stated that he was mailing us 
some of his delivery books for use when making deliveries to the Merritt-Chapman 
& Scott organization. Mr. Weiss indicated that the tunnel job at Baltimore was 
probably going to need some petroleum products very soon as the ribbon-cutting 
program was scheduled for Thursday, April 21. It was again requested by Mr. 
Weiss that when making deliveries to Merritt-Chapman & Scott we show no 
price on the delivery ticket, and that if we desire we can secure a signature on 
our own delivery ticket forms to be retained in our files, with no copy left with 
the customer when we make a delivery. 

Mr. Weiss further agreed that we should put the wording on his delivery 
tickets to the customer "No. 2 diesel," whereas, our delivery tickets could say 
"No. 2 fuel." Mr. Weiss said that if he received our letter on the confirmation 
of the quotation by Monday, it would be satisfactory to him. 

Doesn't that memorandum, particularly the first paragraph, indicate 
very clearly that you were about to enter into a contract with Mr. 
AA^eiss on the basis of his request ? 

Mr. Bourke. AA^e w^ere discussine; the business and the contract. 

Mr. Kennedy. AVell, it states here that he was making arrange- 
ments to send you the tickets, to send you the delivery tickets. Cer- 
tainly it had gone beyond the discussion stage as of that time, 

Mr. Bourke. The last paragraph covers it, if we would confirm any 
discussion. But we hadn't gotten that far along, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you state here — 

Mr. Weiss further agreed that we should put the wording on his delivery 
tickets to the customer "No. 2 diesel," whereas, our delivery tickets conld say 
"No. 2 fuel." 

So you were still contemplating misbranding the oil ? 

Mr. Bourke. AVe never contemplated it at all. I wrote that memo- 
randum, but it is a little ambiguous. It isn't as it indicates that it 
was a foregone conclusion, that we were going to deal with him and 
deal with him under that basis. This was a request from Mr. AAT'eiss. 

Mr. Kennedy. You w^ould say, certainly, that the memorandun^ 
indicates that you were about to deal with him on that basis? 

Mr. Box RKE. If it did, it was an error of my wording, my phi-ase- 
ologj\ It wasn't in the back of my mind to say that we were going 
to do business with him at that time. It indicates that the wnj it is 



16278 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

worded. But it was Mr. Weiss' request and I accepted his request 
■ and passed it along. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why hadn't you turned it down by this time, you and 
your superiors ? 

Mr. BouRKE. I hadn't had an opportunity to go into all of the de- 
tails with him, I suppose, hadn't come to any conclusion. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would think this would have been a rather shocking 
■suggestion to a large oil company, that you would have, certainly in 
a period of a week, turned this kind of a suggestion down flatly. Why 
liadn't that been done ? 

Mr. BouRKE. We were discussing the matter with him. We wanted 
business. There are a lot of things that are surprising in the oil 
business, sir. 

The Chairman. I didn't quite get that. 

Mr. BouRKE. I said there were a lot of strange things approached 
in business at times, but this one, this request, we were discussing, and 
attempting to secure business. We wanted business. 

The Chairman. Was this a kind of a strange arrangement here 
leading up to securing this business ? 

Mr. BouRKE. It was a strange request to some extent; yes. 

The Chairman. The thing on the face of it — well, let me see. I 
understand that diesel oil is higher than No. 2 fuel — or is it vice versa ? 

Mr. BouRKE. In our method of marketing, we sell it as a higher 
priced product. We make it differently and we stock it differently. 
But other oil companies 

The Chairman, Well, j-ou say in tliis memorandum to your supe- 
rior, I assume, that "Mr. Weiss further agreed," as if you made the 
proposal to him, that you secured his agreement. That is what this 
indicates, 

Mr. BouRKE. It does indicate that, Mr. Chairman, but it isn't- 

The Chairman. This reads further agreed, as if you had secured an 
agreement from him — 

that we should put the wording on his delivery ticket to the customer "Xn. 2 
diesel," whereas, our delivery ticket could say "No. 2 fuel." 

What does that mean? That you were going to supply a cheaper 
fuel and bill for a higher priced fuel ? Is that correct ? 

Mr. BouRKE. Mr, Chairman, it did not indicate the we were going 
to do that. 

The Chairman, That is what the proposal means. 

Mr, BouRKE. I wrote the wording. Two days later, the next memo- 
randum will show that I turned the proposition that we had discussed 
down flatly. 

The Chairman. Maybe so. 

Mr. Boi'RKE. That is the next memorandum coming up. 

The Chairman. But as of this moment, the proposal yoti were con- 
sidering and the agreement tliat Mr. Weiss liad reached with you was 
that you would handle it in this way, that you would sell and deliver 
a cheaper fuel and bill for a higher priced fuel; is that correct? 

Mr. BouRKE. Mr. Chairman, the request to me was that I was to 
take that request back to my management for approval. Two days 
later I canceled and told him we could not go along with that request. 
But this was a request from him, not an approval. I told him I would 
take it up with my management. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16279 

The Chairman. Your wording- 



Mr, BouRKE. My wording is a little ambiguous. That is my fault. 
I agreed to accept his reconnnendation and take it to my people. 

The Chairman, In other words, up to that moment, that was the 
pending proposition, tliat you would do it this way. 
Mr. JBourke. Dehnitely. 

The Chairman. And tiie implications were that you were submit- 
ting it to your superiors on the basis of their approval that you would 
do it this way. 

Mr. BouRKE. That is correct, sir, and my wording, although I made 
it, it was a play on words on my part which was incorrect. 

The Chairman. In other words, you were flirting with a proposed 
fraud with somebody at that moment; were you not? 

Mr. BouBKE. I had a request as stated, sir. 

The CHAIR3IAN. It would have been a fraud, wouldn't it, to sell 
a cheaper product and bill for a higher cost? Wouldn't that be a 
fraud on somebody ? 

Mr. BouRKE. I wouldn't know what was a definition of a good 
fraud, but we didn't agree to do it. 

The Chairman. A\[ right. I am not saying you did it. You say 
you didn't agree to it, and probably the proof will show that. But at 
that moment, that was what was involved, a conspiracy to commit a 
fraud in that you were going to deliver a cheaper product and bill 
the buyer for a higher priced product, 

Mr. BouRKE. It was a request to do that. 

The Chairman, That was a matter that was under consideration? 

Mr, BouRKE, That was a request. 

The Chairman. Had it been consummated, had it been carried 
out, it would have constituted a fraud on somebody. 

Mr. BouRKE, A misrepresentation of a product. 

The Chairman. Well, that amounts to fraud, doesn't it ? 

Mr. BouRKE. I suppose you could call it that. 

The Chair]man. Have you got a better word for it ? 

Mr, BouRKE, No. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Senator ER^^N. I suggest, Mr, Chairman, if the word "moral" can 
be used in connection with such matters, it would have constituted 
moral thievery. 

The Chairman. They were considering it. There is no question but 
that you were considering it at the moment, but you say you turned it 
down, 

Mr, Bourke, I was discussing it ; yes. 

The Chairman. But at the moment, whether that proposition came 
from your company or came from Weiss to your company, there was 
involved in it a fraud that would have been consummated had this 
proposal been agreed to and carried out. 

Do you agree with that ? 

Mr, Bourke, A misrepresentation of product ; yes, sir. But the 
definition on the play of words, I would rather not 

The Chairman. Just a moment, 

Mr. Bourke. A misrepresentation. 

The Chairman. Let's put it this simply: If you bill a man for 
100 gallons of gasoline and you only deliver 50 to him, you have com- 
mitted a fraud on him, haven't you ? 



1628G IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. BouRKE. I would call that a fraud, yes, sir, if i aciiially 
did. 

The Chairman. If you sell him an article where the market value 
is one price and you list it as such, and then you bill him for a higher 
priced article, isn't that a fraud? What is the difference? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. BouRKE. We will call it that. 

The Chairman. There is no difference, is there? One is quantity 
and the other is quality. You are overcharging for either. 

You don't want to answer it. All right ; proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. I might also point out, Mr. Chairman, that this 
proposition was first made on April 13. 

The Chairman. He says he turned it down. Let's proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have a telegram here of April 21. 

The Chairman. Did you send Mr. Weiss a telegram on April 21 ? 
I present you wliat ]>urports to be a ])hotostatic co})y of the same and 
ask you to examine it and state if you identify it. 

( The document was handed to the witness. ) 

Mr. BouRKE. I do. 

The Chairman. It maj^ be made exhibit No. 68. 

(The telegram referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 68" for refer- 
ence and wnll be found in the appendix on p. 16339.) 

The Chairman. You may refer to the telegram. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is to Mr. E. A. Weiss, dated April 21, Esso Stand- 
ard Oil Co. It is signed by Mr. Bourke. It reads : 

Imperative that you contact me as soon as possible. If necessary call me 
home, Severna Park 440. 

C. E. BOUKKE. 

What was the reason for sending that telegram to him ? 

Mr. Botjrke. Because I tried to locate him at his hotel and was un- 
able to locate him, and I wanted to have that telegram there by the 
time he came back to his hotel. 

Mr. Kennedy. What w^as the emergency that had come up ? 

Mr. BouRKE. He indicated that he wanted some answer from us 
very soon, and that is why I wanted to get in touch with him right 
away. 

Mr. Kennedy. There wasn't any contract that had already been 
made? 

Mr. Bourke. As stated in the previous memorandum, the need for 
petroleum products on the job was very, very soon, from the first time 
I talked to him, that the ribbon had been cut. 

Mr. Kennedy. It states here, on your earlier memorandum of 
April 20, that— 

Mr. Weiss said if he received his letter of confirmation of quotation by Mon- 
day, it would be satisfactory to him. 

So you had a few days, certainly, to make an arrangement. Wliat 
was tho emergency that came up? 

Mr. BoiruKE. To give him his answer as soon as I could. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it during this period of time that you learned 
there was a union oflicial that was connected with this company? 

Mr. Bourke. I never exactly heard any information of that kind 
about a union oflicial. I heard some vague rumor about a labor con- 
nection in some way, but not in that exact wording, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16281 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have discussions with your superiors about 
some labor connection with this company ? 

Mr. Bot'RKE. I ])assed on whatever 1 picked up in the way of a dis- 
cussion to my management ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't that the reason that an emergency arose and 

that this contract never went tlirough, that you learned and heard of 

the union connection with this company and felt that you might get 

into difficulty with the law if you made this kind of an arrangement? 

Mr. Boukke. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever have any discussions with any of your 
superiors along those lines ? 
Mr. Bourke. I passed on the rumors that I picked up in various 

conversations to my superiors about the labor 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you talk to Mr. MacLeod, the fact that you 
might be in violation of section 302 of the Taft-Hartley Act? 

Mr. Bourke. I did not. Along those lines, Mr. Kennedy, I passed 
on what I picked up in the way of rumor. But I did not discuss the 
Taft-Hartley law, as you mention, the number there. I am very 
vaguely familiar with the Taft-Hartley law and still am. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss at all the fact that you might be in 
violation of the law if you did this? 

Mr. Bourke. I passed on the rumor of the labor; not a violation. I 
did not discuss it from that. I passed on the rumor. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss anything further about the fact 
that 3'ou might be in violation of the law or might be in conflict with 
the law if j'ou entered into this contract with Penn Products Co. ? 

Mr. BouTiKE. I discussed with him the way they wanted to do the 
billing. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are not answering the question. 

Mr. Bourke. I did not discuss any violation. I passed on the rumor 
of the labor, as to what I heard. But as to a violation, I don't recall 
it. It has i3een quite some while back. I could have casually men- 
tioned it, but I do not recall for the life of me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it a fact that that is why the contract was not 
made, because you felt, the company felt, that they would be in viola- 
tion of the law if they entered into this kind of an arrangement with* 
Penn Products? 

Mr. Bourke. I would not say that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wasn't that a factor, Mr. Bourke ? 

Mr. Boitjke. Sir? 

Mr. Kennedy. Wasn't that a factor? 

Mr. Bourke. I would not say that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you deny that was a factor? 

Mr. BouTtKE. I would not. 

Mr. Kennedy. All right. 

Mr. BouTiKE. I passed on what I got. 

The Chairman. What happened after you sent this telegram.? 
After you sent the telegram, did Mr. Weiss call you? 

Mr. BoLTiKE. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. He did telephone you? 

Mr. BoiTRKE. He called me and there is a memorandum which I 
made as of April 22, pertaining to that phone call. 

36751— 50— pt. 44 6 



16282 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Did he call you on the 21st or 22d? Do you have 
that ? Do you have a memo there, something to refresh your memory ? 

Mr. BouRKE. No, sir ; I haven't. I think it was on the 22d. I don't 
recall whether it was the 21st or the 22d. 

The Chairman. I hand you here another memorandum apparently 
from you to Mr. J. H. MacLeod, dated April 22, 1955, and ask you 
to examine it and state if you identify it. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. BouRKE. I do. 

The Chairman. Thank you. This may be made exhibit No. 69. 

( Document referred to marked "Exhibit No. 69" for reference and 
will be found in the appendix on p. 16340. ) 

The Chairman. Obviously, you had a telephone conversation with 
Mr. Weiss after you sent him the telegram ; is that right ? 

Mr. BouRKE. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. He did call you as per your request ? 

Mr. BouRKE. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And this is the memorandum that has been made 
exhibit No. 69? This is the memorandum you prepared and sent 
to your superior after the telephone conversation ? 

Mr. BouRKE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. This reads April 22, 1955, signed by Mr. C. E. 
Bourke, and states : 

I had a phone conversation with Mr. Emauual Weiss and canceled our 
proposition as outlined in your office. I told Mr. Weiss that it Avas impossible 
for us to meet all of his requirements, that we could not sell our products and 
rebrand them to another grade, and neither did we desire to use his tickets, but 
felt we should use our own. 

I explained that these factors were the reasons for our withdrawing from 
the picture, and that he was free to do business with whomever he chose. Mr. 
Weiss seemed quite surprised and asked if there was anyway in which he 
could change his requirements so that we would be in a position to sell him. 
I told him that we could not sell him under the basis as he had outlined and 
therefore we were withdrawing. That was the way the conversation ended. 

Then there is a P.S. : 

If Mr. Weiss further contacts us and asks on what basis we would sell him, 
we may wish to quote him tank wagon on branded motor fuels and branded 
208 diesel. We may further desire to have Mr. John Bracken aggressively 
solicit Merritt-Chapman & Scott and other subcontractors on the tunnel job 
at this time. 

The Chairman. Who made the decision, Mr. Bourke, rejecting his 
proposal? You have been reporting everything to your superiors, 
and here you are reporting back to them after your telephone con- 
versation with Weiss on the 21st and 22d, that you canceled it or 
you withdrew from any further negotiations on the proposal. Now, 
who made that decision ? 

Mr. Bourke. My superiors. 

The Chairman. Who is that? 

Mr. Bourke. How far up the line it went, I do not know, but my 
immediate superior passed the word to me and at that time 

The Chairman. Did he pass it to you by telephone conversation, 
memo, or otherwise ? 

Mr. Bourke. Conversation, I think. 

The Chairman. Telephone conversation ? 

Mr. Bourke. No, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16283 

The Chairman. Direct ? 

Mr. BouRKE. Yes, sir. 

The CuAiRMAN. Verbal ? 

Mr. BouRKE. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What reason did he give for the turning down 
the proposition ? 

]\Ir. BouRKE. lie did not give me any reason other than as men- 
tioned in that memorandum. 

The Chairman. Other than mentioned in the memorandum? 

Mr. Bourive. That we coukl not meet those requirements. 

Mr. Kennedy. Xow, you had been contemplating this proposition. 
It had first been made on April 13, and it was evidently not until 
April 22 that Mr. Weiss was finally turned down. You were con- 
templating entering into this contract for this period of time of 
approximately 10 days. 

What was it, in fact, that arose tliat created an emergency so that 
you had to see Mr. Weiss and that you told him that you could not 
do business with him ? What was it, in fact, Mr. Bourke? 

]\Ir. Bourke. An emergency that lie wanted an aiiSAver as soon as 
he could get it, and they were in need for petroleum products on the 
job and he wanted his answer from us as to wdiether w^e would go 
along on that proposition. 

jNIr. Ivennedy. Well, this memorandum appears to indicate that 
you weren't prepared to do business with liim under any basis. He 
indicated to you that he would be willing to change liis requirements, 
and you turned him down on that basis. 

Mr. BoTJRKE. We did not discuss any turning down, because we had 
no new proposition from the Penn Products. 

Mr. Ivennedy. But he said he would be willing to change his re- 
quirements, and Mr. Weiss seemed quite surprised and asked if there 
was any way in which he should change his requirements. 

Mr. Bourke. It was never accomplished nor did we receive any dif- 
ferent proposition. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why didn't you enter in a conversation? This 
memo indicates you never wanted to, after tliis, enter into a contact 
with Penn Products, and the reason is not because of the fact that 
they asked you to do something improper. The reason was that you 
understood about the union coimection, and you didn't want or you 
felt you might be in violation of the law; 'isn't that correct, J^Ir. 
Bourke? 

Mr. BotrRKE. Xo. The reason was, we could not do business along 
those lines, and we received no other proposition to do business in any 
otlier manner. 

The Chairinian. Let us get this straiglit. Here you have been car- 
rying on these negotiations for a week or longer, and obviously the 
whole picture was before you at all times; isn't that correct, as to how 
tliey wanted this billed and delivered ? 

Mr. Bourke. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And the upgrading and so forth ? 

Mr. BouTtKE. That is right. 

The Chairman. That was before you for a week's time before it 
was finally turned down ? 

Mr. Bourke. Yes, sir. 



16284 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Now, in the interim, did you learn that he was riefV 
up with some labor leaders in this deal ? Did you or did you not ? 

Mr. BouRKE. I heard such a vague rumor, and I never learned it 
officially, and there was nothing on the Baltimore Harbor tunnel job 
that would make a decision as firm as that, that I knew. I heard 
rumors, sir. 

The Chairman. Did those rumors make any impression on you, or 
influence you in considering this proposition further? 

Mr. BouRKE. I had not the decision in the matter. 

The Chairman. Did they influence you in your recommendations; 
and in your discussion with your superiors ? 

Mr. BouRKE. I don't know that they did. I recommended the 
proposition just as I received it. 

The Chairman. Did you recommend that the original proposition 
be accepted ? Did you recommend that ? 

Mr. BouRKE. I didn't firmly recommend it. I discussed it and dis- 
cussed the volume and said what the competitive prices were. 

The Chairman. And you made no recommendation either way? 

Mr. BouRKE. I didn't make a very firm recommendation, if that 
is what you mean; no. Naturally I was after business, and I dis- 
cussed it from that angle, sir. 

The Chairman. I am asking you, did you recommend that the 
proposition be accepted to your superiors, the proposition that you 
had under consideration? 

Mr. BouRKE. I wouldn't say, sir, that I did, from your description 
of a recommendation. 

The Chairman. What I am trying to get is what happened, if any- 
thing, that caused you all of a sudden to say, "We are not going tO) 
have anything to do with it." 

Mr. BouRKE. I didn't make that decision to turn it down. 

The Chairman. You were the middleman in between? You were 
the one that the information came to first, and then passed on to> 
your superiors. 

Mr. Boitrke. Yes; I would call myself a middleman in that par- 
ticular instance, or an office boy, almost. I was a message carrier, 
and I carried a message from him to our management, and I got ther 
word back, and I passed it to him. 

The Chairman. Isn't that kind of in the middle? 

Mr. Bourke. Not only then, but now I am in the middle. Th& 
question is, sir, that I did not, or most of my recommendations right 
here on the paper, which you have a copy of, those are my recom- 
mendations, that there was so much volume and we could secure it 
at a certain i)rice to be competitive, period. 

The Chairman. All right. What we are trying to find out is per- 
fectly obvious: Was there anything connected Avitli these union lead- 
ei-s being involved in some kind of a deal here that influenced you in- 
rejecting this proj:)osition. 

Mr. BouRKE. Mr. Chairman, I was not the official rejector. 

The Chairman. Do you know whether it did influence those who 
did reject it? Do you have any information along that line? 

Mr. BouRKE. No, sir. I was not told of their inner workings of" 
their decision in their mind. 

The Cjiairman. Did you pass on to your superiors the rumors that, 
you got about it? 



I 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16285 

Mr. BouRKE. Yes, sir. 

The CiiAiiniAx. And it was after you passed on those rumors that 
the. decision was finally made to withdraw from it and have Jiothing 
to do with it? 

Mr. lk)URKK. As far as the date goes ; yes, sir. 

Tlie CiiAiRMAX. The date is pretty important. 

