(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Children's 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 


^H 




flj|fl|[|Ml 


m a ^ 1 ^|M 


K S^S^mI 


^ »l Hi fs^t 


^MM^ttfflj 






mm 






^ 










mS^W 




aUaSgoB 








|^^^^M^M|»7$S^£ ' 


nHHRI^ 








hmmB^wvi 






nMRtlRHn 












ijmuujw 




I^SHm 




i 3S^0@»f ' 


iil 

si 


^^^m» 




^s^ ^ 


BjMHyl 




^^M 




^ B^ J 


^m 


uH^n 








jumn 






I^kM^B 














W||jl|i[M 






hh^h^b 












mam 







ciV*9 



o^iMLllAkAl^ 



■Bn 



I 




Given By 



t 




3^ 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 




HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

SELECT COMMITTEE 

ON IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 

LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 

EIGHTY-FIFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 
AND 

EIGHTY-SIXTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

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



APRIL 24, 1958; MARCH 11, 12, 17, 18, AND 19, 1959 



PART 49 



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




INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

SELECT COMMITTEE 

ON IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 

LABOR OR MANAGEMENT EIELD 

EIGHTY-FIFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 
AND 

EIGHTY-SIXTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

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



APRIL 24, 1958; MARCH 11, 12, 17, 18, AND 19, 1959 



PART 49 



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 

JUL 2 8 1959 
DEPOSITORY 



SELECT COMMITTEE ON IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR OR 

MANAGEMENT FIELD 
JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas, Chairman 
KA.RL E. MUNDT, South Dakota, Vice ChaiTman 
JOHN F. KENNEDY, Massachusetts BARRY GOLDWATER, Arizona 

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

FRANK CHURCH, Idaho HOMER E. CAPEHART, Indiana 

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

U 



CONTENTS 



Taxicab Drivers, Maintexance and Garage Helpers Local Union No. 
777, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chicago, III. 

Pas* 

Appendix 1806-3 

Documeuts submitted by Occidental Life Insurance Co. of California-18063-79 
Testimony of — 

Abata, Dominic 17749, 17759 

Adler. Maurice 17829 

Balaban, Jack S 17793, 17824, 17834, 17836, 17963 

Blum, George 17800 

Calabrese, Alpho"^'^ F 17732, 17758, 

17790, 17810, 17813, 17825, 17841, 17853, 17871, 17880, 17951 

Chaddick, Harry P - 17974, 17983 

Ciiez, Lawrence 17918 

Clinch, John J., Jr 18042, 18052 

Coca, Clovis Joseph 17842 

Comforte, Victor 17816, 17818 

Connors, James L 17723 

Crane, Elmer 17954, 17964 

Creitz, Allen L 17929 

Dandv, John P 17985 

Dudek, Walter 17771 

Gaglione, Michael B 18001, 18004 

Glimco, Joseph P 17701, 17725, 17845, 17948, 17952 

Kofkin, Oscar 17842 

Lin zer, Louis 1 7943 

Mallec, John 17778 

Marcie, George 17834, 17835 

Maris, Harland R 17965, 17971 

Matual, Barnev _ 18020 

McDowell, Roy 17943 

Mundie, James F 17817, 17822, 17970, 18011 

]\Iurray, John W 17954,17964, 17982 

Murray, Laverne 17811 

Nelison, Arthur 17762 

Xultv, Leo C 17783 

O'Brien, John T 18007, 18016 18062 

Pantaleo, Frank V 17806 

Schultz, Carl M 18051 

Schultz, Jerome 17918 

Senese, Dominic 17785 

Sheridan, Walter J 18003, 18051 

Sumner, Samuel 17773, 17780 

Thieme, Harrv 17739 

Uhlmann, Martin S 17864, 17871, 17880 

Williams, John D 17793 

Wrixon, L. W 17911 

EXHIBITS Introduced Appears 

on page on page 

1. 46 checks of various dates in 1954, 1955, and 1956 all 
payable to A. V. Nelson in various amounts, drawn 

by Sumner Bros 17767 (*) 

lA. 5 checks of various dates in 1944 and 1945, all pay- 
able to A. V. Nelson in various amounts, drawn by 
Sumner Bros 17768 (*) 

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



IV 



CONTENTS 



EXHIBITS— Continued introduced Appears 

on page on page 

2. 75 checks of various dates in 1955 and 1956, all pay- 

able to John Mallec in various amounts, drawn by 

Sumner Bros 17776 (*) 

3. Two checks Nos. 4920 and 5050 dated August 4, 1956, 

payable to Pioneer Trust & Savings Bank as 
Trustee under trust No. 9386, in the amounts of 
$16,723.02 and $15,069.97 respectively, drawn on 
St. Paul Federal Savings and endorse! by Joseph P. 
Glimco and La Verne Murray 17795 (*) 

4. Schedule of pavmenls from local 777 to Frank V. 

Pantaleo----" 17797 (*) 

4A. 10 checks of various dates in 1952 and 1953 all pay- 
able to Frank Pantaleo in various amounts drawn 

by local union No. 777 17797 (*) 

4B. 10 check stubs of various dates in 1952 and 1953 show- 
ing checks in various amounts drawn to Frank 
Pantaleo for "Contractoi- on Acct." 17797 (*) 

5. Minute book, International Brotherhood of Team- 

sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers, 

Local No. 777, December 1, 1952 17799 (*) 

6A-F. Documents relating to the purchase of Joseph P. 

Glimco's home and deed of trust thereon 17800 (*) 

7. Chart showing arrangement of rooms constructed in 

the meeting hall or local 777. 17802 (*) 

8. Estimate of cost of doing new construction and new 

decorating and new work on the second floor made 

by George Blum 17803 (*) 

8A. Photograph of building of Taxicab Drivers Union, 

Local 777 17805 (*) 

9. Voucher and hotel bills for April 1956 for James 

Hoffa testimonial dinner, reimbursed to Connors, 

Kofkin, Glimco, and Coca 17810 (*) 

10. Bill to Joseph Glimco from Hotel Bel Air, Los Angeles, 

dated July 2, 1953, in the amount of $1,045.65 17813 (*) 

lOA. Check No. 11408, dated July 9, 1953, payable to Hotel 
Bel Air in the amount of $1,045.65 drawn by local 
No. 777, signed by Joseph P. Glimco and George 

Marcie 17813 (*) 

lOB-0. Hotel ledger sheets, handwriting samples, and other 

documents related to the above 17815 (*) 

11. Vouchers and other documents relating to the 1957 

Teamsters convention in Miami Beach, Fla., and 
the purchase of a lot by local 777 from Sun Vallev, 
Inc., Miami, Fla 1. 17827 (*) 

12. Hotel bill, ledger sheet, and check No. 2845 in the 

amount of $216.43, payable to the Bismarck Hotel, 

Chicago, drawn by local Union 777 17828 (*) 

13. Vouchers and ledger sheets from the Woodner Hotel, 

Washington, D.C., showing charges to "Kofkin and 
party", and checks in various amounts, payable to 
the Woodner Hotel, drawn by local 777 on various 
dates in June, July, and August 1957 17828 (*) 

14A. Check No. 1070 dated February 17, 1954, payable to 
Cash in the amount of $100 drawn by Don Marcie, 
Inc 17840 18080 

14B. Check No. 1487 dated December 31, 1955, payable to 
Taxicab Drivers Union in the amount of $500 
drawn bv Don Marcie, Inc 17840 18081 

14C. Check stubs Nos. 1070 and 1487 for the two checks 

described al)ove 17840 18082 

15. Record showing salary payments to Joseph P. 

Glimco, Jr., by Best Sanitation & Supply Co 17840 (*) 

16. Invoice No. 11205 from Gro-Mar Construction Co. 

Schor Glass Co. to Taxicab Drivers Union, Local 

777, in the amount of $2,750 17840 18083 

•Mny be found in the flies of the select committee. 



CONTENTS 



EXHIBITS— Continued Introduced 

on page 

17. Summary of payments from local 777 to Orchid 

Flo\ver Shop, 1950-57 17842 

18. Affidavit of Titus Haifa 17842 

19. Statements from Tam O'Shanter Enterprises to 

George Marcie, and checks in various amounts 
payable to Tam O'Shanter Enterprises, drawn by- 
local union 777, with check stubs marked "for 
entertaining" 17842 

20. Chart entitled "21 Chicago cases, Occidental Life 

Insurance Co. of California" 17856 

21. Termination agreement between Occidental Life In- 

surance Co. of California and the Wheeler- Maris 

Co., effective October 31, 1957 17863 

22. Letter dated January 7, 1949, addressed to Mr. Allen L. 

Creitz, Regional Group Supervisor, Occidental Life 
Life Insurance Co., Chicago, 111., from Harland R. 
Maris 17892 

22A. Letter dated January 18, 1949, addressed to Mr. Har- 
land R. Maris from Allen L. Creitz, Regional Group 
Supervisor, Occidental Life Insurance Co. of Cali- 
fornia 17892 

22B. Letter dated April 4, 1949, addressed to Elmer E. 
Crane, Crane, Kearney, Korzen & Phelan, Chicago, 
111., from Harland R. Maris 17893 

22C. Letter dated April 8, 1949, to "Dear Harland" and 

signed "Allen" 17893 

22D. Letter dated November 4, 1949, addressed to "Mr. 

Allen L. Creitz" from "Harland R. Maris" 17894 

23. Draft of proposed employment contract submitted to 

Harland R. Maris by L. W. Wrixon 17894 

24. Letter dated October 6, 1950, addressed to Mr. Har- 

land Maris, re: Commission Drivers, Chauffeurs, 
Warehouse Helpers Union, Local 703, from Allen 
L. Creitz, regional group supervisor. Occidental 
Life Insurance Co. of California 17895 

25. Letter dated December 7, 1950, addressed to Mr. 

Harland Maris from Allen L. Creitz, regional group 
supervisor. Occidental Life Insurance Co. of 
California 17897 

26. Letter dated January 8, 1951, addressed to Allen L. 

Creitz, Occidental Life Insurance Co. from Aileen 
Tipton, secretary to Mr. Maris 17897 

27. Letter dated January 10, 1951, addressed to John W. 

Murray, Chicago, 'ill., from Harland R. Maris 17897 

28. Letter dated January 22, 1951, addressed to Frank 

Brown, Chicago, 111., from Harland R. Maris 17903 

29. Letter dated February 2, 1951, addressed to Mr. Har- 

land R. Maris, Chicago, 111., from L. W. Wrixon. . 17903 
29A. Minutes of special meeting of the board of directors of 

Dearborn Insurance Agency, Inc 17904 

30. Letter dated February 2, 1951, to Mr. Jerome Schultz, 

Young, Schultz & Co., Chicago, 111., from Harland 

R. Maris 17904 

31. Trust agreement, between Harland R. Maris, as 

grantor, and La Salle National Bank of Chicago, 
as trustee, establishing trusts Nos. 12117 and 12158; 
with related documents 17907 

32. Letter dated April 11, 1951, addressed to Mr. Harland 

Maris, from Allen Ij. Creitz, Occidental Life Insur- 
ance Co. of California 17907 

33. Letter dated April 12, 1951, addressed to Harland 

Maris from Allen L. Creitz, Occidental Life Insur- 
ance Co. of California 17908 

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



Appears 
on page 



(*) 
(*) 



(*) 
18084 

(*) 

(*) 

(*) 

(*) 
(*) 
(*) 
(*) 

18085 

18086 

18087 

(*) 

(*) 

(*) 

(*) 

(*) 

(*) 

18088 

18089 



VI 



CONTENTS 



EXHIBITS — Continued Introduced Appears 

on page on page 

34A. Check No. 1097, dated December 21, 1955, payable 
to Laverne Murray in the amount of $100 drawn 
by Dearborn Insurance Agency 17925 18090 

34B. Check No. 1396, dated December 13, 1956, payable 
to Laverne Murray in the amount of $250 drawn 
by Dearborn Insurance Agency 17925 18091 

34C. Check No. 1658, dated December 13, 1957, payable 
to Laverne Murray, in the amount of $500, drawn 
by Dearborn Insurance Agency 17925 18092 

35A. Group policy claim of Taxicab Drivers Union Local 
777 for dependent Lucille Markov, wife of Robert 
S. Markov, in the amount of $125 17932 (*) 

35B. Group polic.v claim of Taxicab Drivers Union Local 
777 for Ruth Pritikin, wife of William Pritikin, in 
the amount of $123.85 17932 (*) 

36. Letter dated October 24, 1951 addressed to J. P. 

Dandy, vice president, home office, Chicago Group 
Department, re Taxicab Drivers, Maintenance & 
Garage Helpers Union Local 777, Policy No. 2383 
LDAH, from Allen L. Creitz, regional group super- 
visor 17951 18093 

37. Document, "Endorsement to Policy No. 3416 LDAH," 

policyholder, Taxicab Drivers, Maintenance & 
Garage Helpers Union, Local 777, dated May 7, 
1957 17952 (*) 

38. Check and stub No. 175, dated July 24, 1951, payable 

to James Blakely in the amount of $200 drawn by 

Harland R. Maris (special accovmt) 17964 18094 

39. 16 checks, 6 drawn in 1950, 7 in 1951, and 3 in 1952, 

totaling $57,700, payable to Harland R. Maris, 

drawn by Dearborn Insurance Agency 17973 (*) 

40. Letter dated November 14, 1957, addressed to J. P. 

Dandy, vice president. Occidental Life Insurance 
Co. of California, from T. C. Rogan, chairman, 
Chicago Downtown Hotels, local joint executive 
board 17994 (*) 

40A. Letter dated November 22, 1957 addressed to T. C. 
Rogan, chairman, Chicago Downtown Hotels, local 
joint executive board of the H. & R. E. and B.I.U. 
Health and Welfare Trust, from J. P. Dandv 17998 (*) 

40B. Letter dated October 18, 1957, addressed to T. C. 
Rogan, chairman Downtown Hotels, local joint 
executive board of the H. & R. E. and B. I. U. 
health and welfare trust, from J. P. Dandv, vice 
president 1 17998 (*) 

41. Bill from Hotel Statler, Cleveland, to Raymond 

Gaglione, dated February 1955, in the amount of 

$31 18003 (*) 

41 A. Check No. 13435 dated March 18, 1955, payable to 
Statler Hotel in the amount of $30 for Sam DiCaro, 
room 1215, drawn by Taxicab Drivers L^nion 
Local 777 18003 (*) 

41B. Check No. 13328 dated February 13, 1955, payable to 
Statler Hotel, in the amount of $205.74, drawn by 
Taxicab Drivers Union Local 777 18003 (*) 

42. Minutes of meeting of the executive board of local 710 

at Stock Yard Inn, .June 25, 1953 18013 (*; 

43. Miinites of meeting of Meat Drivers and Helpers, 

Highwav Drivers, Dockmen, and Helpers Local 

Union 710 held on September 9, 1953 18013 (*) 

44. Chart showing breakdown of salary, vacation, Christ- 

mas, commission, and accrued commissions of John 
T. O'Brien, secretary-treasurer, local 710, as per 
payroll records for the years 1952 through 195G 18014 (*) 

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



CONTENTS 



vn 



EXHIBITS— Continued Introduced Appears 

on page on page 

45. Minutes of the executive board meeting of Meat 

Drivers and Helpers, Highway Drivers, Dockmen 

and Helpers, local 710, October 28, 1956 ------ 18015 (*) 

46. Chart showing breakdown of salary, commissions, 

vacation, Christmas, commissions and accrued 
commissions of Frank Charles Schmitt, president, 
local 710 as per pavroU records for the years 1952 
through 1958 .' 18017 (*) 

47. Chart showing breakdown of salary, vacation, 

Christmas, commissions, and accrued commissions 
of Frank T. Brown, president, local 710, as per 
payroll records for the years 1952 through 1958-.. 18018 (*) 

48. Chart showing breakdown of salary, vacation, Christ- 

mas, commissions and accrued commissions of 
Michael Joseph Healy, vice president of local 710, 
as per pavroU records for the years 1952 through 
1958_.-..' 18018 (*) 

49. Recapitulation of payments to officers of local 710, 

1952-58 :. 18018 18095 

50. Agreement between Star Union Products Co. and 

local No. 46 dated January 3, 1958 18032 (*) 

51. Handwritten memorandum, dated June 25, 1956, 

addressed to Star Bottling Co., signed by John J. 

Clinch, Jr 18057 (*) 

52. Extension of contract between Star Union Products 

Co. and local union No. 46, dated February 5, 1959. 18059 (*) 

53. Undated agreement between John J. Clinch, Jr. and 

John T. O'Brien acting on behalf of Local 46 of the 

Teamsters Union 18059 (*) 

Proceedings of — 

April 24, 1958 17701 

March 11, 1959 17731 

March 12, 1959 17793 

March 17, 1959 17853 

March 18, 1959 17911 

March 19, 1959 18007 

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



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



THURSDAY, APRIL 24, 1958 

U.S. Senate, 
Select Committee on Improper Activities, 

IN the Labor or ]Management Field, 

Washington^ D.O. 

The select committee met at 10 :30 a.m., pursuant to Senate Resolu- 
tion 221, ao:i'eed to January 29, 1958, in the caucus room, Senate 
Office Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select 
committee) presiding. 

Present: Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Senator 
Barry Goldwater, Republican, Arizona; Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., 
Democrat, North Carolina; Senator Carl Curtis, Republican, Ne- 
braska ; Senator Frank Church, Democrat, Idaho. 

Also present : Robert F. Kennedy, Chief Counsel ; Jerome S. Adler- 
man. Assistant Chief Coimsel; P. Kenneth O'Donnell, Administra- 
tive Assistant ; Alphonse F. Calabrese, Investigator ; Jack S. Balaban, 
Investigator; Ruth Young Watt, Chief Clerk, 

(At the start of the hearing, the following members are present: 
Senators McClellan, Church, Curtis, Ervin, and Goldwater.) 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

Mr. Counsel, call your first witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Joseph Glimco. 

The Chairman. Be sworn, please. You do solemnly swear the 
evidence you shall give before this Senate Select Committee shall be 
the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Glimco. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH P. GLIMCO, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
BENEDICT F. FiTZ GERALD, JR. 

The Chairman. Mr. Kennedy, you may make a brief statement of 
the purpose of this hearing. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we are investigating and looking 
into, in accordance with our mandate from the Senate, improper ac- 
tivities in the labor or management field. One of the areas that has 
interested us is the misuse of union funds and the misuse of pension 
and welfare funds. 

This is a category in which we are interested, in this particular 
case, in connection with local 777 of the Teamsters and Mr. Joey 
Glimco. Beyond that, we are interested in racketeer and gangster 
penetration of unions and of businesses. 

Mr. Glimco is also being called because of our interest in the latter 
category, the hoodlum penetration of certain labor unions and certain 

17701 



17702 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

management associations, and the necessity for management asso- 
ciations and groups to get labor peace through a gangster or hoodlum 
element in a particular city. Mr. Glimco is being called because of 
his knowledge and information on that matter today. He will be 
recalled at a later time, Mr. Chairman, but today we are particularly 
anxious to get his books and records and the books and records of 
local 777 in Chicago. 

The Chairman. The purpose of ascertaining these facts, of course, 
is so that the Congress may legislate in those fields to prevent, if it 
can, the improper practices of bribery, extortion, pay-offs, infiltration 
of the labor movement with known criminals, people who operate in 
that capacity, who serve labor bosses, and also who impose on the 
public. 

Congress is very much int/erested in trying to ascertain the nature 
and extent to which criminal practices or other improper practices 
are being engaged in, in the labor movement, and in management- 
labor relations. 

That also applies to business associations, management associations, 
where practices are being engaged in that the Congress might regard 
as improper, and would want to legislate regarding that particular 
area or in these areas. 

Mr. Glimco, state your name, your place of residence, and your 
business or occupation. 

Mr. Glimco. Joseph Paul Glimco, 629 Selbourne Eoad, Eiver- 
side, 111. 

The Chairman. Your occupation, please ? 

Mr. Glimco. Gentlemen, I respectfully decline to answer, claiming 
the fifth amendment privilege, which protects me from being a wit- 
ness against myself. 

The Chairman. Mr. Glimco, do you have counsel ? 

Mr. Glimco. Yes. 

The Chairman. Counsel, will you identify yourself for the record, 
please, sir? 

Mr. FitzGerald. My name is Benedict F. FitzGerald, Jr., with 
offices at suite 983 in the National Press Building, attorney at law 
in the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 

The Chairman. Thank you veiy much. 

Mr. Counsel. Proceed. 

Mr. FitzGerald. If I may be permitted to make a general objec- 
tion before we go into this, to the constitution of tliis committee and 
the interrogation of this witness, I would like to give you a paragraph 
on my impression. We are going to claim the privileges guaranteed 
to us under the first, fourth, fifth, and eighth amendments of the Con- 
stitution of the United States?. 

I would like to state that I have advised my client, Mr. Glimco, that 
this legislative investigation is improper because the sole and basic 
purpose of this interrogation of this particular witness seems to be 
to expose him or to develop evidence for use in criminal prosecutions 
or in other proceedings. 

I have advised my client that there is no legislative power for such 
a purpose. I want to respectfully direct the committee's attention 
to the fact that they have already prejudged this particular witness. 

They have branded him in no uncertain terms. I respectfully refer 
you to page 449 of your majority report, which has been executed and 
adopted by a majority of this committee, in which they allude to 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17703 

Joseph P. Glimco in some ratJier unfavorable terms, indicating that 
they have prejudged this case and that they want to go after him. 

I also refer to frequent press releases made by the chairman, in 
which he has indicated that he intends to expose certain witnesses, 
and I feel that expose is directed toward my client, and, naturally, 
we object to it. We have no objection to any hearings being con- 
ducted for a legislative purpose, but when they go far afield to expose 
for the sake of exjiosure, then, of course, we object to them. 

That is our position here today. "VVe also take objection to the news- 
reels, photocameras, exploding flashbulbs, the bright lights, and all 
those other things which disqualify this as a judicial arena. 

Tlie Chairman. The Chair has heard your statement, and your ob- 
jections, of course, now are part of the record. Your objections are 
ovemiled. Your statement that the purpose of this is only to expose 
the witness is inaccurate. It is not based upon fact. We have to have 
witnesses if we are to carry out the mandate of the Senate in creating 
this committee. Certainly there are exposures in the course of an in- 
vestigation. One of the purposes of the investigation is to get in- 
formation, and information not heretofore known might involve ex- 
posure of a witness, or of a practice, or of a conduct of a labor organi- 
zation, or of a business or management. 

The purpose of it is for legislation, and the Senate today is in proc- 
ess of considering legislation that has grown out of investigations 
being made in the pension and welfare funds. Other legislation is 
pending in the Senate and in the Congress with respect to other im- 
proper activities and practices that this committee has brought to 
light through what counsel terms as "exposure." 

The committee will continue its function. It will undertake to carry 
out the mandate that Congress has given it, that the Senate has given 
it. This witness will be treated with every courtesy that we treat 
every witness with. If he will cooperate, we will be glad to cooperate 
with him in every way possible. But he is here under subpena, the 
power of the Congress to have him present and to have him inter- 
rogated by this committee representing the Senate of the United 
States, and we shall proceed accordingly. 

Senator EmT:N. Mr. Chairman, I would also suggest that if this 
witness has been done any injury by any previous findings of this 
committee, that he is now accorded a full and complete opportunity 
to point out to the committee any errors in any findings of this com- 
mittee, and if he can disclose such evidence by making a full and fair 
and honest disclosure of the true facts, he would be rendering not only 
a service to himself, but a service to the committee and a service to his 
country. 

The Chairman. Are there any other comments of members of the 
committee ? 

Mr. FitzGerald. In answer to the respected Senator from North 
Carolina, I want to point out that we don't choose to take this par- 
ticular forum to vindicate my client's position. I want to again allude 
to page 449 of the Senate report, whereby my client was unjustly 
branded with the following remark, which was adopted by the ma- 
jority, and I (juote : 

The committee said that this man, Joseph P. Glimco — 

was twice arrested for murder, was the crony of Capone gang mobsters, who is 
the trustee of a Chicago local in Hoffa's central conference. 



17704 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

With respect to the arrests, I want to point out that the mere fact 
that a man might have been arrested has very little, if any, probative 
value. 

The Chairman. Just a moment. If the witness wants to make any 
explanation of it, tliat will be his privilege. I am not going to sit here 
and let the lawyer argue facts. You have made the motion and 
stated your position as attorney and how you have advised him. That 
is quite proper. But for you to undertake to testify for the witness 
will not be permitted. 

Counsel requested that the lights be turned off and no flash pictures 
be made. For the moment, turn off the lights. The still cameramen 
will refrain from taking any pictures for the present. 

All right, Mr. Glimco, the Chair asked you a moment ago to state 
your occupation or profession or business. Will you please so state ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege to protect me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. As I understood from your attorney, but I want to 
determine from you — your attorney is representing you, that is true — 
I want to determine from you whether you propose to cooperate with 
the committee in giving testimony and answering questions that the 
committee may ask you. 

Can you state whether you will or will not? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Glimco. That depends on the question. I will wait for each 
question. 

The Chairman. I have given you one. It depends on that. Will 
you state your occupation, business, or profession? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. The Chair finds, and I submit it to the committee, 
that a witness who wouldn't answer the question as to his business or 
occupation is not cooperating with the committee. 

Unless there is objection on the part of the committee, the Chair 
will permit the cameras to operate and pictures to be made. I will not 
permit any flash pictures while the witness is testifying for the pres- 
ent, but I am not going to give accommodation to this witness that we 
do not give to others, particularly when a witness will not cooperate. 

The rule of the committee permits if a witness says that lights or 
pictures, or those things, might detract, if he feels they might detract 
from his capacity to concentrate, or might, in other words, interfere 
with his testifying freely, the committee has always respected the 
request and directed that no pictures be taken and that the lights be 
turned off. 

Wliere a witness proposes not to cooperate, I don't think that he can 
ask special favors of the committee. 

It is always in the discretion of the committee as to whether the 
press shall be present, whether the photographers should be present, 
whether radio or other seiwices may be privileged to be present. 

That is the niling of the Chair. Do I hear any objection from 
members of the committee ? 

The Chair hears none. The ruling of the Chair will stand. Proceed, 
Mr. Kennedy. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17705 

Mr. Kenxedy. Mr, Chairman, the primary purpose of calling Mr. 
Glimco at this time was to obtain from him certain books and records 
over which he has custody. When our staff investigators attempted 
to contact him in Chicago, he was not available for an interview. We 
wish to have his own personal books and records. He has been served 
a subpena for tliat purpose. We also wish to have the books and 
records of local 777, dealing with their pension and welfare funds. 

The Chairman. Do we have the subpena? 

Senator Goldwater. Pardon me, Mr. Counsel. Would you tell us 
the connection of Mr. Glimco with 777 ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Initially, Senator, he was the trustee of local 777, 
which is the taxicab local in Chicago. Recently he has become its 
president, and that is the present position that he holds. In addition 
to that, he has a number of businesses that he operates in the Chicago 
area. But at the present time, we would like to get his personal 
records which deal with his businesses as well as the pension and wel- 
fare funds. 

The Chairman. Do we have the subpena that was served on him ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

The Chairman. It can be placed in the record at this point. 

1^2136 

United States of America 

Congress of the United States 



To Joseph Paul Glimco, 629 Selbourne Road, Riverside, III., Greeting: 

Pursuant to lawful authority, you are hereby commanded to appear before 
the Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Manage- 
ment Field of the Senate of the United States, on Thursday, April 24, 1958, at 
9 o'clock a.m., at their committee room, 101, Senate Office Building, Washington, 
D.C.. then and there to testify what you may know relative to the subject 
matters under consideration by said committee, and produce the data set forth 
in schedule No. 1, attached hei-eto and made a part hereof. 

Hereof fail not, as you will answer your default under the pains and pen- 
alties in such cases made and provided. 

To to serve and return. 

Given under my hand, by order of the committee, this 8th day of April, in the 
year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and fifty-eight. 

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

Schedule No. 1 

To produce for the period from January 1, 1949, to date — 

(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 i)ersonal banking transactions, and those jointly 
with your wife, with any bank, savings and loan association, building and loan 
agency, or any other agency or individual. 

(2) All records reflecting loans by you, or upon your behalf, made to or 
received 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 other 
than from the local 777, IBT. 

(4) All records reflecting assets, such as trusts, stocks, Government or 
municipal lK>nds, 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. 



17706 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

(5) All records reflecting any realty transactions or realty holdings by yoa 
personally, or jointly with your wife, together with pertinent data showing the 
equity held therein and any liens, notes secured by deeds of trust or mortgages, 
or other indebtedness against such realty. 

(6) All correspondence or other records reflecting any dealings by you. or upon 
your behalf, with any realty companies. 

(7) All diaries, calendars reflecting appointments, and appointment books 
maintained by you or upon your behalf, at your home and oflSces. 

(8) All your personal income tax returns, or those filed jointly by you and 
your wife, both Federal and State, fi-om January 1, 1949, to date. 

Served this writ on the within named Joseph P. Glimco by delivering a copy 
thereof to him in person this 19th day of April A. D. 1958 and at the same time 
informing him of the contents thereof. 

W. W. KiPP, Sr.. 

U.S. Marshal. 
By Salvatore R. CA^•ELLI, 

Deput'^. 

Mr. Glimco, you were served with a subpena to produce here today 
your personal records, your business records, and also to produce the 
records of the pension and welfare funds of local 777. 

Have you complied with that subpena ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Glimco. I have no personal records, but I have health and 
welfare records in my possession. 

The Chairman. You say you have no personal records of your busi- 
ness transactions, dealings ? 

Mr. Glimco. No. 

The Chairman. What became of them ? 

Mr. Glimco. I have none. 

The Chairman. I know you say you have none. Have you kept 
no records of your business affairs, personal affairs ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Glimco. With respect to business records, I respectfully decline 
to answer and claim the fifth amendment privilege which protects 
me from being a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Then with respect to your business records that 
have been subpenaed, you take the fifth amendment, is that correct? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Glimco. I have no business records. 

The Chairman. Well, you also take the fifth amendment with re- 
spect to any interrogation about them. I just asked you if you had 
had, or if you had kept any such records. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Glimco. My answer is I have no business records in my cus- 
tody. 

The Chairman. That isn't responsive to the question. You stated 
you have none. I am asking you if you have had and if in the past 
you have kept records of your business and personal transactions. 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17707 

The Chairman. With the permission of the committee, the Chair 
orders and directs the witness to answer the question. You are, 
therefore, ordered and directed to answer the question with respect 
to wliether you have in the past kept business records of your personal 
and business transactions. 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. Do you decline to answer, notwithstanding the 
orders and directions of the committee ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. I think, under the circumstances, you would be 
required to answer, and the Chair so holds. I have directed you 
twice to answer. You have invoked the fifth amendment. So the 
record on that point is made. 

Do you have the records of the local 777, the records pertaining to 
its pension and welfare fund i 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Glimco. Yes. 

The Chairman. Do you have them in your possession ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Glimco. Yes. 

The Chairman. Where are they ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. Glimco. Here, with me. 

The Chairman. In response to the subpena you received, you did 
bring the pension and welfare fund records of local 777 ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Glimco. I did, sir. 

The Chairman. You are president of that local at present, are you ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. The Chair orders, with the permission of the com- 
mittee, the Chair orders, and directs you to answer the question 
whether you are presently president of local 777. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. Do you honestly believe that if you answered the 
question truthfully with respect to whether you are now president of 
Teamster local 777, that a truthful answer to such question might tend 
to incriminate you ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim tlie fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 



17708 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. You are ordered and directed to answer that ques- 
tion, with the permission of the committee. The Chair will so order 
and direct you. 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. You have stated that you have the records of the 
welfare and pension fund with you ? 

Mr. Glimco. I do. 

The Chairman. How did you procure them ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. With the permission of the committee, the Chair 
orders and directs you to answer that question. 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. Do you have those records now in your possession 
by reason of your official position in local 777, of the Teamster Union ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. Are you now prepared to comply — first, the Chair 
will order and direct you to answer the question, with the permission 
of the committee. That will be order and direction of the Chair. 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. Do you honestly believe that if you answered that 
question truthfully, that a truthful answer thereto might tend to in- 
criminate you ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. With the permission of the committee, the Chair 
orders and directs you to answer that question. I take the view that 
a witness cannot just capriciously and without some justification, at 
least, invoke the fifth amendment, when he states under oath that he 
declines to answer a question because an answer thereto might tend 
to incriminate him, and thus invokes the fifth amendment. 

I think the committee has a right to inquire of the witness if he 
honestly believes that a truthful answer to the question might tend 
to incriminate him. If he didn't honestly believe it, I doubt the valid- 
ity of his privilege of invoking the fifth amendment. 

I want to make the record clear. 

You invoke the fifth amendment on the question, and I want to 
simply make the record clear as to whether you are in good faith in- 
voking it, or whether it is just being invoked capriciously, simply to 
try to avoid answering questions. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17709 

The Chairman. I will ask you a<^ain — repeat the question, Mr. 
Repoiler. 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from bein<^ a witness aj^ainst 
myself. 

The Chairman. All right. It is understood. The Chair, then, with 
the permission of the committee again orders and directs you to 
anvSwer the question. 

(The witness conferi'ed with his counsel.) 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. In the subpena that was served upon you, you were 
ordered and directed to turn over the welfare and pension fund 
records of local 777 of the Teamsters Union to the committee. Are 
you now prepared to comply with the orders and directions of the 
subpena that has been served on you? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Glimco. I am prepared to show you the records that I have 
brought, but I do not wish to turn them over to strangers, or to have 
them leave my custody. You may examine them. 

The Chairman. Will you present now the records that you have 
brought ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Glimco. I am prepared to show you the records that I have 
brought, but I do not wish to turn them over to strangers 

The Chairman. Do you refuse to comply and obey the subpena 
with respect to 

Mr. Glimco. Or to have them leave my custody. 

You may examine them. 

The Chair]\l\n. Do you want to stay here for 6 months while we 
examine them ? 

Mr. Glimco. Yes. 

The Chairman. You may stay here. Produce the records. 

Senator Curtis. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Glimco, are those all the records of the pen- 
sion and welfare fund of local 777 ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Glimco. All that I have custody of. 

Senator Curtis. Who else has custody of records ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

Senator Curtis. I was not inquiring about what you had. I say 
who else has custody of the records of the pension and welfare fund 
of this union, besides yourself? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

Senator Curits. Are there other records besides what you have 
turned over here ? 

36751— 59— pt. 49 2 



17710 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. The Chair, with the permission of the committee, 
orders and directs the witness to answer that question. He has pro- 
duced records. The subpena called for all of the records. He is now 
being asked whether there are other records. He is declining to an- 
swer. I tliink when he complies with the subpena and produces the 
records, he is subject to being interrogated about whether they con- 
stitute all of the records that the subpena called for, and, if not, to 
give explanation of where the others may be. 

You may proceed. 

The Chair orders, with the permission of the committee, and directs 
the witness to answer the question of Senator Curtis. 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

Senator Curtis. Are you stating that there are no other records 
pertaining to the pension and welfare fund, other than those that 
you produced ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

Mr. FitzGerald. If the Chair pleases, could I note the fact that INIr. 
Glimco has turned over to you personally 25 pounds of records of the 
health and welfare fund of local 777 ? 

The Chairman. I haven't weighed them, and therefore, that is just 
a self-serving statement on the part of counsel. I have no idea about 
their weight. It isn't a question about their weight, whether they 
weigh an ounce or weigh a ton. The question is whether these are all 
of the records. The weight is not pertinent to the issue. 

What was your last question. Senator Curtis ? 

I am not sure I directed the witness to answer. 

Senator Curtis. Will the reporter read the question. 

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

The Chairman. That is the question. 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. With the permission of the committee, the Chair 
orders and directs you to answer the question. 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth- 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. Mr. Reporter, let the record show there are five 
members during this proceeding, there are five members of the com- 
mittee present, which constitutes a quorum for the transaction of 
business. 

(At this point, the following members of the committee were pres- 
ent: Senators McClellan, Ervin, Church, Goldwater, and Curtis.) 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question, if Senator 
Curtis has finished ? 

Senator Curtis. I will yield. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17711 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Glimco, you realize that the records concern- 
ing \vliich inquiry was made by Senator Curtis were references to the 
records of tlie local and not to your private records, do you not? 

Mv. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege, which protects me from being a witness against 
m3^self. 

Senator Ervin. Do you honestly believe that if you actually gave a 
truthful answer to that question as to whether or not you realize that 
the question of Senator Curtis was directed only to the records of the 
local and not to your private records, that that ajiswer would tend to 
incriminate you ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

Tlie Chalrman. Are there any further questions ? 

Mr. KJENNEDT. Mr. Chairman, these records are absolutely incom- 
plete. I would like to find out from Mr. Glimco where the minute 
books are. There are no minute books here. 

Where are the minute books ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

Mr. IvEXNEDY. There are no minute books, Mr. Chairman, no cor- 
respondence files, no vouchers, and the bank accounts are missing, 
of all the pension and welfare funds. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Are there any bank accounts in the records you 
turned over? 

( The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Glimco. I brought all the records that I had in my possession, 
and you may examine them. 

The Chairman. Do you know whether there are any bank accounts 
in them? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Cpiairjian. Were the other records in your possession at the 
time the subpena was served ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege, which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. With the permission of the committee, the Chair 
orders and directs you to answer the question of whether there were 
other records pertaining to the pension and welfare fmids of Teams- 
ters Local 777 in your possession at the time the subpena was served 
on you. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Glimco. I have brought you all the records in my possession of 
the health and welfare f imd and you may examine them. 

The Chairman. That is not responsive to the question. I am ask- 
ing you if there were other records pertaining to the pension and wel- 



17712 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

fare funds in your possession at the time the subpena was served on 
you, records of local 777, a Teamster local. 

The question is, Did you have other records in your possession at 
the time the subpena was served on you, records other than those which 
you have produced here today. 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege, which protects me fi'om being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. The Chair, with the permission of the committee, 
orders and directs you to answer whether there were other records per- 
taining to the pension and welfare funds of Teamsters Local 777 in 
your possession at the time the subpena was served on you. 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege, which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. You have counsel, and I am sure he is a vei-y able 
attorney to advise, but it is the view of the chairman, at least, at pres- 
ent, that failure to answer that question is definitely contempt of the 
U.S. Senate. 

You were served with a subpena to produce all the records. You 
have produced part. You refuse now to give any explanation with 
respect to the others or to state whether they were in your possession 
at the time the subpena was served on you. 

So that there can be no misunderstanding, the Chair now serves 
on you a subpena which reads as follows with respect to the records 
that we desire to have you produce. 

The subpena reads : 

Pursuant to the 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 committee 
room, 101 Senate OflSce Building, Washington, D.C., and then and there to testify 
what you may know relative to the subject matters under consideration by 
said committee and to produce all books and records as shown on schedule No. 1 
attached hereto and made a part hereof. 

Schedule 1 reads : 

Produce all books and records of the health and welfare fund. Local 777, 
Taxicab Drivers, Maintenance and Garage Helpers, International Brotherhood 
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Holpers, for the period from Janu- 
ary 1, 1950, to the i>resent time, including cash receipts and disbursement books, 
bank statments, canceled checks, copies of deposit slips, records of savings ac- 
counts, stubs showing purchase of cashier's checks or money orders, inventory 
of funds, and documents in safe deposit boxes or in custody of any officer or 
representative, complete records of investments, records of loans or accounts 
receivable, records of loans payable, records of automobiles, purchased or sold, 
paid bills, minutes of meetings, including board, executive and general member- 
ship meetings, corresi>on(lence files, reports submitted to governmental agencies 
as well as to officers and general membership, payroll records, records of W-2 
fonns. contracts with health and welfare funds, Local 777, IBT, interoffice 
memoranda, and any and all other documents relating to the operation of the 
health and welfare fund. Local 777, IBT. 

The Chair now serves this subpena on you in open session. 
Mrs. Watt, will you hand the subpena to the witness and make a 
proper return for my signature on the duplicate subpena? 
(The subpena was handed to the witness.) 
The Chairman. Mr. Counsel, have you anything further ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17713 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Glimco is president of local 777. 
We would also like to o;et the union records. These are health and 
welfare records. We would like to get the union records. We have 
found it now impossible to get into the union headquailei-s any more. 
There are guards posted outside of the union so we cannot get an 
investigator or U.S. marshal into the building to try to serve a 
subpena. 

Mr. Glimco is president of the local. We would like to try to make 
some arrangements so that the U.S. Government could look at the 
union funds of the local that Mr. Glimco is president of. 

I would like to point out, Mr. Chainnan, that Mr. Glimco has been 
a close associate of Lucky Luciano, Tony Accardo, Murray "The 
Camel" Humphreys, Paul "The Waiter'- Ricca, Sam "Golf Bag" 
Hunt, Greasy Thumb Guzik, and Claude Maddox, people that are 
well known in the underworld. Mr. Glimco's own activities will be 
gone into in some detail at a later hearing. 

The CiiAiRMAX. As related to labor-management relations ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Tliat is correct. 

The Chairman. Mr. Glimco, you have heard the statement made 
by counsel here as to information the committee has regarding you. 
Do you wish to make any statement in reply thereto ? 

Do you wish to deny it ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. We wouldn't want to make a statement about you 
here or at any other time in the report or otherwise, that is not justi- 
fied from facts and information the committee has. So you are given 
the opportunity. You said we made these statements, some of them 
to the press. I don't recall if we did, but whether we did or didn't, 
whatever the report shows that the committee reported, it is an of- 
ficial document; so we are giving you the opportunity now, if the 
committee has made a mistake, if it is inaccurate in any sense in its 
report, or as to this information which you have just been advised of, 
if it is in any way inaccurate, you are now given the opportunity to 
correct it. 

Do you wish to take advantage of that opportunity and exercise 
your privilege to make a statement with respect to whether the facts 
and information the committee has is correct or incorrect? 

Mr. Glimco. 1 respectfully decline to answer, and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. Do you have any further questions, counsel? 

Mr. Kennedy. How many times have you been arrested, Mr. 
Glimco ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is it correct that you have been arrested more than 
36 times? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 



17714 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. And convicted on four different occasions ? Is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege, which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. The Chair holds that these questions are definitely 
relevant to the mandate of this committee. I think we are all con- 
cerned about criminals, unreformed criminals, rising to power in some 
unions. We think that that is a matter that maybe the Congress 
would want to legislate about. When we have witnesses before us 
who are officers in a union, it is proper, I think, for the committee 
to interrogate these witnesses, these officers, with respect to their 
criminal records. 

It will be a sad day in this country when that element, if they are 
unreformed and not rehabilitated, when that element can take over 
the control, officials, powers and authority of the union movement in 
America or any segment of it. 

I believe there is a heavy duty resting upon the Congress of the 
United States to try to ferret these things out and determine where 
legislation is needed for the protection of the workingman and his 
family, and for the protection of business and management, and, 
above all, for the protection of the security of this country and the 
liberties and welfare of its people. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman, if I may make a suggestion at this 
point, in view of the fact that no man can be put twice in jeopardy 
for the same offense, I am at a loss to understand how the fifth amend- 
ment would excuse one from answering about the prior convictions. 

I would, therefore suggest that the counsel put to this witness 
questions as to any specific cases in which he has allegedly been con- 
victed and see if he declines to answer those questions. 

Mr. Kennedy. Starting back in 1923, June 3, 1923, disorderly con- 
duct, 6 months' probation, is that right? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. With the permission of the committee, the Chair 
orders and directs you to answer the question. You could not be 
placed in jeopardy twice for the same offense. The Chair will order 
and direct you to answer the question. You couldn't be incriminated 
by giving testimony of what the record reflects. 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. October 3, 1923, disorderly conduct, 6 months' pro- 
bation ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. Wliat the Chair has just stated with respect to the 
preceding question, and the witness' exercising the privilege of the 
fifth amendment will stand on this question and subsequent questions, 
all subsequent questions, regarding convictions for criminal offenses. 

Therefore, the Chair, with the permission of the committee, orders 
and directs you to answer the question. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17715 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege, which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then, Mr. Chairman, September 7, 1924, an assault 
with an auto, which was dismissed. 

October 6, 1924, larcency. lie received 1 year probation. 

The Chairman. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. With the permission of the committee, the Chair 
orders and directs you to answer the question. 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer, and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege, which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. May 29, 1925, disorderly conduct, 6 months' pro- 
bation. 

The Chairman. Is that record correct ? 

(The witness conferred his counsel.) 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. You are ordered and directed to answer the ques- 
tion, by permission of the committee. 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Glimco. Protects me from being a witness against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. June 22, 1927, vagrancy, which was dismissed. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions? 

Senator Curtis. I have a question, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Glimco, would you step forward and show us 
in these books and records that you have delivered here, the inventory 
or list of assets of the pension and welfare fimd of local 777 ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer, and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege, which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

Senator Curtis. Is there any list or inventory of assets of this pen- 
sion and welfare fund among these records that you have presented 
here? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

Senator Curtis. With what insurance brokers, if any, has the pen- 
sion and welfare fund been handled ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

Senator Curtis. You have presented here what appear to be some 
records concerning an account in the Merchants' National Bank in 
Chicago for the health and welfare, local 777, 1213 Blue Island 
Avenue, Chicago, 111. 



17716 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Are there accounts belonging to that fund in any other bank ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

Senator Curtis. Are any of the assets of this pension and welfare 
fund invested in real estate mortgages ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

Senator Curtis. Are any of these funds invested in bonds ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

Senator Curtis. Are any of the funds of the pension and welfare 
fund invested in common stocks ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. The Chair orders and directs you to answer that 
question. I think the Congress is interested in knowing how these 
welfare funds are invested, with a view of determining whether legis- 
lation is necessary for their protection and for their proper ad- 
ministration. 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to 

The Chairman. With the pennission of the committee, the Chair 
orders and directs you to answer the question. 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

Senator Curtis. Now, Mr. Glimco, this question I am about to ask 
couldn't incriminate you. It pertains to the policy of handling 
these funds, in which the Congress is very much concerned, and right- 
fully so, for the purpose of legislation. 

I will ask you this : What policy has been established with reference 
to the investment of funds of the pension and welfare fund as it re- 
lates to the ratio of various kinds of investments to each other, such 
as common stocks, bonds, real estate mortgages, and Government 
securities ? 

The Chairman. Have you completed your question ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes, IVIr. Chairman. 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. With the permission of the committee, you are 
ordered and directed to answer the question. 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know John Bridge ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege, which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

Senntor Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17717 

The Chairman. The Chair will ask you one question : Subsequent to 
receiving the subpena being sei-ved, the subpena for the production of 
the records of the pension and welfare funds of Teamsters Local 777, 
did you screen out of the records a part of them and only produce such 
parts of them as you chose to in compliance with the subpena, or did 
you produce all records, have you produced here all records, that were 
in your possession at the time the subpena was served on you ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Glimco. I have brought all the health and welfare records in 
my possession at the time the subpena was served on me. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. ]Mr. Glimco, I have just a couple of questions. You 
were appointed to your present position as president of the local ? 

The Chairman. Let me ask one other question. 

Mr. Glimco, in that connection, with respect to the records, do you 
know, is it within your knowledge, there were other records of the 
pension and welfare fund other than these at the time the subpena was 
served on you ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer, and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. With the permission of the committee, you are 
ordered and directed to answer that question, 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer, and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. Did you, at the time of the serving of the subpena 
on you, or have you since, learned where there are other records per- 
taining to the pension and welfare fund of local 777, Teamster Local 
777 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline- 



The Chairman. Other than the records that you have exhibited 
here? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment, which protects me from being a witness against my- 
self. 

The Chairman. With the permission of the committee, the Chair 
orders and directs you to answer the question. 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. The membership has no control over you as far as 
their selection of their leader. It is a completely captive local, is it 
not, held by you and your associates ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege, which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. Is there an}- thing further ? 

The subpena the Chair served on you a few months ago asked you 
to produce forthwith the records that it called for. May I ask you if 
you are in a position to produce those records now ? 

Mr. FitzGerald. May I ask without reading this thing, which is 
about 25 lines, does this call for the health and welfare records in Mr. 
Glimco's possession ? 



17718 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Yes, it does. 

Mr. FitzGerald. Those have ah-eady been produced. 

The Chairman. He doesn't say that this is all of the records of 
the union. For that reason, I served this subpena on him, to get the 
rest of the records. 

He wouldn't answer whether these are all of them, and therefore I 
have to try to get the other if it is possible to do so. 

This witness, as president of this local, who has formerly been 
trustee of it, obviously has the official responsibility and authority 
for producing such records whenever they are called for by proper 
authority. 

We certainly feel that the Senate committee charged with the duty 
that is contained in the mandate and the resolution creating this com- 
mittee does give this committee the authority to subpena the records 
called for in this subpena. 

Are you prepared to comply with the subpena now, or do you wish 
more time? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. FitzGerald. I think we ought to have more time. I am un- 
able to read this 25-line command. As far as I am concerned, if there 
are any more health and welfare records available in Chicago, they 
will be brought to this committee in answer to this subpena. 

The Chairman. What time, Mr. Counsel, do you think would be 
reasonable? I don't want to impose anything that is impossible or 
which would be a hardship. 

Mr. FitzGerald. Since I don't represent this union — I only repre- 
sent Mr. Glimco — I would have to discuss this with members of the 
union and find out if there are, in fact, any such records as are de- 
scribed in this command. 

The Chairman. I am sure this witness would know. But the Chair 
and the committee will be glad to give proper time for compliance. 

Mr. FitzGerald. I would say a couple of weeks. What did you 
have in mind ? Anything you suggest. 

The Chairman. Any time early next week. 

Mr. FitzGerald. There might be a necessity of hiring five truck- 
loads to come down here, if there are those kinds of records. I rep- 
resent several unions and frequently I find that the records they keep 
are voluminous. We might have to charter five trucks to come down 
here. It might take a little time. I don't know. I haven't read this 
thing over. It is 25 lines. It is pretty comprehensive. I would want 
to comply with the committee's request in detail, if I were served, 
and that is what I would recommend, moving the whole office down 
here. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am sure the Teamsters can get five trucks. 

The Chairman. Mr. Counsel, we are not dealing in trivialities here. 
I appreciate your attitude. If your statement has any substance of 
fact to support it, then obviously your client is in flagrant contempt 
of this committee, by having only delivered 25 pounds of records, 
according to your testimony, of records which would take five trucks 
to bring. 

Mr. FitzGer.\ld. I think his testimony was that he has brought 
everything so far that was in his possession at that time pertaining 
to the health and welfare. I think the record will display that. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17719 

The Chairman. He is president of the union, and these records, 
if there are any, are obviously in his control. He is also, I under- 
stand, the administrator of these welfare funds. Certainly as ad- 
ministrator of them, he is i-esponsible for the records of the pension 
and welfare funds. The Chair will give what I consider reasonable 
time. If any member of the committee has any reasonable suggestion, 
we will be glad to consider it. 

The Chair will give you until Wednesday of next week, the 30th 
of April, at 10 :oO a.m., to produce those records as called for by the 
-subpena, here at the Senate Office Building, room 101. 

Mr. FitzGerald. Thursday at 10 a.m. ? 

The Chairman. Wednesday at 10 :30 a.m. — Wednesday, April 30. 

Senator Ervin. jMr. Chairman, in this connection, I may not con- 
:strue the testimony of the witness right, but as I construe it, he says 
he has brought here all the records that were in his custody at the 
time the subpena was served on him, but I do not believe he has ever 
said that he has brought in all the records of local 777 under his 
control. 

The Chairman. Pertaining to union and welfare f imds. 

Senator Ervin. That is right; pertaining to union and welfare 
funds. I think there is quite a distinction between those two things. 
Pie would have power to produce records under his control, even 
though they may not be in his physical custody. 