Mr. I^ouKKE. It was after I passed on those rumors, and wliat 
effect that had I cannot answer. 

The CiiAiRMAX. All right. 

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

The Chairman. Are there any questions ? 

All right: thank you. Will you stand aside, and call the next 
witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. MacLeod is the next witness. 

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. MacLeod. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN H. MacLEOD, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 

RICHAED KERESEY 

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

Mr. MacLeod. John H. McLeod, 510 Nottingham Road, Baltimore, 
Md.. and I am in the real estate business. 

The Chairman. And the same counsel appears for you ? 

Mr. MacLeod. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Let the record show that the same counsel appears 
for Mr. McLeod. 

What previous business were you in. Mr. ISIacLeod? 

Mr. MacLeod. I was in the oil business. 

The Chairman. For whom and with whom and for what period 
of time ? 

Mr. MacLeod. I was with Esso Standard Oil from 1921 until 1956. 

The Chairman. In what capacity ? 

Mr. MacLeod. Different capacities. 

The Chairman. In 1956. 

Mr. MacLeod. I was assistant division manager of the Delaware- 
Maryland-District of Columbia Division. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. MacLeod, you had some conversations Avith 
Mr. Weiss of the Penn Products Co. in April of 1955 ? 

Mr. MacLeod. I had one conversation. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was on April 14, was it ? 

Mr. MacLeod. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. In 1955? 

Mr. ]MacLeod. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Weiss came to see you ? 

Mr. MacLeod. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you relate what he told you at that time ? 

Mr. MacLeod. Well, Mr. Bourke brought him to my oflEice in con- 
nection with the previous conversations that he had been holding 



16286 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

with him in regard to supplying the petroleum products to the Penn 
Products for the Patapsco Tunnel job. 

Mr. Kennedy. At that time, did Mr. Weiss make suggestions to you 
as to how he wanted this handled? 

Mr. MacLeod. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. For instance, billing them for diesel oil when in fact 
only fuel oil was delivered? 

Mr. MacLeod. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And also did he tell you how he wanted the delivery 
tickets handled ? 

Mr. MacLeod. I believe he did, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, this proposition was ultimately turned down : 
is that correct? 

Mr. MacLeod. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And vou participated in the decision to turn it down ? 

Mr. MacLeod. I believe I did, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. MacLeod, during this period of time, did 
you learn that there was a union connection or union official connected 
with this company? 

Mr. MacLeod. I was told that, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. By whom were you told that ? 

Mr. MacLeod. Mr. Bourke. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did he tell you ? 

Mr. MacLeod. He told me that Ed Weiss was head of a union in 
New England. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you inquire further into it? 

Mr. ]VL\cLeod. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you inquire as to how the Penn Products Co. 
was going to be able to deliver this contract for the Merritt- Chapman 
& Scott business? 

Mr. MacLeod. From whom would I inquire, and I don't quite 
understand ? 

Mr. Kennedy. You would inquire, I expect, of Mr. Weiss, when 
he came in and said to Mr. Bourke that he would be able to deliver 
this conti-act, and he would be able to get this business. 

Mr. MacLeod. Well, he indicated to me that he had the franchise 
for the job. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you inquire further into how he was going to 
be able to get the franchise when they had not let out bids as of that 
time ? 

Mr. MacLeod. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did it disturb you at all there was a union con- 
nection or union official connected with this company? 

Mr. MacLeod. Of course. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that in fact the reason that the contract was 
turned down with the Penn Products Co. ? 

Mr. ]\L\cLeod. I don't recall that it was. It could have played a 
part. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you deny that it played a part ? 

Mr. MacLeod. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You wrote a letter, I believe. 

The Chairman. The Chair ])resents to you a photostatic copy of 
a letter addressed to Mr. O. II. Hanson, dated April 22, 1955, from 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16287 

Mr. C. A. Newland, and I ask you to examine it and state if you identify 
it. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

]\fr. MacLeod. Yes, I do. 

The Chairman'. It may be made exhibit No. 70. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 70" for reference 
and will be found in the appendix on p. 16341.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, this letter is dated April 22, 1955, and it is 
written and signed by Mr.C. A. Newland, to Mr. Hanson, and it 
states as follows : 

Following your conversation of yesterday, we endeavored to reach Mr. Weiss 
at the Sheridan-Belvidere Hotel in Baltimore where he was registered. How- 
ever, we were unable to contact him, so sent him the attached telegram. 

Mr. Weiss called Mr. C. E. Bourke at his home last night. Mr. Bourke told 
Mr. Weiss it was impossible for us to meet his billing requirements, and further- 
more we could not sell our products and rebrand them to another grade. 

Mr. Weiss was insisting that we sell them No. 2 fuel oil and bill it No. 2 
diesel. 

These were the reasons given to Mr. Weiss for withdrawing from the picture 
and he was advised that as far as we were concerned he was free to do business 
with whomever he desired. 

Mr. Weiss was very surprised and asked if there was any way in which he 
could change his requirements so that we would be in a position to sell him. 
He was told that we could not sell him under the basis he had outlined, and 
therefore we were withdrawing, and this is the way the conversation ended. 

For your information, we presently have contracts with Gearhart and some 
other companies, and naturally we would be willing to sell Merritt-Chapman & 
Scott on the same basis. 

That is the basis you sell to these other companies? 
Mr. MacLeod. Yes, sir. 
Mr. Kennedy (reading) : 

Very truly yours, C. A. Newland. 

Then on the side there is written this notation : 

Talked to Miss Duncan, alerted them reference section 302, Taft-Hartley, 

and then I believe those are your initials? 

Mr. MacLeod. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss the section 302 of the Taft-Hartley 
Act in connection with this matter? 

Mr. MacLeod. With Miss Duncan, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliy did you do that? 

Mr. MacLeod. Well, I wanted to pass the infoiTnation on to Mr. 
Hanson, and Miss Duncan was in Mr. Hansen's office of national ac- 
counts, in New York. 

Mr. Kennedy. Section 302 is about the payment of money to a 
imion official. 

Mr. MacLeod. Well, I don't recall exactly what it was, but I had 
read one of the trade papers and I didn't want to be a party to the 
payment to both sides. 

Mr. Kennedy. Section 302 states : 

It shall be unlawful for any employer to pay or deliver, or to agree to pay or 
deliver, any money or other thing of value to any representative of any of his 
employees who are employed in an industry affecting commerce. 

Mr. MacLeod. Yes, sir, and I didn't want to be a party to the pay- 
ment to both sides. 



16288 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you feel there was something improper in this 

arrangement ? 

Mr, MacLeod. Naturally. 

Mr. Kennedy. And isn't that the true reason that this contract was 
turned down ? 

Mr. MacLeod. I can't say that it is, in all fairness. I think that 
the reasons we have outlined in this letter of April 22 are sufficient 
to turn it down. 

Now I would like to clarify a conversation that the chairman had, 
or speak about the convei-sation that the chairman had with Mr. 
Bourke. 

It was never our intention to upgrade anything. Mr. Weiss wanted 
us to sell him No. 2 heating oil 

The Chairman. Probably a better word would be "up-billing"? 

Mr. MacLeod. No. I am sorry you don't understand it. 

There is no increase in price. He wanted us to sell him No. 2 heat- 
ing oil and bill it as No. 2 diesel oil, but he wanted it sold at the No. 2 
price. 

Now, our heating oil is designed for use in oil burners and our diesel 
oil is designed for use in diesel engines. That isn't true with all com- 
panies. With some companies. No. 2 heating oil and the diesel oil are 
interchangeable. 

The Chairman. But it is true in your company ? 

Mr. MacLeod. Yes ; it is true in our company. 

Mr. Kennedy. There is a 0.4 cent differential ? 

Mr. MacLeod. There wouldn't be any intent on our part there to 
def i"aud there, at no time. 

The Chairman. What is the purpose of selling one product and 
billing another ? 

Mr. MacLeod. I think you would have to ask that of Mr. Weiss. 

The Chairman. What did you gather was the purpose of it ? You 
are an experienced man. 

Mr. MacLeod. He was going to sell it to Merritt-Chapman & Scott 
at the diesel price. 

The Chairman. At a higher })rice ? 

Mr. MacLeod. Yes, but that is not our "walk the floor." 

The Chairman. That is a part of the whole transaction ? 

Mr. MacLeod. It is true. 

The Chairman. You could see through it, could you not? 

Mr. MacLeod. We can't police what our resellers do. 

The Chairman. I understand. But you could see through it at 
the time? 

Mr. MacLeod. Certainly. 

The Chairman. And, of course, if you carried out his purposes, 
you woidd have been a party to it because you would have b^en bill- 
ing or giving false billing, would you not ? 

Mr. MacLeod. I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, that you are reading 
something into it that was not there at the time, and the real reason 
I gave Mr. Weiss Avas that our No. 2 heating oil was not satisfactory 
for use in diesels^ and that is a true reason. 

The specifications are such that he might have trouble, and I told 
him we couldn't guarantee it. 



II 



IMPROPER ACTlVrriES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16289 

Senator Envix. ]\lr. AVoiss evidently wanted the Esso Standard Oil 
to put him in the possession of documents in the form of invoices or 
bills from the Esso Standard Oil which would enable him to turn 
over to other people and convince these other people that the kind of 
oil he was gfetting was oil that was retailing or selling at 0.4 cent a 
gallon more ? 

Mr. MacLeod. I would have to agree with what you say on that. 
But at the time there was no intent on our part to defraud. 

Senator Ervin. But he was soliciting the Esso Standard Oil Co. 
to put himself in the possession of documents with which he could, if 
he saw fit, defraud somebody else t 

Mr. JNIac Leod. That is right. 

Now, I would like to say this: That our No. 2 diesel, or rather our 
heating oil, would work in the equipment they were using on the 
tunnel. That is, Caterpillar tractors. 

Mr. Kennedy. x\s I understand your point 

Mr. Mac Leod. But not as satisfactorily as our No. 2 diesel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Your point is that if anyone was defrauding any- 
body, it was Penn Products Co. defrauding Memtt-Chapman & 
Scott? 

Mr. AL^c Leod. Of course, I don't know th.at. 

Mr. Kennedy. If it was being done ? 

Mr. Mac Leod. We were not defrauding anyone. 

Mr. Kennedy. So the defrauding would be the Penn Products Co. 
defrauding Merritt-Chapman & Scott? 

Mr. ]\Iac Leod. If you choose to see it that way. 

Mr. I^nnedy. Well, that would not have been possible, obviously, 
without the help and assistance of your company. They wanted 3'ou 
to enter into this arrangement. You were not the ones who were 
going to directly do it, but it ■\\-ould not ha^e been possible without 
the help of Esso. 

Mr. Mac Leod. I don't think that tliere has been any indication 
here that Merritt-Chapman & Scott would examine the' bills of the 
Penn Products. That isn't ordinarily the case of buyer and seller. 
You buy from someone and you do not examine his purchase price 
and so forth. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think the record is clear on it. 

Mr. Mac Leod. Well, I think so. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think in fairness to you, also, we have this memo- 
randum of April 18, which is, I believe, written in your own hand- 
writing. 

Mr. AIac Leod. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And which would seem to indicate — well, it states 
here: 

We cannot sell No. 2 fuel oil as No. 2 diesel, satisfactory to seller as No. 2 
fuel or No. 2 fuel oil. Under these conditions we can use their tickets but 
would like an invoice of their own signed at the same time . 

Mr. ^Lvc Leod. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I hand you a memorandum from which counsel 
has read. I appears to be dated April 18. I assume it is 1955. It 
is a handwritten memorandum, with the initials J.H.M. 

(Document handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Mac Leod. I do. 



16290 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 71. 

(Document referred to was marked ''Exhibit No. 71" for reference 
and may be fomid in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. IvENNEDY. That would indicate as far as you were concerned, 
as of April 18, that you were not going to allow this improper billing 
or false billing. 

Mr. Mac Leod. That is right. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. But, of course, that is inconsistent with the position 
taken on April 20, in that memorandum where it indicates, again, that 
the Esso Oil Co. was still contemplating doing it, and it wasn't until 
April 22, finally, that a decision was given to Mr. Weiss that you 
would not do it. 

That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? If not, thank you. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hansen. 

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. Hansen. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF ODIN HANSEN, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
RICHARD KERESEY 

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

Mr. Hansen. Odin Hansen. I reside at 3 Merriam Place, Bronx- 
ville, N.Y. I am employed by Esso Standard Oil Co. as a national 
accounts representative. 

The Chairman. Let the record show that the same counsel repre- 
sents Mr. Hansen as represented the preceding witnesses. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been with the Esso Co. ? 

Mr. Hansen. About 33-34 years, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hansen, you were aware of the negotiations that 
were taking place with the Penn Products Co. in Baltimore ? 

Mr. Hansen. They had discussed it with me ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was in 1955. Were you aware during this 
period of time of the connection of a union official with this company? 

Mr. Hansen. I was not. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were not. Did you subsequently learn that? 

Mr. Hansen. I had heard that there was a labor association. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you heard that at this time? 

Mr. Hansen. During the early conversations I may have heard it, 
but I believe that it was later on tliat that phase came out. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was this one of the reasons that the contract was 
not made directly with the Penn Products Co. in Baltimore? 

Mr. I Tansen. Not as far as I know, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You know nothing al)out that ? 

Mr. Hansen. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know why the negotiations ended with the 
Penn Products Co. ? 

Mr. Hansen. Well, I imagine that it was for the reasons as stated, 
and that we in national accounts were soliciting that business from 
Merritt-Chapman & Scott. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16291 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there any discussion held with you in connec- 
tion with the fact that this might be an unlawful payment to a union 
official if you entered into this arrangement? 

Mr. Hansen. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. This Miss Duncan, was she in your office ? 

Mr. Hansen. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is a note that was made by the previous wit- 
ness, wherein he states : 

Talked to Miss Duncan, alerted them reference section 302, Taft-Hartley. 

Did Miss Duncan speak to you about that ? 

JMr. Hansen. If she did, sir, I do not recall it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever take up this matter of a miion connec- 
tion of this company with any of your law department? 

Mr. Hansen. No, sir. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. You had negotiations directly with the Merritt- 
Chapman & Scott Co. in connection with supplying the oil and 
petroleum ? 

Mr. Hansen. No, sir. Our sales representative, J. H. Donaldson. 

Mr. Kennedy. He had negotiations ? 

Mr. Hansen. He negotiated with ISIerritt-Chapman & Scott. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Did you subsequently make a contract directly with 
Merritt-Chapman & Scott for the supplying of the petroleum 
products ? 

Mr. Hansen. We were given a letter by Merritt-Chapman & Scott 
saying we were to supply at certain prices and that the order would 
be placed on Penn Products and that we were to bill Pemi Products 
Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, this is a key document. I would 
like to have the witness identify it. 

The Chairman. The Chair hands you a photostatic copy of what 
purports to be a letter dated April 28, 1955, to Esso Standard Oil 
Co., from Merritt-Chapman & ocott Corp. I ask you to examine it 
and state if you identify it. 

(Document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Hansen. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 72. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 72" for reference 
and will be fomid in the appendix on p. 16342.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, this is the second phase of this situ- 
ation. We had the first with the previous witnesses, where Mr. Weiss 
approached a company directly and stated that he could deliver this 
contract; the negotiations extended for a period of approximately 9 
days, and ultimately on April 22 Penn Products was informed tliat 
the Esso Co. would not deal with them for the reasons that have been 
stated here before the committee. 

Then negotiations occurred during this period of time between 
Esso Co. and Merritt-Chapman & Scott, through Mr. Donaldson, to 
attempt to get this contract. 

Subsequently, on April 28, 1955, we have this document which the 
witness has just referred to and has identified. It is a letter from the 



16292 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

procurement manager of Merritt-Chapman & Scott, Mr. Guy Owens, 
to the Esso Standard Oil Co. It states : 

Gentlemen : This will confirm our verbal order to your Mr. J. Donaldsou to 
the effect that you are to furnish gasoline, fuel, and lubricating requirements for 
our use on the Patapsco Tunnel project, Maryland State Roads Commission 
contract, P.T. 108, at the following prices. 

Then, Mr. Chairman, it gives the prices for gasoline, white, diesel, 
and No. 2 fuel oil, lubricating oils, and greases. 
And then the very important paragraph is : 

Our purchase order will be placed with Penn Products Co., 94 Vernon Street, 
Somerville, Mass., whom you will invoice at prices stated above for any materials 
furnished us on this project. 

What did that mean, as a practical matter, Mr. Hansen ? 

Mr. Hansen. Well, we took this as our order to supply the products 
on that job, the Merritt-Chapman & Scott project, of that job. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you w^ere supplying the oil and these products 
directly to Merritt-Chapman & Scott on this Patapsco Tunnel project ? 

Mr. Hansen. We were delivering to the job, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. But instead of billing Merritt-Chapman & Scott Co.. 
they told you to send the bills to the Penn Products ? 

Mr. Hansen. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. I understand that your company finally furnished 
the oil requirements for this job ? 

Mr. Hansen. Part of it, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. There is an intervening company that we will go 
into. 

The Chairman. After you called off these negotiations we have 
been talking about between you and Penn Products, or Mr. Weiss, then 
you later entered into other negotiations by which you did make sales 
for this project ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Hansen. That is correct. 

The Chairman. That is the phase we are going into noM' ? 

Mr. Hansen. That is what I understand, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was this an unusual way of handling the situation ? 

Mr. Hansen. No, it was not. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was not? 

Mr. Hansen. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any explanation as to why, when you 
obtained the contract, you would not be billing the Merritt-Chapman 
& Scott Co. directly rather than going through Penn Products? 

Mr. Hansen. Well, the salesman discussed it to a certain extent. 
However, it was not elaborated on. At that time, it was probably 
mentioned that there may have been some labor involved. 

Mr. Kennedy. That there was some labor official ? 

Mr. Hansen. I do not recall a labor official involved in here, or 
maybe there was someone related. It was all from the salesman who 
was put out because his customer didn't give it to him, so to speak. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was some discussion, and there was some con- 
cern, within the company, as to how this was being handled ? 

Mr. Hansen. They raised the question, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the explanation that was offered, at least by 
some, was the fact that there was a union — some labor angle to the Penn 
Products Co. ? 



IIMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16293 

Mr. Hansen. That is correct. 

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

The Chairman. All right. Tluink you. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Frank Hamilton. 

The Chairman. Be sworn, j^lease. 

You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall irive before this 
Senate Select Committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. H^\MiLTON. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF FRANK J. HAMILTON 

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

Mr. Hamilton. Frank J. Hamilton, 515 Koumfort Road, Phila- 
delphia. 

At the time of the dealings in which you are interested, I was 
division manager in char<Te of direct sales for the Gulf Oil Corp. 

The Chairman. What is your present position ? 

Mr. Hamilton. I am classed as consultant to the division at the 
present time. 

The Chairman. You waive counsel ? 

Mr. Hamilton. Yes, sir. One of our lawyers is in the room, but 
he did not feel it was necessary to accompany me here. 

The Chairman. Well, if you determine at any time in the course of 
your interrogation that you would like to consult with counsel, you 
wil be granted that ])rivilege. 

Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Chairman, now we have gone through two 
phases of this situation : Mr. Weiss' approach directly and then ulti- 
mately Esso receiving the contract, but being ordered by Merritt- 
Chapman & Scott to do their billing through the Penn Products Co., 
an unusual situation. 

Now there is a third phase which we are going to take up with this 
witness. 

During the building of the tunnel, Mr. Hamilton, there was some 
property that was owned by the Gulf Oil Co. in the vicinity where 
the tunnel was being constructed ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Hamilton. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the Merritt- Chapman & Scott Co. was anxious 
to get control of that piece of land ? 

Mr. Hamilton. To lease part of the land, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And negotiations were entered into, and during the 
course of the negotiations the company was informed that they could 
lease the land if they also took their petroleum and oil products from 
the Gulf Oil Co.? 

Mr. Hamilton. They agreed to do that. 

Mr. Kennedy. But that was discussed ? 

Mr. Hamilton. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. They ultimately agreed that they would take their 
petroleum products from you, is that correct, the Gulf Oil Co. ? 

Mr. Hamilton. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you enter into an agreement for them to ]nir- 
cliase their pix)ducts from you ? 



16294 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Hamilton. Their No. 2 fuel oil and diesel oil. We entered 
into an agreement the latter part of August 1955 for a 2-year period 
beginning September 1. 

Mr. Kennedy. A contract and a purchase order Avere made ? 

Mr. Hamilton. That is correct. 

The Chairman. I hand you two documents. The first one is on 
Gulf Oil Corp. form. It says "Bulk Oil Contract." It appears to be 
dated the firet day of September 1955, and it is signed by Mr. Hamil- 
ton, it seems, as manager, Gulf Oil Corp. Is that you ? 

Mr. Hamilton. That is me ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I hand you that and ask you to identify it. I also 
hand you what purports to be a photostatic copy of a purchase order, 
dated September 29, 1955. Attached to it is an "Amendment To Pur- 
chase Order," dated November 7, 1955. I ask you to examine these 
three documents and state if you identify them. 

( Documents were handed to the witness. ) 

Mr. Hamilton. I identify all three, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. In the order in which the Chair referred to them, 
they may be made exhibits Nos. 73-A, B, and C. 

(The three documents referred to were marked "Exhibits Nos. 73-A, 
73-B, and 73-C," for reference and will be found in the appendix on 
pp. 16343-16345.) 

Mr. Kennedy. The purchase order was September 29, 1955 ? 

Mr. Hamilton. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then on December 28, 1955, did you have a convei'sa- 
tion with a representative, Mr. Guy Owens, of the Merritt-Chapman 
Co.? 

Mr. Hamilton. I didn't personally, but my office did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And at that time did the Merritt-Chapman Co. re- 
quest that you invoice all deliveries of fuel to the Penn Products? 

Mr. Hamilton. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was this a change in policy as far as your— 

Mr. Hamilton. It was, because for 4 months we had been invoicing 
deliveries on the Patapsco River Tunnel job directly to Merritt-Chap- 
man & Scott, in accordance with the contract closed with that com- 
pany. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they explain to you why they wanted this change 
in procedure? 

Mr. Hamilton. They did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you request this from them in writing, since it 
was an unusual procedure? 

Mr. Hamilton. Ye^, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. This was very unusual ? 

Mr. Hamilton. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. I hand you this letter of December 28, 1955, Mr. 
Chairman. 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you a photostatic copy of a 
letter dated December 28, 1955, on Merritt-Chapman & Scott sta- 
tionery, addressed to Gulf Oil Corp., apparently signed by Mr. G. Guy 
Owens, procurement manager. 

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

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Hamilton. I identify the letter, Mr. Chairman. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16295 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 74. 

(Letter referred to was marked "P^xhibit No. 74'' for reference, and 
will be found in the appendix on p. 16346.) 

Mr. Kennedy. It is to the Gulf Oil Corp., signed })y Mr. Owens. It 
is dated December 28. 

In accordfince with our telephone conversation of today with your Mr. Godley, 
we are writing to ask you if you would be willing to invoice the No. 2 fuel oil 
and diesel oil called for on our POA-70901, and amendments thereto, to Penn 
Products Co., 94 Vermont Street, Somerville, Mass. 

You probably know the Penu Products Co. are distributors of fuel oils and lubri- 
cants and have served us on a number of .jobs, although they procure the oil from 
some major oil company in the area in which the job is located. Prior to enter- 
ing into our order A-70901 with you, we had placed our order A-6776.'i with Penn 
Products Co. for the fuel oil and lubricants on the Patapsco tunnel job and, hence, 
we have an obligation to them. You would invoice Penn Products Co. at the 
prices stated in our order A-70901, or less, if you recognize them as a distributor, 
and they, in turn, will bill us for the fuel oil and diesel oil against our order 
A-67763 with them. 

We shall appreciate your thoughtful consideration of this arrangement and 
an early reply so we may notify all concerned accordingly. 

Do you know why Merritt-Chapman & Scott not only wanted you 
to bill the Penn Products Co. for this oil that you were delivering, but 
that they wanted you to give them even a better contract than you had 
been giving to the Merrittt-Chapman & Scott Co. ? 

Mr. Hamieton. I would gather they wanted Penn Products Co. to 
get the regular jobber or distributor price, rather than a consumer 
price. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know what the basis of this solicitation on 
the part of the Merritt-Chapman & Scott Co. for Penn Products Co. 
was based on ? 

Mr. Hamilton. I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand or know at that time that there 
was a union official connected with the Penn Products Co. ? 

Mr. Hamilton. I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you agree to give them the jobber prices, a lesser 
price ? 

Mr. Ha]mtlton. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Wliat was the basis of that? 

Mr. Hamilton. "Well, in the first place, it did not appear to us as 
though the Penn Products Co. could actually make the physical deliv- 
eries. We had loaned Merritt-Chapman & Scott equipment in which 
we were making deliveries, and we saw no reason to give another 
company, a second company, you might say, the benefit of a lower 
price than we were giving the contractor themselves. 

Mr. Kennedy. They did not really qualify as jobbers ? 

Mr. Hamilton. Not as far as we were concerned. 

Mr. Kennedy. In this case, and in the case — well, you wouldn 't 
know about Esso. At least in your case they were not performing any 
service whatsoever ? 

Mr. Hamilton. Not that we could understand. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were delivering the oil to the job site; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Hamilton. And had been for 4 months. 

Mr. Kennedy. And had been. All you were doing was just in- 
voicing or billing the Penn Products Co., who, in turn, were billing 
Merritt-Chapman & Scott ? 



16296 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Hamilton. We were invoicino; Peiui Products Co. I^et's put 
it that way. 

Mr. Kennedy. But they were performing no service ? 

Mr. Hamilton. Not as far as we knew. 

Mr. Kennedy. You continued to perform the same service you per- 
formed in the past ?. 

Mr. Hamilton. That is right. 

The Chairman. They did not take over any service you had been 
performing ? 

Mr. Hamilton. That is correct. 

The Chairman. In other words, you had the same operating costs, 
expense, and service responsibilities you previously had ? 

Mr. Hamilton. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The only thing was that you were instructed to send 
your bill to Penn instead of sending it to Merritt-Chapman ? 

Mr. Hamilton. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. There was no reason for you to make any sacrifice 
of your charges ? 

Mr. Hamilton. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You received no benefits from that arrangement! 

Mr. Hamilton. No, sir. 

The Chairman. There was no advantage, no more profit, no less 
work? 

Mr, Hamilton. It was the same amount of work, except that the 
billing went to Massachusetts instead of New York. 

The Chairman. Well, you would make bills anyway. It was just 
writing different names on the bills ; that is all. 

Mr. Hamilton. That is all. But the bills also indicated Merritt- 
Chapman & Scott's order number. 

The Chairman. You did write one additional name on the bill ? 

Mr. Hamh^ton. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Very well. 

What was the idea of this, do you know ? Did you ever find out ? 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, of course, I have an idea since I have been 
reading the papers. 

The Chairman. To take care of these union officials ? 

Mr. Hamilton. We didn't know that at the time. We didn't know 
it until we read it in the papers. Certainly we were suspicious when 
we received the subpenas from the committee. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. But that is all from this witness. 

The Chairman. Thank you xerj much. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Lochary. 

The Chaiuman. Be sworn, plen.se, sir. 

Do you solemnly swear the evidence you shall give before this 
Senate select comniittet^ shall be the truth, the Avhole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Locitary. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF DEAN LOCHARY 

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



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 162P7 

Mr. LociiARY. Dean Lochary, 9403 Hartford Road, Baltimore, Md. 
I am employed by the McCloskey Co. 

Tlie Chairman. In what capacity? 

Mr. Lochary. Operating engineer. 

The (^iiAiRMAx. Do you v\aive counsel? 

INIr. LocTiARY. Yes, sir. 

Tlie Chairman. Proceed. 

]\rr. Kennedy. I would like to have Mr. Tierney ask him a few 
questions. 

Tlie Chairman. All right, Mr. Tierney; proceed. 

Mr. Tierney. Mr. Lochary, you are a member of the Operating 
Engineers Union? 

Mr. Lochary. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tierxey. Were you employed on the Patapsco tunnel project 
in I^altimore, Md. ? 

Mr. Lochary. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tierney. For whom were you employed? 

Mr. IvOchary. Merritt-Chapman & Scott. 

Mr. Tierney. In what capacity? 

!Mr. IvocHARY. As master mechanic. 

Mr. Tierney. Generally, what are your responsibilities as a master 
mechanic? 

Mr. Lochary. Well, hiring and placing the operators and mechan- 
ics, and taking care of the repair work. 

Mr. Tierney. You are familiar with all of the equipment that is 
used on the job? 

Mr. Lochary. Well, most of it; yes. 

Mr. Tierney. Is that, in effect, your responsibility, among other 
things, to handle not only the operators, but to make sure that the 
equipment is in order, too? 

Mr. Lochary. That is right. 

Mr. Tierney. L'ncler your supervision — is making sure that the 
equipment is supplied with petroleum or diesel fuel. Is that one of 
your responsibilities ? 

Mr. Lochary. Most of the time, yes. I mean directly. 

The Chairman. I didn't understand you. 

Mr. Lochary. I say directly, yes. 

Mr. Tierney. Were you assigned to the project, the Patapsco tun- 
nel project, roughly, from the outset? 

Mr. Lochary. I didn't understand you. 

Mr. Tierney. Were you assigned to that project roughly from the 
beginning ? 

Mr. Lochary. No, not directly ; no. I would just instruct the men 
that was operating it and such as that. 

Mr. Tierney. But you were there working from the beginning of 
the project? 

Mr. Lochary. That is right. 

Mr, Tierney. Have you ever heard of Penn Products Co.? 

Mr. TjOChary. Yes ; I heard of them. 

Mr. Tierney. Did you ever see any equipment of Penn Products 
Co. on the job while you were tliere ? 

Mr. Lochary. Not that I recall of. 

36751 — ^50 — pt. 44 7 



16298 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. TiERNEY. Would you explain briefly to the committee exactly 
how the fuel was placed in the equipment on the project^ 

Mr. LociiARY. Well, the majority of it on the water rigs were fueled 
up from the Gulf Oil pier. 

The Chairman. From Gulf ? 

Mr. LocHARY. They had an oil pier there. They would move the 
rigs in and fill them. We had pretty good storage on them, 10,000 or 
12,000 gallons. They didn't have to be fueled up too often. 

The other equipment was fueled up by some of the equipment fueled 
right from the pump that was on shore, and some it by hand. There 
was different ways. 

Mr. TiERNEY. As far as you know, was all the equipment filled 
directly through the Gulf Oil plant or by Merritt-Chapman & Scott 
people ? 

Mr. LocHARY. Well, what was on the water, that equipment, that 
was filled directly from the bulk or the oil pier, and the other was filled 
from tanks. 

Mr. TiERNEY. Were you aware of any equipment of Penn Products 
Co. there filling the job equipment with petroleum products? 

Mr. LociiARY. No, sir. 

Mr. TiERNEY. None at all ? 

Mr. LocHARY. No, sir. 

Mr. TiERNEY. Did you ever see a Penn Products representative 
there? 

Mr. LociiARY. Well, I think I met a salesman, or a couple of guys 
when the job first started. 

Mr. TiERNEY. But thereafter, did you see any representatives of 
Penn Products ? 

Mr. LociiARY. Not that I recall. 

Mr. TiERNEY. And you saw no equipment of theirs used to fill the 
equipment working on the project ? 

Mr. LocHARY. Not as I recall of it. 

Mr. TiERNEY. That is all, Mr. Chairman. "" 

The Chairman. All right. Thank you. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to call a member of the staff, Mr. Chairman, 
Mr. Charles E. Wolfe. 

The Chairman. Mr. Wolfe, have you been previously gworn m this 
series ? 

Mr. Wolfe. Yes, sir ; I have. 

The Chairman. You will remain under the same oath. Proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF CHARLES E. WOLFE— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Wolfe, in connection with this investigation you 
have examined the invoices of the Esso Co. and the Gulf Co. to the 
Penn Products (^o. ; is that right? 

Mr. Wolfe. That is right. 

Mr. Kennm)y. And you have also examined the invoices of the 
Penn Products Co. to "Merritt-Chapman & Scott? 

Mr. Wolfe. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to have you tell the committee whether 
an examination of those invoices shows that the Penn Products Co. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16299 

was billing the Merritt-Chapman & Scott Co. more than the Esse 
Co. or the Gulf Oil Co. was billing Penn Products. 

Mr. Wolfe. Yes, they did. Thev showed that in eveiy case Penn 
was cliarging more than they paid the Gulf and Esso companies. 

]Mr. Kennp:dy. What was the dill'erentiation ? For instance, on the 
Esso contract, how much was it extra that Penn Products received by 
having the bills sent through their company? 

Mr. Wolfe. They made a total profit on the Esso products of 
$4,764.05. 

xMi'. Kexnedy. How much did they make on the Gulf products? 

Mr. Wolfe. They made a profit of $19,824 — excuse me. That is 
wrong. I am reading the wrong figure. 

The Chairman. A little louder, please. Start over. On Esso it 
was what ? 

]Mr. Wolfe. Do you want the Esso again ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Can I ask him whether these figures are correct? 

The cost to Merritt-Chapman & Scott was $56,710.09 ; is that right? 

Mr. Wolfe. On the Esso products. 

Mr. Kennedy. The cost to Penn Products for that material was 
$51,964.04? 

Mr. Wolfe. On the Esso products. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the dill'erence there was $4,764.05, which was 
the difference between the billing from Penn to Merritt-Chapman & 
Scott and from Esso to Penn ? 

Mr. Wolfe. Right. 

Mr. Kennedy. They made a flat profit on that of $4,764 for just 
handling the paper work ? 

Mr. Wolfe. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And for the Gulf products, the total cost to Merritt- 
Chapman & Scott was $90,244.42 ; right ? 

Mr. Wolfe. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the total cost to Penn Products was $75,183.64? 

Mr. Wolfe. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. For a total profit there of some $15,060.78? 

Mr. Wolfe. Right. 

The Chairiman. How much ? 

Mr. Kennedy. $15,060.78. Is that right? 

Mr. Wolfe. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. So the total cost to Merritt-Chapman & Scott on 
this one contract was $146,854.51 ? 

Mr. Wolfe. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. The total cost to Penn Products was $127,129.68? 

Mr. Wolfe. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Making a total profit to Penn Products and a loss 
to Merritt-Chapman & Scott because of this arrangement of $19,- 
824.83? 

Mr. Wolfe. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. So they lost over 10 percent. 

They made what amounts to about a 10 percent payoff for this 
contract ? 

Mr. Wolfe. It is a little better than 10 percent. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Wolfe. Yes si'- 



16300 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, there is no question that there was 
no services at all performed by the Penn Products Co. 

The Chairman. In other words, Penn Products Co. got $19,800- 
plus for doing nothing but writing out bills ? 

Mr. Wolfe. That is right. 

The Chairman. That is, so far as we have been able to ascertain? 

Mr. Wolfe. So far as we can tell. 

The Chairman. They supplied no equipment ; they had no super- 
vision; they actually made no sales; they did nothing except to re- 
ceive the bills from the supplier of the products and then to re-bill 
to the purchaser of the products ; is that it ? 

Mr. Wolfe. Yes. 

The Chairman. In other words, for re-billing, that is what it 
amounts to, they made this profit ? 

Mr. Wolfe. Well, they had some paperwork. 

The Chairman. Well, that is re-billing. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. 

(Members of the select committee present at time of recess: 
Senators McClellan and Ervin.) 

(Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m. the select committee recessed, to re- 
convene at 2 p.m. the same day.) 

afternoon session 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

(Members of the select committee present at the time of reconven- 
ing : Senators McClellan and Mundt.) 

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Owens. 

The Chairman. Mr. Owens, 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. Owens. I do. 

TESTIMONY OP G. GUY OWENS, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
PETER CAMPBELL BROWN 

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

Mr. Owens. My name is G. Guy Owens, 20 Park Avenue, New 
York. I am procurement manager of Merritt-Chapman & Scott 
Corp., 260 Madison Avenue, New York. 

The Chairman. Thank you, sir. Do you luive counsel ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes. 

The Chairman. Counsel, identify yourself, please. 

Mr. Brown. Peter Campbell Brown, a member of the firm of 
Manning, Hollinger & Shea, 41 East 42d Street, New York City, 
general counsel for Merritt-Chapman & Scott. 

The Chairman. Mr. Kennedy, you may proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, with the last witness this morning 
we developed the fact that Merritt-Chapman & Scott had placed an 
order with Esso to deliver their oil and petroleum products after 
April of 1955. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD lt)301 

In the letter that "was sent out on April 28, 1955, which is committee 
exhibit No. 72, it was stated : 

Our purchase order will be placed with Penn Products Co, whom you will 
invoice at prices stated above for any materials furnished us on this project. 

The letter is si^jned by Guy Owens. You wrote that letter? 

Mr. OwtNs. I did. 

The Chairman. This is some 4 months after this company, after 
Esso, had been delivering it? 

Mr. Kennedy. No. This is the company that then took up the 
delivery. 

The Chairman. This is the one that is about a week after the other 
negotiations fell through? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes ; that is right. 

The Chair:man. Present the letter to the witness. 

(The document was handed to the Avitness.) ^ 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Owens. This is a copy of the letter I wrote. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Owens, the last paragraph states : 

Our purchase order will be placed with Penn Products Co., Somerville, Mass., 
whom you will invoice at prices stated above for any materials furnished us on 
this project. 

Wliat was the reason for that ? ^\liy did you tell them to invoice 
Penn Products Co. ? 

Mr. Owens. Those were the prices we agreed upon with Esso 
Standard. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why was it handled through the Penn Products Co. ? 

^Ir. Owens. I don't know. I was told to place the order through 
Penn Products. 

JNIr. Kennedy. "Who gave you those instructions ? 

Mr. Owens. Mr. R. O. Baum, vice president of the company. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Baum, who is the vice president of the company ? 

Mr. Owens. Of Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Wasn't this an unusual way of handling the situa- 
tion? 

Mr. Owens. Normally the higher officers decide on the award of 
oils and lubricants. 

Mr. Kennfj)y. The higher officers make those decisions? 

Mr. Owens. Yes. The vice presidents of a company. 

Mr. Kennedy. ^Vliy was the Esso Co, instructed to handle this 
through the Penn Products Co.? "Why was that done in this case? 

Mr. Owens. My only answer, sir, is that I was told to do it that 
way. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever inquire into the reason for it ? 

Mr. Owens. I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never had any conversations about what the 
reason was? 

Mr. Owens. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know (Charlie Johnson was connected with 
the Penn Products Co. ? 

Mr. Owens. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know any union official was connected with 
the Penn Products Co. ? 

Mr. Owens. No. 



It5302 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Did you have any information to the effect that 
there was any union connection with this company ? 

Mr. Owens. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. I have the letter of December 28, 1955, to the Gulf 
Oil Co. This letter is exhibit No. 74. In it it states : 

In accordance with our telephone conversation of today with your Mr. Godley, 
we are writing to ask you if you will be willing to invoice fuel oil and diesel 
oil called for in our contract and amendments thereto to the Penn Products 
Co., 94 Vermont Street, Somerville, Mass. 

Why did you tell the Gulf Oil Corp. to invoice the Penn Products 
Co.? 

Mr. Owens. Subsequent to the placing of tlie order with Penn 
Products designating Esso Standard, the job was in need of additional 
storage space and found that there was available ground on the prop- 
erty of the Gulf Oil Co. in Baltimore. The job called and said that 
they would like to have the use of that space, and would I see if I 
could lease it. 

I approached the Gulf Oil Co. As I remember, their statement 
was that they were not in the real estate business, not interested in 
leasing land, but if they could furnish our diesel oils and fuel oils 
they might be able to arrange for us to use part of the property. 

Mr. Kennedy. They wanted to make a contract with you ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. So then you terminated the contract that you had 
had with the Esso Co. ? 

Mr. Owens. I negotiated a release, if you please, favorably, and 
placed the order with Gulf. 

Mr. Kennedy. All right. 

Now, in this letter, after you had made the contract with Gulf, 
Gulf was making a delivery of the oil and the petroleum products. 
Then on December 28, 1955, you wrote them that they should in- 
voice for the fuel oil and the diesel oil — they should invoice the Penn 
Products Co. 

What was the reason for doing that ? 

Mr. Owens. I did not mention Penn Products when I first talked 
with Gulf. Whether it was an oversight or what, I can't say now. 
But I didn't bring them into the picture. They found that tliey 
were not getting oil any more from — that we were not getting oil 
any more from Esso, and hence, they were not billing us, Esso was 
not passing papers through them, and they did not bill us. So they 
inquired why. They protested that they were not getting the busi- 
ness under their order. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Wliy didn't you terminate the contract with them 
as you had terminated the contract with Esso ? 

Mr. Owens. It did not affect the lubricants, the arrangement I 
made with Gulf. To that extent it would have carried on with Penn 
Products. 

Mr. Kennedy. And also with Esso, then ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes. To that extent. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why didn't you terminate the same contract with 
Esso, why didn't you terminate that with Penn Products? 

Mr. Owens. Negligence, I presume. I have no answer for that. 