The Chairman. The Chair will ask the witness the question of 
whether these records you have produced here today constitute all of 
the records of the pension and welfare fund of Teamster Local 777 
that are under your control in your official capacity with the union. 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. With the permission of the committee, the Chair 
orders and directs you to answer the question. 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer, and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege, which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

The witness may stand aside for the present. You will be required 
to be here next Wednesday at 10 :30 a.m., April 30. 

Mr. FitzGerald. If the Chair pleases, it has been respectfully sug- 
gested we have a little problem here that is obvious. The witness just 
turned over to you wliat he represented was approximately 25 pounds 
of records, and he also indicated the stipulation he was turning them 
over to you personally without agreeing to turn them out of his 
custody. 

Obviously, he is not going to leave Washington until these records 
leave too, that he has already turned over. 

The Chairman. The Chair will not accept records personally. The 
Chair will accept records as chairman of the committee. 

Mr. FitzGerald. Well, as chairman of the committee, pardon me. 
The correction is noted. What kind of arrangements would you like 
to make for us so that Mr. Glimco can, as you have said, spend the next 
6 months in the committee's headquarters here to guard — to take care 
of these records ? We have had some situations created where records 



17720 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

have been turned over to this committee before, and have been given 
to unauthorized individuals. We are a little bit concerned about 
that. Mr. Glimco doesn't want that to happen. If the Chair pleases,, 
he would like some kind of a ruling on that as to what happens to- 
the records that we have in our custody at the moment. 

The Chairman. The Chair accepts the records as chairman of the 
committee on behalf of the committee. The records will be in cus- 
tody of the committee. As such, they will be preserved, they will be 
examined. If your client wishes to stay here during the process of 
examination of them, of course, that is his privilege. But the records 
will be examined and will be in the custody of the committee as called 
for by the subpena. 

Mr. FitzGerald. As I understand it, he will leave, then, each night 
around 8 o'clock with the records ? 

The Chairman, No, sir; he will not leave with the records. The 
records will be retained by the committee. 

Mr. FitzGerald. We didn't pass them over to the committee with 
that stipulation. We w^ould construe that as a conversion by the com- 
mittee, a wrongful withholding of the records. We don't intend toi 
hand over any records to the committee for them to hold onto for any 
duration of time. We would like Mr. Glimco to remain with the 
records. 

The Chairman. What is your idea of duration of time ? 

Mr. FitzGerald. You set the, time in a possibility of 6 months. 

The Chairman. I do not know how long it will take to examine 
these records. I thought if we got all of the records, and certainly 
if we got five truckloads, it might take quite a long time to examine 
them. We do not feel that these are all of the records that the com- 
mittee is interested in, or all that the committee has subpenaed. I was 
referring to the records of the local with respect to the pension and 
welfare fund. 

It is perfectly obvious, from a casual examination of what the- 
witness has submitted, what he has produced, that these are not all of 
the records of that fund. The witness himself declines to answer 
whether they are all of the records and whether the other records were 
in his control, under his control, at the time the subpena was sei-ved. 
We are trying to get all of the records. A part of the records, a se- 
lected part of them, delivered to the committee, would not be lilcely 
to serve, and I could hardly understand that they could serve, the pur- 
pose of the committee in trying to examine the affairs of these funds, 
how they are administered, and the accuracy of the records kept. 
I don't know how we could do that and be satisfied or be sure of our 
findings, if we have only a part of the records. 

Therefore, I served this additional subpena this morning so that 
the witness may be given an opportunity to produce the remainder 
of the records. The records will be kept in the committee's custody. 
I accept them as chairman of the committee, with the permission and 
consent of the committee. They will be handled just like all other 
records that are subpenaed for legitimate purposes in connection with 
a senatorial or congressional investigation. 

Mr. FitzGerald. With all due respect to the chairman, I want to 
make it quite clear that I wanted to know what particular office you 
were turning over in your personal suite or ]\fr. Glimco, because he 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17721 

intends to stay here with the records that he has turned over, or any 
other records that are turned over. He does not intend to just turn 
over records to the committee and have them leave his custody. 

We don't feel that the law with respect to subpenas could be con- 
strued in that fashion, re^^ardless of what procedure has been followed 
in the past. It is our feeling that we should remain with these in 
custody. 

The Chairman. Mr. Glimco may remain in the offices of the com- 
mittee until such time as the committee closes those offices at night. 
If he then desires to take him a cot or something and sleep out in the 
hall or something to guard them, I have no objection. I don't know 
about the custodian of the building. 

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

Mr. FitzGerald. Since Mr. Glimco isn't a Government employee 
and might be trespassing, isn't there some way he could take these 
home at night rather than sleep on a cot in the hallway and bring them 
back every morning, let us say, at 8 o'clock and stay here until 9 at 
aight, a 12-hour day ? 

I don't think that has been posed to your Honors before. 

The Chairman. Take them home? Who take them home? 

Mr. FitzGerald. I am not coming down every day. I am leaving 
Glimco here with you. 

The Chairman. As I stated, I have no control over this building. 
But the records are going to be kept by the committee. We are going 
to preserve the records. I am sure you have a list of what you have 
turned over. The Chair will direct that an accurate list of the records 
that have been turned over, an inventory of them, a listing of them, 
be immediately made and a copy of that list be provided to Mr. Glimco, 
and at the time it is provided he can check it and ascertain that the list 
is accurate. The records, of course, when the committee has concluded 
its work, as soon as it can, as soon as the records have served the 
purpose of the committee, the legitimate purpose of this committee, 
the records then will be returned to Mr. Glimco. 

Mr. FitzGerald. Mr. Glimco is again taking the position that he 
refuses to allow these records to remain in this Senate Building for 
any length of time without him being here. 

The Chairman. He can stay. 

Mr. FitzGerald, I wish we could work out something. 

Mr. Kennedy. We will get a chair for him, and if he can't sleep, 
he can sit there. He can sit right outside our room all night long. 

Senator Erven. I would like to discuss something with Mr. Fitz- 
Gerald on the law. Is it your contention that the statutory power 
which Congress has given to tnis committee to require the production 
of documents extends no further than to require a party who is re- 
quired to produce a document to come and sit before the committee 
with the documents in his physical possession all the time? 

:Mr. FitzGerald. That is right. That is precisely it, I don't think 
anyone has raised this point. 

Senator Er%t:n. Have you any decisions to that effect ? 

Mr. FitzGerald. I will furnish you with some. 

Senator Ervin. I would like to^ have them. In my State, we have 
a statute authorizing the production of documents and when they are 



17722 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

produced, the courts exercise the power to impound them until they 
nave been inspected. You may be right. But if that is the law, I 
would say what Mr. Bumble said about the law is certainly the truth, 

Mr. FitzGerald. That is a very wise law you have in North Caro- 
lina, and I would recommend the adoption in other areas; but this 
committee, of course, is not acting in a judicial capacity. There is no 
trial going on. There have been instances in the past where records 
have been turned over to the committee, or to a member of it, and they 
were furnished out indiscriminately to other individuals, newspaper- 
men and men and other lawyers who were pressing charges. For that 
reason, the person now with custody of them doesn't want them to- 
leave his custody. I think he is entitled to that feeling. 

The Chairman. Does Mr. Glimco want to submit himself to the cus- 
tody of the committee ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. FitzGerald. We could solve this very easily if we could hold 
the records in my office and have the committee staff come to my office 
every day. They could initial them or something like that, and utilize 
my suite for their investigation. That would be kind of a neutral 
territory. 

The Chairman. The committee is not going to establish that prece- 
dent. Where officials, witnesses, management, executives, and author- 
ities cooperate with the committee, we have always been able to work 
these things out. 

We have had no cooperation here. I don't know that we can ex- 
pect any in the future. For that reason, I am going to hold these 
records here until we have examined them. I don't want to deprive 
the local officials any use of the records they might need to carry on 
their work in the union. But if we are going to examine tliese rec- 
ords and see what they show, I am of the opinion that in view of such 
a small amount of records being produced, they are not going to be 
conclusive, whatever they show. They might give some evidence of 
substance. 

Mr. FitzGerald. It is our understanding, then, that Mr. Glimco 
will be available in your committee offices during the daylight hours, 
at least, so that the checking can be done in his custody, and in the 
nighttime they will be locked up in a safe and will not be carried out. 

The Chairman. The Chair will give you that assurance. If I find 
any member of the staff who violates the rulings of the committee, 
the committee, of course, will take proper action. 

But that will not occur. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Glimco, will you be downstairs? 

Mr. FitzGerald, Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. We will set aside a place for you. Every morning, 
at 8 o'clock in the morning, you will stay until night when we leave? 

Mr. Fii^Gerald. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. We will get to know each other pretty well. 

The Chairman. Stand aside. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Connors. 

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

Mr. Connors. I do. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17723 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES L. CONNORS, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
BENEDICT L. Fitz GERALD, JR. 

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

Mr. Connors. James Connors, 8301 South Elizabeth, Chicago, 111. 

The Chairman. What is your business or occupation, Mr. Connors? 

Mr. Connors. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. You have counsel ? 

Mr. Connors. I do. 

The Chairman. Let the record show that Mr. FitzGerald, who ap- 
peared for the previous Avitness, also appears for Mr. Connors. Is 
that correct? 

Mr. FitzGerald. Benedict FitzGerald, yes. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, as I explained, we have had some 
difficulty and problems trying to get the books and records of local 
777. James L. Connors is a trustee and business agent for local 777. 
He was served a subpena on April 18 to produce before this commit- 
tee the books and records, memoranda, correspondence files, et cetera, 
bank accounts, of local 777. He is here today pursuant to that subpena. 

The Chairman. Mr. Connors, James L. Connors 

Mr. FitzGerald. If the chairman pleases, I would just like to renew 
the same objections that I made in connection with the prior witness, 
Mr. Glimco. 

The Chairman. The record may show that the statements of coun- 
sel with respect to the interrogation of the previous witness are made 
at this time for this witness, and that the Chair overrules the objec- 
tion. We will proceed. 

Mr. Connors, I hand you here a subpena of this committee dated 
the 18th day of April 1958, which shows on the reverse side that it 
was served on you by Jack S. Balaban. I hand you here the original 
subpena and ask you if that subpena was served on you. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

The Chairman. I said it was the original, but that is a copy of it, 
upon which the return was made to the committee. 

( The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

The Chairman. Was the original of that subpena served on you ? 

Mr. Connors. That appears to be the original. 

The Chairman. That appears to be the same subpena that was 
served on you ? 

Mr. Connors. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That subpena may be printed in the record at this 
point. 

United States of America 

congress of the united states 

1^3191 

To Local 777 Taxicab Drivers, Maintenance and Garage Helpers Union, 
Chicago, III., Greeting: 

Pursuant to lawful authority, you are hereby commanded to appear before 
the Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or IVTanage- 
ment Field of the Senate of the United States, on Thursday, April 24, lliOS, at 9 



17724 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

a.m., at their committee room 101 Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C., then 
and there to testify what you may know relative to the subject matters under 
consideration by said committee, and to produce all books and records as shown 
on schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof. 

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

To 

to serve and return. 

Given under my hand, by order of the committee, this 18th day of April, in 
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and fifty eight. 

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

Schedule A 

Produce all books and records for the period of January 1, 1950, to the pres- 
ent time, including cash receipts and disbursements books, complete details sup- 
porting receipts and disbursements, bank statements, cancelled checks, copies of 
deposit slips, records of savings accounts, stubs showing purchase of cashier's 
checks or money orders, inventory of funds and documents in safe deposit boxes 
or in custody of any officer or representative, complete records of investments, 
records of loans or accounts receivable, records of loans payable, records of 
automobiles purchased or sold, paid bills, minutes of meetings, including board, 
executive, and general membership meetings, correspondence files, reports sub- 
mitted to governmental agencies, as well as to officers and general membership, 
payroll records, records of W-2 forms, company reports remitting members' 
dues, current contracts with local 777, interoffice memoranda, transportation 
receipts, and any and all other documents relating to the operation of Local 777 
Taxicab Drivers, Maintenance and Garage Helpers, International Brotherhood 
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. 

April 18, 1958. 
I made service of the within subpena by personal service on the within- 
named James L. Connors at 1215 S. Blue Island Avenue, Chicago, 111., at 11 a.m., 
on the 18th day of April 1958. 

Jack S. Balaban. 

The Chairman. Mr. Connors, the subpena, schedule A of the sub- 
pena calls for the production of all books and records for the period 
of January 1, 1950, to the present time, including cash receipts and 
disbursement books, complete details, supporting receipts and dis- 
bursements, bank statements, canceled checks, copies of deposit slips, 
records of savings accounts, stubs showing purchase of cashier's 
checks or money orders, inventories of funds and documents in safe 
deposit boxes or in custody of any officer or representative, complete 
records of investments, records of loans or accounts receivable, records 
of loans payable, records of automobiles purchased or sold, paid bills, 
minutes of meetings, including board, executive and general member- 
ship meetings, correspondence files, reports submitted to governmental 
agencies, as well as to officers and general membership, payroll records, 
records of W-2 forms, company reports remitting members' dues, cur- 
rent contracts with local 777, interoffice memoranda, transportation re- 
ceipts, and any and all other documents relating to the operation of 
Local 777, Taxicab Drivers, Maintenance and Garage Helpers, Inter- 
national l^rotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and 
Helpers of America. 

Are you prepared to respond to that subpena ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Connors. I am here, but I didn't bring no records with me. 
I have no custody or no control over any such records. 

Tlie Chairman. What is your official position with the union, 
local 777? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17725 

Mr. Connors. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
admendment privilege which protects nie from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. The witness just previously answered that he had 
no records in his possession or control over them, any of the records 
tliat the subpena calls for; tliei-efore, the Chair asked you the question : 
AVhat is your official position with local 777, taxicab drivers? 

Mr. Connors. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. With the permission of the committee, the Chair 
oi'ders and directs you to answer the question. You answered the 
([uestion that you had no control or custody of any of the records. If 
you determine whether you have or should have, we have a right to 
ask you what is your official position with this local, whose records 
we have subpenaed. 

Mr. Connors. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
admendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. With the permission of the committee, the Chair 
orders and directs you to answer the question. 

Mr. Connors. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
admendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. I believe you said you have produced no records, 
}()u brought no records with you, is that correct ? 

Mr. Connors. That is right. 

The CiTAiraiAN. Are there any further questions ? 

Mr. ( ilimco, would you come forward, please ? 

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH P. GLIMCO, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
BENEDICT F. FiTZ GERALD, JR.— Resumed 

The Chairman. Mr. Glimco, the Chair wishes to ask you: Do you 
know Mr. James L. Connors, who is presently in the witness chair 
next to you? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. The Chair orders and directs you to answer that 
question, with the permission of the committee. 

Mv. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. Is Mr. James L. Connors, who sits next to you in the 
witness chair at this time, an official of Tvocal 777, Taxicab Drivers, 
Maintenance and Garage Helpers Union, located at 1215 South Blue 
Island Avenue, Chicago, 111. ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. The question is: Is Mr. Connors, mIio sits there 
by you now, does he hold any official position with the union that I 
have just described or identified ? 

3G751 — 59— pt. 49 3 



17726 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Connors. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. With the permission of the committee, the Chair 
orders and directs you to answer the question. 

Mr. Connors. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. The Chair asks you a further question. Since 
you are president of this local, in whose possession and custody are 
the records called for by this subpena ? 

Mr. Connors. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. With the permission of the committee, you are 
directed and ordered to answer the question. 

Mr, Connors. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. The question is : Do you know who has the control, 
custody, and possession of the records the subpena called for? 

Mr. Connors. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. With the pennission of the committee, the Chair 
orders and directs you to answer the question. 

Mr. Connors. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman, It is true — I thought I was directing these ques- 
tions to Mr, Glinico. Now that you have answered them, I will now 
direct them to Mr, Glimco, I referred to the president, 

Mr, Glimco, as president of this local 777 that we have been re- 
ferring to, do you know who has the possession, control, and custody 
of the documents referred to in this subpena ? 

Mr, Glimco, I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. With the permission of the committee, you are 
ordered and directed to answer that question. 

Mr. Glimco, I respectfully decline, and claim the fifth amendment 
which protects me from being a witness against myself. 

The Chairman, I am directing this to the president, Mr, Glimco: 
Who, what official, and the name of the official, or officials, has control, 
custody, and possession of the records called for by this subpena? 

Mr, Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and chiim the fifth 
amendment privilege, which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman, By permission of the committee, the Chair orders 
and directs the witness to answer the question, 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege, which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman, Mr. Counsel, you may proceed. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17727 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, the situation seems to be that the 
best thm<i; is to serve Mr. Glimco with a third subpena for the books 
and records of the union. 

The Chairman. Do you have one prepared ? 

Mr. Kennedy. It is bein^ prepared for your sif^iature. 

The Chairman. We will wait until it is prepared, and I will serve 
it in open session. Is there any further questioning of the witness, 
Connors ? 

Senator Ervin. I would like to ask one question. 

The Chairman. Senator Ervin. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Connors, you tell the committee that you do 
not have any authority that would empower you to require one of the 
employees of local 777 to deliver to you records they had pertaining 
to the pension and welfare funds ? 

Mr. Connors. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. With the permission of the committee, the Chair 
orders and directs the witness to answer that question. 

Mr. Connors. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege, which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

Senator Ervin. Local 777 does have secretaries and file clerks, em- 
ployees in that general field, does it not ? 

Mr. Connors. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

Senator Ervin. Have you lived in Chicago all your life? 

Mr. Connors. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

Senator Church. Mr. Chairman, I have one question. 

The Chairman. Senator Church. 

Senator Church. Mr. Connors, you understand, do you not, that 
the books and records referred to in the subpena that you have been 
served are the books and records of local 777 and not your own person- 
al records? 

Mr. Connors. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. Mr. Glimco, the Chair asks you as president of 
local 777, Taxicab Drivers, Maintenance and Garage Helpers Union 
of the Teamsters Union, if, in that capacity, or any other, and in any 
other official capacity you may have with this local, if you will assist 
the conmiittee in finding, locating, and procuring the records called 
for by this subpena. 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. The Chair directs the same question to Witness 
Connors. As trustee and business agent or manager of local 777, 
Taxicab Drivers, Maintenance and Garage Helpers Union of the 
Teamsters International, or in any other official capacity of that local, 



17728 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

will you assist the committee in locating and procuring the records 
called for in the subpena served on you on the 18th day of April 1958? 
Mr. Connors. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions from anyone? 
Mr. FitzGekald. We will be glad to withdraw and let you proceed 
with another witness and wait for the production of the next subpena, 
if you care to. 

The Chairman. It will only be a moment. It is just a matter of 
typing it. 

(At this point, Senator Goldwater entered the hearing room.) 
The Chairman. Let me ask eacli of you a question while we are 
waiting. Mr. Glimco, what are your duties as president of local 777 
about which we have been interrogating you? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. What are your duties and responsibilities in any 
other official representative capacity of local 777, about which we have 
been talking ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
mysdf. 

The Chairman. The Chair, with the permission of the committee, 
orders and directs you to answer the question. 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the hftli 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. Mr. Connors, what are your duties and responsi- 
bilities as trustee and business manager of local 777, about which we 
have })een interrogating you ? 

Mr. Connors. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
mysel f . 

(At this point. Senator Curtis withdrew from the hearing room.) 
The Chairman. What are your duties with respect to any other 
official or representative position that you have with local 777, about 
which Ave have been interrogating you ? 

]\Ir. Connors. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. The Chair, with the permission of the committee, 
orders and directs you to answer the two ({uestions. 

Mr. Connors. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The C!rAiR:\rAN. Mr. Glimco, who are llie other officers of the union, 
local 777 'i 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
mysel f . 

The (^iiAiRMAN. The Chair, with the permission of the committee, 
orders and directs you to answer that question. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17729 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer, and claim the fifth 
amendment privilege which protects me from being a witness against 
myself. 

The CiiAiKMAN. The Chair now serves on you in open session of the 
connnittee a subpena calling for the production of all books and records 
of local 777, Taxicab Drivers, Maintenance and Garage Helpers, In- 
ternational Brotherhood of Teamstei^, Chauffeui-s, Warehousemen and 
Helpers, for the period of January 1, 1950, to the present time, includ- 
ing cash receipts and disbursement b(K)ks, complete detailed support- 
ing receipts and disbui-sements, baidc statements, canceled checks, 
copies of dei)osit slips, records of savings accounts, stubs showing pur- 
chase of cashier's checks or money ordei-s, inventory of funds and docu- 
ments in safe deposit boxes oi- in custody of any officer or repi'esenta- 
tive, comi)lete records of investmeiits, records of loans or accounts re- 
ceivable, records of loans payable, records of automobiles purchased 
or sold, paid bills, minutes of meetings, including board, executive 
and general membership meetings, correspondence tiles, repoi'ts sub- 
mitted to (Tovernment agencies, as well as those to officers and general 
membership, payroll records, records of W-2 forms, company reports 
remitting membere' dues, current contracts, of local 777, interoffice 
memoranda, transportation receipts, and any and all other documents 
]-elating to the operation of local 777, Taxicab Drivers, Maintenance 
and Garage Helpers, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 
Chauifeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers. 

The subpena reads to produce them foilhwith. In view of your at- 
torney stating that you couldn't produce the records called for in 
the other subpena forthwith, the Chair will at this time, at the time 
of serving the subpena, this subpena, will give you until 10 :30 a.m., 
next Wednesday, April 30, to comply with this subpena. At that 
time you will be in the room called for there. It is room 101. It is 
not this room. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

The CiTAiinr AN. Is there anything further ? 

Mr. ICennedy. That is all. 

The Chaikmax. The witnesses are excused. 

Mr. Glimco, you will be here at that time, with these records. 

The committee will stand in rece&s subject: to the call of the Chaii'. 

(Whereupon, at 12 :2S p.m. the hearing recessed, with the following 
members present : Senators McClellan. Ervin, Curtis, and Gold- 
water.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 1959 

U.S. Senate, 
Select Committee on Improper Activities 

IN the Labor or Management Field, 

Washington^ D.C. 

The select committee met at 10 : 30 a.m., pursuant to Senate Resolu- 
tion 44, agreed to February 2, 1959, in room 3302, Senate Office Build- 
ing, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select committee) 
presiding. 

Present : John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas ; Karl E. Mundt, 
Republican, South Dakota ; Barry Goldwater, Republican, Arizona. 

Also present : Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel ; Alphonse F. Cala- 
brese, investigator; James F. Mundie, investigator; Jack S. Balaban, 
investigator; John D. Williams, investigator; Ruth Y. Watt, chief 
clerk. 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

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

The Chairman. We will start a new series of hearings this morn- 
ing. The Chair, in keeping with our custom, will make a brief open- 
ing statement. 

The committee will at this time commence public hearings into 
the alleged labor racketeering activities of Joseph P. Glimco, head of 
the Taxicab Drivers, Maintenance & Garage Helpers Local Union 
No. 777, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chicago, 111. 

We expect the evidence to show that this union has a membership 
of approximately 5,000 taxicab drivers, inside workers, and main- 
tenance personnel who are employed by two major taxicab companies 
in Chicago, the Yellow Cab Co., and the Checker Taxi Co., Inc., 
and their maintenance organization, the Transportation Maintenance 
Corp. 

Glimco, who was bom in Italy in 1909, came to the United States 
with his family in 1913. After twice being denied citizenship on the 
grounds that he was not of good moral character, and because of a 
long arrest record, he finally obtained U.S. citizenship in 1943. 

Glimco rose from a corner newsstand dealer to a $20,600 a year ex- 
ecutive through the medium of labor unions. 

This committee will look into the allegations that Glimco, through 
violence and intimidation and his close association with the top Chi- 
cago crime syndicate leaders, muscled into local 777, the Chicago 
produce market, and other businesses in Chicago: and that the offi- 
cers of local 777 have absolute rules and have indulged in undemo- 

17731 



17732 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

cratic administration of the local's affairs; that they have misused 
funds of the local. 

Tlie committee will also look into the award of health and welfare 
policies to Occidental Life Insurance Co., of California, through 
the Dearborn Insurance Agency, of Chicago, 111., covering certain 
local unions in the Chicago area, including local 777, local 710 of the 
Meat & Highway Drivers, Dockmen, Helpers & Miscellaneous Truck 
Terminal Employees, and to the Hotel & Restaurant Workers Union. 

Mr. Kennedy, you may call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I would like to call a member of the 
staff, Mr. Calabrese, to give a little background information. 

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

Mr. Calabkese. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF ALPHONSE F. CALABRESE 

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

Mr. Calabrese. My name is Alphonse F. Calabrese. I am a resi- 
dent of College Park, ]Md. I am employed as an investigator with 
this committee. 

Mr. Kennedy. Prior to that, Mr. Calabrese, you have been with 
the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct ; for 2 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. And prior to that ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Prior to that, head of the Investigations Division 
of Foreign Operations, ^and prior to that, 12 vears as an investigator 
with the FBI. 

Mr. Kennedy. You made an investigation and study of the back- 
ground of Mr. Joey Glimco? 

Mr. Calabrese. I did, with the assistance of Mr. Balaban, Mr. 
Mundie and Mr. Williams. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you give us a little bit of the more detailed 
background of Mr. Glimco's associates and his becoming a citizen 
of the United States? 

Mr, Calabrese. Investigation indicated that Mr. Glimco was born 
on January 14, 1909, at Campagna, Salerno, Italy. He came to the 
United States with his mother on December 19, 1913. His original 
surname was Glielmi. The name was later legally changed to Glimco. 

Mr. Glimco had six brothers and one sister. In 1931 he aj^plied for 
naturalization, made a petition for naturalization, and on November 
17, 1932, his petition Avas denied for the reason of want of good moral 
chfiracter. This denial carried with it an order of the judge for a 
5-yea.r prejudice period; that is, he had to wait 5 more years before 
he could make another ]:>etition. The reason given was that at the 
time he made his original petition he signed a statement showing he 
had had five arrests, and it was ascertained subsequently on exami- 
nation that he liad other arrests wliich he failed to mention, which 
he stated he did not mojition because no conviction was involved. 