Mr. Kennedy. On whose part? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16303 

Mr. Owens. Mine. 

Mr. Kennedy. This wasn't your responsibility as to why this con- 
tract was made orio;inally with Penn Products. Why did you continue 
this arrangement with l*enn Products? They weren't supplying you 
with anything. 

Mr. Owens. They protested and I referred the matter again to the 
vice president. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did he say ? 

Mr. Owens. He told me we had a contract with Penn Products and 
we would have to abide by it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who Avas the vice president that you referred this to ? 

Mr. Owens. ^Mr. Baum. 

Mr. Kennedy, Then further in this letter you state : 

You will invoice Penn Products at the prices stated in our order or less if you 
recognize them as a distributor. 

AAHiy were you solicitous in favor of Penn Products Co. ? 

Mr. Owens. I had the happy thought at the time that they would 
share any benefits with us. 

]\Ir. Kennedy. Had you worked that out with them at all ? 

Mr. Owens. I had not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why were you suggesting that? Why didn't you 
leave the arrangements that they might make up to the Penn Prod- 
ucts Co. ? 

Mr. Owens. If they had a previous arrangement with Gulf, which 
I did not know about, and Gulf had previously recognized them as a 
distributor, I would not be disposed to upset that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes; but why didn't you just leave that to the ar- 
rangements that Penn Products could make with the Gulf Oil Co.? 
'Wliy did you enter into that to make a suggestion ? 

Mr. Owens. Well, let's say I talk too much. 

Mr. Kennedy. Penn Products never -did anything for Merritt- 
Chapman & Scott, and yet got paid $19,000 for just handling the paper. 
What was the reason for it ? 

Mr. Owens. I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Actually, it was just a payoff to a union official, 
was it not, by the Merritt-Chapman & Scott Co. ? 

Mr. 0\\rENS. I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you give any other explanation as to why they 
would make this arrangement, have this correspondence, and go 
through all this effort to make sure that Penn Products got some of 
the business? 

Mr. Oavens. No ; the decision had been made to handle it this way. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that decision was not made by you ? 

Mr. Owens. I did not. 

The Chairman. Did Penn Products contribute anything, render 
any service, furnish any equipment, or actually supply anything? 

Mr. Owens. Besides the oils and lubricants ? 

The Chairman. They didn't supply any of those. You got those 
from Gulf and Esso. You didn't get them from Penn. Tliej^ simply 
sent a bill. Isn't that the truth ? 

You actually got the products from Esso and from Gulf, didn't 
you? 

Mr. Owens. So far as I know. 



16304 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. So far as you know ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes. 

The Chairman. And the only thing that Pemi did, so far as you 
know, was to submit a bill, isn't that correct ? 

Mr. Owens. There were one or two other items on the order to 
Penn Products, some of which may have been their own grease, for 
instance. 

The Chairman. Do you know of any such product that you can 
testify to? 

Mr. Owens. That they delivered to the job ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Owens. No. 

The Chairman. What I am trying to find out is : Was any service 
actually rendered by Penn at all ? Why were they in the picture ? 
Why did they have anything to do with it? They had no products 
to sell. The went to the supplier whom you could have gone to, and 
whom you did go to, and got a supply. The only thing I can see 
is that you just arranged to bill it through them so they could get 
a commission or get some profit out of it for doing nothing. 

Have you any other explanation of it ? 

Mr. Owens. I don't know the reason. 

The Chairman. Very well. Proceed. 

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

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Baum. 

The Chairman. Do you solemnly swear the evidence you shall give 
before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the wdiole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Baum. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF EOLLAND 0. BAUM, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
PETER CAMPBELL BROWN 

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

Mr. Baum. My name is Holland O. Baum. I live at 4390 Chicker- 
ing Lane, Nashville, Tenn. I am presently the president of Tennes- 
see Products & Chemical Corp. in Nashville. 

The Chairman. Do you have counsel ? 

Let the record reflect the same counsel, INIr. Brown, who appeared 
for the previous witness. He appears for Mr. Baum. 

All right, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Baum, vou were formerly associated with the 
Merritt- Chapman & Scott Co. ? 

Mr. Baum. Yes, sir ; I was. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were executive vice president in charge of pro- 
curement at the time of the Patapsco Tunnel project? 

Ml . Baum. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Baum, could you tell the committee when you 
first learned of the connection of Charlie Johnson with the Penn 
Products Co. ? 

Mr. Baum. Well, just what do you mean by "connection"? 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, association. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16305 

Mr. BAi':\r. To my recollection, sometime ejirly in 1953 I «:ot an 
inclination that Charlie Johnson was in sonm way connected, with 
Penn Products or with the people in Penn Products. 

Mr. Kennedy, Where did you receive that information? 

Mr. Baum. I think I perhaps got it in conversation with one of the 
Weiss brothers. 

Mr. Kennedy. And yon knew Charlie Johnson at that time to be 
a member of the general executive board of the Carpenters? 

Mr. Baum. I knew he was connected with the Carpenters Union; 
yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that the reason that the contracts awarded by 
Merritt-Chapman & Scott dealino^ with oil and petroleum products 
on this Patapsco Tunnel project were awarded to Penn Products Co.? 

Mr. Baim. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the reason that the billing was handled 
in the fashion that it was in connection both with the Esso Co. and 
the Gulf Oil Co.? 

Mr. Baum. To answer that question, I will have to give you just 
a little history. The company had been doin.g business with Penn 
Products since before the time I came with them in 1949. I don't 
know exactly how long before that, but I understand that it was 
quite a number of yeai-s. 

They were a supplier on our regular bid list. During the period 
that I am familiar with Penn Products, they received maybe 5 per- 
cent of our petroleum business. That business was awarded to them 
usually on the basis of the service tliat they supplied to us on the type 
of job where we required sj^ecial deliveries. 

As far as the Patapsco job was concerned, when that job was started 
it was anticipated that we would require special delivery service on 
it, and that is the reason that the arrangement was made with Penn 
Products. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it contemplated or expected tliat the Penn 
Products Co. would supply some delivery service ? 

Mr. Baum. At the time the job started it was contemplated. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there a contract to that effect entered into? 

Mr. Baum. Nothing stipulated in our order to them, but it was 
normal. They had been doing it for years on that basis. 

Mr. Kennedy, Well, when you are going to make a contract and 
you expect a company to perform a service, supply goods and perform 
a service, isn't it usual for you to put those terms in a contract that 
you are going to have with that company ? 

Mr. Baum. If it were a new supplier, definitely yes. If it is some- 
one you have had experience with over the years, and it is more or less 
of a routine thing, not necessarily. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where was it ever arranged in writing of any kind 
that the Penn Products Co. was to supply some services to the Patapsco 
Tunnel project? 

Mr. Baum. It wasn't in the Patapsco Tunned project. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they ever supply any services ? 

Mr, Baum. In that project they did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it ever stipulated in writing that they were 
to supply services ? 

Mr. Baum. No, sir. 



16306 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Tell me this: On the contract that was made in 
April of 1955, the first one, with the Esso Standard Oil Co., why 
wasn't the contract entered into directly with the Penn Products Co. 
and have them make their own arrangements for the purchase of 
oil? 

Mr. Baum. In several prior instances it had been done on that 
basis. But we had received complaints from some of our good cus- 
tomers in the oil business who used Merritt- Chapman for construc- 
tion projects that they thought we should buy our oil from them. 

So in order to have better control of the source of the petroleum 
products, we took our own bids on the petroleum products them- 
selves and determined which supplier we wanted to have supply it 
in order to get an equitable distribution of our petroleum business. 

Mr. Kennedy. All right. So Esso was going to supply under this 
contract, Esso was going to supply the oil and the petroleum products ? 

Mr. Baum. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Penn Products Co. was to supply the service ? 

Mr. Baum. Correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. The only part that Penn Products was to play in 
this was for the sei'vicing ; is that right ? 

Mr. Baum. That is correct, other than some of the lubricants. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you explain to the committee, if the only thing 
that Penn Products Co. was supposed to do with this was to supply the 
service, when you had made a contract with the Esso Co., why there 
was nothing in writing about that ? 

Mr. Baum. All I can say on that is that it was a transition period, 
and in prior instances the orders had been placed directly with Pemi 
without any negotiations with the oil companies and they had sup- 
plied the oil and the service. 

Mr. Kennedy. You know, Mr. Baum, this just doesn't make any 
sense at all. You will be frank about that. 

Mr. Baum. No, I will not admit that it doesn't make sense, because 
it is a matter of record that they had provided service on prior jobs 
and the prior jobs didn't stipulate it either. It is a matter of a manner 
of doing business. 

Mr. Kennedy. I question how much service they supplied on any 
prior job. We were told by Merritt-Chapman & Scott when we first 
interviewed the officials of that company, that they supplied service 
on every job. We started making an investigation. The first in- 
vestigation we went into was in this tunnel project in Baltimore and 
we found that there was no service. We didn't find it because of the 
officials of the Merritt-Chapman & Scott Co. volunteered that informa- 
tion; we found it because we went and made an investigation down 
thei-e ourselves. 

Up until 10 days ago, the ISIerritt-Chapman & Scott people were 
insisting that there was service supplied on the tumiel project in 
Baltimore. 

I will say that to you when you testify here before the committee 
that the company was getting service from the Penn Products Co. 

Mr. Baum. Were these people that had been on the job? I myself 
might have told you that 2 weeks ago, because I was never on that job. 
I did not know that there wasn't any service on it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where were some of the places that they provided 
service ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16307 

Mr. Baum. They provided service on one of the Hudson River 
bridge jobs. 

Mr, Kennedy. Wliat wa,s tlie service? Were yoii working on that? 

Mr. Baum. No. I was in procurement during my entire time. 

Mr. Kennedy. You tell me where you know they provided service. 
The officials dismiss this with "Well, somebody else told me that." 
Later on we find they didn't provide service. You tell me one place 
where you know they provided service. 

Mr. BAU^r. The only thing that I can tell you, Mr. Kennedy, is 
basically hearsay because I wasn't an operating man and I wasn't on 
the job. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the point right here. You don't know, 
then, that they provided service. The only job that you know is 
down here at the tunnel project when they did not provide any service 
and they received a $19,000 payoff. 

Mr. Baum. That $19,000 payoff is considerably in excess of what 
it was calculated to be by our procurement people at the time the 
order was placed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you think you got by well ? 

Mr. Baum. I think that there is something definitely wrong with 
the billings of that job. 

iVIr. Kennedy. You did well by it, is that right, that you only had 
to pay off $19,000 on this job ? 

Mr. Bau3I. There was no payoff involved in this, Mr. Kennedy. I 
am talking about the differential between the price which we would 
have liad to pay Esso on the bid they gave us and the calculated price 
which we planned on paying Penn Products for the service which they 
were supposed to have served when we first started this job, before 
the plans were changed. 

]NIr. Kennedy. Let me ask you this: Once you found that they did 
not provide service in 1955, did you ask for a return of your money 
from them ? 

]Mr. Baum. I found out that they didn't pro\'ide service not in 1955, 
but in 1959. 

Mr. Kennedy. Has JSIerritt-Chapman & Scott instituted some 
action against the Pemi Products Co. to try to get their money back? 

Mr. Baum. As of the moment we have cut them off from all the 
jobs they were on, and we are investigating the balance of the invoices 
on the other jobs. 

The Chairman. As of the moment what? I didn't quite under- 
stand you. 

]\Ir. Baum. We have terminated their services on all jobs that they 
were on. 

The Chairman. Their services have been simply an intermediary 
submitting bids heretofore ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Baum. At the present time I am not personally familiar with 
what is being done. Senator, but I have conferred with Merritt-Chap- 
man & Scott's people and they were currently servicing on three jobs, 
I am told, and they had equipment and service on all three of them. 
That was terminated, however, as of this week. 

Mv. Kennedy. They started providing some service after we began 
our investigation. 

Mr. Baum. They were providing service before that, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you give me an instance ? 



16308 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Baum. I know of several instances that I have been told of 
that they provided service on. I can't give you my own visual as- 
surance of that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you found, did you not, that they were not 
providing services, or the people under you found that they were 
not providing any services, down on the Baltimore tunnel job? 

Mr. Baum. To my knowledge, that information is as recent as the 
last 2 or 3 weeks. 

Mr. Kennedy. The people that were working there knew they were 
not providing any services. 

Mr. Baum. Apparently it wasn't communicated to the procurement 
office. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat about when you made the contract with the 
Gulf Oil Co.? Did you suggest at that time to Mr. Owens that he 
inform the Gulf Oil Co. that they handle this deal through the Penn 
Products Co. and invoice the Penn Products Co. ? 

Mr. Baum. To my recollection, Penn Products complained wlien the 
shipments through Esso declined, and Mr. Owens referred them 
to me, because I had directed him to issue the fii'st order to Penn 
Products. On the basis of the complaint and the contract we had 
with Penn Products, I felt that they were justified in complaining, 
and asked Owens to make the arrangement for Gulf to bill through 
Penn just the way Esso had been doing. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did you think they were justified in their 
complaint ? 

Mr. Baum. Because we had a contract with them to supply the 
job requirements of fuel and diesel oil and the service that went with 
it. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were complaining. You had a contract with 
them. What it amounted to is supplying service in this tunnel job. 
They started complaining because they were not getting the work. 
You made arrangements then for them to be invoiced for the oil and 
petroleum products that you were purchasing from the Gulf Oil Co. ? 

Mr. Baum. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were not supplying services at that time. 
They were not supplying the services for which they were being paid. 

Mr. Baum. Neither Mr. Owens nor I were aware of that. 

Mr. Kennedy. When they came and complained to you, didn't you 
have any conversations with them along that line, to find out if they 
were in fact performing their contract? 

Mr. Baum. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. What it amounted to was giving them another gift 
of $15,000, Mr. Baum? 

Mr. Baum. Mr. Kennedy, the total amount which they should have 
received in excess of the prices that Gulf and E^sso would have billed 
us should not have been over three, four, or five thousand dollars, 
tops, according to the calculations that we have made in the last week. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was that again ? I didn't hear you. 

Mr. Baum. The total difference between the prices that Gulf and 
Esso would have billed us at and the prices Penn Products should have 
billed us at, should not have been over three, four, or five thousand 
dollars for that whole job. 

It was five-hundreciths of a cent per gallon on fuel oil and it was 
a cent and a third a jrallon on easoline. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16309 

Mr. Kennedy. What it amounted to ultimately was that you paid 
them $19,000 extra. 

Mr. liAUM. AVell, someplace there is $12,000 or $14,000 that we liave 
been lioodwinked out of as of the moment. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is not a question of bein<r lioodwinked, because 
I would think it is clearly demonstrated fi-oni the documents that 
your company very willingly entered into this arrangement. 

Mr. Baum. The arrangement was supposed to have cost us three, 
four, or five thousand dollars for the services which we thought we 
were getting, which I thought we were getting. 

Mr. Kennedy. And which nobody in one of the major construction 
companies in the country — you continued to pay over a period of 
several years a total of $19,000 for services that you never received? 

Mr. BAU]\r. Mr. Kennedy, I spent in the neighborhood of $200 
million a year for this corporation, something over 50,000 purchase 
orders a year. This was not a big matter so far as our normal day-to- 
day operations were concerned, and it is possible I never would have 
heard of it. 

Mr. Kexxi:dy. You evidenced quite a bit of interest to make sure 
that Penn Products Co. was receiving its money — Mr. Baum, you 
evidenced a considerable amount of interest during the course of this 
contract to insure that the Penn Products Co. was receiving its money. 

Mr. Baum. That they were receiving their money? Only when a 
complaint was brought to me, Mr. Kemiedy. I didn't originate it. 

Mr. Kennedy. This was a complaint that they were not getting paid 
for what amounted to a service they were not rendering. 

Mr. Baum. I was still unaware of it at the time. 

Mr. Kennedy. But before you paid them, I would think that you 
would find out, as a common, ordinary business practice, whether they 
were in fact performing the contract, if, as you say, they were sup- 
posed to do anything originally, that is. 

Mr. Baum. If you are doing business with an outfit over a period 
of years and they have been operating satisfactorily, you don't waste a 
lot of time checking those tilings. 

Mr. Kennedy. What you have here, Mr. Bamn, is that you entered 
into a contract for services with the contract never stipulating that 
that was the purpose of the contract. 

Mr. Bauim. That is correct. 

Mr. ICennedy. And then the company, the Penn Products Co., 
which was supposed to perform the services, never performed them, 
and then complained that they weren't being paid on the contract and 
receiving the money for services that they never performed in the 
first place, and that the Merritt-Chapman & Scott went and paid them 
the money. 

It doesn't make any sense at all, does it ? 

Mr. Baum. I am just thinking from a timing standpoint this com- 
plaint was when? I have no papers on this. When was it? 

Mr. Kennedy. The first contract was entered in April of 1955. 
ITien you entered into another stipulation in December of 1955. 

Mr. Baum. Wasn't the Gulf changed 

Mr. Kennedy. The second letter was written in December of 1955, 
after you had entered into a contract with Gulf in September of 
1955. 



16310 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Baum. It is quite possible that the work up to that time had 
been just land-based work, in which case the service wouldn't have 
been required until they got to the water work. 

I only offer that as a possible explanation. I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. The record shows they got paid for services up 
until December. 

Mr. Baum. "Well, naturally, the contract covered all of the materials 
supplied, not just that supplied specifically by their services. 

Mr. Kennedy. The fact of the matter is that the reason it was 
handled in this w^ay was because of Charlie Johnson's connection with 
the Penn Products Co. ? 

Mr. Baum. No, sir ; it was not. 

Mr. Kennedy. This was a payoff by your company to Charlie 
Johnson ? 

Mr. Baum. It was not a payoff, Mr. Kennedy. At the time that 
I first heard the rumors of Mr. Johnson's connection, vne got a Dun & 
Bradstreet on Penn Products, and there was no evidence in there, 
in Dun & Bradstreet, that anybody owned any part of it except the 
Weiss Brothers. Whether Mr. Johnson's connection was friendship 
or what it was, we had no further knowledge of it at that time. 

His exact connection, of course, was revealed here last week. 

Mr. Kennedy. You broke off the contract with the Esso Co. in 
September of 1955. You could have also broken off the contract with 
the Penn Products Co. 

Mr. Baum. Undoubtedly we could have. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why didn't you do that? 

Mr. Baum. Because we had no reason for doing it, to my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had the reason that they weren't doing anything 
for you. 

Mr. Baum. But I didn't know that. 

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

The Chairman. All right. Thank you. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of clarity, I respectfully 
request that the record sliow that there is a Penn Products Co. and a 
Penn Products Corp. In view of some of Mr. Kennedy's statements 
charging a payoff to a union official, testimony taken on Friday last, 
and appearing on page 912, when INIr. Weiss was here, inider interro- 
gation by your chief counsel, testified tliat it was the Penn Products 
Corp. that Mr. Johnson was associated with. 

I respectfully ask the chairman to be good enougli to include this 
on the record. 

The Chairman. I think that is correct. Tliat is tlie Chair's recol- 
lection. 

So wherever the word "Company" was used today in the interro- 
gation, it should be "Corporation,'' Is that correct? 

Mr. Brown. Well, Mr. Chairman, what I have in mind is that in 
view of the charges of Mr. Kennedy alleging a payoff to a union offi- 
cial, I respectfully state that the testimony to date is to the effect that 
Mr. Johnson was associated with th'e Penn Products Corp. 

However, sir, I respectfully submit that at no time did Merritt- 
Chapman & Scott do business with the corporation, but any business 
done at any and at every time with Penn Products was with the Penri 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16311 

Products Co., with which business entity ]Mr. Johnson, to our knowl- 
edge, has had, and has today, no association whatsoever. 

The Chairman. Do you know whether he has or has not ? 

Mr. Brown. Our knowledge, sir, is tliat he has not, to the best of our 
knowledge, and as the result of our own investigation. 

The Chairman. My recollection is the testimony previously was 
to the effect — when Mr. Weiss was on the stand — that it was the corpo- 
ration, Penn Products Corp. That is my recollection of the title used 
in that interrogation. 

Mr. Brown. Yes, sir; I agree with the Senator. 

The Chairman. That is my recollection. 

Mr. Brown. Yes sir; but the point that I would like to make, Mr. 
Chairman, is merely this, if I may restate it again 

The Chairman. I don't know whether company and corporation are 
used interchangeabl}' or not. We will have to look into it. 

Mr. Brown. I appreciate the opportunity of making this state- 
ment, Senator. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could I carry this on a moment with you so that the 
record is completely clarified on this point ? 

The testimony shows that Mr. Weiss, according to his own testimony, 
brought Mr. Charlie Johnson into this situation in order to make the 
contacts with these various companies. One of the companies with 
which he made the contact, and on which he received commissions, 
was the Merritt-Chapman & Scott Co. This was one of the companies 
that he brought in and was given credit for with the Penn Products 
group. 

Charlie Johnson received money from this contract that was awarded 
by the Merritt-Chapman & Scott Co. to the Penn Products Co. There 
is no question about that. He received money. This money that was 
paid by the Merritt-Chapman & Scott Co. went in part to Charlie 
Johnson. 

Mr. Brown. I have no knowledge, sir, with regard to that. But 
in view of your testimony now that you have afforded us 

Mr. Kennedy. Xo; I am summarizing the testimony of Mr. Weiss 
and our own accountant who put these figures into the record. 

Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, in view of these recent observations 
of your counsel, I would appreciate the opportunity to say a few more 
words on that point, if I may. 

Over a period of years, and it is my understanding that the Penn 
Products Co. was organized in 1935, from 1935 up until 1949 they did 
do business with Merritt-Chapman & Scott. 

]\lr. Kennedy. That is also in the record. 

Mr. Brown. Please let me say this, if I may : 

In 1919, the Penn Products' Corp. was formed, and Mr. Weiss has 
testified that Mr. Johnson was associated with that corporation. I 
would like, sir, to state again, if I may, that at no time in the history 
of Merritt-Chapman & Scott operatio'ns have they done any business 
whatsoever with tlie Penn Products Corp. with which ]Mr. Jolmson was 
associated. It is the Penn Products Co., and there has never been any 
testimony that Mr. Johnson was associated with the company. 

Therefore, sir, I fail to follow your charge that there was a payoff 
to a union official when there has been no testimony that a union 
official was associated with the company with which Merritt-Chap- 
man & Scott has done business. 



16312 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. But the contract was handled and the commissions 
were awarded based on this contract with Merritt-Chapman & Scott, 
and the money went directly, at least a part of the money went 
directly to Charlie Johnson. There is no dispute about it, Mr. Brown. 

Then as to the second point that you raised about the fact that 
the Penn Products Co. has been doin^ business with Merritt-Chapman 
& Scott during the 1940's, I would like to ask you this question: Had 
Merritt-Chapman & Scott purchased any gasoline or diesel fuels from 
the Penn Products Co. prior to 1919 ? 

Mr. Brown. Mr. Kennedy, on that point I am not informed. I 
arose and asked permission of the Chair in the interest of clarity and 
in view of some observations that you made and in my book they were 
absolutely without any foundation whatsoever. I felt tliat I had a 
burden and I appreciate the opportunity that the chairman has been 
generous enough to provide in order that I clear the record as best 
I can. 

The Chairman. The Chair has indulged you because I don't want 
any errors, and I am not trying to build a false record. I remembsr 
there were the two, the corporation and also the company. I don't 
know whether they were used interchangeably or whether they were 
one and the same or not. But anyway, I think a reading of the record 
will clarify the whole thing. 

Mr. Brown. I appreciate it very much. 

The Chairman. If Mr. Johnson actually participated in it, the 
record should show it, and if he didn't, it should show otherwise. 

Thank you very mucli. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Bi;owN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, as the question has been raised it 
might be well that we call the investigator and show the interrelation- 
ship between the Penn Products Co. a iid the corporation. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Tierney, will you come around. 

Mr. Brown, will you listen to this testimony, and this maybe wi ll 
clear it up. You may listen. We invite your attention to" it, and 
maybe this will clear it up. 

Mr. Tierney, have you been previously sworn? 

Mr. Tierney. I have. 

TESTIMONY OF PAUL J. TIERNEY— Resumed 

The Chairman. Have a seat, Mr. Tierney. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Tierney, would you explain to the committee 
the interrelationship between the Penn Products Co. of Somerville, 
Mass., and the Penn Products Corp. of New York, and how the Penn 
Products Corp. was formed according to the testimony, and tlie ar- 
rangement that was made as far as the commissions are concerned on 
the sales to companies such as Merritt-Chapman & Scott. 

Mr. Tierney. According to Mr. Edward Weiss' testimony before 
the committee, the Penn Products Corp., which was incorporated in 
New York, was formed around Charlie Johnson, Jr., and the purpose 
of the formation of the company was to get contracts witli major 
contracting companies which he indicated they could not get bof()re. 
In other words, itwas that they could not have their bids considered 
by major contracting companies. Because of Mr. Johnson's contacts 
with tnese major contractnig companies, (he corporation was formed 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16313 

about him, and the contacts to get the business from tlie major con- 
struction companies was facilitated through Mr. Johnson, 

The Chairman. Which company was that^ 

Mr. TiERNEY. That is Penn Products Corp. in ^'ew York. 

The Chairman. That is the one he testified about liere when he 
was on the witness stand ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. It was Penn Products Corp., which was formed, 
and Mr. Johnson recommended or intervened, to get business from 
some 19 diti'erent contractors ; am I correct? 

Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. 

Mr. TiERNEY. That is correct. 

The Chairman. And this company was named as one of them; is 
that on the list ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. Merritt-Chapman & Scott was one of the companies 
on the list from which he received commissions, and that was an 
account that he had brought. 

The Chairman. And Mr. Weiss so testihed ; is that correct ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. That is correct. 

Now, Penn Products Co., which is on this purchase order, and that 
is the company with which Merritt-Chapman made the contract, is a 
Massachusetts corporation. 

Mercury Oil Co. is another JSIassachusetts corporation. All three 
corporations are run by Mr. Edward Weiss, and he is the president 
ancl treasurer of these corporations, and all three corporations have 
their office at 94 Vernon Street, in Somerville, Mass. 

The Chairman. Are they all under the same ownership ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. They are all run by Edward Weiss? 

Mr. TiERNEY. He operates all of them. 

Senator Mundt. And is iSIr. Jolmson connected with all three of 
them? 

Mr. TiERNEY. Mr. Johnson's wife held 25 percent of the stock in 
Penn Products Corp., a New York corporation, and Mr. Johnson 
himself was a salesman for Penn Products Corp. for which he received 
commissions. 

The Chairivian. After profits ; isn't that right ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. Fifty percent of the profits. Now, these commissions 
were based on accounts which ]Mr. Johnson brought in according to 
Mr. Weiss' testimony, and they included Merritt-Chapman & Scott 
and other corporations. 

]\Ir. IvENNEDY. And they were accounts that were brought in to 
any one of these three companies ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. No matter which company signed the contract? 

Mr. TiERNEY. As a matter of fact, the proof of that is that I am 
sure Merritt-Chapman & Scott has had no contracts with Penn 
Products Corp. 

Mr. Brow^n. That was the point that I made, Mr. (^hairman. 

The Chairman. But the point is, if they had one with the com- 
pany, Penn Products Co., Johnson got his 50 percent of the profit 
out of it. 

36751— 59— pt. 44 8 



16314 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. TiERNEY. From a technical standpoint, his profits were not 
based, only on contracts between Penn Products Corp. and tlie con- 
struction companies. For example, as I said, and I repeated, and I 
think it is important, that Merritt-Chapman & Scott, for example, 
had no contracts with Penn Products Corp., and their contracts were 
with Penn Products Co., and nevertheless based on those contracts 
Charles Johnson received commissions. 

The Chairman. Is that positive in the record ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That from this contract with Penn Products Co., 
Johnson received by reason of his contract with Penn Products Corp., 
Johnson received his 50 percent of the profits; is that correct? 

Mr. TiERNEY. That is correct And Johnson made the contacts 
and the contract resulting from that was between Penn Products Co. 
and the contractors, but he still received the commissions, regardless 
of whether or not he had an interest in Penn Products Co., or his 
wife had no interest. 

The Chairman. Here is the real test : Here is $19,000 involved here ; 
is that correct? 

Mr. TiERNEY. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. According to the testimony. 

Mr. Brown. We are not informed as to the precise amount, but 
according to the testimony you are correct, Senator. 

The Chairman. Out of that $19,000, did Johnson get a part of the 
profits ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. Now when we talked with Mr. Edward Weiss, we 
could not pin down that he would get profits from this specific job or 
that specific job, because he said that he merely determined the net 
profits from an individual job and split them half and half, and 
Johnson got half and the corporations got the rest. He had no basis 
on which he made those figures, and he liad no records, and it was 
done out of his head, so he said. 

Mr. Kennedy. But this was one of the jobs that was included? 

Mr. TiERNEY. Tliat is right, and in other words, his testimony in 
effect is that when he made the original contact, all subsequent jobs 
made with that particular contractor were considered as Charles 
Johnson's account, and he received commissions accordingly. 

The Chairman. Again, he received a commission from this one? 

Mr. TiERNEY. That is right, from that testimony it would follow. 

The Chairman. Although the Merritt-Chapman & Scott contract 
was with Penn Products Co., Johnson, by reason of having brought the 
})usiness to Penn Products Co., got 50 percent of the profits? 

Mr. TiERNEY. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Are you positive about that ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. I am positive. 

The Chairman. Did Mr. Weiss so testi f y ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. lie lias not specifically testified to that effect, Senator. 
And it is not that he has specifically testified to it, but the point is 
that nevertheless (^harles Jolmson got commissions from these con- 
tracts he brought to Penn Products. 

The Chairman. Weiss did testify to that, didn't he? 

Mr. TiERNEY. The l>est way I can state it is to go back again to 
tliat original statement that Charles Johnson, Jr., received commissions 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16315 

from contracts with Merritt-Chapman & Scott. Now, Mr. AVeiss testi- 
fied to that fact. Yet Merritt-Chapman & Scott has never had a con- 
tract with Penn Products Co. 

Mr. Brown. We have always had it with the company and not the 
corporation, and you have been using tliem intercliangeably, and that 
is the point. 

Tlie (^HAiRMAx. I am trying to clear it up. 

Mr. TiERNEY. They have never had a contract with Penn Products 
( "orp., I am sorry. 

Tlie Chairman. That is what I understand, 

Mr. TiERNEY. I will correct myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. The profit for every year and tlie commissions for 
every year, based on the contracts that Charlie Johnson was able to 
V)ring in, the profits on those contracts every year were split 507.50; is 
that correct? 

Mr. TiERNEY. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Included in these years was the profits that were 
biought in on the Merritt-Chapman & Scott contracts? 

Mr. TiERNEY. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the figures are all added up for the year of 
1955, and 1956, and Mr. Charles Johnson received 50 percent of those 
jirofits ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And this company, Merritt-Chapman & Scott Co., 
is included among those companies? 

Mr. TiERNEY. That is right, among the 19 companies. 

The Chairman. Now, did Mr. Weiss so testify? 

Mr. Teerney. That is right. 
■ The Chairman. We presented him with the list, and he testified 
that from this list, and where is that list? It is an exhibit. Let us 
liave it. I know he testified from that list that Mr. Johnson received 
50 percent of the profits. 

Here is a copy of the list that is in the transcript and I had it made 
a part of the hearings, and midway on this list — I think there are 19 
companies — is Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. 

Mr. Tierney. Yes. 
. The Chairman. Is that the name of your people, Merritt-Chapman 
v?c Scott? 

Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. 

The (^hairman. Mr. Weiss included them as among the accounts 
from which Mr. Johnson received a commission, and the record will so 
reflect because the Chair interrogated him about it. Pie received the 
fees foi- the accounts that Johnson Avas given credit for having 
i)rought into the business, and that Johnson received 50 percent of the 
])rofits from these accounts. 

^Ir. Brown. But. Mr. Chairman, the ])oint that I had hoped to 
ni:ike was that Merritt-Cha])man & Scott had for a period of years in 
idvance of 1949, which was tlie year of the formation of the Penn 
Pi'oducts Corp., been doing business with the company, and Mr. John- 
son has been associated with the cor])oration, with which business 
entity ]Merritt-Chai:)inan & Scott has never engaged. 

Therefore, in view of the statement of Mr. Kenned}^ to the effect 
rhat there was an alleged payoff to a union official, it is impossible, 



16316 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

by virtue of the fact that the union official by testimony here was 
associated with tJie corporation, wliereas Merritt-Chapman has only 
done business with the company. 

Therefore, Mr. Kennedy's statement, which had no foundation, 
caused me to ask the Chair for the opportunity to straighten out the 
record, for which opportunity I am deeply grateful indeed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just a moment. Don't go away. Your witness 
from the company testified that he understood that Charlie Johnson 
was connected with this company, and that he had that information. 

Mr. Brown. Witli the corporation, probably 

Mr. Kennedy. With the company they Avere making the contract 
with, and he had that information back as far as January of 1953. 

Then this money was paid by Merritt-Chapman & Scott, $19,000 
in extra funds for which there was no service, and at least 50 percent 
of the profits of that money went to Charlie Johnson, a union official. 

Mr. Brown. All of which is a part of an internal operation of a 
corporation with which we have nothing to do, the internal operation 
concerning that. 

Mr. Kennp:dy. I think the record stands. 

Now, Mr. Tierney, you might have something further to add, but 
Mr. Tierney, did Penn Products Co. sell any diesel oils or diesel fuels 
or gasoline to Merritt-Chapman & Scott prior to the time Charlie 
Jolmson came in as an official ? 

Mr. Tierney. Not that we know of. 

Mr. Kennedy. What were they selling prior to that'^ 

Mr. Tierney. They Avere principally engaged in the lubricating 
motor oil business. 

Mr. Kennedy. And I believe on page 924, I asked Mr. Weiss as 
to what he did in connection with the Merritt-Chapman & Scott, 
and I was asking him about that, and I said : 

What dirt Charlie Johnson do for yon in that case? 

And Mr. Weiss said : 

When he started with ns he introdnced ns to people there on the first job 
that they had, and we submitted a proposal on the job. 

Then I asked : 

You already knew Merritt-Chapman & Scott? 

Mr. Weiss. This was a totally different group that were in control at that 
time. 

The Chairman. The Chair made reference to some questions that 
he asked, and I call attention to the transcript at page 920, begin- 
ning, I think, on 919: There I asked Mr. Weiss, and I said: 

To set one thing clear that I am not sure about, you said arrangements were 
with Mr. Johnson to have 50 percent of the profits. 

Mr. Weiss. Of the net profits of any products sold. 

The Chairman. Did that include aU of the products sold by the Penn Products 
Co. which was formed right after this arrangement was made? 

Mr. Weiss. No. That was only to those accounts that Mr. Johnson was re- 
sponsible for. 

The CiiAiKMAN. Where you gave him credit for getting the account, he wa.s 
to receive ;"0 i>ercent? 

Mr. Weiss. Of the net profit. 

The Chairman. Yes, of the net profit. In additicm to that, his wife rei-eived 
2^) percent of the other profits because she had put up $250 for a 2r> percent 
interest? 

Mr. Weiss. Correct, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16317 

The Chairman. Now we have the picture. All riKht. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have u li.st there? 

Mr. Weiss. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you submit that to the chairman, please? 

Mr. Weiss. Yes. 

The CiiAiKMAN. According to the copy of the list I have here, and you can 
check it there, there are 19 different companies or accounts on the list ; is that 
correct? 

Mr. Weiss. Correct, sir. 

The Chairman. The first one you list is Corbetta Construction Co., New York 
€ity? 

Mr. Weiss. Correct. 

The Chairman. And the last one is Walsh Construction Co., New York City ; 
is that correct? 

Mr. Weiss. Correct, sir. 

Then I ordered the list piiblislied in the hearino:s. 

It is not necessary to recite any fnrther, but I think that you will 
find that there is no question in ^Ir. Weiss' testifying that out of the 
profits from the Merritt-Chapman & Scott account, Mr. Johnson re- 
ceived his share of 50 percent of the net profit. 

All right, is there anything further? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is alL 

The Chairman. All right. Thank you. 

Call the next witness. 

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

The Chairman. Mr. Emanuel Weiss. Mr. Weiss, will you come 
around ? 

Mr. Kennedy. We might have Mr. Phil Weiss at the same time. 

The Chairman. Mr. Phil Weiss, will you come around also ? 

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

Mr. Emanuel Weiss. I do. 

Mr. Philip Weiss. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF EMANUEL WEISS AND PHILIP WEISS, ACCOM- 
PANIED BY COUNSEL, JOSEPH LOUISELL 

The Chairman. Beginning on my left, will you state your name, 
and your place of residence, and your business or occupation, please? 

Mr. Emanuel Weiss. Emanuel Weiss, 1744 Covington Road, Cleve- 
land, Ohio. 

The Chairman. What is your business or occupation ? 

Mr. Emanuel Weiss. On advice of counsel, I refuse to answer for 
the reason that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Let me get the other one. 

Will you give your name, and your place of residence, and your 
business or occupation? 

Mr. Philip Weiss. Philip Weiss, 2956 West Park Boulevard, 
Shaker Heights, Ohio. 

The Chairman. Will 3"ou give us your business or occupation ? 

Mr. Philip Weiss. On advice of counsel, I respectfully refuse to 
answer for the reason the answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Then you do have counsel present, each of you? 

Mr. Phh.ip Weiss. Yes, sir. 



16318 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Counsel, will you identify yourself for the record ? 

Mr. LouiSEGLL. Joseph Louisell, of Detroit, Mich. 

The Chairman. You are licensed under the Michigan bar ? 

Mr. Louisell. A member of the bar of the State of Michigan, of 
the U.S. Supreme Court. 

The Chairman. Will you answer this question, Mr. Emanuel Weiss;. 
Are you a businessman ? 

Mr. Emanuel Weiss. On advice of counsel, I respectfully refuse to 
answer for the reason the answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you a question. Do you honestly believe 
if you gave a truthful answer to the question, "Are you a business- 
man?" that a truthful answer might tend to incrimmate you? 

Do you honestly believe that ? That is a question. 

Mr. Emanuel Weiss. On advice on counsel, I respectfully refuse to 
answer for the reason the answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairjvian. With the approval of the committee, the Chair 
orders and directs you to answer the question, whether you honestly 
believe that if you gave a truthful answer to the question, "Are you a 
businessman?" that such a truthful answer might tend to incriminate 
you. 

That is an order and direction of the Chair, with the approval of the 
committee. 

Mr. Emanuel Weiss. On advice of counsel, I respectfully refuse to 
answer for the reason the answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. That order and direction will continue throughout 
your presence here on the witness stand, and during the time that you 
are under the jurisdiction of this committee. 

I will ask you another question. Were you subpenaed to be present 
here before this conunittee ? 

Mr. Louisell. He was not. 

Mr. Emanuel Weiss. I was not. 

The Chairman. Are you coming voluntarily ? 

Mr. Louisell. He is here by reason of counsel. 

The Chairman. Now, Mr. Counsel, I will permit you to make a 
statement. I just wanted to get my bearings. The witness is not here 
by subpena ? 

Mr. Louisell. No, Mr. Chairman, he is not here by subpena. 

The Chairman. He is here in response to a request of the committee, 
is that correct, without a lawful subpena? 

Mr. Louisell. Pie is here by arrangement made by myself with Mr. 
Tierney, that I would bring Air. Emanuel Weiss here at the time an<i 
place set for the appearance of Mr. Philip Weiss. 

The Chairman. I want to understand this for the record : Do you 
waive a subpena, and do you appear now by request of the committee '. 
Let us get this record clear. 

Mr. Louisell. May I answer for him ? 

The Chairman. No, sir. I am asking i\\Q witness because we are 
making a record here. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Emanuel Weiss. On advice of counsel, I respectfully refuse to 
answer for the reason the answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chair]man. Clerk, issue a subpena for this witness immediately 
for his appearance immediately. I will ask the other witness, the 
other Mr. Weiss, what is your given name, Mr. Weiss? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16319 

Mr. Philip Weiss. Philip. 

The CiiAiRMAX. And this question is directed to Mr. Philip Weiss: 
Mr. Weiss, are you a businessman ? 

Mr. Philip AVeiss. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully refuse to 
answer for the reason the answer mitjht tend to incriminsite me. 

The Chairman. Do you honestly believe that if you gave a truthful 
answer to the question, "Are you a businessman?'' that a tiaithful an- 
swer thereto might tend to incriminate you ? 

Mr. Philip Weiss. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully refuse to 
answer for the reason the answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. With the approval of the committee, the Chair 
orders and directs you to answer the question. Do j^ou honestly be- 
lieve that if you gave a truthful answer to the question, "Are you a 
businessman?" that a truthful answer thereto might tend to incrimi- 
nate you ? 

That is an order and direction. 

Mr, Philip Weiss. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully refuse to 
answer for the reason the answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. That order and direction will continue during your 
presence here as a witness and while you remain under the jurisdiction 
of the committee. 

Were you subpenaed to be present ? 