He again made a petition for naturalization on June 27, 1938, and 
this petition was also denied on July 6, 1939, for the same reasons. 

Mr. Kennedy. The lack of good moral character ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17733 

Mr. Calai'.ri:sk. Want of <y(n}d moral character. On Au^^ust 18, 
1!)42, he filed liis third petition for naturalization, No. 268325, in the 
U.S. district court of Chica<;:o, 111., and on June 23, 1943, he received 
ft certificate of naturalization, No. 5G8()Gr)r). 

I might say at this time he showed his husiness as that of assistant 
husiness ag'ent with Local 777, Taxicab Drivers Union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, would you <>o on 'i He received his naturaliza- 
tion papers at that time, his citizenship papers at that time ? 

Mr. Calabrese. lie clid. He was successful at that time; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he make a statement at that time in connection 
with it? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes; he did. Well, he made it in 1939 when he w^as 
being examined on a second petition. He did make a statement. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you want to read it in now ? 

Mr. Calabrese. All right. This is an excerpt from the interroga- 
tion that was had at the time, on January 17, 1939, by the Immigration 
and Naturalization Service investigator. This is an excerpt from his 
statement. This is Mr. Glimco speaking to the inspector. 

May I say a few words? As I have stated before, that record is all when I 
was a boy — 

referring to his arrest record — 

These pick-ups that have come in the last 5 or 6 years are something that I 
couldn't avoid. It's not my fault. Now I feel as though I want to become a 
citizen. That's hung over my head, since I discovered that I wasn't a citizen, 
like a nightmare; but I want my Government to be satisfied with me. 

The last years I have remarried. The first marriage was puppy love. I 
have a son, born in this country, and my wife is a citizen. I have tried to do 
all that 1 can to make myself worthy of my citizenship. Though without my 
citizenship, it's a handicap to my future life. So I'm asking the Government 
please consider it as a personal plea. 

They have a perfect right at any time in the future, if citizenship is given to 
me, to take it away from me at any time. They have that right. I'm not asking 
for something I'm going to take and abuse. I'm sure that the Government will 
not make a nustake. I love this country and I'm perfectly willing to fight for 
this country at any time. 

Under those circumstances, I feel as though I should be extended a little con- 
sideration and not consider my past so much vrhen I was a boy. And my future, 
it's very much a handicap. I can't do the things * * * It's something that not 
everybody knows about either — that I'm not a citizen. I've hid it. It's hung 
over me as a nightmare. 

; The Chairman. "\A^ien was that? 

Mr. Calabrese. This was stated on January 17, 1939. 

The Chairman. That is wdien he was seeking citizenship ? 

Mr. Calabrese. The second time, sir. 

The Chairman. The second time ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Is that the time he got it ? 

Mr. Calabrese. It was not. It was denied. In 1943 he received it. 

Mr. Kennedy. In these hearings, Mr. Chairman, in view of that very 
moving ])lea by Mr. Glimco and his desire to meet the requirements and 
responsibilities of citizenship, we will be going into his activities since 
that time, whenever he has met any responsibilities along those lines. 

How many times has INIr. Glimco been arrested, Mr. Calabrese? 

Mr. Calabrese. Approximately 36 arrests. 

The Chairman. Are those since that time ? 

Mr. Calabrese. No. After he received his citizenship there are two. 



17734 IIMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Two arrests since then ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Approximately two arrests since then. 

Senator Mundt. Any convictions since he received his citizenship? 

Mr. Calabrese. There have been no convictions. In fact, he has 
served no time. By his own admission, he stated that he served 15 
or 20 days in BrideAvell in his youth. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the only conviction of any kind that he has 
had in some 36 arrests ? 

Mr. Calabrese. In some 36 arrests. 

Senator Mundt. What, generally, was the nature of these arrests? 
Were they traffic violations? Were they burglary, or crimes of pas- 
sion ? What were they ? 

Mr. Calabrese. I will have to amend that. On convictions there 
was a period, for instance, on June 3, 1923, from his earlier arrest, 
his disorderly conduct, and he received 6 months' probation. 

The Chairman. When was that ? 

Mr. Calabrese. In June of 1923. That was as a young boy. 

In September 1924, September 7, 1924, assault with an auto, and 
that was dismissed. 

On October 6, 1924, larceny, and the record shows 1 year probation. 

Mr. Kennedy. So that is another conviction. 

Mr. Calabrese. That is right, but no time served in jail or prison. 

May 29, 1925, disorderly conduct, 6 months' probation; June 22, 
1927, vagrancy, dismissed; October 3, 1928, murder, acquitted; 
June 24, 1929, robbery, gun, dismissed. 

I will skip a few. On September 5, 1929, attempted murder. He 
was indicted. The violation was stricken off because the witness failed 
to appear to testify. 

Mr. Kennedy. He left the jurisdiction ? 

Mr. Calabrese. He left the jurisdiction of the city. 

Mr. Kennedy. The man that was shot? 

Mr. Calabrese. In the hip, that is right. 

There are a series of arrests from 1929 through 1936. The record 
shows up to 1936 

Senator Mundt. What was the nature of the arrest in 1936? He 
•was no longer a boy then. He was at that time 27 years of age. What 
kind of activity was he being arrested for then ? 

Mr. Calabrese. I am sorry. Senator ; I did not hear you. 

Senator Mundt. What was the nature of the arrest, say, in 1936, at 
which time he was 27 years old ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Disorderly conduct, dismissed, in 1934. 

March 6, 1936, prohibition violation, and there is no disposition 
shown on that. 

April 25, 1934, disorderly conduct, dismissed; August 8, 1933, dis- 
orderly conduct, dismissed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do we find that he is tied in with the leading gang- 
sters and the underworld figures of Chicago ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes. The records would indicate that he is tied in. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you give the committee the names of some 
of tlie people whom he counts as his associates and who have been seen 
in his company? You have examined the reports. He has been seen 
in their company, and it has been documented tliat he is an associate 
of these people ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17735 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes. One person that he has been seen witli is 
Anthony Accardo, also known as Joe Batters. 

He has had an intimate relationship with Paul DeLucia, also 
known as Paul "The Waiter" Ricca. 

He was an associate of Louis Campagna, known as Little New 
York, who is, of course, deceased. 

Mr. Kemnedy. Did his family have some further relationship with 
Louis "Little New York" Campagna ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes. We have a photostatic copy of a joint will 
and testament of Louis Campagna and his wife Charlotte which is 
dated September 28, 1942, at Berwyn, Cook County, 111. 

The witnesses to this instrument, one of the witnesses, is Lena 
Glimco, 629 Selbourne Road, Riverside, 111., which is Mr. Glimco's 
wife, who resides at that address. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who is Little New York Campagna ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Louis Campagna was one of the group that took 
over Capone's regime in Chicago. He was one of the many that were 
indicted, one of the many racketeers indicted, in 1943 during the 
shakedown of the movie industry, with Willie Bioff and Brown and 
Charles "Cherry Nose" Gioe. That was as of that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. That shows that his wife was a witness on his will ; 
is that right ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Joey Glimco's wife? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who are some of the other people that he associ- 
ated with ? 

Mr. Calabrese. He has also associated with Anthony Capezio, 
known as Tough Tony Capezio, who is now deceased. He was an- 
other member of the Chicago syndicate. He is also known to be 
friendly with Jake Guzik. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is Greasy Thumb ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Greasy Thumb Guzik. 

He is a friend and associate of Gussie Alex. 

Information we have received is that Joe Glimco's brother Frank 
is married to Gussie Alex's sister Donna. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about Murray "The Camel" Humphreys? ^ 

Mr. Calabrese. Murray "The Camel" Humphreys is also an associ- 
ate of Joe Glimco. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he is an extremely important figure and has 
an extremely important role in the labor movement in Chicago, as 
far as the Teamsters are concerned ? 

Mr. Calabrese. The records would indicate so. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is one of the chief lieutenants of Mr. James 
Hoffa ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Calabrese. He is a close associate of Mr. Hoffa. 

Mr. Kennedy. In connection with his criminal associates and his 
arrest background, he was arrested in 1954 or 1953, was he not? 

Mr. Calabrese. He was indicted in 1954 with four others for labor 
extortion, specifically on the Fulton Street Market, which is a section 
in Chicago where live poultry is handled and produce is handled. 

Mr. Kennedy. In connection with his acquittals, and the acquittals 
of people such as this, who have these high criminal associates, have 



17736 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

we ascertained that the individuals — he was acquitted in this matter— 
who testified against him before the grand jury changed their testi- 
mony when they testified in the trial ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. The information I have received 
from the U.S. attorney's office is that they changed it materially to 
reflect that they admitted that they turned over money to Mr. Glim- 
co, but that they did it because they liked him, rather than the original 
story that they did it through fear. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they had been trying to get the conviction with 
the element of fear being present. They stated that they paid him 
the money because they were frightened, but when they appeared in 
the trial a year or so later they changed their testimony and said 
they paid the money to Joey Glimco because the}^ liked him; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is substantially correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Again, as another factor in these acquittals, how 
much did the union spend for the defense of Joey Glimco in that trial? 

Mr. Calabrese. The union spent $124,321.45. 

Mr. Kennedy. These were union funds ? 

Mr. Calabrese. These were the funds of local 777. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was local 777 involved in this matter at all ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Not a bit. 

Mr. Kennedy. But local 777 is the taxicab union I 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. This was a charge against Joey Glimco for extoition 
in the Fulton Street Market ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. It has nothing to do with the taxicabs whatsoever? 

Mr. Calabrese. Nothing whatsoever to do with the taxicab drivers. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yet the union dues of the taxicab local were used 
to defend him, some $124,000, in this case alone ; is that right ? 

Mr. C.vlabrese. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. Did they use that money primarily to employ 
counsel ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Most of the money, Senator, was for counsel. 
There is a $3,840 item for investigative and private detective agency 
which we will go into a little later, and another item of $500 to the bail 
bondsman. 

The Chairman. The what ? 

Mr. Calabrese. To the bail bondsman. 

Senator Mfxdt. Did they employ outside counsel and also use the 
Taxicab Union counsel, or did they rely entirely on outside counsel? 

Mr. Calabrese. They had one counsel that was not used at all, as far 
as I know. That is Mr. Serritella. For the most part they used out- 
side counsel. Senator. 

Mr. Kennedy. You mean they had union couhm'I that tliov did not 
use ? 

]Mr. Calat5Rese. That is correct, as far as T know. 

Senator Mi^ndt. They employed outside counsel with the union 
funds to protect Mr. Glimco for a crime which he allegedly committed 
entirely outside of his union activities as head of the Taxicab I"^nion? 

Mr. Cat, ABRESE. That is correct. 

Senator Mitndt. Did they tell you why they did that ? Did you find 
out what reason they gave for that ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17737 

Mr. Calabrese. From whom, sir ? 

Senator Mundt. From Avliomever you might have interviewed. 

Mr. Calabrese. We are not able to talk to any of the executive of- 
ficers, Senator, of local 777. 

Senator Muxdt. Do you mean they will not see you ? 

Mr. Calabrese. They will not see us. In fact, they wouldn't even 
let us into the office to serve a subpena. 

Senator Mundt. You established these facts from outside records? 

Mr. Calabrese. We established these facts from outside records, 
and the records of local 777 which Ave subpenaed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there anything in the minutes that showed that 
they received approval prior to spending this amount of money for 
this counsel of Joey Glimco? 

Mr. Calabrese, There is nothing in the minutes. 

Mr. Kennedy. So Mr. Glimco just took the money out of the union, 
$124:,0(j0 of union funds, to defend himself, with no approval of the 
membership ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct, as far as we know ; yes. 

Senator Mundt. Have you the minutes of the executive committee 
or board of directors or the executive board? Is there anything there 
at all ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Nothing. 

Senator Mundt. In other words, he just took the mone3\ He might 
just as well spend it to buy a house or buy a yacht. But in the taking 
of the money he bought himself some legal counsel ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. As far as the records of the union are concerned, 
he simply took the money. 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. Did he report that money as income in his income 
tax? 

Mr. Calabrese. He did not. 

Senator Mundt. But to all intents and purposes, it was income; 
it was his money. The fact that he happened to use it to employ 
counsel is merely incidental to the fact that he took $124,000, if that 
was the amount, out of the union kitty and put it into his personal 
kitty; is tliat right? 

Mr. Calabrese. Tliat would be correct, sir. 

The Cllvirman. When did this occur ? 

jNIr. Calabrese. The indictment was returned in 1954; I believe 
October of 1954. 

The Chairman. The what ? 

Mr. Calabrese. The indictment was returned in October 1954. The 
trial was in March of 1957. 

The Chairman. It has all been within the last 4 or 5 years? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

The Chairman. In other words, this misappropriation or use of 
union funds you are talking about for his personal protection and 
defense against criminal prosecution has been taken out of the union 
treasury during the last 3 or 4 years? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes ; or 5 years. 

Senator Mundt. Is he presently still the president of this Team- 
stere l^^nion ? 



17738 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Calabrese. Well, he was just made president in February of 
1958. Prior to that time he was a business agent and a trustee. ^ 

Senator Mundt. Was he a business agent and trustee at the time he 
appropriated the $124,000 for his purposes ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. Who was then president? 

Mr. Calabrese. Clovis Joseph Coca. 

Senator Mundt. What happened to Mr. Coca ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Mr. Coca stepped down. He became business man- 
ager and trustee. 

Senator Mundt. They just traded jobs ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. Glimco took on Mr, Cocoa's job and Mr. Cocoa took 
on Mr. Glimco's job ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Mr. Coca was the business manager. Mr. Glimco 
was not the business manager. He was the business agent. 

Senator Mundt. I see. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Glimco have any difficulty getting an hon- 
esty bond for the operations of this union ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Mr. Glimco had no bond either as administrator 
of the health and welfare fund, which the local had, and which we 
will go into at a later time, and it is only recently that this situation 
has been corrected wherein the International Union of the Teamsters 
obtained a dishonesty bond of $30,000 covering each member — rather, 
each officer of the local union and the others that had to be covered in 
the amount of $30,000, and that is true for every local union in the 
United States. This coverage Avas obtained last September, I believe. 

Mr. Kennedy. Through Lloyds of London ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Through Lloyds of London is my understanding; 
that is correct. 

Mr. KIennedy. Prior to that he had no bond ? 

Mr. Calabrese. He had no bond. 

Mr. Kennedy. Even though the Teamsters constitution i-equires a 
bond? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. I might say that he had a bond, 
that there was an application for a bond. I think he had it for a short 
period of time, and the company covering him discontinued it, can- 
celed it out. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he ever refused a bond? 

Mr. Calabrese. He was. They had made application for a bond 
with another company, the names I will furnish later, and at that 
time the company refused it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Because of his reputation? 

Mr. Calabrese. We can assume that it was from his reputation. 

Mr. Kennedy. But they refused the bond ? 

Mr. Calabrese. They refused it; that is correct. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, the next two witnesses will be on 
the backgi-ound of Mr. Glimco and his interest into the Fulton Street 
Market. Then we will be going into some other matters in connection 
with that. 

I would like to call Mr. Harry Thieme. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17739 

The Chairman. Mr. Thieme? 

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

Mr, Thieme. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF HARRY THIEME 

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

Mr. Thieme. Harry Thieme, Paw Paw, Mich. I am now a farmer. 

Tlie Chairman. You are now a farmer. What was your previous 
occupation, Mr. Thieme ? 

Mr. Thieme. I was with the Poultry Handlers Union and the Egg 
Inspectoi-s Union. 

The Chairman. Where? 

Mr. Thieme. In Chicago. 

The Chairman. In Chicago. For how long? 

Mr. Thieme. About 28 years ago I started. 

The Chairman. You started about 28 years ago? 

Mr. Thieme. Yes. 

The Chairman. "V^^ien did you retire from that position? 

Mr. Thieme. A year ago last July. 

The Chairman. So you have just been a farmer since last July? 

Mr. Thieme. That is right. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was local 663; is that right? 

Mr. Thieme. Twenty-eight years ago it was 650. 

Mr. Kennedy. You started 650 yourself? 

Mr. Thieme. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then it became 663 that you went with? 

Mr. Thieme. About 21 years ago. 

Mr. Ivennedy. You have been in the butter and egg business for 
some 40 years ? 

Mr. Thieme. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You originally organized local 640; is that right? 

Mr. Thieme. 650. 

Mr. Kennedy. 650, excuse me. 

Prior to organizing it, did you have some discussions with a Team- 
ster Union official? 

Mr. Thieme. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was that? 

Mr. Thieme. Witt Hanley. 

Mr. Kennedy. ^Y}\o was Mr. Hanley at that time? 

Mr. Thieme. He was head of local 703, the Produce Drivers in 
Chicago. 

Mr.IvENNEDY. Wliy did you discuss it with Mr. Hanley? 

Mr, Thieme. Well, he was a Teamster business agent, and we 
worked together with the Teamsters. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they have some control over that area? 

Mr. Thieme. Well, their men worked there, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Hanley control the market area at that 
time ? 

Mr. Thieme. Yes. 



17740 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Keknedy. Did he tell you then you could go ahead and orga- 
nize ? That is, set up your union ? 

Mr. TiiiEME. Mr. Kennedy, you are ahead on this deal. I started 
the union without — unbeknownst to Mr. Hanley. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you were in it for a while? 

Mr. Thieme. The first day I met Hanley is when he told me that I 
shouldn't have organized them. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Who were 3'ou organizing at that time ? 

Mr. Tiiieme. Poultry Handlers, Local, G50. 

]Mr. Kennedy. And did he make any threats to you at that time? 

Mr. Tiiieme. At that time; no, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Subsequently? 

Mr. Tiiieme. Yes, sir. Not he himself. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened ? Relate what happened. 

Mr. Tiiieme. I was met by George Brown and Willie Bioff. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened? 

Mr. Thieme. They asked me to go along with them. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did going along with them mean? 

Mr. Thieme. I dcm't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did they say to you? 

Mr. Tiiieme. They said to me I should go along with them, that it 
was worth my while. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did they want you to do? 

Mr. Tiiieme. If I can understand it right, years ago, they wanted 
me to take the men from the poultry board and bring them into the 
local union. They were union people, but they stayed up at the 
poultry board instead of being in the union hall. What they wanted 
to do then I didn't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where did you meet them ? 

Mr. Thieme. They come up to my office. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you agree to go along with them ? 

]Mr. Thieme. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why not ? 

Mr. Thieme. Because I had been on the street for 3'ears, and as far 
as the businessmen are concerned they were all my friends. 

They were total strangers to me. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did they have to do with it, do you know? 

Mr. Thieme. Pardon me ? 

Mr. Kennedy. What did they have to do with it, Brown and Bioff? 

Mr. Tiiieme. What they had to do with it, I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any other conversations with them 
subsequently ? 

Mr. Thieme. Yes, I have talked with Hanley after that, and George 
Brown. They still wanted me to go along, and I refused to go along. 
Then there was ])i-essure ]:)ut on me to resign. 

Mr. Kennedy. AVhat kind of pressure? 

Mr. Thieme. Threatening calls. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did they say in the calls? 

Mr. Tiiieme. Of coui-se I can't say it over the air, or over this micro- 
phone, but they used rough language, thi^atened me. They talked to 
my mother and told her that if I wasn't home — they asked if I was 
home, and she said no, and they said, "Well, if he don\ keep his mouth 
shut, he will come home in a wooden box." 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17741 

Mr. Kenxedy. Did you ever meet witli tiny of these people that 
made these threats ? 

Mr. TiiiEME. I met Jimmy Aducci and Willie Bioff. 

Whether they made the threats or not, I don't know. I don't know 
who the threats were made by. 

Mr. Kenxedy. Did yon ultimately or subsequently agree to get out? 

Mr. Tiiieme. In 650 1 did. 

Mr. Kennedy. What brought that about? 

Mr. Tiiieme. I was threatened then to be taken for a ride. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did that hai)pen? 

]\Ir. Tiiieme. Three men were in an automobile on a Saturday after- 
noon, and I come out of the office to get in my car and they put me in 
their car and they told me, "We are taking you out west for a. ride." 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you think that meant ? 

Mr. Tiiieme. "If you don't get out of here and keep your mouth 
shut." 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you thinlv that meant when they said they 
were going to take you for a ride? 

Mr. Tiiieme. Like they do in a regular gang slaying. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Did you think you were going to be killed then? 

Mr. Thieme. That is what I had in mind ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you tell them ? 

Mr. Tiiieme. I told them I would quit if they let me out. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they let you out ? 

Mr. Tiiieme. They did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you quit ? 

Mr. Tiiieme. I resigned. I called the international and asked for 
an auditor. They sent an auditor over and audited ni}^ books and I 
resigned. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Wlien was this, approximately ? 

INIr. Tiiieme. About 1936-37. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you get back into the labor movement then ? 

Mr. Tiiieme. I did. I took my mother and dad and went down 
to San Antonio, Tex. I stayed down there with them for about 3 
months. I came back and I went to work for Brink & Sons as a 
poultry solicitor. Then members of local 663 came to me — I was a 
member of that local, an egg inspector — they came to me and asked me 
if I wouldn't run for office, and I told them that I didn't know whether 
I wanted to run or not, but I would let them know. Later on, I 
went over and I seen Witt Hanley. 

Mr. Kennedy. The same Teamster official ? 

Mr. Thieme. That is right. And I asked Witt, I said, "Witt, 
some of the boys want me to run for business agent. I had trouble 
with you before, and I won't accept it if I am going to have any more 
trouble." 

He said, "Harry, I know you, and I don't know the other big bum, 
so you go ahead and run for office." 

And I was elected. 

]Mr. Kennedy. And this was after you got his OK ; is that rigiit ? 

INIr. Thieme. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. After that, did you have to make any payments 
to him ? 

Mr. Tiiieme. I made a dollar per capita payment with Hanley. 

36751— 59— pt. 49 1 



17742 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. In cash ? 

Mr. TiiiEME. In cash. 

Mr. Kennedy. How would you handle that? Was that per week 
or what? 

Mr. Thieme. I would drop it in his desk drawer in an envelope. 

Mr. Kennedy. Each week you would come by ? 

Mr. Tiiieme. No. Each month. 

Senator Mundt. When did you work out this arrangement for this 
dollar a month ? At the time you got his permission to take the job, 
or later? 

Mr. Thieme. That was probably 3 or 4 months later. 

Senator Mundt. How did he make the approach to you ? 

Mr. Thieme. Well, I asked him what I owed him for giving me 
the OK, and he said, "You don't owe me nothing, Harry. But as a 
rule, a dollar per capita." 

The Chairman. The what ? 

Mr. Thieme. A dollar per capita, per head. 

Senator Mundt. He said that was a rule ? 

Mr. Tpiieme. He said, "You don't owe me nothing, but that is 
what you can do." 

Senator Mundt. So you did it ? 

Mr. Thieme. I did. 

Senator Mundt. And he never caused you any trouble ? 

Mr. Thieme. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. How long did that operation proceed on that basis ? 

Mr. Thieme. Until he died. 

Senator Mundt. Which was how long ? 

Mr. Thieme. I imagine about 12 or 13 yeare ago. 

Senator Mundt. I mean how long 

Mr. Thieme. Was it going on ? 

Senator Mundt. Yes. 

Mr. Thieme. I imagine probably 8 years. 

Senator Mundt. When he died, did some new man appear on the 
scene or did you save that dollar per capita ? 

Mr. Thieme. I saved that dollar per capita. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who succeeded him, however ? 

Mr. Thieme. Joe Glimco come in on the street at that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he took over the market area ? 

Mr. Thieme. Joe Glimco was on the street ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was his connection? How was he able to 
take it over? He wasn't connected with 

Mr. Thieme. I don't say that he took it over or anything. I say 
that he was on the street. I met liim on the street. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, there were a lot of people on the street. 

Mr. Thieme. But I imderstood he was connected with the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know what his connection was? 

Mr. Thieme. No. 

Senator Mundt. He was a taxicab driver? On the sti-eet ? Is that 
what you mean ? 

Mr. Thieme. No. Not at that time. 

Senator Mundt. What do you mean by being on the street? 

Mr. Thieme. On Fulton Street. 

Senator Mundt. You just saw him around? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17743 

Mr. Thieme. That is rifrht. 

Senator Muxdt. You assumed he was a member of the Teamsters 
Union ? 

Mr. Thieme. Of the Teamsters Union. 

Senator Muxdt. Did he tell you that? 

Mr. Thieme. No, but he was with the boys of the Teamsters Union. 

Senator Mundt. Did you ever have to pay him any money ? 

Mr. Thieme. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy, Joey Glimco was the most important figure around 
that area after Witt Hanley died in 1944, was he not? 

Mr. Thieme. I would say yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was his importance? What was the basis of 
his importance? 

Mr. Thieme. Well, the way we felt at that time was that the Team- 
sters was important to us as far as labor organizations were concerned, 
and also to the businessmen. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was not the head of the union, was he? 

Mr. Thieme. That I don't know, 

Mr. Kennedy. You were just led to believe that he was the im- 
portant figure? 

Mr. Thieme. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tlie two business agents for local 703, wliich was the 
Poulti-y and Produce Drivers Union — is that right? 

Mr. Thieme. Yes, 

Mr ,Kennedy. Was Mr. Dominic Senese? 

Mr. Thieme. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And John Smith? 

Mr. Thieme. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were the enforcement ? 

Mr.TniEME. They were business agents, collecting dues. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you ever told by Joey Glimco who you should 
organize, and who you should not organize? 

Mr. Thieme. I went to him and asked him at one time, but he never 
told me who to organize. 

Mr. Kennedy. About what group ? 

Mr. Thieme. About the egg breakers. 

Mr. Kennedy, What did he say? 

Mr. Thieme, Of course, that egg breakers deal was going on while 
Witt Hanley was living, and I asked Joe and Joe said, "Harry, you 
don't want them kind of people. It is only part-time stuff," which 
I know. He said, "Why don't you leave it ride the way it is?' 