Mr. Philip Weiss. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. A subpena was served on you and you are here in 
response to a subpena ? 

Mr. Philip Weiss. Yes, sir. 

Tlie Chairman. Thank you. 

The subpena on this witness, Mr. Philip Weiss, together with the 
return thereon, will be printed in the record at this point. 

(The material referred to follows :) 

United States of America 

Congress of the United States 

L-4184 
To Phil Weiss, greetings : 

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, forthwith, at their committee room, 101. 
Senate Office Building, Washington 25, D.C., then and there to testify what you 
may know relative to the subject matters under consideration by said com- 
mittee, and to produce those documents mentioned in schedule I attached hereto 
and made a part hereof. 

Thereof fail not, as you will answer your default under the pains and penal- 
ties in such cases made and provided. 

Given under my hand, by order of the committee, this 1st day of May, in the 
year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and fifty-eight. 

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

SCHEDULE I OF SUBPENA L-4184 

To produce for the period from January 1, 1950, to the presesnt time : 
1. All bank statements, canceled checks, check stubs, duplicate deposit slips, 
deposit receipts, savings account records, safety deposit box records, and any 
and all other records reflecting your personal banking transactions, and those 
jointly with your wife, and with any bank, savings and loan association, build- 
ing and loan agency, or any other agency or individual ; 



16320 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

2. All rec'orfls reflecting loans by you, or upon your behalf, made to or re- 
deemed from any source ; 

3. All records reflecting all other sources of income and the amounts thereof 
"Which you personally, or jointly with your wife, received from any source ; 

4. All records reflecting assets, such as trusts, stocks, government or mu- 
nicipal bonds, corporate or partnership shares, and ownership in whole or in 
part of any business or enterprise held by you personally, or jointly with your 
wife, and/or in the names of your children : 

5. All records reflecting any realty transactions or realty holdings by you 
personally, or jointly with your wife, together with pertinent dnta showing 
the equity held therein and any liens, notes secured by deeds of trust or mort- 
gages, or other indebtedness against such realty ; 

6. All diaries, calendars reflecting appointments, and appointment books 
maintained bv you or in your behalf at your offices ; 

7. All your personal income tax returns, or those filed jointly by you and 
your wife, both Federal and State. 

SERVICE 

June 9, 1958. 
I made service of the within subnena by service on Atty. .Tos. Louisell, au- 
thorized to accept service for the within-named Phil AVeiss at 236fi Penobscot 
Building, Detroit, Michigan, at 5 :10 o'clock p.m. on the ninth day of June 1958. 

I. Langenbacher, 
Assistant Counsel. 

The Chairmax. Mr. Counsel, yon may proceed with your inter- 
rogation of Mr. Philip Weiss for the present. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Philip Weiss is by far the more 
important witness as far as this committee is concerned. 

The Chairman. He has been snbpenaed and the other one has not 
T>een. I will have a subpena served on the other one so there will be 
no fuiestion about it. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wo do not expect this afternoon to go into all of 
his affairs, Mr. Chairman. It will be necessary for him to return 
at a later time. But we did, as we were ^oin^ into the situation in- 
volving the Penn Products Co. and Charlie Johnson, want to have him 
before the committee to ask him some questions about that. 

Mr. Weiss, you were born on February 2, 1900; is that correct? 

Mr. Philip Weiss. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully refuse 
to answer for the reason that the answer might tend to incriminate 
me. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is also correct, is it not 

The Chairman. Do you think you were incriminated when you 
were born ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Philip Weiss. Is that a question? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Philip Weiss. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline 
to answer on the jjround that the answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Ervin. That is cai'i"yin<r an absurdity beyond the realm of 
ridiculousness. Certainly no man is responsible for his entrance into 
the world and his entrance into the world couldn't possibly tend to 
incriminate him of anything. It is not a crime just to be born. That 
just shows how the fifth amendment is abused and made ridiculous. 

Tlie Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Louisell. Mr. Cliairman, I submitted in advance a statement 
which I had asked permission to read to the committee, which I think 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16321 

explains the situation. T tliink in fairness to the committee, all of 
the committee should 

The Chairman. Is that a statement from counsel ? 

Mr. LouisFXL. Yes, sir. 

The CiiAiKMAX. Not from the witness? 

Mr. LouisELL. Not from the witness. 

Mr. Kexxedy. What it says in substance, and you can correct me, 
that both Mr. Phil Weiss and Mr. Emanuel Weiss were indicted on 
July 27. 1054, with two other individuals, for the theft of automobile 
parts from the Willys-Overland Co. of Toledo, Ohio, the theft that 
was allefred to have taken place in 1952. All the defendants were 
found ouihy in October of 1956. 

Phil Weiss was sentenced to 5 years and fined $10,000. The case was 
appealed and in xVpril of 1958 the case was remanded back to the 
district court for a new trial. The new trial has not yet becfun, but 
these two frentlemen are in the position of beinij under indictment. 

Mr. LouiSELL. They continue under a pending indictment in the 
United States district court. 

The Chairman. Is that for stealing an automobile? 

Mr. LouisELL. The indictment charges the violation of the code 
which prohibits the interstate transportation of stolen goods. 

The Chairman. It is connection with the alleged theft of an 
automobile ? 

Mr. LoriSELL. Xot of an automobile; automobile parts. The al- 
leged theft and conversion. 

The Chairman. The theft of stolen goods consisting of automobile 
parts ? 

Mr. LouiSELL. That is correct, Mr. Senator. 

Mr. Kennedy. Many thousands of dollars. 

The Chairman. That statement, if you have filed a statement, the 
Chair will accept it, without taking time to read it, if that is the sub- 
stance of it. 

Mr, LouiSELL. That is the substance. Further, that it was my un- 
derstanding, however, that the committee was not disposed to expend 
time with persons situated as ai'e the Messrs. Weiss where the com- 
mittee knew in advance, as this committee has, as early as last June, 
that is, June of 1958, that because of the pendency of that indictment,, 
if Mr. Philip Weiss were called before the committee he would, of 
necessity, be required to rely on the Bill of Rights. 

The Chairman. Let me inquire of counsel : Is the testimony that 
you seek to elicit from Mr. Philip Weiss, or in your interrogation 
of him, in any way related to the stolen automobile parts ? 

Mr. Kennedy. We don't expect to go into whether he stole the 
automobile parts at all. 

The Chairman. In other words, that will not be a subject matter 
of the inquiry ? 

Mr. Kennedy. It will not be. 

The Chairman. Then we will proceed. The fact that someone is 
under indictment for something else which is not relevant to this hear- 
ing would not preclude us from interrogating him about any informa- 
tion he may have that is pertinent to the investigation this committee 
is charged with conducting. 



16322 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

I will be glad to hear you. 

Mr. LouiSELL. Might I respectfully point out that upon a retrial 
of this cause in the United States district court, these men may again 
be witnesses in their own defense, and such record as might be made 
liere might be the subject of inquiry on cross-examination of them 
in the course of that trial. We can't predict, of course, what might 
happen. 

The Chairman. I may say this : There is not a witness who appears 
here and testifies but what his testimony might become the subject 
of an inquiry, whether indicted or not. This is a public hearing, 
we are making a public record. We are making it under oath and 
people are bound by what they say here because it is under oath. 

Mr. LouiSELL. That is why, of course, I have advised them to claim 
their privilege under the Constitution. 

The Chairman. It is your privilege to advise them. 

Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr, Kennedy. Mr. Weiss, during the lOSO's, you and Edward Weiss 
organized Penn Products Co., of Somerville? 

Mr. Philip Weiss. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully refuse 
to answer for the reason that the answer might tend to incriminate me. 

IMr. Kennedy. In the early 1940's, you went into business with 
Bichard Frankenstein, who is a high official of the UAW? 

Mr. Philip Weiss. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully refuse 
to answer for the reason that the answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You organized the Frankenstein Corp., which manu- 
factured wrist watches, bracelets, and toaster grills and sold them in 
and around the Detroit area during the 1940's ? 

Mr. Philip Weiss. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully refuse 
to answer for the reason that the answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Shortly after the war you were involved in black- 
marketing of steel, were you not, Mr. Weiss ? 

Mr. Philip Weiss. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully refuse 
to answer for the reason that the answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You and Frankenstein were also in that, buying 
from the Portsmouth Steel Co. and selling it to the Steel Trading 
Co., of Detroit, Mich. ? 

Mr. Philip Weiss. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully refuse 
to answer for the reason that the answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it correct, also, that you have been involved 
in the black marketing of steel with "Longy" Zwillman, as well as 
Frankenstein ? 

Mr. Philip Weiss. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully refuse 
to answer for the reason that the answer might tend to incriminate 
me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it true that you have had financial dealings 
with various steel companies in the United States at various times? 

Ml". Philip Weiss. On the advice of counsel, I i-espectfully refuse 
to answer for the reason that the answer might tend to incriminate 
me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And isn't it correct, also, that in those dealings you 
have always used as a basis of them your relationship with, alleged 
relationship, with certain union officials? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16323 

Mr. Philip Weiss. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully refuse 
to answer for the reason that the answer might tend to incriminate 
me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it true that you have continuously used the 
names of high officials of the Steelworkers in connection with obtain- 
ing or making arrangements with steel corporations and companies 
throughout the country ? 

Mr. Philip Weiss, On the advice of counsel, I respectfully refuse 
to answer for the reason that the answer might tend to incriminate 
me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it correct, also, Mr. Weiss, that you have used 
your friendship w4th Mr. Jimmy Hoffa to obtain business deals with 
certain truck companies and other com])anies throughout the country ? 
. Mr. Philip Weiss. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully refuse 
to answer for the reason that the answer might tend to incriminate 
me. 

Mr. Kennedy. For instance, in 19.57, didn't you go to a representa- 
tive of the trucking companies up in New York and tell them that 
because of your relationship with Mr. Hotfa, that you would be able 
to alleviate the terms of the contract if they Avould grant the insur- 
ance, if the truckers would grant the insurance, to a friend of j^ours ? 
. Mr. Philip Weiss. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully refuse 
to answer for the reason that the answer might tend to incriminate 
me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it correct that you had several meetings along 
rliose lines until the deal was finally ended by Mr. Sheridan in New 
Xork City ? 

; Mr. Philip Weiss. On the advice of counsel, I respectfulh' refuse 
to answer for the reason that the answer might tend to incriminate 
me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that was Mr. Hugh Sheridan, who was head 
of the Truckers Association in New York; isn't that correct? He is 
the one that squelched the deal ? Is that right ? 

Mr. Philip Weiss. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully refuse 
to answer for the reason that the answer might tend to incriminate 
me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it correct that in addition to these other situ- 
ations, that you have also used your friendship with Charlie Johnson 
of the Carpenters Union in order to obtain contracts from various 
contracting firms throughout the United States ? 

Mr. Philip Weiss. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully refuse 
to answer for the reason that the answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And one of these situations that we have dealt with 
is the relationship that you have had with the Penn Products Co., 
Mr. Weiss, and your introduction into that company of Mr. Charles 
Johnson, Jr. ? 

Mr. Philip Weiss. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully refuse 
to answer for the reason that the answer might tend to incriminate me. 
■ Mr. Kennedy. And isn't it correct that you have drawn money out 
of that company in connection with sales that you have made ? 

Mr. Philip Weiss. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully refuse 
to answer for the reason that the answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. In addition to Mr. Charlie Johnson, you have had 
friendship with Mr. Frank Chapman of the Carpenters Union ? 



16324 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Philip Weiss, On the advice of counsel, I resjoectfully refuse 
to answer for the reason that the answer mijijht tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it correct, Mr. Weiss, that you are probably 
foremost in the country, in the United States, as far as selling your 
racket connections, not only with racket labor union officials, but with 
racketeers in the United States ? 

Mr. Philip Weiss. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully refuse 
to answer for the reason that the answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it correct that while Johnny Dioguardi might 
be effective in New York City, somebody else might be effective in 
Detroit, somebody else in Philadelphia, that you have had the most 
far-reaching effect on labor racketeering of anvbody in the United 
States? 

Mr. Philip Weiss. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully refuse 
to answer for the reason that the answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And isn't it correct that you can never make a 
legitimate business deal, Mr. Weiss? You are always using who you 
know in the labor union movement or who you know in the under- 
world in order to make a few extra dollars for yourself? 

Mr. Philip Weiss. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully refuse 
to answer for the reason that the answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have subpenaed the telephone 
calls of Mr. Weiss to various places in the United States, and it estab- 
lishes a pattern which is not directly involved in these hearings today, 
but which we hope to be able to go into at a later time during this 
coming year. 

I do not intend to interrogate Mr. Weiss about the situation at the 
present time, other than to establish his general pattern, his general 
pattern of operation in this field. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further? 

Mr. Kennedy. May I ask Mr. Emanuel Weiss 

The Chairman. At this point, there will be printed in the record 
the subpena served on Mr. Emanuel Weiss. 

Mr. Weiss, you acknowledge the subpena was served on you? 

Mr. Emanuel Weiss. I have been handed the document wliich is 
the subpena. 

The Chairman. That may be printed in the record. 

(The subpena is as follows :) 

United States op Amekica 
Congress of the United States 

L-6177 
To Emanuel Weiss, 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, forthwith, at their ('(uuniittee 
room, 3302, Senate Office Buildinc:, Washington, D.C, then and there to testify 
what you may know relative to the subject matters under consideration by said 
committee. 

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

To Mrs. Rntli Young Watt, to serve and return. 

Given under my hand, by order of the committee, this 4th day of February, 
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and fifty-nine. 

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



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16325 



Febbuaky 4, 1959. 
I made service of the within subiKuia by sliowing original and serving an 
«xact carbon to the within-named Emanuel Weiss in an open hearing of the 
Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Jlaiiagement 
Field in room 3302, New Senate Office Building, at 4 :45 o'clock p.m. on the 
fourth (lay of February 1959. 

Ruth Young Watt. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Einamiel Weiss, would you tell us your rela- 
tionship with the Penn Products Co., the Penn Products Corp.? 

Mr. Emanuel Weiss. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully re- 
fuse to answer for the reason that the answer might tend to incrimi- 
nate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is it correct, for instance, in one of your deals, that 
you went to the Esso Co. and suggested to them that you could ob- 
tain the contract from ^Slerritt-Chapman & Scott, and that you wanted 
them to misbrand the oil that was going to be sold to Merritt-Chap- 
man & Scott through your company ? 

Mr. Emanltel ^Veiss. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully refuse 
to answer for the reason that the answer might tend to incriminate 
me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that was going to give you 0.4 cent a gallon ex- 
tra on tlie fuel oil that you sold ? 

Mr. Emanuel Weiss. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully re- 
fuse to answer for the reason that the answer might tend to incrimi- 
nate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Through 1953, 1954, 1955, and 1956, did both you and 
your two brotliers, Mr. Ed Weiss and Mr. Phil Weiss, make telephone 
calls to Mr. Charlie Johnson? His diary shows that these telephone 
calls are for Mr. Johnson to contact various contractors for the pur- 
pose of inducing you to obtain business from them. Did you make 
such telephone calls? 

Mr, Emanuel Weiss. On the advice of coimsel, I respectfully re- 
fuse to answer for the reason that the answer might tend to incrimi- 
nate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Charlie Johnson was brought into this corpora- 
tion, into this arrangement, for the purpose of obtaining contracts 
through influence, was he not ? 

Mr. Emanuel Weiss. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully re- 
fuse to answer for the reason that the answer might tend to incrimi- 
nate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't that correct, Mr. Phil Weiss, that Mr. John- 
son was brought into this company in order to obtain contracts 
through influence ? 

Mr. Philip Weiss. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully refuse 
to answer for the reason that the answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is just part of your pattern of operation, isn't 
it, Mr. Weiss? 

Mr. Philip Weiss. On advice of counsel, I respectfully refuse to 
answ^er for the reason that the answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is what has enabled you to obtain the reputa- 
tion as one of the most notorious of the labor racketeers in the United 
.States ; is that correct ? 



16326 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Philip Weiss. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully refu.s^ 
to answer for the reason that the answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all at this time, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Have you any questions, Senator Ervin ? 

Senator Ervin. In o. 

Tlie Chairman. Tliese two witnesses, both Mr. Emanuel and Mr. 
Philip Weiss, will remain under their present subpena, subject to 
being recalled at siuh time as the committee may desire to hear further 
testimony from them. 

If you will acknowledge that recognizance, you may be excused 
until such time as you receive notice to appear here. 

Do you acknowledge it ? 

Mr. Philip Weiss. Yes. 

Mr. Emanuel Weiss. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. Reasonable notice of time and place 
will be given to you, either directly or through your attorney. You 
may stand aside. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I would like to call Mr. Tierney to 
place a document in the record. 

Mr. Tierney, we examined the diary of Mr. Charlie Johnson iu 
connection with telephone calls he has received ? 

Mr. Tierney. Yes, we did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you a copy of that diary ? 

Mr. Tierney. I have. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have it here ? 

Mr. Tierney. I do. 

The Chairman. Is it correct and accurate ? 

Mr. Tierney. It is, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. The copy you have before you ? 

Mr. Tierney. The copy I have before me. 

The Chairman. Do you wish to receive it as an exhibit ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, please. 

The Chairman. It may be received as exhibit No. 75. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 75" for 
reference and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. I have one more witness, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Call the witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Rowley. 

The Chairman. Has this witness been sworn ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No, he has not been. 

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. Rowley. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF RONALD H. ROWLEY '-^'fT^ 

./,;/• 7 

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

Mr. Rowley. Ronald H. Rowley, 4339 North Union, Des Moines, 
Iowa. I am a business agent for the Carpenters Local 106, in Des 
Moines. 



ERRATA SHEET 

To accompany hearings before the Select Committee on 
Improper Activities in Labor or Management Field 

In part 44 of the committee hearings the first name of a witness was 
incorrectly printed. The witness whose testimony begins on page 
1G326 is named Lionel H. Rowley, not Ronald H. Rowley. 

After the conclusion of the hearings, Mr. Rowley's attorney wrote 
to the chief counsel, advising him that Mr. Rowley had made an inad- 
vertent error in his testimony. At the bottom of page 16336, in re- 
sponse to a question from Senator Er-van, Mr. Rowley stated that his 
action against the Carpenters Union was pending in Federal court. 
The witness' attorney requested that the record be made to show that 
the suit was not in the Federal district court but in the District Court 
of the State of Iowa, in and for Polk County. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16327 

The Chairman. Do you waive coiiiisel i 

Mr. liowLEY. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, we have finished with the phase of 
the case involving the I'enn Products Co. and Charhe Johnson, and 
this is just a short witness in connection with the relationship of the 
International Brotherhood of Carpentei-s with certain of its union 
oilicials who are in oi>position to tlieni. 

Mr. Rowley, you have been the business agent for Local 106 of 
tlie Carpenters and Joiners since July 1, 1957 ? 

Mr. Rowley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And during the period of time you have been criti- 
cal, have you not, of certain of the international oflicers of the 
Carpenters ? 

Mr. Rowley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. I\JENNEDY. You liavB been critical in a number of diffei-ent 
matters; is that right? 

Mr. Rowley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. In connection with the alleged corruption of these 
officials ? 

Mr. Rowley. That is right. 

Mr. Ivennedy. And in connection with their appearances before 
tw'o Senate committees? 

Mr. Rowley, Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And their failure to answer questions ; is that right ? 

Mr. Rowley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then also Mr. Hutcheson, and certain of the 
other union officials, being indicted in the State of Indiana, in con- 
nection with the road scandal ? 

Mr. Rowley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you also critical of the manner in which Mr. 
Hutcheson had taken over the union ? 

Mr, Rowley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. In what way had you been critical about it? 

Mr. Rowley. I objected ever since his entry as the general presi- 
dent in the mamier in which he originally arrived, a father-son 
kingdom. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Do you mean the fact that Mr. Hutcheson, Senior, 
virtually turned over the miion to his son? 

Mr. Rowley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Ivennedy. He willed it to him ? 

Mr. Rowley. That is right. That is my belief. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Had you raised these questions at various times? 

Mr. Rowley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. When was the International Carpenters conven- 
tion ? 

Mr. Rowley. November 10, 1958. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you known, or had you had any convereations 
with, Mv. Lew Farrell, wiiom we have had before this committee? 
Did you have any conversations with him prior to that convention? 

Mr. Row^LEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did lie obtain from you in some way papers that 
you had written indicating the questions that you expected to raise 
at the International Carpenters convention ? 



16328 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr, Rowley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Questions such as you have discussed here today; 
is that right ? 

Mr. Rowley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He obtained those papers, did he, through your 
assistant at the Carpenters going through your briefcase and taking 
the papers out? 