Mr. Kennedy, So you never organized the egg breakers? 

Mr, Thieme, No, sir, 

Mr. Kennedy. Had Hanley also told you not to organize the egg 
breakers ? 

Mr. Thieme. Hanley in his time, I put a picket on. 

Mr. Kennedy. You what? 

Mr. Thieme. I put a picket on. He told me to put a picket on, 

Mr. Kennedy. Then what did he tell you ? 

Mr. TiiiEivrE. I put a picket on and about noontime I got a call from 
him and he told me to take the picket off, that he thought they would 
sign up with me. And I never did get any agreement with them. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you didn't sign the egg breakers ? 



17744 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. TiiiEME. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is an egg breaker ? 

Mr. TniEME. A person that breaks a shell egg and separates the 
yolks from the wliites and they freeze them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it ever suggested to you subsequently that you 
should resign from your union position ? 

Mr. Tiiieme. No, it was never put to me that Ivay. 

Mr. Kennedy. 1 )id you understand that this group was dissatisfied 
with you ? 

Mr. Thieme. I felt like they were dissatisfied with me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you ever beaten up ? 

Mr. Tiiieme. Yes. 

Mr. Keddeny. When was that ? 

Mr. Thieme. When ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Thieme. That was about 4 or 5 years ago. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened? You came into a bar; is that 
right? 

Mr. Thieme. I went into a restaurant, and Smittj^ was sitting there 
playing cards. 

Mr. Kennedy. Smith being the business agent ? 

Mr. Thieme. Yes. And I walked in and I hit him on the back and 
I said, "Hi, you so-and-so Democrat this morning," That was right 
after the election, I believe. 

And he cracked me in the jaw and knocked me up against three 
stairs. 

When I came to I got my bearings, I was to go after him, and 
Senese held my arm. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tliat is the other business agent ? 

Mr. Thieme. Yes. And he cracked me over the head with a quart 
bottle, an empty pop bottle, and broke it over my head. He split my 
head and broke my glasses. 

I went out then and got the blood off. 

Senator Mundt. Was that involved in the union deal or was that 
just a Chicago political debate ? 

Mr. Tiiieme. Well, we were always friends. 

Senator MuNixr. That is a i-ough way of showing it. 

Mr. Thieme. Well, up to that minute. But I don't think it was 
political. Maybe he didn't feel good that day. 

Senator Mundt. Maybe you hit him on the back kind of hard wlien 
you hit him. 

Mr. Thieme. Well, that could be. I was probably too happy and 
he was too sad. 

Senator Mundt. The situation (piickly reversed itself, I suppose, 
after he popped you in the jaw. 

Mr. Tiiieme. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. Did you attribute this to some labor dispute ? 

Mr. Thieme. I can't honestly say that I did. I thought it was 
just an argument. There was no argument. It was just that he felt 
that way about me. 

Tlie ('haikman. Why? Let us get the connection, if there is one. 
If tliere is not, say so. Did it grow out of the ill feeling over your 
labor work and relations? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17745 

Mr. Thieme. Well, why he felt that way, I don't know. I don't 
think I was liked amongst a lot of labor leaders because I didn't mix 
with them. 1 more or less 

The Chairman. You mixed with him enough to go up and slap 
liim on the back, and he mixed you enough 

]\Ir. Thieme. We were on the same street, Senator. 

The Chairman. What do you mean by bemg on the street? You 
were working the same street ? 

Mr. Thieme. That is ri^ht. 

The Chairman. Organizing the same street ? 

Mr. Thieme. No. We were collecting dues. 

The Chairman. You were collecting money on the same street? 

Mr. Thieme. That is right, collecting dues. 

The Chairman. Were you out collecting ? 

Mr. Thieme. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You were doing a little better job than he was? 

Mr. Thieme. No; I don't think so. I think he did a better job. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was a diti'erent union ^ 

Mr. Thieme. That w-as a diti'erent union. 

Mr. Kexnedy. These people had been urging you to retire, had 
they not, Mr. Glimco's crowd that had been operating there ? 

Mr. Thieme. The only thing that ISIr. Glimco told me at times was 
'"Harry, you got a farm. Why don't you retire ?" 

Our local union was going down. We were losing membership. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were dissatisfied that there was somebody like 
you around, were they not? I mean, you weren't one of the group. 

Mv. Thieme. I v.as one of the gi'oup. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you were not accepted l)y these other people ? 

Mr. Thieme. I never thought that I was. I never felt that way. 

Mr. Kennedy. And after you got hit with the pop bottle, did you 
feel less that way ? 

Mr. Thieme. Then I knew I wasn't wanted. 

Mr. Kennedy. At the time the altercation took place, one of the 
business agents held your anns and the other one hit you with the 
bottle? 

Mr. Thieme. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Senese was the other one that hit you ? 

Mr. Thiesie. No ; he didn't hit me. 

JNIr. Kennedy. He iield yon and Smith hit you ? 

Mr. Thieme. That is right. 

^Ir. Kennedy. Did you report it to the police ? 

Mr. Thieme. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you report it to the prosecuting attorney ? 

Mr. Thieme. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why not ? 

Mr. Thieime. Mr. Kennedy, I went to the police department and 
the Government 28 years ago to try to help me and I couldn't get no 
help. So I thought it was no use of going to the police or anything 
else. When they chased me out of that 650, I couldn't get no help. 
I stood there alone. 

Senator jMundt. How soon was it after you were hit with the pop 
bottle before you tried to take up farming? 

Mr. Thie^fe. Senator, I had that farm about 



17746 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. I understood you had the farm, but you hadn't 
moved on it. How soon after you got hit in the head did you resign 
your position ? 

Mr. Thieme. About 2 years. 

Senator Mundt. Two years? 

Mr. Thieme. Two years. 

Senator Mundt. Did any other incidents occur during those 2 
years ? 

Mr. Thieme. Well, yes, I have had some calls. I don't know where 
the calls came from. Threatening calls, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. During this period of time, Mr. Glimco wels indicted, 
was he not ? 

Mr. Thieme. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you make a determination that if Mr. Glimco 
was acquitted in that case, you would retire? 

Mr. Thieme. I would resign. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you decided to wait that out ? 

Mr. Thieme. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. When he was acquitted, you got out ? 

Mr. Thieme. I resigned. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then it was turned all over to Mr. Glimco and his 
people ? 

Mr. Thieme. No. The egg inspectors were turned over to Local 
55 of the Amalgamated Meat Cutters. 

Mr. Kennedy. But as far as the opposition that you had been re- 
sponsible for, at least to some extent, that was gone ? 

Mr. Thieme. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. Let me ask you this, Mr. Thieme: What would 
be the connection in your mind between the acquittal of Mr. Glimco 
and your determination to resign your position with the xmion? 
How did you relate those two theoretically unrelated facts? 

Mr. Thieme. Well, the thing was, Senator, as I stated before, the 
union was going down. 

Senator Mundt. Your union ? 

Mr. Thieme. That is right. Men that I thought belonged to me 
they put them in the Teamsters Union. I couldn't get along on the 
membei-ship that I had. 

Senator Mundt. You thought if Glimco was acquitted he would 
go ahead and get the rest of them ? 

Mr. Thieme. I would be able to go out and organize. 

Senator Mundt. If he was convicted ? 

Mr. Thieme. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. But if he were acquitted, that he would organize 
your men and you would lose them ? 

Mr. Thieme. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. But at that time it was a question as to whether 
you were going to testify in tlie Glimco case, was it not ? 

Mr. Thieme. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And during that period of time, did you not receive 
telephone calls threatening you? 

Mr. Thieme. Yes, I did. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. That if you testified, something would happen to 
you? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17747 

Mr. Thieme. That is riffht. 

Mr. Kennedy. So that was the basis of it when he was ultimately 
acquitted. You testified before the grand jury, but you did not tes- 
tify in the trial ? 

Mr. TniEME. That is ri<?ht. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Glimco ever state to you that anybody who 
testified against him, that he would be able to get them, no matter 
if they left the United States or not ? 

Mr. Thieme. Well, we talked on them lines in a conversation and, 
of course, he did say that, "If anybody doublecrossed me, I will get 
them if they get to the other side of the world." 

The Chairman. What did he mean by doublecross? To tell the 
truth on him ? 

Mr. Thieme. That might have been. 

The Chairman. Might have been? Wliat do you think about it? 

Mr. Thieme. It is. 

The Chairman. Is that what you thought it meant ? 

Mr. Thieme. That is right. 

The Chairman. If they doublecrossed and told the truth about him, 
he would get them ? 

JSIr. Thieme. That is right. 

The Chairman. Did you live under a sort of state of fear during 
that time ? 

Mr. Thieme. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is it not a fact that in that whole area there is a 
state of fear ? 

Mr. Thieme. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And it is because of Mr. Glimco and his associates? 

Mr. Thieme. I wouldn't say that it is Glimco. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, it is Glimco and the people he represents, is 
it not? 

Mr. Thieme. The Teamsters Union. 

The Chairman. What is Glimco's position with the union? 

Mr. Thieme. Pardon me? 

The Chairman. What is his position with the union ? 

Mr. Thieme. I understand now that Mr. Glimco is with the Taxi 
Drivers. 

The Chairman. With the Taxi Drivers ? 

Mr. Thieme. That is right. 

The Chairman. Well, that is in the Teamsters Union, is it not ? 

Mr. Thieme. That is in the Teamsters Union. 

Mr. Kennedy. When you were making these payments to Mr. 
Hanley, did Mr. Hanley also require that you put somebody on the 
payroll ? 

Mr. Thieme. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who did you place on the payroll ? 

Mr. Thieme. Max Podolsky. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much did you pay him ? 

Mr. Thieme. $35 a week. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he always do any work ? 

Mr. Thieme. At the start, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he do any work afterwards ? 

Mr. Thieme. Toward the end, no. 



17748 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he one of the men that was indicted in connec- 
tion with this case? 

Mr. Thieme. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. With Joey Glimco ? 

Mr. Thieme. Yes. 

The (Chairman. What kind of work was he supposed to do ? 

Mr. Thieme. Help nie oroanize. 

The Chairman. Did you need him ? 

Mr. Thieme. Toward the end I didn't need him ; no, sir. 

The Chairman. Well, did you need him in the beo:inning ? 

Mr. Thieme. At the beginning, if you got time to listen, the rea.son 
I put him on the payroll was that I went out organizing myself, and 
one of the people that I seen said that I threatened — he called the 
State's attorney and said that I threatened him with a pistol. At 
that time, Dan Gilbert called me in. That ^^'as the investigator. He 
asked me if I threatened this man with a pistol, and I told him, ''No," 
and I have never carried a pistol in my life. 

Two or three days later, Witt Hanley said to me, he says, "Harry, 
it is kind of tough for you to go around organizing yourself. Why 
don't you put Max on the payroll ?" 

I said, "I can't afford it." 

He said, "Pleck, it will only amount to about $35." 

So I put him on and we did go out, and we worked for about 4 or 
5 years pretty hard. 

But after that— 

The Chairman. So you felt you could use him at that time? 

Mr. Thieme. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You wanted not only help in organizing but you 
wanted somebody along with you as a witness, too; is that right? 

Mr. Thieme. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. All right. Thank you very much. 

The Chair will announce we are expecting a rollcall vote in the 
Senate within the next few minutes. We also have a joint session of 
the Congress today, beginning a little after 12. For that reason, we 
are going to have to recess at this time. The committee will recon- 
vene at 2 o'clock in this room. 

(Members of the select committee present at the taking of the re- 
cess: Senators McClellan and Mundt.) 

(Whereupon, at 11 :4:5 a.m., the committer recessed, to reconvene 
at 2 p.m., the same day.) 

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 Goldwater.) 

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Dominic Abata. 

The Chairman. Will you be sworn? 

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

Mr. Abata. I do. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17749 

TESTIMONY OF DOMINIC ABATA 

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

Mr. Abata. My name is Dominic Abata, and I live at 2016 West 
Berwyn, Chicago, 111., and my business, I am in the delicatessen and 
liquor business. 

The Chairman. All right. Do you waive counsel ? 

Mr. Abata. Yes, sir, I do. 

The Chairman. Thank you. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy, That is A-b-a-t-a^ 

Mr. Abata. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Abata, you were president of Local 777 of the 
Teamsters ? 

Mr. Abata. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Since its foundation in 1937? 

Mr. Abata. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy, Until the last day of 1951 ; is that right ? 

Mr. Abata. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were one of the founders of local 777, Avere you ? 

Mr. ^ViiATA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Xow, could you tell us approximately when Mr. 
Joseph Glimco came to local 777 ? 

Mr. Abata. Well, he came in in 1937. 

Mr, Kennedy. What was he doing with you then ? 

Mr. Abata. Absolutely nothing. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did he come to have any connection with local 
777? 

Mr. xVbata. Well, I will tell you, Mr. Kennedy, We had applied 
for a charter with the (TO, 

Mr. Kennedy. I don't want to go into all of that in detail. 

Mr. Abata. All right. He was wished on me by William Hanley. 

Mr. Kennedy. About whom we have had the testimony this morn- 
ing, Mr, Chairman, as controlling the Fulton Street Market. 

Did ]\Ir, Glimco receive any money from 3'ou, from the union, or 
from any of the union officials ? 

Mr. Abata. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy, At the beginning ; is that right ? 

Mr, Abata. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. After 1939 or 1940, was he receiving any money ? 

Mr. Abata. I think he was. I am almost sure he was. I will say 
he was. 

]Mr. Kennedy. How was he receiving money, and what arrange- 
ments were made ? 

Mr. Abata. Payroll checks. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he placed on the paj'roll ? 

Mr. Abata, Yes, he was, 

Mr. Kennedy. Were there other moneys he was receiving ? 

Mr. Abata. That I do not know. 

IMr. Kennedy. Well now, Mr. Abata, how much money were you 
being paid? 

Mr. Abata. I was being paid $71 a week. 

]Mr. Kennedy. How much money were you signing for ? 

Mr. Abata. $175 a week. 



17750 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. But were you actually receiving $71, although you 
were signing for $175 ? 

Mr. Abata. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlien did that start ? 

Mr. Abata. It started about 1939. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the reason for that, and what would you 
do with the rest of the money ? 

Mr. Abata. I don't even know what happened to the money. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just answer the question now, Mr. Abata. You 
signed for the money, did you ? 

Mr. Abata. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You signed for $175 ? 

Mr. Abata. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Ivennedy. On whose instructions did you sign for $175 ? 

Mr. Abata. Well, Marcie, he was the secretary-treasurer, he came in. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is M-a-r-c-i-e ? 

Mr. Abata. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was secretary-treasurer ? 

Mr. Abata. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did he tell you ? 

Mr. Abata. He brought in those vouchers, vouchers to sign for all 
of the officers in the organization to sign. 

Mr. Kennedy. Everybody had to sign for a greater amount than 
they received ? 

Mr. Abata. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened to the other money? What hap- 
pended to the rest of the money, if you signed for $175 and only re- 
ceived $71 ? 

Mr. Abata. Mr. Marcie turned it over to Mr. Glimco. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did you know that? 

Mr. Abata. I have seen it handed over to him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Glimco was receiving that money also ? 

Mr. Abata. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why was he receiving that money ? 

Mr. Abata. I can't answer that. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long a period of time did that go on ? 

Mr. Abata. Well, I would say up to 1947, or 1948. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened after that ? 

Mr. Abata. Then instead of $71 a week, I received $90 a week. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much were you signing for then ? 

Mr. Abata. $175. 

Mr. Kennedy. So the kickback was less after that ? 

Mr. Abata. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know how much Mr. Glimco was receiving in 
direct salary from the union ? 

Mr. Abata. He was receiving $175 per week. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just as you were ? 

Mr. Abata. Just as I was ; yes. 

The Chairman. I may have misunderstood you, but I gathered 
from your statement that you were not the only officer that was sign- 
ing vouchers for more than lie received. 

Mr. Abata. No, sir, Senator. 

Tlie Chairman. What other officers ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17751 

Mr. Abata. Well, there was Marcie, and Oscar Kofkin, and there 
was Robert Markov, he was secretary. And the three business agents 
were signing for $125 per week and they were receiving $50 per week. 

The Chairman. What I am trying to ascertain from this, if we 
can make a hurried calculation, is that Glimco was receiving $104 a 
week in the beginning out of your kickback ? 

Mr. Abata. I think that is right. 

The Chairman. You said you received $71, and you were signing 
up for $175? 

Mr. Abata. I think that is correct. 

The Chairman. That would be $104 a week. 

Mr. Abata. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Now, the next one, what was his name ? 

Mr. Abata. George INIarcie, and Robert Markov, I think they were 
signing for $150 a week, Senator. 

The Chairman. And what did they actually get ? 

Mr. Abata. They received $71 also. 

The Chairman. That would be $79 from each of them. 

Mr. Abata. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Wlio was the other ? 

Mr. Abata. One was Joseph Coca. He was office manager. He 
was signing for $125 a week. 

The Chairman. And what was he actually getting ? 

Mr. Abata. $50 a week. 

The Chairman. That is $75 out of that kickback ? 

Mr. Abata. That is riglit. 

The Chairman. The next one? 

Mr. Abata. William Pritikin. 

The Chairman. Who is he? 

Mr. Abata. He was a trustee. 

The Chairman. What was he signing for ? 

Mr. Abata. $125 a week. 

The Chairman. What was he getting ? 

Mr. Abata. $50. 

The Chairman. That is another $75 a week. 

Mr. Abata. That is right. 

The Chairman. And the next one ? 

Mr. Abata. James Connors, $50. He was signing for $125 a week. 

The Chairman. "VAIiat was he getting ? 

Mr. Abata. $50 a week. 

The Chairman. That is another $75. And what else ? 

Mr. Abata. That is all of them. 

The Chairman. That includes all of the business agents and all of 
the officers? 

Mr. Abata. That is right. 

The Chairman. That were being paid as officers, and you stated 
the amount that they were actually getting and the amount they were 
signing vouchers for. 

Mr. Abata. That is right. 

The Chairman. That would be $483 per week in kickbacks from 
these officers that was going to Glimco ? 

Mr. Abata. If that is the figure, that is the figure, Senator. 



17752 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IxV THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. It is according to my addition, if I have it correct 
here. If your statement is correct in the amomit of kickback, then 
it would have to total $483 a week in kickbacks. 

What was Glimco's salary during that time, and what did he ac- 
tually sign up for, and draw, as an officer ? 

Mr. Abata. lie was not an officer, Senator. 

The Chairman. Was he signing up and drawing money? 

Mr. Abata. He was not signing. 

The Chairman. He was drawing no money, no money was being 
paid to him directly ( 

Mr. Abata. That is right. 

The Chairman. All of it was in kickbacks ? 

Mr. Abata. That is right. 

The Chairman. And he was getting $480 a week in kickbacks? 

Mr. Abata. That is right, to my knowledge, that is all I know. 

The Chairman. That would be close to $1,500 a month then in 
round numbers, in kickbacks the man was getting at that time out of 
your union? 

Mr. Abata. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, I thought you said he was getting some money 
as salary. 

Mr. Abata. Well, he was getting salary, he was getting a salai'}', 
besides the kickbacks. I misundei^tood you. 

The Chairman. How much was that salary, besides the kickbacks ? 

Mr, Abata. $125 a week. 

The Chairman. He actually drew that as salary ? 

INlr. Abata. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. That would give him $608 a week he was getting, 
$483 in kickbacks and $125 in salary ? 

Mr. Abata. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. So he had an income of $608 a week out of that 
union at that time ? 

Mr. Abata. That is right, sir. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Now, also out of this money, the union was paying 
the taxes on this money, were they not? So he was not getting all 
of this money, was he ? 

Mr. Abata. They paid the tax on that. 

IVIr. Kennedy. The taxes would be paid ? 

Mr. Abata. The taxes would be paid on that. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much would you declare on your tax retm-n? 

Mr. Abata. $9,500. 

Mr. Kennedy. When in fact you were receiving some $3,500? 

Mr. Abata. Yes, sir, or less. 

Mr. Kennedy. You would declare on your income tax $9,500 ? 

Mr. Abata. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That tax would be paid through the Avithholding : 
is that right? 

Mr. Abata. Yes, sir, that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. "V^Tiy did you agree to do that? 

Mr. Abata. Mr. Kennedj', I can't answer that. 

Mr. Kennedy. You can give us some answer. Why did you agree? 

Mr. Abata. Well, that is the way it was set up, and that is the way 
I went along with it. I batted absolutely zero against him. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17753 

Mr. Kennedy. Who set this all up? 

Mr. Abata. William Hanley. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did you ^o alontj with it after William Hanley 
died in 1944? 

Mr. Abata. I did not t^o alon^;. 

Mr. Kennedy. You kept kicking back in your salary. 

Mr. Abata. Well 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did you keep doing it? 

Mr. Abata. I can't answer why I even did that, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you get out of the union then, in what year? 

Mr. Abata. In the latter part of 1951, in November. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did you get out of the union ? 

Mr. Abata. I w\is told to get out. 

Mr. Ivennedy. W\\o told you to get out ? 

Mr. Abata. Well, some innnediate friends of his. 

Mr. Kennedy. "WHio told you to get out of the union? 

Mr. Abata. Well, I would rather not mention names. 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to know. I am sure you would rather not, 
but who told you to get out of the union? 

Mr. .Vbata. a friend of his. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was the friend ? 

Mr. Abata. A gentleman by the name of Rocco Fenelli. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did he say he wanted you to get out of the 
union ? 

Mr. Abata. He told me that I got to get out. 

Mr. Kennedy. "\^^iy ? For what reason? 

Mr. Abata. Because I wouldn't go along. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you get out of the union then ? 

Mr. Abata. No, and indeed I didn't ; and I didn't go out. 

Mr. Kennedy. You stayed on in the union ? 

Mr. Abata. I stayed on for 3 or 4 weeks after I was told, and I was 
told again. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you get out then? 

Mr. Abata. No, I didn't get out. 

Mr. Kennedy. You stayed 3 or 4 weeks and you were told again, 
and did you get out? 

Mr. Abata. I didn't get out, and I met him in a gas station then. 

Mr. Kennedy. Joey Glimco ? 

Mr. Abata. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened then? 

Mr. Abata. I met him early one morning and I told him, "'Look, I 
belong here and you don't belong here. You get out." 

Mr. Kennedy. Who ended up getting out ? 

Mr. Abata. I did, and I batted zero again. 

^Ir. Kennedy. You got out ? 

Mr. Abata. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What Avere the circumstances under which vou aot 
out ? 

Mr. Abata. Well, he asked me if I would get out and take $5,000 
and get out. 

Mr. Kennedy. He tried to buy vou out ? 

Mr. Abata. $5,000. 

;Mr. Kennedy. What did vou do ? 



17754 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Abata. I said, "I will not get out for $5,000 and I won't get 
out for $50,000." 

Mr. Kennedy. You refused to be bought out ? 

Mr. Abata. That is right. My wife got on my neck, you know,- 
Senator, and she got on my neck and crying and hollering, and she 
was scared, and so in order to have peace at home I figured I might 
as well, she was a very sickly woman at the time, and I said, "Well, I 
might as well get out." 

The Chairman. Had she been threatened in the meantime? 

Mr. Abata. No, she was not threatened, Senator. 

The Chairman. There had been no threats and you had, of course 
reported to her wliat was happening ? 

Mr, Abata. Yes. 

The Chairman. She said she was sick and wasn't well. Did she get 
apprehensive about your safety, and your physical safety ? 

Mr. Abata. Well, she was scared, and I would say she was scared,. 
Senator. 

The Chairman. She was scared ? 

Mr. Abata. She was scared, and not me, and I was never scared. 

The Chairman. You decided it was the better part of valor just to 
get out ? 

Mr. Abata. I figured to have peace at home, and to have peace all 
of the way around I might as well get out. 

Mr. Kennedy. You refused to be bought out ? 

Mr. Abata. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. When they offered you the $5,000, you wouldn't take 
it? 

Mr. Abata. No, I wouldn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you never took any money from them ? 

Mr. Abata. Yes, I did. Then I figured, I said this, if I am going 
to get out, there was a compromise, and they gave me a year's salary. 

Mr. Kennedy. The compromise was less than $5,000. 

Mr. Abata. No, I got more than $5,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much money did you get ? 

Mr. Abata. I got $10,000 actual cash, in 1952. That is my year's 
salary, and they paid my salary in full. 

Mr. Kennedy. So they paid you $10,000 ; is that right ? 

Mr. Abata. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you got out? 

Mr. Abata. That is right. 

The Chairman. Where did that money come from — out of the 
union fund? 

Mr. Abata. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Actually, you got paid some $12,300, didn't you ? 

Mr. Abata. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they paid the taxes, which gave you about 
$10,000. 

Mr. Abata. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you got out. 

Mr. Abata. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Prior to getting out, liad you iakcu any raoiioy from 
the union? 

Mr. Abata. Yes. I don't know whether it was 1046 or 1947. I was 
sick and tired of giving my salary, and along about the month of 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17755 

August or July I needed money real bad, and the Mrs. was in a very 
bad way, and I got $3,000 and I told them I took $3,000 and I told all 
of the officers I took $3,000 and I said, "That is so he won't take the 
rest of my salary the rest of the year." 

Mr. Kennedy. You took $3,000 out of the funds of the union ? 

Mr. Abata. That is right, as my salary. I took my salary in ad- 
vance. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that entered in all of the books ? 

Mr. Abata. I don't know if it was or not, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you write any kind of a note? 

Mr. Abata. No, I did not ; it was a check. 

Mr, Kennedy. You got approval from the membership? 

Mr. Abata. No, I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. You just took $3,000 ? 

Mr. AjiATA. That was my salary. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you continue to get the $175 a week after 
you took the $3,000? 

Mr. Abata. Yes, sir, I did. Oh, no; I didn't. I was getting $71 
a week. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you sign for the $175 a week ? 