Mr. Rowley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was your assistant who did that ? 

Mr. Rowley. Robert Pepper. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they admit this is how they obtained the 
papers? 

Mr. Rowley. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did Mr. Farrell say to you after examining 
the papers? 

Mr. Rowley. He told me that I should learn to keep my mouth 
shut and not write things down. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you say ? 

Mr. Rowley. I told him to stay out of the affairs of local 106. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did Mr. Farrell have to do with the Car- 
penters at that time ? 

Mr. Rowley. Not a thing. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is a notorious figure in that area ? 

Mr. Rowley. That is the general opinion, yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You went to the convention, you and several of the 
other delegates, in November of 1958 ; is that right ? 

Mr. Rowley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You went to St. Louis on November 6, 1958 ? 

Mr. Rowley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. During that period of time, did Mr. Pepper, who 
went with you, make any statement to you about how you should con- 
duct yourself at the convention ? 

Mr. Rowley. Yes. He told me that his man, and he was referring 
to Mr. Farrell, said I had better keep my mouth shut. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell him you Avould keep your mouth shut ? 

Mr. Rowley. No, sir. I told him I wouldn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. When you arrived in St. Louis, did you see Mr. 
Farrell there? 

Mr. Rowley. I saw him the next afternoon. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any conversation with him at that 
time? 

Mr. Rowley. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you harassed at all while you were in St. 
Louis? 

Mr, Rowley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. In what way ? 

Mr. Rowley. I was accosted by a general representative of Presi- 
dent Ilutcheson's. His name was W. E. McDaniels. He cursed me 
with every known word, every vulgar^ profane name. He threatened 
to kill me, exterminate me, and extermuiate my local union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he with anyone at the time? 

Mr. Rowley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he with anyone at the time? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16329 

Mr. Rowley. Yes, sir. There was a group around him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you notice whether any of these men had guns or 
were armed in any way? 

Mr. Rowley. Yes, sir. At least one had a gun and at least two had 
saps or blackjacks '. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you see those ? 

]\lr, Rowley. I saw them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know who had the guns '. 

Mr. Rowley. I don't knoM- who the}' were. They were there. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you reply to this X 

Mr. Rowley. I didn't reply anything. I eased out the door. 1 was 
afraid. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they have at that time these same notes that you 
had written out earlier { 

Mr. Rowley, Photostats. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have copies of those notes here ? 

Mr. Rowley. Xo, sir. I have them in town, though. I could supply 
them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you followed at all while you were in 
St. Louis ? 

Mr. Rowley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. By whom were you followed ? 

Mr. Rowley. I don't know. But I had a man with me at all times. 
He watched every move I made. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were these any of the people that you had seen in 
company with ]\Ir. Lew Farrell ? 

Mr. Rowley. Yes, sir. One of the men. 

Mr. Kennedy. One of the men that Avas in company with Mr. 
Farrell ? 

]Mr. Rowley. Yes, sir. 

Mr, Kennedy. Did you also have some conversations with ?\Ir. Stev- 
enson, who Avas the national representative of the international I 

]Mr. Rowley. Yes, sir; he rejected my credential and I asked him 
why. 

Mr. Kennedy. You tried to get into the convention ; is that correct l 

Mr. Rowley. I tried to register on Saturday before the convention 
started on Monday, 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you relate to the committee what happened? 

Mr. Rowley. Mr. Stevenson stepped forward just as my creden.tial 
was passed to Mr. Hutcheson, and he picked it up and handed it to me, 
didn't even unfold it 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't what? 

Mr. Rowley. He didn't even unfold it. He Siiid to Pi-esidout 
Hutcheson that this credential was no good — no damn good was his 
Avorcls. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he say anything further to you ? 

Mr. Rowley. I asked him why, and he told me — he called me a 
son-of-a-b and said that "I will not speak to you."' 

Mr. Kennedy. What did Mr. Hutcheson say ? 

Mr. Rowley. I aslced Mr. Hutcheson "What about it ?" And he 
said, "That goes for me, too.'" 

Mr. Kennedy. Had anybody examined your credentials? 

]\Ir. Rowley. No, sir. 

36751— 59— pt. 44 9 



16330 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kenxedy. Nobody had examined them 'i 

Mr. Rowley. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. They just would not admit yon ? 

Mr. Rowley. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Between the time that you had had the convei'sation 
with the official who was in company with the individuals who had 
the blackjacks and the gun, had you had any conversations between 
that time and the time you presented your credentials, indicating that 
you shouldn't show up ? 

Mr. Rowley. Yes. This McDaniels told me that I wouldn't be 
seated, and also my assistant business agent told me I wouldn't be 
seated, and I believe they knew what they was talking about. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Pepper tell you anything? 

Mr. Rowley. Yes; he told me that. He told me I would probably 
go back to Des Moines, Iowa, in a wooden overcoat. • 

Mr. Kennedy. In a wooden overcoat ? 

Mr. Rowley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did he mean by that ? 

Mr. Rowley. I assume a coffin. I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. So when 3'ou presented your credentials and they 
wouldn't allow you to get in, what did you do then ? 

Mr, Rowley. Well, I, in company with Mr. Potts, one of our mem- 
bei-s that was seated as a delegate, who had the same credentials as I 
had, I left the building and went over across the street. We were in 
the Statler Hotel. I went to the Lennox Hotel. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened ? 

Mr. Rowley. Well, on the way out of that hotel, and in the lobby of 
the Lennox, I wasn't touched, but I was spoke to in a manner that 
it scared me even further. 

Mr. Kennedy. So did you leave town ? 

Mr. Rowley. Yes, sir, 

Mr. Kennedy, You went back to Des Moines ? 

Mr. Rowley. Within 2 hours I was gone, 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened after you got to Des Moines? Did 
anything further happen to you ? 

Mr. Rowley. Nothing othei" than the Sunday after the convention 
closed the president of our union, who was in St. Louis, came back and 
witliout any ifs or ands, wrote a note and phoned me and told me he 
fii-ed me as business agent. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you been elected as business agent ? 

Mr. Rowley. I had been. 

Mr. Kennedy. How could he fire 3'ou ? 

Mr. Rowley. He couldn't. But he had orders to. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he tell you who had given him the orders? 

Mr. Rowley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlio did he say gave him the orders ? 

Mr. Rowley. He said Mr. Stevenson was telling him, John R. 
Stevenson was telling him what to do. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Stevenson is the assistant to Mr. Hutcheson; is 
that right? 

Mr. Rowley. He is the first vice president. 

Mr. Kennedy. Of the Car])entei"s ? 

Mr. Rowley. International ; yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16331 

Mr. Kennedy. Tliat was on Sunday, November 16. What did you 
do then ? 

Mr. Rowley. 1 i<^nored it, antl the l'ollowin<^ Tuesday night, on the 
J 8th, he tried to remove me by a vote of the local. I won the vote by 
a vote of 99 to 65. That was the representation we had there that 
night. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you demand a liearing^ 

Mr. Rowley. I did. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Did he give you a hearing? 

Mr. Rowley. He appointed or selected a committee. He had 
brought the charges and from the Chair he dominated the conunittee 
and selected a trial committee for my trial. 

Mr. Kennedy. He selected the committee himself? 

Mr. Rowley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tlie same person who had brought the charges 
against you selected the committee that was going to hear the charges ? 

Mr. Rowley. Yea. sir. I had objected to him doing it, too. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have a hearing? 

Mr. Rowley. Yes, sir; I reckon you could call it that. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened? 

Mr. Rowley. They expelled me from the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. A^Hiat were you expelled for ? 

Mr. Rowley. I don't now, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were there any charges made against you ? 

Mr. Rowley. Very vague. Just on generalities. They expelled me 
under sections that I could be an embezzler, a robber, a Communist. 
There is a lot of things they could have put on there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they say you were an embezzler or a Communist. 

Mr. Rowley. They didn't specify anything anywhere. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just general charges? 

Mr. Rowley. I was just expelled ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. T^Tiat happened after the hearing? 

Mr. Rowley. After the hearing, mv attorney took it to the district 
court in Des Moines, Iowa, and we secured a restraining order, a 
temporary injunction, whatever you call it, and it set aside tempo- 
rarily- their findings, and everything is status quo right now, as it was 
before the convention. 

Mr. Kennedy. They put a temporary injunction on their firing you 
from the union ? 

Mr. Rowley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there a movement underway to remove these 
charges? Did the court enter into a consent decree to have these 
charges removed ? 

Mr. Rowley. The court instructed us to come to terms away from 
the court, which we did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who is "we"? 

Mr. Rowley. The union and myself. The body, not the officials. 
The general assembly. We settled the issue by a majority vote. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the sum and substance of that ? 

Mr. RoAVLEY. That all the charges would be expunged, and that 
a consent decree would be entered in the court, the district court, in 
Des Moines, Iowa ; that I would retain my business agent's job until 
my term expired or until my successor was elected, and that I would 
retain my union card. That was basically the substance of it. 



16332 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. And did the union membei'ship agree to that ? 

Mr. Rowley. The union membership aoreed to it. 

Mr. Kennedy. "V^^icn was this? 

Mr. Rowley. Last Tuesday night, a week ago last night. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they vote on it ? 

Mr. Rowley. They voted on it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat was the vote on that ? 

Mr. Rowley. I think it was 34 to 30. I wouldn't be sure, but it was 
about midnight when it was voted, and most 

Mr. Kennedy. How many members do you have ? 

Mr. Rowley. We have over 1,000, but I wouldn't hazard a guess. 

Mr. Kjennedy. Was one of the tactics to keep the people until mid- 
night so there wouldn't be anybody there ? 

Mr. Rowley. Yes, sir. That was the stall. 

Mr. Kennedy. So the union membership did vote, nevertheless, that 
you should be retained in your position. What happened after that? 

Mr. Rowley. That same night the two attorneys for the union was 
there. They were instructed what the union had voted, and it was 
the general opinion of everyone, except a few officers, maybe, that 
opposed me, that the next day the consent decree would be filed. But 
the orders of John R. Stevenson, the first general vice president of 
our international, and a representative of his, or Mr. Hutcheson's, 
named J. Earl Welch, last night they ordered the local to mark that 
out of their records; that that settlement was illegal, and that they 
would never adhere to it. 

I got that over the phone from a person I trust. The settlement 
that the local voted was turned down by our general office in Indian- 
apolis. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they are, in effect what amounts to, ordering 
you to be expelled as a business agent ? 

Mr. Rowley. That is what they want. If the court order wasn't on, 
I would be out as of now. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you have never had any specific charges against 
you? 

Mr. Rowley. Not up until last night, no, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have verified that, Mr. Chairman, that there 
are not any charges that we can find against this witness. 

They stated that you might become an embezzler if you got hold of 
some of the union funds, I understand ? 

Mr. Rowley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you have nothing to do with the handling the 
funds ? 

Mr. Rowley. No f mids whatsoever. Just my paycheck. 

The Chairman. Do you still draw your salary ? 

Mr. Rowley. Yes, sir. 

Tlie Cilmrman. Do you draw expenses? 

Mr. Rowley. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You are still being paid ? 

Mr. Rowley. Yes, sir. They are paying it under the orders of the 
district court. 

The Chairman. The court has ordered that, that your salary and 
services be continued ? 

Mr. Rowley. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16333 

The Chairman. ^Viid you continue to function as an official until 
such time as j^our successor is elected ? 

Mr. Rowley. Yes, sir. 

The CiiAiuMAN. "\Anien will the next election be? 

Mr. Rowley. The election will be next June, and the term will 
expire the first meeting night in July. It will be the first Tuesday 
night in July. 

The Chairman. Has that order been made })ermanent yet by the 
court ? 

Mr. Rowley. No, sir ; it has not. 

The Chairman. It is temporary ? 

Mr. Rowley. It is temporary. 

The Chlmrman. How long lias tlie order been in existence ? 

Mr. Rowley. Since the 18th of December, I believe. 

The Chairman. More than a month? 

Mr. Roavley. Yes, sir. 

The CiiAHiMAN. Has there been scheduled a hearing on it to make it 
permanent ? 

Mr. Rovv^LEY. My attorney told me yesterday tliat he would ask 
, hat today, that the hearing be scheduled. 

The Chairman. That a hearing be scheduled on the temporary 
order ? 

Mr. Rovt'LEY. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. But the court has set no time ? 

Mr. Rowley. No, sir. 

The Chairman. In the meantime, he has instructed all of you to 
go out and try to settle it among yourselves ? 

Mr. Rowley. Which we did ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And that you undertook to do? 

Mr. Rowley. We come to terms; yes, sir. 

The Chairiman. You did come to terms by that vote of 34 to 30, I 
believe you said. 

Mr. Ro^vLEY. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Of course, that is one of the unhappy situations 
about these matters, that you can't get them out to vote. Out of 1,000 
inembers there were 61- members operating on a divided question be- 
fore the union, and that is whether one of its business agents should be 
expelled or not. 

Mr. Rowley. That is general, too. 

The Chairman. Wliat time did the meeting convene that night ? 

Mr. Rowley. The meeting convened at 7 :30, each Tuesday night. 

The Chairman. It was about midnight when they voted ? 

Mr. Rowley. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. T\^iat was your attendance about 8 o'clock that 
night? 

Mr. Rowley. 8 o'clock there was possibly 250. 

The CHAiR:\rAN. And it dwindled away until they left because of 
•he late hour to where tliere were only about 64 or 65 present? 

Mr. Roavley. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The only reason you know for all of this problem, 
ho trouble that you have had, is because you opposed some of the ac- 
tivities, some of the policies, of the union under its present leader- 
ship? 



16334 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Rowley. I think that, and the ambitions of some of the local 
boys. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you mean Mr. Farrell? 

Mr. Rowley. Mr. Farrell and his friends. 

The Chairman. Is Mr. Farrell a member of the union ? 

Mr. Rowley. No, sir ; he is a friend to the assistant business agent. 

The Chairman. What is his power over the union, tliis fellow Far- 
rell? Where does he get his power of domination over the union? 

Mr. Rowley. He don't have any power over our union. He just 
has power over some individuals in our union. 

The Chairman. Well, they are officials, are they ? 

Mr. Rowley. Yes, sir ; they were elected, though, and I can't remove 
them. 

The Chairman. Well, in that way he does have power over the 
union through certain officials in the union ? 

Mr. Rowley. Yes ; I would say so. 

The Chairman. Would you regard him as the union boss, so far as 
the local is concerned? 

Mr. Rowley. Well, no, sir; I don't. He would like to be, I am sure. 

The Chairman. He is trying to be ? 

Mr. Rowley. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What business is he engaged in, this man Farrell? 

Mr. Rowley. I don't know. 

The Chairman. How long have you known him ? 

Mr. Rowley. I have known him about a year. I have met him five 
times. 

The Chairman. What is he, a racketeer or something ? 

Mr. Rowley. I don't know that, sir. I was introduced to him by 
Robert Pepper. Each time I met him, Robert Pepper was with me 
and arranged it. 

The Chairman. Does he attend your union meetings ? 

Mr. Rowley. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Farrell has already appeared before the com- 
mittee as a witness. He has been identified as a racketeer. He Avas 
identified as associated with some of Al Capone's gangsters in that 
area. He has a most unsavory past. He has liad a close relationship 
with Barney Baker, and a close relationship with Jimmy Holla. PTe 
also has this relationship that we have heard about with some of the 
Carpenter officials in the Des Moines area. 

The Chairman, Do you intend to continue to fight for your rights? 

Mr, Rowley. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Senator Ervin, have you any questions ? 

Senator Ervin. I believe somebody who is more ])oetic than myself 
summed up this kind of a situation that it would a])pear that this 
witness' trouble has been due to the fact that he did not bend the 
pregnant hinges of the knees. In other words, because he exercised 
his rights as an American citizen should exercise them, it was attempted 
that he he hounded out of a union and out of his opportunity to make 
a livelihood for himself and his family. 

I think we should be grateful that there are some people in America 
who still have a little courage. 

The Chairman. The Chair will keep you under subpena. You will 
remain under your present subpena subject to being recalled by the 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16335 

committee at such time and place as it may desire to hear further 
testimony from you. 

Do you acknowledge that recognizance? 

Mr. Rowley. Yes, sir. 

The CiL\iRMAN. The Chair would also admonish you or direct you 
that in the event anyone undertakes to intimidate you or threaten you 
in any way by reason of your appearance before this connnittee, that 
you report it to the committee at once so that we may take ai^j^ropriate 
action. 

Mr, Rowley. Thank you. 

The Chairman. If you are molested by reason of your testimony 
here or if there is any effort made to harm you or intimidate you, 
it will become a matter of immediate concern to the committee upon 
your so advising us that it occurred. 

Mr. Rowley. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Let the Chair get one thing straight. Were you 
elected by your members as a delegate to the national convention ? 

Mr. Row^LEY. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Were your credentials in order when you went there 
and submitted them? 

Mr. Rowley. Yes, sir ; they were. 

The Chair]\ian. And they were never examined, but the })resident, 
Hutcheson, and — who is the other one, his vice president ? 

Mr. Rowley. Stevenson, John R. Stevenson. 

The Chairman. They refused to even look at your credentials or 
to accept them or to seat you as a delegate ? 

Mr, Rowley. That is right. 

The Chairman. You were denied that right and threatened by 
reason of your presence there ? 

Mr. Rowley. Yes, sir. 

The Chairjian. "What do you say the reason for it was? Because 
you had been critical? Is that correct? That is. of their adminis- 
tration? 

Mr. Rowley. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Is that typical of the way this union is operated ? 

Mr. Rowley. It is typical so far as I know. 

The Chairman. It is that sort of polic}" or that sort of policies 
which you have been condemning and criticizing? 

Mr. Rowley. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Tactics like that ? 

Mr. Rowley. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you pay your dues ? 

Mr. Rowley. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Your union, your local, pays you for the service 
3'ou rendered to it? 

Mr. Rowley. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. "Wliat is yonr salary ? 

Mr. Rowley. I draw $158 a week, the same as a carpenter foreman. 

The Chairman. The same as if vou were actually working out on 
the job ? 

Mr, Rowley. Yes, sir; and I draw $30 expenses a week for my 
automobile and anything else that I need it on. 



16336 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. And you have always been in good standing with 
your local? 

Mr. Rowley. Yes, sir ; I am paid for the entire year of 1959 right at 
this moment. 

The Chairman. Were there other delegates elected from your local 
at the same time you were ? 

Mr. Rowley. Mr, Pepper and Mr. Johnson and a Mr. Potts. They 
were seated. 

The Chairman. They were elected just as you were ; is that correct? 

Mr. Rowley. And they were seated ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. They were seated and you were denied your seat 
although you were elected in the same manner and at the same time 
and by the same local ? 

Mr. Rowley. That is right. 

The Chairman. And you were never given any reason why you 
were not accepted or seated at the convention ? 

Mr. Rowley. Not to me ; no, sir. 

The Chairman. Well, we have had other instances, maybe not quite 
as flagrant as this, where these tactics are used to deny to locals the 
right of representation in their choice at conventions and also denied 
to individual members the rights and privileges that the}^ are en- 
titled to under the constitution and bylaws, so far as I observe, of 
most every union. 

There are some tliat are more stringent than others. This is just 
a clear indication of another example or illustration of what the labor 
movement can come to in this country if goons, thugs, and crooks 
and corrupt officials are going to run and dominate the movement. 

It is for that reason that we are trying to get this information, so 
that Congress can weigh it and consider appropriate legislation to 
deal with the problem. 

If your testimony is correct, if you stated the tinith here this after- 
noon, it is an outrageous and contemptible situation that exists in the 
Carpenters Union. 

Is there anything further ? 

Senator Ervin. I would like to know this : When you speak of the 
district court, is that the State court or the Federal court ? 

Mr. Rowley. The Federal court, sir. 

The Chairman. The committee will stand in recess until 10:30 
tomorrow morning. 

(Members of the select committee present at time of recess: Sena- 
tors McClellan and Ervin.) 

(Whereupon, at 5 :22 p.m. the select committee recessed, to recon- 
vene at 10 :30 a.m., Thursday, February 5, 1959.) 



APPENDIX 



Exhibit No. ()3 



UWITED PROTTiERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOIWRilS OF AMERICA 
Local Union !fumb«r 301 
NEWPURGH, NBm YORK 



Jan. 9, 1951*. 



Walab-Langenfelder Ccnpani^a ^ ^ a« 
Mountalnvllle, N.Y. 

Oantlement 

Enclosed you will find a copy of agreanont chan^-es eiToctlva 
Jan. 1, 1954» which «© have negotiated with the General Con- 
tractors' Asaoclatlon of Mew urgh. 

As rou «111 note, the waa:e scale has been raised from $2.75 
to ^3.12j^ per hour. With thla new rate the tranapcrtatlon 
expense to and fro-n all Joba outalde the city limits la to 
be paid. This expense la tax free and Includes ell such Jota 
within the territorial limits of this Locsl Union. The amount 
of thla Item la based upon the usual dally bua fare to and fro^ 
each Job. Needleas to aay, the trtmaoortetlon expense appllea 
to any carpenter working within our Jurisdiction recardlesa of 
to what Local Union he may belong* 

Very truly yours. 



Bernard H. Murrey, Pus. Agt. 
193 North Street 



16337 



36751 0—59 — pt. 44- 10 



16338 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 67 





MBDRAIDDH TOSFOS 




BaltlBon, Mvylaad 
AprU 20, 1955 

Fean Products Company 
So^rnUe. Mus. 



In a dlaeusalon vlth Mr. Baanoel Welaa last nl«tit tram mr 
bows, be prcMlsed to aall as, at ooce, a letter for ottr files 
stating tbe coapetltloa which ve are experiencing In sectirlng 
his busljaess. He further stated he vas ^»^T<"e <^ •°*b °* 
his dellTery books for use vben —^^'''e dellTerles to tbe 
Merrltt -Chapaan -Scott orgaalzat Ion . 

Mr. Weiss Indicated that the tunnel Job at Baltiaore »as 

probably going to need aoae petroleta products very soon as 

tbe ribbon cutting prograa vas scheduled for Thursday, April 21. 

It vas agafa requested by Mr. Weiss that,vhen ■aklng deliveries 
to Merritt-Chapaaa-Scott, ve show no price on the delivery 
ticket and that, if we desire, we can secure a slgoature oo 
our own dellTery ticket for»s to be retained in our files - 
with no copy left with the custoaer when we aake a delivery. 
Mr. Weiss further agreed that we should put the wording on his 
delivery ticket to tbe custoaer "#2 Diesel,* whereas our delivery 
tickets could say "#2 Fuel." 

Mr. Weiss said that if be received our letter of ccsfliBaticD 
of the quotation by Monday, it would be satisfactory to tala. 




CEBtlKP 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16339 

Exhibit Nn. (iS 




16340 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 69 



C- 









t 



,,.'^' 



Ov 



'V 



•W^ 



Baltimore, Marylamd 
April 22, 1955 

I Pean Products Company 
Sommeryllle , Mass. 



MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. J. H. »kicLeod 



I had a phone conversation with Mr. Eoaauel Welse and cancelled 
our propoeltlon-^ as outlined In your office. 

I told Mr. welss that It was Ijnpossible for us to meet all of his 
requlireaents, that we could not sell our products and retrand then 
to another grade, and neither did we desire to use his tickets - 
but felt we should use our own ■ X explained that these factors 
were the reasons for our withdrawing fron the picture and that he 
was free to do business with whomever he chose. 

Mr. Weiss seemed quite surprised and asked if there wab any way 

in ^ich he could change his requirements so that we would be In 

a position to sell his. I told him that we cotild not sell hla 

under the basis as he had outlined and, therefore, we were withdrawing. 

That was the way the conversation ended. 



C . E . Bourke 



CEB:IKP 



P.S. If Mr. Weiss further contacts us asking under what basis we 
would sell him, you may wish to quote him posted tank wagon 
on branded motor fuels and branded 208 Diesel. 

You may further desire to have Mr. John Bracken aggressively 
solicit Me rrltt-Chapnann -Scott and other subcontractors on 
the tunnel Job at this time . 




IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 16341 

Exhibit No. 70 





Ufti. 



Ik. 0.1. IM 
IS «Mt Slat 

■m T«k It, m. 

•Mr Stri 



Fsllavlaf 7*Mr liBi M M t l— af Taatarday, «■« ■<■■< « ■< t* 
rM«fc Ik. MtlM at a» Hi»a»aa »»t»»«>r» Bstal 1> laltl- 
mmn akar* ha aaa raclatarai. Baaavar, «• aara aaakla to 
c a t a at Us aa aaat kla tka actaakad tala(r^ Mr. itaaa 
aallmt ». CB. laarta at Ua hav laat alfkt. 

Ik. laaika tal4 Ik. Iklaa that It aaa ii^oaalUa for aa ta 
■aat bt* klllUa ra^ali— H aad, farthaiaaca, that aa 
eaal4 aa« aall aar M »*■■ * ' *< rittaaJ thaa ta aaathar 



r eaaia aa« aall aar ft tmrna t t m» nwa— taaa ta a 

M_ 4ta4a, l.a.. Mr. Witaa aaa iMlael^ that aa aall 

f\ ,10'' / ( VtMl 0(1 a^ bill It aa #2 MaMl. 






\ 



y 



»A 




Thaaa aara tha riiiia t^^mm to ». Iklaa far wtthtfraalM 
fraa tte plctara aari ha aaa a4vlaa< that aa tar aa aa aara 
caaearaa* ha aaa traa to da >— iaaaa vlth ahca ha aaalrari. 
Ik. Ualaa aaa varr aarprlaad aai aaha4 If thara aaa aay aajr 
la ahleh ha aaaM nhaagi hla rafalnaaata so that «• aaald 
ha la r«>lU«> t* ■^l ^^- ■■ "M Ml< t^t aa eaai4 aat 
aall hla aster tha haala ha ha4 aatllaad ami. tharafara. aa 
aara althtfrarlas, aa4 thla aaa Oa aay tha eoararaatlaa 

\ 

War Taar tafaraatlaa, aa pi aaaa tl y h««a coatraeta «lth 
Chihardt 4 May, lac. aatf C.J. Iiawfil^ar « S«aa, laraa 
eaacraetara aparatlac la tha lalttaara araa, to «h<B aa ax« 
aalllas laaa aai laae krtra at 2.63« pmt galloa off tta taak 
aasoa prlca. Matarallj, aa aaaU ha alllla« to aall Harriet, 
ChafWBi m4 aaatt aa tha aaa haaU. 



Vary traljr yaara. 



lar C.A. Maala 



Attaehad alao la 
af raaa Pradacta 



of lattar traa Ik. J.M. Catlaalla, 
, datad April r, 1»SS. J.I.N. 






16342 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 72 



W/aiTT-Cfu-xvur * scow 

CoHPCRaTIOW 



•^ 



260 MMlalea Atotw 

Hm Tnfllc 16, «Mr Tosk ^^prll 28. 1955 



BsM Stawljurd m C«. 
15 v«»t 51*t StrMt 

MtMtloai Mr. J. nsMUaoa 

J<ibJ— ti y<Ml nil aai Uibrlemto 

P»ti9Me Tonal Pi«Jm«. Baltlaon. MmtIoA 

nils will eonfini <mr rax^al order to /our Mr. J. Dnn&UM« to tim •tt—% that 
/§• arc to tmniwh caaolliMi fMl aai l«brl«»tl»c r»«nlrwMai« finr 0«r «•• •» tiM 
rantopMo TwMl PivjMt. NMrln* ttoto BoaAa C«m&sBlMi. OaatrMt fV-lOS at tka 
fallawliis .^rieaai 

laaa «aaeli»a CTV prlaM on dJtto ef dallvaiy laaa 2.^ a ^a. 

laae whito (ilaaAad) In droa aft CTV prloaa at tlaa •! 
dallvarx pl«s 6# a sal. for paftiia«r la 



2ao» diaaal 208 tml oil at CTC jnrlea at tlaa of dallTair 
lo«a TolmtadT diaaont af 3/lO# a «al. (It la tMdarataad ^ 

that Uila TolvRtarr radaetlea la aakjaat to ehaaff*)* nm 
tnmapertottoB at *i9i4 a gal. 

#2 foal nil, Zaaehaat. aadtaa CTC prloa at tlaa ef dalivaiy 

lata folTintarjr dlaeoat of 3/lO# a cal. (It la aadarateed 
that this vnlvatArjr radoatioa la aHfcJaat to «haa««.) I^aa 
tranapnrtatino et .3^^ a (gal* 
■ '- c 
taftrleatlac ell* ^ad ^traaaaa at ear Snaa atajKlard eontraat nrieaa. 

Oar parehiiaa nidor vlll be <9laead vltti I*ann Prodaeto Co., 9k Taraea »%., SaaarTlllat 
Haoa. «Ki>a /on vlll Isreloa at ^rleaa ataiad aWva for aajr aatartala ftoalahad aa 
mm thia riajact. 

Tory traljr y^ara. 

MnERXTT-CR'taV A KOTT COKKUTUm 

/a/ •. »V 

•• Oar Oxe w a 
Pill— raaaat 

MOtJm Maria* * laoiTr Ceaatraatiaa 

Alf 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 



16343 



Exhibit No. 73A 



i<r«kw v_ . <- 



'.ASat Vt^^L^MIHBI 



Oa CORPORATION 

BUCK oo. ooKniAcr 



■■<■ aal Micni »n rka ' 



® 



4«r •f 



\ yd9 Z » ^(cA. 



TMU cotrriACT 

b««M atrtr oil COIPOIATION, ktmaihn caDW .SalUr u4 

FOI AND IN CONSIDEIATION Of tK« iMtial pronian f«i»in«J Imnn no« fl<>< ohikmi WITNESSETH 
t«M*r kMttntli Hib asi tfraM i« 4*LTti >i>4 Burn rv'ckiiM »<il itrtct to r*<«iTc •n4 par for 

PRODUCT- lAf ■■#■■! niA «a* fw MX Bi. ft ^mUU BiVW'« 



:?" 



19'*^ 



• fin »n«4 tmr*i. 




in Ma of ••( ItH (lua «|,H 

lifltaM otk«rwisc kgttti upon Del 

TIME - B*f«*<ii 



Fivf dijrt Wfiricn 

Wforr each ihipacnr ii rfqwri 



TERMS - Pivmrnr ihall be iBa4e 



19 5T 



r Selle, a. WrUIMWI, iMflAili 

M fill— t Bwi tkdUrtjr Oe) *9* 



The Ansacial rMp«ttsibility of Buyer 9iut at aH nfn<« b«^ iirwraciorx to Selkr, or ih«pfacttci Biy b« lutpcaded. 
10 p«\ any drAli dravn by 5«Arr for b«lb 4i»e. Setlrr. iTit lo dcccs. njv caned and trrtmrtatc rl»s conrr*ct. 



unload pro4utta upon rccnpf tkcrvof mcKout dcUy and any de«urra(e of delay charcc* t 



line >*>>ll ^ M><1 



OEMURIAGE — Buy«r agrect t 
by Buyrr, 

CONOITtONS - Liabihfy of Setter »mm at innat of trinafer of title. 

Thit contnc* ia net awifnable fxcepr with th« wnrien conaenr of the Setter 

In the evcftc tti« performance of tku cocuacr hy eiihei party ii alFectfd lt> ttdke. fire, not. wir. Act of O^, fO<r^raaie«ial rcgutatuMi, or 
to^crnneBtAi reqaean or ie<)iuJ<riDna Cbr natioaa] defeitac ot other purpo«es. i^t failure oi aiiortagc of railway, ptpc bne, or veai«t armrc 
normally available to cttlier party kcrero, or breakdown of. or injury to, or ahortafc tr. faciliijet used for the proJuciion, rc&nin^ or irana- 
pnrtaiiOJi of the produrta deambcd Kcrcia, or of the rrudr »! or other raw mtten^l from which they are made, or an) other ca««e »ey*ad tke 
reaaoaabic control of the paruaa hereto, or either of them, whether aimilar lo or diutsilar fror* the enumerated cauaca, rbe lufeoat ptriv 
may. at ica. hia. or their optia«, luapcnd or retminaie the pcrformaivce ot thia contract, in whole or in part, and nu liability fur danacM shall 
attach stainat either party mi account thereof Srilei ■hill not he re^^ui.'cd to make up aR\ dedrerm omitted on account »( any aucfe raua«« 



TAXES — It u agreed thai there ihall be added i« the coatraet price specified and that Bu>er »UI aaauaie and Fa> 
revefiwe or any other tai «r fca that nay oow or hcmfter he impoacd b> the federal giyverametit. or by any tt; 
upoa tW product or prodiim covrrad by rSia »|reemcnt. or la reapecr to the production, manufacrure. latpecrion 
portatton thereof 



iv tptcrnal reva«se, war 
, ro«*ii«) or •aaiopa&ty 
Ir ttorage, ate or rraaa- 



Th 



uKffidn 



Gulf Pefii* 



ract may be prrfotmed by eirhrr Gulf Ch\ Corporati'Mi 

This Instniaent contains each and every agreement and understanding exist- 
ing between the parties relating to the subject matter of this contract, 
and no agent of the Seller has authority to change, modify or add to 
this contract, or to make amy other or further agreeaents in connection 
therewith. 



. aigned >n triplicate, thall he efTecii' 



and after the day firit above ' 




GULF OIL CORPOftATION 



^■4b 




16344 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 73B 






0RI04i 



MBMRf'CaUMUUI A SCOTT COBPOlAnOV 



MO MADBOa Avm. 



MKW TOIZ M. ■. T. 



A- 70901 



Toi r; 



«%r Ml. OONPMATItN 



•955 

tZI. 

t, MAftTLAMD 






^tt%tSRRf^<CNlimil|l A SOVfT COUP, 

Jyssrss 

, WW WLIYBff 



-| 



_J 



I!f 



it TtftPHMflllCft UMMM CO* 

>« AALTlHMK, MARYLAND 



ACCT. MO. I - I ^HJ 

••«•■ i or I *t.»m% 

«u»j><rr TO ALX rutws • cOM»moMa •••owm oh "n 
rKOKT • ncvniac xosa or thk o*d«ii axb o 

ATTACMBO »A««m. •«•» TMC POt-l-OWIM* MAIMBlAl. <: 

^vwfo^m oajtvic*! srcciriBxx. 

^?yv'r«%" ASREQUlflO 
PO«M OIL - i/IO NCr JO 



D ■ • C ■ I r T I 



UMrr vote* 



FUPMISH OUR RCflUIKCMCNTS OF THE FOLLOWtNQ AS CALLED R» 
iY OUR JOe SUPCRIKTCNDCNTi 



OULF OiCSCLCCT FUCL 



QULF |e otescL rucL heating 

Oik ME0IU4 
OULF fy^\ FO«M OIL 



POSTED TV «JIC£» AT TJMt 
AND PLACE or OCLIVUV 



DITTO 
- .28 GAL. 



COtClRMATiON 



MA-mtiAL mMmivmwa fOR 



CQUIPMCNT 



TT/K> 



'ACf" 



SHlPPtNO « BILLING INSTRUCTK>»*S QU tflW UPL I CATC 

t OM »AT OHmalNT IS MAOli _ _ » 

lAI MAIL OKiaiMAL •ILL OT UAOIWO • \H'*OKW l>jlgljjgfjg//j/fC U« AT VSSO MADtSON . 
fOl MAIL DU.i.tCAT« COTV OT OILX OT LADIMO T« CON«4«MSB AT OOMW«NBL--» AODRI**. 

a. PACJtm« uo*^ o* uoAOwa tickct* mumt a<k:o*u»amt kach »* »> i*»mt. 

a. •«• nMCMAH OMOCM NUMBKH MUST t,rr*l>M ON AU. INVOtCf, PACKAOCS. B/U. >ACIQ**0 t-n^ a eOWWgS^ONOKNCll. 



XttUfMMXKK 

>N Avcl. NkWromt i«, n. ».> 



w« iMaaaTa tm* hioht to iicruo* outwit o* aw* matawn^ aw» MtacMAMita <aw«»— »v i»#o i 
nBTmjemoM* mavi hot isin adnikco to «■ ■cquibso. .. ' ^ ■__ 

KEitiTT-ciunuur a kott cx:>ii>otAnoif 



*' 



•KK TVftM* AND CONDITIOMa ON RCvntR^C BlUC 






IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 
Exhibit No. 73C 



16345 



CHANOa BY 

LUNOeCRVKNNY 
R€QN. tb. A-709OI 



AMINOMIHT TO PUtCHASC OIDII 

MEUrrr- CHAPMAN & SCOTT CORFORATIOM 
tW MADISON ATE. NEW TOU 16 N T 



OATm NOVEMBCR 7,1955 

Ta r 



n 



QULF OIL CORPORATION 
22 LIGHT ST. 
BALTIMORE 2,t€). 



'VICINAL 



A-702dl 

*MEMt>MCNT WO. 



JOU NUMBEH 

YC 7266 



• ■LOW. ALL OTMSfl TBIVMa AND COMOI'^IONS 
OUTLIMID IN TMC OMlOIMAL ^UMCMASI OMOt* A 
raiOa AMINOMINT* TMtXTO XIUAlN UMCMAOaiD 



THIS AME^C)MENT IS ISSUCD TO AOO THE FOLLOWING TO OUR 

P.O. # A-70901 

OUR REQUIREMENT FOR PERSONNEL BOATS 
WHITE MARINE GASOLINE 



I 






WCASON FOW CHANOK LUND 6E PQ/TT/PD 

rS«iA'?;i,»*,2T',t'M-S.''^''^^*-''^'^''''***DRUPLICATE WMIlTftttm 

lAI HAIL ORiaiNAL (ILl. OT LADINO • IMYOie« IN lUWDIIUMK ''^ U* *'<' Va«0 MAOIBON AVE., MKW VOMK ••, N. V.) 
'•I MAIL DUPLICATS COPV OT BILL OT LAOIMa TO CONaiVNCK AT COMSIttNir* AOOttSao 
1. »ACKIN« LiaT« OK LOAOIN* TICKCT* MUBT ACCOMPAMT (ACM •MIPMIMT 

• oun PUHCMASi OKom MUMBCH MUST APVKAM OH ALL INVOICgS. PACKAGES. B'L. BACKING »LIPS a COWWO^OWOCNCe. 
4^ wi RMIitva TH« RiaKT TO ncpuaa OBLivaar of ant matbnial amo MsacMAMoiaa covcaao aT T>iia onocn wmki*. .MippfMa* 

iNaTKuonoNa mavi mot aacM AOMuao to Aa ■■•uiaao. 

MElUTT-CHArMAH « SCOTT COIPOKATION 

^ X BT v>:;s>-<<-~----^ ' »rk.\%- ^^.rS _ 

1 ..^OM.. ....Afva. 



16346 rMPROPER activities in the labor field 

Exhibit No. 74 




Htm wnuc mlMtw tdmc 

ottivw t-iM» CARS /ucuns-MSMrrT 



Cktaf OIJ CNHP9«r«ti«i 
Attt Mr. f. J. lMdLlt«a 



■tft f «•. A-7«i01 - f^l Oil ft ML«Ml OH for PitfpMO 

Owr J«% TC-1 




OCMtUNMkt 

Z» mhmhKUhmi* Kltn Mr fl fhiw wi a<n««mfttl«« vf ««d4n «lth y««ar 
■r. (Mi41«7; «• art nrlUtef ft« Mk if yo« «»«Id b« willli« %c 1< 
tte 10. t PcMi an MMI I>1««*1 012 9ftA.l*4 for «• Mr P.O. A-70901 
jM«i»dyM«is t)t«r«to t«t 

9^ V«mw» St* 

T«« p r< »a lily teow that r«aB FrodiMta Go. art dl«trlb«t«r« of TMmX 
•ila KMi lHbrl«4MiWi and hava aarvad na ae a aa«l»«r of Jal»a alt 
tHay p>aa ar < tiM all fros a«Maa wajar oil oaapanf la tha araa la 
tlM Jak la loaatad. 

mar ta awtarlae lata aar Ordar A'709Ol with ya« wa had f laaad war 
Ordar *-67T<>3 wiMt raw ft<odttata Co. for tha fual alia aad laMrlaaata 
oa tlw Patapaaa Tanaal joa aad taanaa va iuraa «» otellcatian ta ttiasu 

j Ta« aoaia lavolaa Paa« fraduata Oa. at tha prleaa atatmd la wr Ordar 

A-70901, «» laaa If yoa ra«a«aiB« thaa aa a dlatrlbatar« wmtt tfaay la 
I turn aoald bill aa for the faal oil aad dlaaal oU acalaat aor Ordar 

j A-67763 with tha«. 

Vila flhottld iqppraalata jroar thaafhtfai a««aldaratloa of tia.a 

I aad an aarly raply ac aa «ay ntetlfy all aoaaaraad aaaordla^ly < 

¥»rjr ttvUy yaora* 

McmiTT OHdnoM^ jMort og^poPATtar 

3 1"- ^.^^ L. 

a. Aay Owaod 
000} JM 
dlf 
aat 0. C. Danny 



so.,.sffla«|| 




immn