Mr. Abata. That is right. 

Senator Goldwaiter. But you only got $71 ? 

Mr. Abata. That is right. 

Senator Goldwater. So in effect, the $3,000 was over and above 
your salary? 

Mr. Abata. That is right. 

Senator Goldwater. And you continued to sign for the $175 so that 
Glimco could get his $104 ? 

Mr. Abata. No. Here is how I figured it. I figured it this way : 
If I took that $3,000, he would not take that deduction and he would 
not take the rest of the salaiy, and I figured he would give me my 
salary and I would be paid that $3,000, but it didn't work out that 
way. 

Senator Goldwater. Why did you figure that he might do that? 

Mr. Abata. Well, I figured, the reason wliy I figured that was be- 
cause I took that $3,000 and I know I didn't do the right thing when 
I did that. 

Senator Goldwater. But he continued to get his kickback even 
after you got the $3,000 ? 

Mr. Abata. I still received $71 per week, and he still got his kick- 
back. And I figured this way, he probably put that kickback back 
where the $3,000 belonged, but he didn't do that, and he took it. 

Senator Goldwater. You were certainly an optimist there, weren't 
you? 

Mr. Abata. Well, you can say that if you wish. 

Mr. Kennedy. It ended up with the union having $3,000 less in 
their treasury. 

Mr. Abata. No. It was paid back. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlien did you pay it back ? 

Mr. Abata. It was paid back on my $100 allowance check. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was your $100 allowance check. 

Mr. Abata. For business. 

Mr. Ej:nnedy. When did you get that? How often did you get 
that ? 



17756 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Abata. I never got that. I never got that. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened on that? 

Mr. Abata. That was turned over to him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlio is "him" ? 

Mr. Abata. Mr. Glimco. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you sign for $100 ? 

Mr. Abata. Yes, we all signed for $100, and he received that $100, 
also. 

Mr. Kennedy. You kicked that back, too? 

Mr. Abata. Oh, yes, indeed. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long did that go on ? 

Mr. Abata. Up until the time I Avas there. 

Mr. Kennedy. In 1951 ? 

Mr. Abata. Yes. sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Every month you kicked back your $100 expenses ? 

Mr. Abata. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Everybody did that ? 

Mr. Abata. Yes, indeed. 

The Chairman. Was that in addition to this salary? 

Mr. Abata. Yes, indeed. 

The Chairman. According to the calculations I make here, on the 
basis of $608 a month, with his salary, he was getting around $2,500 
a month with his kickbacks. Now you say he got another $100 a 
month. 

Mr. iXjBATA. Oh, yes, indeed ; he got $100 from every one of us. 

The Chairman. Was that monthly? 

Mr. Abata. Monthly. 

The Chairman. Hovr many of them were there? There w-ere six 
of you ? 

Mr. Abata. I think it was seven. 

The Chairman. Well, six without him. 

Mr. Abata. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That would be another $600 a month to be added to 
the $2,500. 

Mr. Abata. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. So he was getting a total then of in excess, we will 
say, of $3,000 a month out of this union. 

Mr. Abata. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did you figure that you paid the $3,000 back 
then, if you just continued the other arrangement? 

Mr. Abata. Here is what he did. He was pretty bighearted, you 
know, Mr. Kennedy, and he took half of that $100, of ni}^ allowance, 
and he paid it back that way. 

Mr. Kennedy. How do you know that? 

Mr. Ap.ata. I saw it in the daybook. 

Mr. Kennedy. He put it back? 

Mr. Af.ATA. Yes, he put $50 a month of the $100 that belonged to 
me back in the daybook. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long did he do that for? 

Mr. Abata. It was all ])ai(l for when I left, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. That takes about (> years, doesn't it ? 

Mr. Ab.\ta. It was all ])aid Avhen I left. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did vou take the $3,000? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17757 

Mr. Abata. It must have been 1946 or 1947, and I left in 1952, and 
it just was about paid for at that time. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. It was about the day that you left? 

Mr. Abata. Just about ; yes. 

Mr. Kjsnnedt. All of those books are missing. 

Mr. Abata. Well, that figures. 

Mr. Kennedy. The chief contracts that you had were with the 
Yellow Cab Co. and the Checker Cab Co. ? 

Mr. Abata. The what? 

Mr. Kjjnnedy. The chief contracts that your union had were with 
the Yellow Cab Co. and the Checker Cab Co. ; is that right ? 

Mr. Abata. Yes. 

Mr, Kennedy. Was there an arrangement made with those cab 
companies to pay them money for collectmg dues? 

Mr. Abata. I had nothing to do with that, Mr. Kennedy. That 
was done by Mr. Witt Hanley. 

Mr. Kjennedy. Just answer the question, please. Was that done? 

Mr. Abata. Yes, that was done. 

Mr. Kennedy. So the union was paying the cab companies money 
for collecting its dues ? 

Mr. Abata. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know how much money was being paid 
to the cab company for that purpose ? 

Mr. Abata. I know it amounted to an enormous amount, T^/^ per- 
cent or 10 percent. I never did sit down to figure it out. 

Mr. Ejennedy. You were president of the union ? 

Mr. Abata. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you say you had nothing to do with that ar- 
rangement ? 

Mr. Abata. No, I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. It must have been negotiated in the contract. Did 
you discuss it with the cab companies? 

Mr. Abata. That contract was negotiated before I was even elected. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. But you were there for 14 years. You were the first 
president. 

Mr. Abata. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. What kind of arrangement could have been made 
without the president knowing about it, and where the contracts had 
to be renegotiated every period of time ? 

Mr. Abata. Well, I just left well enough alone. I just went along 
with that. I knew it was being done. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Did you think it was proper ? 

Mr. Abata. Sir? 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you think it was proper ? 

Mr. Abata. No, I did not think it was proper. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever complain or object to it ? 

Mr. Abata. Yes, I voiced my opinion many, many times. 

Mr. Kennedy. "What happened ? 

Mr. Abata. Nothing happened. I was told that is the way it is, that 
is the way it should be. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the arrangement between the cab com- 
panies and the officials of the union that this was permitted or al- 
lowed? What kind of an arrangement existed between them? 

36751— 59— pt. 49 5 



17758 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Abata. "Well, I asked the companies a few times and they told 
me that they needed that for the help on the check-off system, that we 
should pay for the help. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Have you ever heard of that being done elsewhere? 

Mr. Abata. No, I don't. No, I don't. 

The Chairman. In other words, the companies were claiming that 
the union should pay them for checking off the dues of their drivers? 

Mr. Abata. That is right, Senator. 

The Chairman. Do you recall what that amount is ? 

Mr. Abata. No, I don't. 

The Chairman. Wliat amount was agi*eed on ? 

Mr. Abata. Seven and a half percent. 

The Chairman. Seven and a half, you think. Well, what was the 
amount of the dues per month ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr- Calabrese can put the figures in. 

TESTIMONY OP ALPHONSE P. CALABRESE— Kesumed 

The Chairman. Mr, Calabrese, you have been previously sworn ? 

Mr. Calabrese. I have. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Calabrese, have you made an examination of the 
records of local 777 to determine what payments have been made to 
the Yellow Cab Co. and the Checker Cab Co. ? 

Mr. Calabrese. The records of local 777 and the records of the 
Yellow Cab and Checker Taxicab Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us what percentage has been paid and 
then the amount in dollars that has actually been paid for this pur- 
pose? 

Mr. Calabrese. The original agreement was 10 percent of the dues 
collected was paid back to the two cab companies. It was subse- 
quently reduced to 7i/^ percent of the dues collected. 

A calculation of the figures from 1937 to December 31 — we have 
later figures — December 31, 1958, reveals a total sum of $327,491.46 
was paid back to the Yellow Cab Co. and the Checker Taxicab Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much to each company ? 

Mr. Cai^brese. I have the figures for the taxicab companies up to 
December 31, 1957. As of December 31 — from 1937 to December 31, 
1957, Yellow Cab received $169,180. Checker Taxicab received $137,- 
786.51. It is a grand total of $306,966.51. The earlier figure I gave 
you was for another year, making it $327,491.46. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that arrangement still in effect, Mr. Calabrese ? 

Mr. CALAiiRESE. No, it is not. 

Mr. Kennedy. That has been changed? 

Mr. Calabrese. That has been changed since the last contract was 
negotiated, in Januai^y of 1959, and signed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Since tliis investigation started ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is right, 

Mr. Kennedy. Aud since we have been into both of those cab com- 
panies; is that right? 

Mr. Calabrese. Tliat is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. We reviewed the records? 

Mr. Calabrese. We reviewed the contract and there is no provision 
for this type of refund for the check-off sj^stem. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17759 

Mr. Kennedy. There is nothing in the contract in connection with 
this? 

Mr. CAL.VBRESE. No. I reviewed it and there is not. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you this: In the previous contract, the 
contract under which this commission was paid, was it a written 
contract ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes. 

The Chairman. Did it specifically provide for 10 percent for the 
collection of the dues? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes, and subsequently 7i/^ percent. 

The Chairman. And subsequently 714 percent. That was in the 
written contract ? 

Mr. Cai^vbrese. That was in the written contract. 

Senator Goldwater. What was that total figure again ? 

The Chairman. $327,491 and some cents. 

Senator Goldwater. That was paid 

Mr. Calabrese. From 1937 to December 31, 1958. 

Senator Goldwater. That would be the average of 7i/^ to 10 ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Of the dues collected, that is correct. 

The Chairman. It was 10 percent for a while. When was the 
7I/2 percent entered into ? When was the change made from 10 per- 
cent to 7y2 percent, do you recall ? 

Mr. Calabrese. I am not sure of that, Senator. I would say around 
1946 or thereabouts. 

The Chairman. AMiat is the amount of dues of the members? Do 
the records reflect that ? 

Mr. Calabrese. I have a copy before me of the agreement of Oc- 
tober 1956, entered into between the local union and the Yellow Cab 
Co., which was subsequentlv renegotiated in this last year and signed 
for 1959. 

The 1956 agreement called for the 7i/^ percent of the dues collected. 

The Chairman. What are the monthly dues of the members ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Four dollars. 

Mr. Abata. Four dollars a month. 

The Chairman. Four dollars a month ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is right. 

The Chairman. That is all I wanted, what the individual member 
pays in dues. Is that what he is paying now ? 

Mr. Calabrese. To the best of my knowledge, that is correct, as of 
this time. 

Senator Ggijjwater. How many members are there ? 

Mr. Calabrese. There are approximately 5,000 members. 

Mr. Kennedy. You also have a health and welfare plan, Mr. 
Abata? 

TESTIMONY OF DOMINIC ABATA— Resumed 

Mr. Abata. That is right, sir. 

INIr. Kennedy. Did you have anything to do with the negotiations 
for the health and welfare plan ? 

Mr. Abata. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that health and welfare plan that exists in the 
union trusteed or was it trusteed at the time you were there? Were 
there trustees? 

Mr. Abata. Yes, sir. 



17760 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. I^JENNEDY. Wlio were they ? 

Mr. Abata. The trustee was Joseph Glimco. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was the employer trustee ? 

Mr. Abata. Joseph Glimco was the trustee. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was the employer trustee ? 

Mr. Abata. It was that, I think. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they actually have trustees to supervise the ex- 
penditure of this money ? 

Mr. Abata. No, they did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you tell the committee why, where a health 
and welfare fund was set up for the benefit of the employees, why 
the employer did not require that they have a representative as a 
trustee? 

Mr. Abata. I can't answer that, Mr. Kennedy. I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Calabrese, have we found that there was a repre- 
sentative of the employers ? 

Mr. Calabrese. There was no employer trustee. 

Mr. Kennedy. Until January of this year ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Until January of this year. 

Mr. Kennedy. Up until the time we made our investigation, there 
was no supervision by anyone except Joey Glimco of the money that 
went into this health and welfare fund ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is right. He was the administrator of the 
fund. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Were there any employee contributions to the fund ? 

Mr. Abata. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were there any ? 

Mr. Calabrese. There were not. 

Mr. Kennedy. This was all employer 

Mr. Calabrese. This was all employer-contributed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yet the employer had no one to supervise the ex- 
penditures of the fund ? 

Mr. Calabrese. They had no one to supervise. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why was that allowed to exist, Mr. Abata ? 

Mr. Abata. Mr. Kennedy, I wasn't even told about the health and 
welfare plan at all. 

The Chairman. What ? 

Mr. Abata. I never knew until they moved into the office, the cab 
office. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never even knew that there was such a plan 
negotiated ? 

Mr. Abata. No, I never knew. Mr. Glimco did that. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were president of the union. 

Mr. Abata. He was going around me. He was lobbying against 
me all the time. I never knew what was going on. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Abata, you were made president of this 
local in 1937? 

Mr. Abata. Right, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. That was the time that it was founded : is that 
right? 

Mr. Abata. Right, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Were you active in the formation of this 
local ? 

Mr. Abata. Right, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17761 

Senator Goldwater. What was your employment before that time ? 

Mr. Abata. I was a Checker cab driver. 

Senator Goldwater. And did you and a group of your fellow 
drivers petition for the establishment of a local '<!■ 

Mr. Abata. I don't follow you, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you and a group of your employees meet 
and decide that you wanted a local ? 

Mr. Abata. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Who did you go to ? 

Mr. Abata. Well, we had a big cab strike in Chicago in 1937, 
Senator. 

Senator Goldwater. You were elected, then, the president in 1937 ? 

Mr. Abata. Right, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. How many members did you have at that 
time ? Do you remember ? 

Mr. Abata. I guess about 5,000. 

Senator Goldwater. How many came to the meeting hall to vote 
for the president, do you remember ? 

Mr. Abata. It was quite a few. Quite a few. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you, during the 20 years, the last 20 
years, or, say, the 18 years that you were in, have consistently large 
crowds at your election meetings ? 

Mr. Abata. I would say yes. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you ever have opposition at any time ? 

Mr. Abata. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Calabrese, let me ask you if Occidental Life 
Insurance Co. — they are the ones that have this insurance ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes. They are the carriers. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who are the agents ? 

Mr. Calabrese. The agent is the Dearborn Insurance Agency. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do they have many plans, that insurance com- 
pany or the agency, have any plans that are not trusteed '? 

Mr. Calabrese. This is the only plan that was not trusteed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is there any explanation as to why these two cab 
companies, these two major cab companies in Chicago, would not re- 
quire this plan to be trusteed ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Their explanation at one time was that this was 
part of the contract, to contribute to the health and welfare f mid, and 
they had no interest as to what happened after they paid or fulfilled 
their obligation under the contract. 

The Chairman. What did that welfare fund amount to annually ? 
How much did the cab owners contribute annually to this welfare 
fund ? Get it from each cab company, if you have it ? 

Mr. Calabrese. We have a schedule on it. Senator, but I will have 
to get that. 

The Chairman. We will go into something else then, for the mo- 
ment. 

Mr. Kennedy. We are going into that in detail, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. I thought maybe you had it there. 

All right. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. You do not know how it was that the Dearborn 
Insurance Agency was selected ? 

Mr. Abata. No, I don't. 



17762 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't know how it was that the Occidental 
Insurance Co. was selected as the carrier? 

Mr. Abata. I don't know, no. And neither does anybody else, 
Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. This was done by Joey Glimco, with the cab com- 
panies ? 

Mr. Abata. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. All right. Thank you very much. You may 
stand aside. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Arthur Nelson. 

The Chairman. 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- 
nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Nelson. I do. 

TESTIMONY OP ARTHUR NELSON 

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

Mr. Nelson. My name is Arthur Nelson. I live m Park Ridge, 
111. I work for the Cook County Highway Department. 

The Chairman. Do you waive counsel, Mr. Nelson ? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank you, sir. 

All right, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Nelson, you were a scavenger in the Fulton 
Street Market ? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were there from 1914 to 1918 ; is that right? 

Mr. Nelson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. From the late 1930's to 1948 you would pick up 
feathers in the Fulton Street Market ? 

Mr. Nelson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You would be paid by the various people to pick 
up their feathers ; is that right ? 

Mr. Nelson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you had an arrangement that you could sell 
those feathers ; is that right ? 

Mr. Nelson. Well, I don't know what you mean by arrangement. 

Mr. Kennedy. To the Sumner Cartage Co. ? 

Mr. Nelson. I didn't sell them to them. I gave them to them. 

Mr. Kennedy. On occasion they paid you for them ? 

Mr. Nelson. Not me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Originally, then, going back prior to the time that 
you turned them over to Sumner, when you turned them over to 
Burton-Dixie Co., which is a mattress and bedding company in 
Chicago, when you used to — first, you would be paid by the people 
to pick up their feathers, and then when you turned them over to 
this company you would also be paid by them ? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes. I would get $5 a load. 

Mr. Kennedy. This went on until what ? Wliat year ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17763 

Mr. Xelsox. I think it was 1936. 

Mr. Kennedy. Until 1936 ? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. At that time was it suggested that another com- 
pany be set up ? 

Mr. Nelson, That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who suggested that to you ? 

Mr. Nelson. ]\fr. Sumner. 

Mr. Kennedy. "^Vho was Mr. Sumner? 

Mr. Nelson. Well, he is a fellow that is in the hauling of produce 
down there and he is also in the feather business. 

]\Ir. Kennedy. He is from the Smnner Cartage Co. ? 

Mr. Nelson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wio was going to be in the company ? 

Mr. Nelson. Well, they wanted Mr. Sumner, Mr. Hanley and I. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was Witt Hanley, the Teamster official? 

Mr. Nelson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is Sumner's first name ? 

Mr. Nelson. The father, I think was Abraham. 

Mr. Kennedy. Abraham? 

Mr. Nelson. I think it was ; yes. 

JNIr. Kennedy. Did you agree to go along with that ? 

ISIr. Nelson. Yes. I gave them the feathers. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you go into the company with them? 

Mr. Nelson. No, I didn't go into the company. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why didn't you go into the company ? 

Mr. Nelson. I didn't want to have any part of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't want to have any part of it ? 

IVIr. Nelson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You thought there was something wrong with it? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. With Mr. Hanley being a union official ? 

Mr. Nelson. That is one reason. 

Mr. Kennedy. You gave them the feathers ? 

Mr. Nelson . That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You no longer sold them to Burton-Dixie? 

Mr. Nelson. That is right. 

IMr. Kennedy. You voluntarily turned them over to this company 
that they set up ? 

Mr. Nelson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hanley and Mr. Sumner? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was that company called, the Sumner Cartage 
Co.? 

Mr. Nelson. Well, that was the name, the Sumner Cartage. They 
didn't give any name to the feather company. They just — we went 
under the name of Sunmer's. 

ISIr. Kennedy. Did you receive any money in connection with this 
at all ? 

Mr. Nelson. For my share ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Nelson. No. Only what I got paid from the merchants for 
hauling the feathers. 



17764 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. KJENNEDT. Did you receive any money at all ? Did you receive 
any checks during this period of time ? 

Mr. Nelson. I received checks ; yes, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. You received the checks from whom ? 

Mr, Nelson. Mr. Simmer. 

Mr. I^nnedy. What were the checks for ? 

Mr. Nelson. For the feathers they sold to Burton-Dixie. 

Mr. Kennedy. What would you do with that money ? 

Mr. Nelson. I would cash the check and give it to IMr. Hanley. 

Mr. Kennedy. You gave it to Mr. Hanley f 

Mr. Nelson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliy would you turn over the money that you were 
being paid to Mr. Hanley ? 

Mr. Nelson. Well, the way I can answer is just tlaat that is the 
way they wanted to set up and I went along with it. 

Mr. Kennedy. This was because he was a union official ? 

Mr. Nelson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you had to kick back the money that you received 
to Mr. Hanley ; is that right ? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes. Well, it was the company that they set up. They 
put the checks in my name and I would cash them and give them to 
him. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many years did this go on ? 

Mr. Nelson. Well, let's see. From 1936 until Mr. Hanley died in 
1944. 

Mr. Kennedy. 1944? 

Mr. Nelson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did that situation continue ? What did you do after 
Mr. Hanley died ? 

Mr. Nelson. Well, for about 3 months I didn't hear from anybody 
and then I had a call from Mr. Glimco. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat did Mr. Glimco say ? 

Mr. Nelson. He asked me if I would come over to the cab office 
and see him. I told him I didn't want to go over to the cab company. 

Mr. Kennedy. You said what ? 

Mr. Nelson. That I didn't want to go over to the cab office. So we 
arranged a day to be at Gold's Restaurant at Halsted — on Roosevelt 
Road and Halsted. So I went over and met him at the restaurant. 
We sat down and had a cup of coffee. 

He asked me how much would Hanley own of my business. I 
told him he didn't own any part of my business at all. He didn't 
have any. He said he was just checking up to find out. Then I didn't 
hear from him. I would see him around the market, but there wasn't 
nothing said any more about anything. But he would get the checks. 

Mr. Kennedy. How would he get the checks ? 

Mr. Nelson. He would get them from me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You would continue the same arrangements? 

Mr. Nelson. The same arrangements. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlio told you to continue the same arrangements? 

Mr. Nelson. He did. 

Mr. Kennedy. The same arrangement you had with Hanley to con- 
tinue with him? 

Mr. Nelson. That is riffht. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17765 

Mr. Kjennedt. So as you were paid now for the feathers instead 
of making the checks over to Mr. Hanley, you would make them over 
to Mr. Glimco ? 

Mr. Nelson. I \\ould hand the money over. The checks were made 
tome. 

Mr. Kennedy. You would cash the checks and hand the money 
over ? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Would that be weekly ? 

Mr. Nelson. Sometimes it would be weekly and sometimes it would 
be monthly. The business wasn't too good when we got it. It was 
sick. 

Mr. IvENXEDY. You ^vould receive some $50 or $60 a week ? 

Mr. Nelson. Well, that is going back to the time of Hanley. We 
didn't get that 

Mr. KJENNEDY. How much money were you getting during the time 
that Mr. Glimco was receiving money ? 

Mr. Nelson. Well, that would be hard to say. Some weeks we 
would get $50, $40, maybe some weeks we might get $60 ; some weeks 
it might be $30. I don't know exactly. 

Mr. Kennedy. Up to $100 or $125 on oc<iasion ? 

Mr. Nelson. No, not that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Around $50 or $60 a week ? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You would get that cash and turn it over each week 
to Mr. Glimco? 

Mr. Nelson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who paid the taxes on that ? 

Mr. Nelson. I did. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. He didn't pay the taxes ? 

Mr. Nelson. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he tell you he wanted you to pay the taxes on it ? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you declared it ? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you deducted that money ? 

Mr. Nelson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlien did you sell the business ? 

Mr. Nelson. I sold the business in 1948. 

Mr. KIennedy. Did you have to make any payment to Mr. Glimco 
when you sold the business ? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much money did you pay him ? Wliy did you 
have to make a payment to him when you sold your business? 

Mr. Nelson. Well, he wanted $4,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did vou pav him ? 

Mr. Nelson. Why did I f 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Yes. 

Mr. Nelson. Because I had a little sickness and I wanted to get 
out of the business and I was glad to pay it to get out of there, to 
tell you the truth. 

Mr. Kennedy. So in order to sell your business you had to kick 
back another $4,000 to him ? 



17766 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Nelson. Yes. 

The Chairman. What did you get for your business ? 

Mr. Nelson. I sold it for $18,000. 

The Chairman. $18,000? 

Mr. Nelson. That is right. 

The Chairman. He took nearly a fourth of it, then, as his cut ? 

Mr. Nelson. Sir ? 

The Chairman. He took nearly a fourth of it as his cut ? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. To whom did you sell the business ? 

Mr. Nelson. Dudek ; Walter Dudek and his brother. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much did he pay you and in w^iat way ? 

Mr. Nelson. Well, before he paid anything, Joe Glimco wanted 
to meet the Dudek boys. So I made a date up at my office. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. This was before you could actually sell the business ? 

Mr. Nelson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. He wanted to see them ? 

Mr. Nelson. That is right. So I called one of the Dudek boys. 
In fact, I saw him out at the place of business and told him to come 
down to the office the next day, and had an appointment with Joe to 
see him. So he come up there. 

I left them in my office and walked out. I don't know what was 
said or any part of it, except when he come out he said they were 
all right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who said that ? 

Mr. Nelson. Mr. Glimco. So about 2 or 3 days later I met Walter 
at 35th and Cicero, at the bank, and he gave me $6,000. He said he 
would give me $8,000 tomorrow or the next day and take a note for 
$4,000. So I took the $6,000 and I saw Glimco at the market and 
gave him $2,000 and told him he would have to take a note for the 
$2,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. Eather than $4,000 in cash ? 

Mr. Nelson. That is right. I said, "How do you want the note 
made out?" and he said, "Make it out in my name," which I did. 

Mr. Kj:nnedy. You gave him $2,000 in cash and he got a note for 
$2,000? 

Mr. Nelson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. The note was from Mr. Dudek ; is that right ? 

Mr. Nelson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you were out of the business ? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, here are some of the checks. 

The Chairman. I hand you here a bundle of checks, probably 25, 
30 or 40 checks. These are photostatic copies. They all appear to 
be given by Sumner Brothers, all made payable to you in varying 
amounts. 

In glancing through them I see they range fix)m $26 up to $200 and 
some odd dollars. 

Mr. Nelson. That could be. 

The Chairman. I will ask you to glance through this bundle of 
checks, photostatic copies of checks, and see if you identify them as 
photostatic copies of the checks that you have been testifying about, 
or at least some of them. 

(The documents were handed to the witness.) 



IMPROPER ACTJTVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17767 

Mr. Nelson. There is one here that I don't 



The Chairman. If you see one that you do not identify, you may 
remove it. 

Mr. Nelson. I identify it, but I can't understand the name under- 
neatli it. 

The Chairman. Let us have that one for a moment. Glance 
through tlie others. 

You got the money on them, as I understand it. 

Mr. Nelson. Yes. 

The Chairman. All right ; go ahead. 

Mr. Kennedt. The reason I am asking about those is that I never 
had anybody else — they are signed by whom ? 

Mr. Nelson. I never signed 

Mr. Kennedy. After you endorsed the check, they might have gone 
anyplace. 

Mr. Nelson. No ; I cashed them at the bank. 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't always follow that procedure with 'Mr. 
Hanley, did you ? 

Mr. Nelson. Wliat was that? 

Mr. Kennedy. Always cash the checks and turn the money over to 
him? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have checks here with his endorsement. 

Mr. Nelson. Yes ; that is the procedure. I cashed the checks. 

The Chairman. You have examined those you have in your hand? 

Mr. Nelson. Wait until I see about the rest of them. 

The Chairman. Very well. 

Mr. Nelson. Yes. 

The Chairman. At least those you are now handing to the clerk, 
that batch of checks are photostatic copies of checks that you cashed 
and paid the money over to whom ? 

Mr. Nelson. Those to Mr. Glimco. 

The Chairman. Those are the Glimco checks? 

INIr. Nelson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. So the proceeds of those checks went to Glimco ? 

Mr. Nelson. That is right. 

The Chairman. You got nothing out of it whatsoever? 

Mr. Nelson. No. 

The Chairman. From the checks I originally handed you, you have 
withdrawn five checks. 

Mr. Nelson. The reason I withdrew them, sir, is I never give a 
check — there are some signed by Hanley or Hanley, Jr. I never give 
checks to anybody. They took cash. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you about these checks. Those that the 
clerk has will be made exhibit No. 1. 

(Checks referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 1" for reference and 
may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. I hand you back the five checks you withdrew 
from the original stack, and ask you to examine them and state if 
your signature does not appear on the reverse side of them as the first 
endorser ? 

Mr. Nelson. My signature is on there ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Then you obviously at some time handled the 
checks. 



17768 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Nelson. Yes. These are way back in 19M. 

The Chairman. I understand. 

Mr. Nelson. This is before Glimco got them. This is in 1944. 

The Chairman. That was before Glimco got into the picture? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes. This is a 1944 check. 

The Chairman. That may account for it. 

Mr. Nelson. That would be years ago, to Hanley. 

The Chairman. T\^io got that money ? 

Mr. Nelson. He did. 

The Chairman. Who ? 

Mr. Nelson. Mr. Hanley. 

The Chairman. Hanley got the money for these checks? 

Mr. Nelson. That is right. 

The Chairman. And Glimco got the money from the others ? 

Mr. Nelson. I will look at the dates again, if you don't mind. Here 
is a 1944 check. 

Mr. Kennedy. He died in May of 1944. 

Mr. Nelson. This one is March. Here is an April. 

Mr. I^nnedy. This is October 1944. 

Mr. Nelson. These checks here are February 1944. 

The Chairman. Didn't all of the money represented by those checks 
come through your hands ? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes ; they did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the money either went to Witt Hanley or Joey 
Glimco ? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes. 

The Chairman. The five checks he referred to may be exhibit No. 
lA. 

(Checks referred to were marked "Exhibit No. lA" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, from an examination of those checks, 
at least in 1944, there was some $5,604.75, and in 1945 some $2,244.25. 
There are also some miscellaneous checks in there of 1946. Those are 
the only checks that we have available except prior to that time. 

The Chairman. Prior to that time Hanley got all the money ? 

Mr. Nelson. That is right. 

The Chairman. And that is the way it was handled ? 

Mr. Nelson. That is right. 

The Chairman. You state under oath that the money you got on 
these checks, you either gave to Hanley or to Glimco ? 

Mr. Nelson. That is right ; yes, sir. 

The CiiAiRiMAN. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. When you sold your business, another $2,000 was 
given directly by you to Joey Glimco ? 

Mr. Nelson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the other $2,000 was a note ? 

Mr. Nelson. I didn't give him the money. 

Mr. Kennedy. No; he ^ot a $2,000 note? 

Mr. Nelson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he ever invest in your business? 

Mr. Nelson. No, sir. 

INIr. Kennedy. He never invested any money ? 

Mr. Nelson. No, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17769 

Mr. Kennedy. This was all sort of a gift in order to do business? 

Mr. Nelson. Well, I guess you would call it that. 

The Chairman. What do you call it? 

Mr. Nelson. Well, I don't know. 

The Chairman. You can tell us better than anyone else. You are 
familiar Avith it. You are the one that it cost. What did you call it ? 
What did you think it was ? 

Mr. Nelson. Well, it was a gift. 

The Chairman. A voluntary gift ? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes. 

The Chairman. You say it was a voluntary gift? 

Mr. Nelson. Well, I wouldn't say a voluntary gift. 

The Chairman. You gave it under pressure, didn't you ? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. In other words, you didn't want to give it, but you 
felt you had to ? 

Mr. Nelson. I have a family. I could have used that money, too. 

The Chairman. You could have used the money, too ? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes sir; very well. 

The Chairman. Very well. Proceed. 

Senator Goldwater. I want to know what would have happened 
if you didn't agree to this arrangement. 

Mr. Nelson. Well, the answer to that I couldn't say what would 
happen. A lot of things could happen. 

Senator Goldwater. Well, such as? 

Mr. Nelson. Well, I don't know. Maybe take your business away 
or something. Something might happen. I don't know. 

Senator Goldw^ater. How would they take your business away? 

Mr. Nelson. Well, that is something I don't want to go into. To 
take your business, it just happens that way. That is all. 

The Chairman. Sometimes they take you away from the business, 
too, don't they ? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. That was the greatest fear that you had, was it 
not? 

Mr. Nelson. Since I had that plane ride, I can't hear good. 

The Chairman. He said that was the greatest fear that ^''ou had. 
In other words, you were afraid of physical violence ? 

Mr. Nelson. Well, I wanted to get out of the business. I had a 
little heart condition. 

The Chairman. That would give somebody a heart condition, 
wouldn't it? 

Mr. Nelson. I put in a lot of years on that market. 

Senator Goldwater. Is Glimco known as the king of Fulton 
Street? 

Mr. Nelson. I wouldn't call him the king of Fulton Street. 

Senator Goldwater. The boss of Fulton Street? 

Mr. Nelson. The boss. 

Senator Goldwater. Did every business in that area pay hun the 
same? 

Mr. Nelson. I don't know, sir. I took care of my work and minded 
my own business. That was all. 

Senator Goldwater. How did he approach you the first time ? 



17770 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Nelson. As I stated, he called me and we made a date to meet 
at the restaurant, at Gold's Restaurant, after Mr. Hanley died, and 
he said he was ;£?oing to take over. 

Senator Goldwater. He had no competition ? 

Mr. Nelson. No, I don't think so. 

Mr. Kennedy. The merchants in that area and the people that work 
around that area, are they in fear of Joe Glimco and the people that 
he represents ? 

Mr. Nelson. In the market ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Nelson. He eats in a restaurant down there. 

Mr. Kennedy. No, I say are they in fear or were they in fear of 
Joe Glimco and the people he represents? 

Mr. Nelson. Mr. Kennedy, I was down there, and I didn't have 
time to fool around. I went out and drove a truck and took care of 
my business. I didn't know what the other fellows were doing. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand that that was the condition 
that existed ? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir. That is what I heard, that he was the boss 
and that was it. 

Mr. Kennedy. I mean, that was one of the reasons that you paid 
him off, was it not ? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just to go back a little bit into one matter that is 
not directly involved with Mr. Glimco, but which is of some interest, 
you were driven out of business once before, were you not ? 

Mr. Nelson. I was. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was back in 1932 ? 

Mr. Nelson. October 1, 1932. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that in connection with the Teamsters, again ? 

Mr. Nelson. Well, I wouldn't say the Teamsters. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Bert Delaney ? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened ? 

Mr. Nelson. Well, he told me I couldn't operate down at the market 
any more. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who is Mr. Bert Delaney ? 

Mr. Nelson. Well, I didn't know the man then, but from what I 
heard he was connected with one of the old Capone outfits. 

Mr. Kennedy. He told you that you would have to get out of busi- 
ness? 

Mr. Nelson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you go to Mr. Hanley then ? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did Mr. Hanley say ? 

Mr. Nelson. He said he couldn't do anything about it at the time. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you got out of business ? 

Mr. Nelson. No, I operated. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you put out of business at all ? 

Mr. Nelson. No. I kept on working. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you lose money ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17771 

Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir. I lost about $18,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. Because of this pressure? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Your business fell off, then? You didn't do as great 
a business ? 

Mr. Nelson. Well, it fell off. I should say it did. 

Mr. Kennedy. That lasted for about 18 months? 

Mr. Nelson. 18 months. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Is there anything else? 

If not, thank you very much, Mr. Nelson. 

Mr. Nelson. Could I ask you a question. Senator? 

Am I dismissed so I can make a plane home? 

The Chairman, So you can make a plane home ? 

You maj' go, Mr. Nelson. 

Mr. Nelson. Thank you, sir. 

The Chairjl^n. Thank you, sir. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Dudek. 

The Chairman. Be sworn, sir. 

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. Dudek. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF WALTER DUDEK 

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

Mr. Dudek. Walter Dudek. I live at 3536 South Kedzie. I am a 
scavenger. 

The Chairman. What did you say your business is ? 

Mr. Dudek. I am a scavenger operator. 

The Chairman. You waive counsel, do you ? 

Mr. Dudek. Yes. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Dudek, you purchased a scavenger business 
from Mr. Arthur Nelson in 1948 ; is that right ? 

Mr. Dudek. I did ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You purchased it for some $18,000 ? 

Mr. Dudek. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you paid Mr. Nelson $14,000 in cash and two 
$2,000 notes; is that right? 

Mr. Dudek. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Were both of the notes made out to Mr. Nelson ? 

Mr. Dudek. No. One was made to Nelson and one was made to 
Glimco. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why was a note made out to IMr. Glimco? 

Mr. Dudek. Nelson wanted it that way. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know who Mr. Glimco was at that time? 

Mr. Dudek. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you met Mr. Glimco ? 

Mr. Dudek. I had met him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where had you met him ? 



17772 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. DuDEK. Up at the market. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlio did you understand he was ? 

Mr. DuDEK. He was the boss. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was the boss ? 

Mr. DuDEK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. I\JENNEDY. How was he able to be boss of the Fulton Street 
Market ? 

Mr. DuDEK. How ? I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was his position that would allow him to be 
boss of the market ? 

Mr. Dudek. That is what he says when I met him so that is how I 
know him. 

The Chairman. Do you mean he told you he was the boss? 

Mr. Dudek. Yes. 

The Chairman. You believed him ? 

Mr. Kennedy. You were told by others that he was the boss also ? 

Mr. Dudek. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. When you went to see him at Mr. Nelson's office, 
were you told that he was the boss ? 

Mr. Dudek. Nelson told me that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Nelson told you also ? 

Mr. Dudek. Yes. 

Mr. Ejsnnedy. Did you find out that he was in fact the boss ? 

Mr. Dudek. I paid him no mind. 

Mr. Kennedy. What? 

Mr. Dudek. I never paid him no mind. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you find out that he was the boss ? 

INIr. Dudek. I don't know whether he was or not. I never paid him 
no mind. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Were you able to keep the contract with the Sumner 
Bros.? 

Mr. Dudek. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you continue to keep the contract with the Sum- 
ner Bros. ? 

Mr. Dudek. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You kept turning over feathers to them ? 

Mr. Dudek. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you get paid for it? 

Mr. Dudek. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never got any money ? 

Mr. Dudek. Never got a dime. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why Avas it arranged that you would turn over the 
feathers to the Sumner Bros, as your predecessor had been doing and 
yet not be paid for the business ? 

Mr. Dudek. The only reason I done it was that it saved me a dump 
bill, a scavenger bill. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know who got paid instead of you ? 

Mr. Dudek. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know what arrangements were made now 
that the money was not going directly from you to Glimco, how the 
money was to be paid ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17773 

Mr. DiJDEK. I don't know that. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you never got paid ? 

Mr. DuDEK. I never got a dime. 

Mr. Kennedy. You continued the same contract of turning the 
feathers over but you never got paid for it as your predecessor had? 

Mr. Dudek. That is right. 

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

The Chairman. Are there any questions? 

If not, you may stand aside. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. I^nnedy. Mr. Sumner. 

The Chairman. Come forward, Mr. Sumner. Be sworn. 

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

Mr. Sumner. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF SAMUEL SUMNER 

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

Mr. Sumner. Samuel Sumner, 5931 North Bernard. We are in the 
poultry business and feather business. 

The Chairman. Do you waive counsel? Do you waise an attor- 
ney ? You do not want an attorney ? Do you want a lawyer to repre- 
sent you ? 

Mr. Sumner. No. 

The Chairman. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. My. Sumner, you were purchasing, and your family 
had prior to the time you took over the business — you had been pur- 
chasing the cliicken feathers from Mr. Nelson ? 

Mr. Sumner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then you sold those chicken feathers either to 
Burton-Dixie or the Globe Feather Co. ? 

Mr. Sumner. Eight. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Then Mr. Nelson sold out his business to Mr. Dudek ; 
is that right ? 

Mr. Sumner. Yes; Mr. Nelson sold out; yes. 

'Mr. Kennedy. To Mr. Dudek? 

Mr. Sumner. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You continued to get your feathers from the suc- 
cessor of Mr. Nelson, Mr. Dudek, did you not? 

Mr. Sumner. Well, I got it through Mr. Mallec. 

Mr. Kennedy. You continued to get your feathers from the same 
man, did you not ? 

Mr. Sumner. Yes, it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Dudek brought the feathers to you ? 

Mr. Sumner. Eight. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you pay Mr. Dudek for the feathers ? 

Mr. Sumner. No, sir. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Who did you pay for the feathers? 

Mr. Sumner. Mr. Mallec. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who is Mr. Mallec? 

3G751— 59— pt. 49 6 



17774 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Sumner. He used to be the inspector on the street. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. John Mallec ? 

Mr. Sumner. Right. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. He was a chicken inspector for the Chicago Poultry 
Board? 

Mr. Sumner. Right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is a private organization ? 

Mr. Sumner. I wouldn't know what they are. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you paid him ; is that right ? 

Mr. Sumner. Yes. He sent them over to me and I used to give him 
a little commission, whatever I told him was right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know of the relationship that existed be- 
tween Mr. Mallec and Mr. Glimco ? 

Mr. Sumner. I don't. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know Mr. Mallec was a bag man for Mr. 
Glimco ? 

Mr. Sumner. I know Mr. Mallec from the street. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know he collected money around there for 
Mr. Glimco ? 

Mr. Sumner. I wouldn't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much money did you pay him ? 

Mr. Sumner. To who ? 

Mr. Kennedy. How much money did you pay him ? 

The Chairman. How much money did you pay him ? 

Mr. Sumner. Well, it used to be $25, $30, or $40 ; whatever it used 
to come out. 

Mr. Kennedy. From 1949 to April of 1957, according to a review 
of your records, you paid him $24,069 ; paid Mr. Mallec. 

Mr. Sumner. Whatever it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Mallec sell you any feathers ? 

Mr. Sumner. Did he sell me ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. Were they his feathers ? 

Mr. Sumner. Geese feathers ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Sumner. No. Those feathers is different altogether. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now were they geese feathers; were they his 
feathers ? 

Mr. Sumner. I don't get it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were they his feathers ? 

Mr. Sumner. I don't get it. 

The Chairman. Let's get this straight. You paid Mallec ? 

Mr. Sumner. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you buy feathers from him ? 

Mr. Sumner. Yes, I bought it off of him. He used to send it over 
tome. 

The Chairman. Mallec sent the feathers to you ? 

INIr. Sumner. Yes. 

The Chairman. Didn't Dudek bring the feathers to you ? 

Mr. Sumner. He got the connection with Dudek. I don't know 
what he did. I don't know that Dudek is in with it, and Mallec come 
over to me and says can I use some feathei-s and I said "Yes," and he 
said, "I will bring them to you ; I will send them over to you," and 
I said, "OK." 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17775 

The Chairmax. You thought Mallec was sending Dudek over 
there? 

Mr. Sumner. I got them through Mallec. 

The Chairman. You got the feathers through Mallec ? 

Mr. Sumner. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Dudek was delivering the feathers and his pre- 
decessor Nelson was delivering the feathers. 

Mr. Sumner. When Nelson was over there, that was during my 
dad's time. 

The Chairman. You don't know anything about the arrangements 
made of paying Nelson ? 

Mr. Sumner. No, sir; I don't know. What my dad had with 
Nelson, I don't know what he had. But it had been going that way, 
just the way it was, and after my dad passed away it was going the 
same way. 

Mr, Kennedy. I want it clearly understood, Mr. Chairman, that he 
continued to buy feathers after his father died. 

You purchased feathers from Mr. Nelson ? 

Mr. Sumner. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then Mr. Nelson got out of business; he sold his 
business in 1948 and you had been doing business with him for about 
3 years, yourself ? 

Mr. Sumner. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then he sold his business in 1948 to Mr. Dudek ? 

Mr. Sumner. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then Mr. Dudek started selling you feathers ? 

Mr, Sumner. Well, I don't know who was buying. 

Mr. Kennedy. You knew Mr. Dudek was selling you feathers? 

Mr. Sumner. Not when Mr. Nelson sold it. 

Mr. Kennedy. After Mr. Nelson sold his company, Mr. Dudek 
came and sold you feathers ? 

Mr. Sumner. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Instead of paying Mr. Dudek for the feathers, you 
paid Mr. Mallec, who was an inspector for the Chicago Poultry 
Board? 

Mr. Sumner, I got it through his recommendations. 

Mr. Kennedy. You paid him over a period of 8 or 9 years some 
$24,000, for just referring you to some place where you could get 
feathers ? 

Mr. Sumner. That is what I was paying him, a little commission, 
for what he would send me over. 

The Chairman. How did you figure the commission ? 

Mr. Sumner. Well, the man comes over and he says he has some 
business for me if I want to buy some feathers, and I said yes. 

The Chairman. How much did you figure the commission? On 
what basis did you determine what the commission was to be or how 
much you were to give a check for ? 

Mr. Sumner, It all depends on what he used to come in. One 
week he would come in with more or less. 

The Chairman. Sure. It depends on whether he brought one 
feather or two feathers, I am sure. How much per feather would 
you pay as commission ? 



17776 miPROPER activities in the labor field 

Mr. Sumner. He was getting $40, $50 ; I don't know what it used 
to come out ; $60. 

The Chairman. You had some basis of arriving at what you were 
paying him, did you not ? Were you paying him by the pound ? 

Mr. Sumner. Whatever he used to come in ; yes. 

The Chairman. Whatever came in, did it come in by the pound 
or by the gallon ? 

Mr. Sumner. It came in in cans. 

The Chairman. Came in what ? 

Mr. Sumner. In drums. 

The Chairman. How much a drum did you pay ? 

Mr. Sumner. Well, I used to pay whatever I have to work the 
stuff out. There was a lot of garbage in the stuff, some chickens in 
there. I used to pick them out. Then I used to pack them back 
in cans. 

The Chairman. When you got that picked out, what did you pay ? 

Mr. Sumner. We can't sell no garbage. 

The Chairman. All right, I guess you can't sell that. I am talking"^ 
about the feathers. You got some other stuff with it, but you got 
that stuff out. How much did you pay for the feathers ? 

Mr. Sumner. I used to pay him by the week. 

The Chairman. You didn't pay by the feather, but by the week? 

Mr. Sumner. Whatever he would bring me in a week's time, I 
would figure out what I would get out of it and then I would give 
liim out of it. 

The Chairman. Take a look at these photostatic copies of checks 
and see how much you paid. 

(The documents were handed to the witness.) 

The Chairman. There are 35, 40, or 50 checks there. Take a look 
througli them and see if they look like the checks you gave. 

Are you satisfied ? 

Mr. Sumner. Yes ; those are all mine. 

The Chairman. Well, glance through a little further, down in the 
middle and around. Spot check it. 

Do those appear to be checks that you gave for the feathers to 
Mr. Mallec? 

Mr. Sumner. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. They may be made exhibit No. 2. 
(Checks referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 2" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee. ) 

Mr. Kennedy. You knew, in fact, Mr. Sumner, you knew in fact 
that this money was going to Mr. Glimco, did j'ou not? 

Mr. Sumner. I wouldn't know where it was going. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had discussed that, and you and ISIr. Dudek 
knew it, that this was going to be the new arrangement, rather tlian 
pay Joe Glimco directly, as had been done through Mr. Nelson. It 
was now going to be done through ]\Ir. IMallec ? 

Mr. Sumner. I didn't know nothing about it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You knoAv this is a strange arrangement, that you 
take a third party and pay him for the feathers Mr. Dudek was 
delivering? 

Mr. Sumner. I didn't know whether it was a strange party. Wlien 
he sold them out, Mr. Mallec came over to me and he recommended 
me he was going to send me over the feathers. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 17777 

IVIr. IvENNEDY. There is no problem. They would have been <rlad 
to have tliis business — Mr. Dudek. Mr. Nelson had been selling the 
feathers to you. JVIr. Dudek would have been <?lad to. You could 
have saved all of this money, if he was willin«^ to turn them over to 
you for free. 

Mr, Sumner. I didn't know that. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never had a conversation with him about it? 

Mr. Sumner. With who? 

Mr. Kennedy. With Mr. Dudek ? 

Mr. Sumner. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you mean you just paid out $24,000 when you 
could have saved that money? You know that doesn't make any 
sense. 

Mr. Sumner. "When he sold them, 1 didn't know Mr. Dudek was 
in there. Mr. Mallec, when he sold it, he came over to me, and he 
was the first one who came over to me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You knew Mr. Nelson had been bouf^lit out by Mr. 
Dudek ? 

^Ir. Sumner. Then I had to go see Mr. Dudek and he came along 
and to me I thought it makes no differences if he can get it for me. 

Mv. Kennedy. Without paying the commission you could have gone 
to him directly. 

Mr. Sumner. Well, I wouldn't know that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Of course you knew that. You are a businessman. 
You knew this was just a payback, a kickback, to Mr. Joey Glimco. 

Mr. Sumner. I wouldn't know where it was going. 

The Chairman. You knew it was a kickback ; didn't you ? 

Mr. SuiviNER. I gave it to jNIr. Mallec. 

The Chaieman. Well, you knew it was a kickback. 

Mr. Sutviner. Well, maybe it was. 

The Chairman. You knew it was ; didn't you ? 

Mr. Sumner. I didn't know nothing. Senator. 

The Chairman. You didn't want to know anything; is that right? 

Mr. Sumner. When he came over to me, I started off with him, and 
this is the way we have been going. TVliat he was doing with it, I 
don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. The reason you are saying this, and the reason the 
previous witness testified as lie did is because you are all scared ; are 
you not? 

Mr. SuiMNER. I am not scared. We are 35 or 40 years in business. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is obvious that there is something more to this 
than what you are telling. You wouldn't be paying commissions like 
that. There is no reason to be paying out $24,000. 

Mr. Sumner. T^Hiy wouldn't I, if I am in business and I am trj'ing 
to make a living, in the feather business, and a man comes over and 
t^lls me he is going to send them over to me, he can get the feathers 
for me, I don't expect liim to get it together for me for nothing. I 
have to give him something. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mallec is here. Can we call him? 

The Chairman. Come forward, Mr. Mallec. Be sworn. 

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. Mallec. I do. 



17778 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN MALLEC, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 

J. I. BOLGER 

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

Mr. Mallec. My name is Jolm Mallec. I live at 2246 West 24th 
Street, Chicago, 111. 

The Chairman. Mr. Mallec, what is your business ? 

Mr. Mallec. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly be- 
lieve my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Here is a fellow who just preceded you on the 
witness stand who is in the feather business. It didn't seem to in- 
criminate him any. He says he has done business with you. Do you 
think it may be self-incriminating to admit that you have done bus- 
iness with Mr. Sumner ? 

Mr. Mallec. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly be- 
lieve my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you have a lawyer ? 

Mr. Mallec. Yes. 

The Chairman. That doesn't incriminate you, does it, to say that ? 

Mr. IMallec. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly be- 
lieve my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. The old broken record. 

All right, Mr. Lawyer, identify yourself. 

Mr. Bolger. J. I. Bolger, of the Chicago bar. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Mallec, you were an inspector for the Chicago 
Poultry Board, which I understand was a private organization 

Mr. Mallec. I respectfully decline to answer 

The Chairman. Wait a minute. 

Mr. Kennedy. From 1937 to the early part of 1957; is that right? 

Mr. Mallec. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And this poultry board inspected the live poultry 
which came into the Fulton Street Market ? 

Mr. Mallec. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. As I understand, Mr. Counsel, as an inspector he 
was some kind of an official working for the Government? 

Mr. Kennedy. No. 

The Chairman. What do you mean by the term "inspector" ? 

Mr. Kennedy. It is a chicken inspector, and as I understand it 
this is a board and a group that was set up b}'^ the people who sold 
chickens in Chicago to inspect chickens. 

The Chairman. It wasn't Government inspection, of any kind, 
municipal or State or otherwise? 

Mr. Kennedy. No. He was set up and being paid by that group to 
inspect the chickens as I understand it, the poultry. 

Is that right, you were ins])ecting the chickens? 

Mr. Mallec. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Tlie Chairman. How would it incriminate you to look at a chicken ? 

Is there anything incriminating about that, looking at a chicken? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17779 

Mr. JVIallec. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. In 1948 this business of Mr. Nelson's was sold to 
Mr. Dudek, and Mr. Nelson had, prior to that time, been kicking 
back or making these payments, first to Mr. Hanley and then to Mr. 
Glimco. It was decided at that time to change the arrangement, was 
it not, Mr. Mallec ? 

Mr. Mallec. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And from then on, the money was siphoned through 
you rather than through Mr. Dudek ; is that correct ? 

Mr. ^Iallec. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Sumner paid you the money and you in 
turn paid it over to Mr. Glimco, did you not ? 

]\Ir. Mallec. I respectfull}^ decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you made weekly trips, did you not, to the 
union headquarters and gave the money to Mr. Glimco in the union 
headquarters? 

Mr. jMallec. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. When Mr. Glimco was not present, you left an en- 
velope for him at the union headquarters ; isn't that right ? 

Mr. Mallec. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, that is the situation that went on for 
some years, through 1957, to a total of $24,000 or more. 

The Chairman. Mr. Mallec, I hand you here what is exhibit 2 in 
the testimony, a series of checks — I am talking to you ; pay attention 
to me, please, sir. 

I present to you this series of checks made exhibit 2, photostatic 
copies of checks. I ask you to examine them and state if you identify 
them as photostatic copies of checks that you received. 

( The documents were handed to the witness. ) 

The Chairman. I order you to look at the checks. 

Place the checks in front of the witness. 

I order you to examine those checks and state if you identify them. 

Have you examined the checks ? 

Mr. Mallec. I respectfully decline to answer 

The Chairman. Let the record show tliat he did examine the checks 
in the presence of everybody in this room, that he looked at them. 

Show him his signature, please, Mrs. Clerk. 

State if that is your signature. 

Mr. Mallec. I respectfully decline to answer 

The Chairman. Are you ashamed of your signature ? 

Mr. Mallec. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Where were you born ? 

Mr. Mallec. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are you an American citizen ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 



17780 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Mallec. Yes. 

The Chairman. Have you got a family ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Mallec. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Is it a wife and children ? 

Mr. Mallec. A wife. No children. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Mr. Kennedy. You are also known as Big John, are you not ? 

Mr. Mallec. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman, Can you answer any question other than those 
asked you about your family, without self-incrimination ? Can you 
answer any question about your business dealings, your life in that 
respect, without self-incrimination ? 

Mr. Mallec. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

If not, stand aside. 

Call the next witness. 

Have you any further questions of the witness Sumner ? 

TESTIMONY OF SAMUEL SUMNER— Resumed 

Mr. KJENNEDT. Have you anything to add to this ? 

Mr. Sumner. No, sir ; Senator. 

The Chahjman. Did you know you were dealing with that sort of 
character ? 

Mr. Sumner. I have known him for years 

The Chairman. Did you have any dealings with him that ought 
to incriminate him, any transactions of yourself with him that ought 
to incriminate him that you know of ? 

Mr. Sumner. I have been knowing him for years 

The Chairman. You have known him for years. I am asking you 
if there was anything in your transactions with him that you thing 
ought to incriminate him. 

Mr. Sumner. Wliat do you mean by that ? 

The Chairman. Reflect on him. 

Mr. Sumner. Well, I paid him for it. 

The Chairman. I know, but do you think that should reflect on 
him, the fact that you did business with him and you paid him ? He 
said he can't answer questions like that because it might incriminate 
him. 

Do you know what there was about it that might incriminate him ? 
You were in on the transaction. Wliat was it about your transactions 
that might incriminate this man ? Do you know ? 

Mr. Sumner. You can say that again. Senator? 

Tho Chairman. What was there about your transactions that might 
incriminate this man ^ He states under oath that the transactions he 
had with you might incriminate him, if he told about them. 

Mr. Sumner. I don't know what he has in his mind. I ain't got 
no idea. 

The Chairman. Do you know anything about them that you would 
regard as incriminating ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17781 

Mr. Sumner. I wouldn't know, because I never thought he was that 
kind of a — I don't know. 

The Chairman. "I never thought he was that kind of a — well, I 
don't know." 

Well, stand aside. 

Mr. Kennedy. Once he referred this company to you, why did you 
continue to pay him money for 8 or 9 years ? 

Mr. Sumner. Because I used to get it from him every week. 

Mr. KENNEDY. You could always go directly to the company. 

Mr. Sumner. But he is the one that recommended it to me. 

Mr, Kennedy. Let us even assume that he was the one that recom- 
mended them, even though you have been doing business with this 
company for many years, why couldn't you have gone to that company 
for the first week, and have given him $50 because he told you some 
place where he could buy feathers? 

Mr. Sumner. He came along the first one, Senator, and asked me, 
and I didn't want to go for anybody 

Mr. Ej:nnedy. He told you some place to buy feathers in the Ful- 
ton Market. You could have given $50. Why did you give him 
$24,000? 

Mr. Sumner. Well, every week 

Mr. KJENNEDY. You could have gone back the second week and 
found out if he had gotten the feathers the same place. 

Mr. Sumner. Well, we kept going that way 

Mr. Kennedy. How many drivers do you have? 

Mr. Sumner. Five. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Are they members of the Teamsters Union ? 

Mr. Sumner. I am, my brother, and me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You and your brother are ? 

Mr. Sumner. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have a contract with the Teamsters Union ? 

Mr. Sumner. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are your employees, your drivers, members of the 
Teamsters Union ? 

Mr. Sumner. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. They are not ? 

Mr. Sumner. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you never had any union trouble ? 

Mr. Sumner. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Nobody has tried to organize your drivers ? 

Mr. Sumner. No, sir. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Nobody has tried to bring them into the union ? 

Mr. Sumner. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. There, once again, Mr. Chairman, it shows the tieup 
of this operation, the Teamster official receiving the moneys, and then 
not trying to organize the drivers of the company, not attempting 
to get a contract. 

Mr. Sumner. My dad has been going that way, and I have been 
going. 

Mr. Kennedy. What local are you a member of ? 703 ? 

Mr. Sumner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that, again, is the same local, Mr. Senese and 
Mr. Smith ? 



17782 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Sumner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. They are the business agents. They never tried to 
organize you ? 

Mr. Sumner. I am paying them 

Mr. Kennedy. They never tried to organize your men ? 

Mr. Sumner. I am paying them the dues from me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat can your company do for you? How is pay- 
ing dues to the Teamsters Union helping you ? 

Mr. Sumner. Well, I had to belong to them, we all belong. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are they getting you better wages ? 

Mr. Sumner. What kind of wages ? 

Mr, Kennedy. Is the Teamsters Union getting you better wages ? 

Mr. Sumner. Tliey ain't getting me no wages. If I ain't doing no 
business, I got none. 

Mr. Kennedy. They are not helping you at all. The only people 
they can help are your employees. The only people who belong to 
the union are you and your brother, who do not need to belong to 
the union, and the only people who do not belong to the union 

Mr. Sumner. We are working on driving a truck, and he is driving 
a truck, and we have to belong to it so I belong to it. 

Mr. Kennedy. But the Teamsters Union cannot help you. 

Mr. Sumner. Like I say, if I don't do no business, they don't help 
me. 

The Chairman. In other words, you belong to them to keep them 
from hurting you ? 

Mr, Sumner. I wouldn't say that. 

The Chairman. Isn't that the only reason you belong, and no other 
on earth ? 

Mr. Sumner. They never threatened me, as far as that is concerned. 
They wanted me to join the union and I joined. 

The Chairman, As long as you are paying off, of course, they 
won't threaten you. What could you think would happen if you 
stopped paying off ? 

Mr. Sumner. I am paying off my dues. 

The Chairman, You are paying off to Mr. Mallec, too. 

Mr. Sumner. Well, I don't know about that, Senator. I paid Mr. 
Mallec. What he done with it, I don't know. 

The Chairman. You are not even kidding yourself when you testify 
to that. 

Mr. Sumner. Well, that is what it is. 

The Chairman, Exactly what it is, 

Mr, Kennedy. Mr. James Bell is a driver for you ? 

Mr. Sumner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Walter Hood ? 

Mr. Sumner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. John Allen ? 

Mr. SuMNFJt. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Andrew Allen? 

Mr. SuMNEJi. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Marvin Sumner? 

Mr. Sumner. That is my son. 

Mr. Kennedy. James Steele ? 

Mr. Sumner. No, sir, he is not working for me. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 17783 

Mr. Kennedy. He is not working for you. Leroy White? 

Mr. Sumner. Leroy ? Leroy is just a helper, no driver. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is he a member of a union ^ 

Mr. Sumner. No, sir. 

:Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Willie Smith '. 

Mr. Sumner. We ain't got no Willie Smith. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Lee Lewis? 

Mr. Sumner. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Does he work for you ? 

Mr. Sumner. He works for me, just for a helper, but he ain't work- 
ing now. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have about five drivers ; is that right ? 

]Mr. SuiiNER. Yes. We got six trucks. 

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

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Leo Nulty. 

The Chairman. Be sworn. 

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

Mr. Nulty. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF LEO C. NULTY 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Nulty, you have been doing some work as an 
investigator on the case involving Mr. Joey Glimco? 

Mr. Nulty. Yes, sir, that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. In the Chicago area ? 

Mr. Nulty. That is correct. 

Mr, Kennedy. Did you secure an affidavit from a witness, a woman 
who has some information in connection with Mr. Glimco ? 

Mr. Nulty. That is correct, j^es, sir, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have permission to 
read it. 

The Chairman. Do you have an affidavit? 

Mr. Nulty. Yes, sir. 

The Ch^virman. The affidavit may be inserted in the record in full 
at this point. You may read it for the information of the committee. 

Mr. Nulty. It is taken in the State of Illinois, Cook County. 

The Chairman. Just read the pertinent parts of it. 

Mr. Nulty (readmg) : 

I make this statement 

Mr. Kennedy. Not the first paragraph. 
Mr. Nulty (reading) : 

I was employed in the ofl5ce of the health and welfare fund of the Taxicab 
Drivers Union, Local No. 777, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, as 
claims adjuster from January 1053, until September 195.5. The office quarters 
of the health and welfare fund were located at the union headquarters on 
the second floor of the building at 1213 South Blue Island Avenue, Chicago, 111. 
At the time I started to work in January 1953, the health and welfare oflSce 
had been recently remodeled and no remodeling was done at the health 
and welfare office during the period that I worked there. From remarks 
I heard other employees make at the union hall I understood that the remodeling 
had been completed but a short time before at a cost of many thousands of 



17784 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

dollars, the exact amount I do not recall. Also employed at the health and 
welfare office while I was there were Laverne and Dorothy Murray, who are 
sisters. 

The Chairman. You have not come to the pertinent part as yet. 
Go ahead. 

Mr. NuLTY (readmg) : 

My duties consisted in handling the claims of union members for sickness 
and accident benefits. Most of these were processed and paid in a routine 
manner. If there was a question as to the validity of a claim the matter 
was referred to Mr. Joseph Glimco who made the final decision. 

I recall that while I was employed at the health and welfare offices, a Mr. 
Willie Manila used to come to see Mr. Glimco quite often. I thought Mr. 
Manila had something to do with the Triple A Chemical Co. Another person 
who came to see Mr. Glimco was John Mallec whom they called "Big John." 
It was my understanding he had something to do with the meat business. 
He used to come in about once a week. When Mr. Glimco was not iu on these 
occasions, Mr. Mallec would leave an envelope for him. I would put the 
envelope on Mr. Glimco's desk. I never knew what was in these envelopes or 
the purpose of Mr. Mallec's visits to Mr. Glimco. 

Do you want the rest of the affidavit ? 

The Chairman. It is going to be printed in full. 

(The complete affidavit follows :) 

Affidavit 
State of Illinois, 
County of Cook, ss. 

Mrs. Marilyn Nicolai, 2309 South 13th Avenue, Broadview, 111., being duly 
sworn, deposes and states : 

I make this statement at the request of Leo C. Nulty, known to me to be 
an investigator for the U.S. Senate Select Committee Investigating Improjjer 
Activities of Labor and Management. This statement is made of my own free 
will without any promises of favor or immunity. I have been informed and 
realize that this statement may be used and introduced into evidence in a 
public hearing before the U.S. Senate Select Committee Investigating Improper 
Activities of Labor and Management, and swear that the statements contained 
herein are true. 

I was employed in the office of the health and welfare fund of the Taxicab 
Drivers Union, Local No. 777, International Brotherhood of Teamsters as claims 
adjuster from January 1953 until September 1955. The office quarters of the 
health and welfare fund were located at the union headquarters on the second 
floor of the building at 1213 South Blue Island Avenue, Chicago, 111. At the 
time I started to work in January 1953 the health and welfare office had been 
recently remodeled and no remodeling was done at the health and welfare office 
during the period that I worked there. From remarks I heard other employees 
make at the union hall I understood that the remodeling had been completed 
but a short time before at a cost of many thousands of dollars, the exact amount 
I do not recall. Also employed at the health and welfare office while I was 
there were Laverne and Dorothy Murray who are sisters. 

My duties consisted in handling the claims of union members for sickness 
and accident benefits. Most of these were processed and paid in a routine 
manner. If there was a question as to the validity of a claim the matter was 
referred to Mr. Joseph Glimco who made the final decision. 

I recall that while I was employed at the health and welfare offices, a Mr. 
Willie Manila used to come to see Mr. Glimco quite often. I thought Mr. 
Manila had something to do with the Triple A Chemical Co. Another person 
who came to see Mr. Glimco was John Mallec whom they called "Big John." 
It was my understanding he had something to do with the meat business. He 
used to come in about once a week. When Mr. Glimco was not in ou these 
occasions, Mr. Mallec would leave an envelope for him. I would put the en- 
velope on Mr. Glimco's desk. I never knew what was in these envelopes or tlie 
purpose of Mr. Mallec's visits to Mr. Glimco. 

I was dismissed from my position in mid-September 1955. Mr. Joe Coca, then 
president of the union, called me in his office and advised me they were dis- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17785 

continuing my services as of that day. As there had been no complaints about 
the performance of my duities, I was mystified by this sudden turn of events 
and questioned him as to the reason for my sudden dismissal. He declined 
to give any reason. Miss Laverne Murray who was in charge of the health and 
welfare oflBce told me she knew nothing about the reason for my dismissal. 
Shortly thereafter I learned that Bernice Murray, a sister of Lavrene and 
Dorothy, had been employed to take my place. 

Signed: Marilyw Nicolai, 

Sworn and subscribed to before me this 6th day of November 1958. 
(seal) Ethel Appel, Notary PuMic. 

My commission expires November 12, 1960. 

The Chairman. Was that the pertinent part which you have read? 

Mr. NuLTY. Yes. There is one more paragraph. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was the pertinent part, which he just read. 

Mr. NuLTY. Yes. 

The Chairman. This girl saw ISIallec come in there and leave the 
envelope in ? 

Mr. NuLTY. That is correct. 

The Chairman. And he would come in once a week ? 

Mr. NuLTY. That is correct. 

Mr. Ejennedy. Mr. Chairman, she would have been a witness, but 
she has a baby child and it was impossible for her to leave. We took 
the affidavit from her in lieu of that. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Is there anything further ? 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. The last witness is Mr. Senese. 

The Ch AHUM an. Mr. Senese, come forward, please. 

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. Senese, I do. 

TESTIMONY OF DOMINIC SENESE 

The Chairman. May I see the paper you have in your hand, please? 

What is your name ? 

Mr. Senese. My name is Dom Senese. 

The Chairman. What is your residence ? 

Mr. Senese. 35th Street and Myers Road, Hinsdale. 

The Chairaian. What is your business ? 

Mr. Senese. I respectfully decline to 

Senator Goldwater. He can have it in just a minute. 

The Chaiicsian. Go ahead. 

Mr. Senese. I respectfully decline to answer for it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. May attempt to incriminate you ? 

Mr. Senese. May tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you mean you are engaged in some business you 
can't identify or acknowledge without possible self-incrimination ? Is 
that what you are saying ? 

Mr. Senese. I respectfully decline to answer the question because it 
may tend to incriminate me. 



17786 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. I will order you to answer it. I will ask you again. 
Do you honestly believe that if you stated the business in which you are 
engaged, or your profession or occupation, that such a truthful answer 
thereto might tend to incriminate you ? Do you honestly believe that ? 

Mr. Senese. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you waive counsel ? 

Mr. Senese. Yes. 

The Chaiiuvian. Then I order and direct you to answer the question 
of whether you honestly believe that if you gave a truthful answer to 
the question of what is your business, occupation, or profession 

Mr. Senese. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
gromid that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. The Chair, with the permission of the committee,, 
orders and directs you to answer the question. 

Mr. Senese. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Since you have no attorney, the Chair will admon- 
ish you that I am of the opinion, and I think the committee is of the 
opinion, that you are subjecting yourself to contempt proceeding. 

You have to state, in my judgment, and I believe that is the judgment 
of the committee, that you honestly believe that a truthful answer to 
a question might tend to incriminate you. Otherwise you would have 
no right to invoke the fifth amendment. I am giving you that 
admonition. I will leave it up to you. 

I do not want to take any advantage of you because you do not 
have counsel here. I think under the law you are required to state 
that. If you want to invoke the fifth amendment, that is. Other- 
wise, I do not think you can capriciously invoke it. 

I want to make this very clear to you before we proceed further. 
You can answer the question of whether you honestly believe, and 
the Chair orders and directs you to answer the question, with the 
approval of the committee, whether you honestly believe that if you 
gave a truthful answer to the question, what is your business, occupa- 
tion or profession, that a truthful answer might tend to incriminate 
you. 

That is the question. 

Mr. Senese. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Again the Chair warns you, and admonishes you, 
that this order and direction of the committee to you to answer the 
question continues throughout the time that you remain on the witness 
stand. 

You may change your mind any time while you are here, but if you 
fail to change your mind and fail to respond and refuse to respond, 
and leave the witness stand in that way, then it will be the duty of 
the committee to take action thereon. 

I can say to you now that it will be my judgment that the com- 
mittee will cite you for contempt. 

Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I\Ir. Senese is business agent and 
a vice president of local 703, which operates in the Fulton Street 
market area. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17787 

The Chairman. That is our information ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. 

Is that correct ? 

Mr. Senese. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you honestly believe that if you gave a truth- 
ful answer to that question, that a trutliful answer thereto might 
tend to incriminate you? 

Mr. Senese. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. With the permission of the committee, the Chair 
orders and directs you to answer the question. That order will con- 
tinue. That direction will continue throughout the time you remain 
on this witness stand. 

Proceed, ]Mr. Kennedy. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Senese has already been identified, and there 
will be some testimony in connection with him at a later time; he has 
already been identified as one of those who participated in the beating 
of Mr. Thieme, and he has also been identified, Mr. Chairaian, as the 
business agent active in local 703, which covers the Fulton Street 
market, which is responsible for not organizing the drivers of the 
previous witness. 

I would like to ask you, Mr. Senese, first, if it is correct that you 
participated in the beating of ]\[r. Thieme, that you held his arms 
while the other business agent, Mr. Smith, hit him over the head with 
a bottle. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. Senese. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Just a moment. 

Do you honestly believe that if you gave a truthful answer to that 
question, that a tnithful answer thereto might tend to incriminate 
you ? 

]Mr. Senese. I respectfully decline to ansAver the question on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. The Chair, with the approval of the committee, 
orders and directs you to answer the question, and that order and 
direction will continue throughout your presence on the witness stand. 

Proceed, ISIr. Kennedy. 

jNIr. Kennedy. Mr. Senese, then would you tell us why the em- 
ployees and the drivers of Mr. Sumner have not been organized? 
Can you tell us that ? 

Mr. Senese. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds that mj answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you honestly believe that if you answered that 
question truthfully, that a truthful answer thereto might tend to in- 
criminate you ? 

Mr. Senese. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. The Chair, with the approval of the committee, 
ordei-s and directs you to answer that question, and the order and 
direction will continue to you throughout the remainder of your 
testimony. 



17788 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are not going to answer it ? 

Mr. Senese. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. You live, Mr. Senese — you have been a very close 
associate of Mr. Glimco. According to our infonnation, you reside 
in a home which is valued at between $70,000 and $80,000. 

Mr. Senese. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you tell us how you were able to purchase that 
home on your salary ? 

Mr. Senese. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you honestly believe that if you answered the 
question truthfully, that a truthful answer might tend to incriminate 
you ? 

Mr. Senese. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. With the approval of the committee, the Chair 
orders and directs you to answer the question, and the order and 
direction will continue throughout your testimony. 

Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, it is of some interest that his home 
is located in the center of three 5-acre tracts, one of these parcels 
being owned by Joey Aiuppa, who you will remember was involved 
in the Hotel and Restaurant Workers Union investigation, and was 
the one that was identified as the man who was responsible for ship- 
ping the machineguns in for Al Capone, and also for carrying ma- 
chineguns for Mr. Dillinger. 

He owns one side of you, and the other side is owned by Mr. Rocco 
Pintozzi ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Senese. I respectfully decline to answer the quastion on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Pintozzi's home was built by Mr. Frank 
Pantaleo ; is that also correct ? 

Mr. Senese. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Isn't it correct that Mr. Frank Pantaleo also built 
your home ? 

Mr. Senese. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it correct that Mr. Pantaleo also did work on 
the union headquarters ? 

Mr. Senese. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you honestly believe that if you answered that 
question truthfully, that a truthful answer thereto might tend to in- 
criminate you ? 

Mr. Senese. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. With the approval of the committee, the Chair 
orders and directs you to answer the question, and that order and 
direction will continue throughout your testimony. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17789 

Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. He was responsible, Mr. Pantaleo, was he not, for 
the construction work that was done at local 777 of the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Senese. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you honestly believe if answering that q^uestion 
truthfully, that a truthful answer thereto might tend to incriminate 
you? 

Mr. Senese. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. With the approval of the committee, the Chair 
orders and directs you to answer the question, and that order and di- 
rection will continue throughout your testimony. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Pantaleo, Mr. Chairman, will be a witness be- 
fore the committee, and will be questioned in connection both with 
the construction of Mr. Senese's home and some other work that he 
did, and as to how he got paid. 

Mr Senese, we have information, that you also have an interest in 
the Broadway Sheet Metal, Inc. ; is that right? 

Mr. Senese. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. IvJENNEDY. And involved also in that company is Mr. Victor 
Comf orte ; is that right ? 

Mr. Senese. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. IVENNEDY. jNIr. Comforte, Mr. Chairman, will also be an im- 
portant witness before this committee. 

Also in that company is Mr. Anton Moody ; is that right ? 

Mr. Senese. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to mcriminate me. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Isn't it correct that this company did some of the 
constiniction work at the union ? 

Mr. Senese. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell the committee how you obtained an 
interest in this company ? 

Mr. Senese. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Was a certain percentage or portion of the company 
turned over to you ? 

Mr. Senese. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Also 3'ou have an interest in the Vernon Farms Pro- 
duction Co.? 

Mr. Senese. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. ]Mr. Chairman, could I just call a member of the 
staff to place into the record the documentation that we have on this? 

The CiTAiR:\rAN. You may. 

Are you an American citizen, Mr. Senese? 

Mr, Senese. Yes. 

The Chairman. Are you married? 
3675ir— 59— pt. 49 7 



17790 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Senese. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds tliat my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you honestly believe that if you answered that 
question truthfully, that a truthful answer thereto might tend to 
incriminate you ? 

Mr. Senese. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You are ordered and directed to answer the ques- 
tion, by the Chair, with the approval of the committee. 

Mr. Senese. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are you a father? Do you have any children? 

Mr. Senese. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you honestly believe that if you answered that 
question truthfully, that a truthful answer thereto might tend to 
incriminate you ? 

Mr, Senese. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. The Chair, with the approval of the committee, 
orders and directs you to answer the question. 

Mr. Senese. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to incrimi nate me. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions of this witness? 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to recall Mr. Calabrese, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Mr. Calabrese, come forward, please. 

TESTIMONY OF ALFHONSE F. CALABRESE— Eesumed 

Mr. Kennedy, Could we put the names into the record in con- 
nection with these two companies? We will be going into detail 
tomorrow. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have we found that Mr. Senese has other interests 
other than the union ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes ; that is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell us the names of the two companies? 

Mr. Calahrkse. Mr. Senese was a partner in the Broadway Sheet 
Metal with Mr. Victor Comforte and Mr. Anton Moody. Kecently 
they incorporated. In the process of incorporating all three are stock- 
holders in this Broadway Sheet Metal Workers, Inc. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who is Mr. Victor Comforte ? 

Mr, Calabrese. Mr. Comforte is one of the partners. In the earlier 
days lie liad a reputation of being with unions, and was involved in 
some labor slugging. He has been with the Broadway Sheet Metal 
since 1950, when it was first taken over by them and Mr. IMood3\ 

Mr. Kennedy. AVhat is the other company that we find he is inter- 
ested in ? 

Well, ti)ey did some work for local 777, is that right, the Broad- 
way Sheet Metal ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes, they did. 

IVfr. Kennedy. We Avill be getting into these figures later on. Wliat 
was the other company he was interested in ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17791 

Mr. Calabrese. Vernon Farm Products. Partners in this are Mr. 
Frank Pantaleo, Mr. Victor Comforte, Frank Senese and Sadie 
Senese. She is Dominic's wife. 

Senator GoLDWATER. "Wlio is Frank ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Mr. Senese can tell you better than I. I think it 
is his brother. 

Tlie Cii AiR^rAN. Have you a brother, Mr. Senese ? 

Mr. Senese. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Have you a father and mother ? 

Mr. Senese. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is that company ? 

Mr. Calabrese. They are in the wholesale egg business in the Ful- 
ton Street market. 

Mr. Kennedy. So as well as being a union official in the Fulton 
Street market, you also have a company there, is that right, Mr. 
Senese ? 

Mr. Senese. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You have heard the testimony, Mv. Senese, You 
have heard the testimony of Mr. Calabrese regarding your interests in 
certain businesses or projects. Do you wish to make any statement 
about it, to make any correction, if there is any error in tlie informa- 
tion the committee has as stated by ]Mr. Calabrese? 

Mr. Senese. I respectfully decline 

The Chairman. I don't care whether you answer or not. I am just 
giving you an opportunity to make any correction if you care to. I 
don't care whether you care to answer it or not. But I am giving you 
the opportunity. 

Do you want to make any correction ? 

Mr. Senese. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You can say "No." That is what you are saying, 
in effect. No, you don't want to give any answers, you don't want to 
make any correction, period. Let the record stay as it is. You are 
the only one that can correct it at this moment. 

Are there any further questions ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Calabrese, also from an examination of his 
record, do we find that he is also associated with some of the mider- 
world figures in Chicago ? 

]Mr. Calabrese. Information we have is that Mr. Senese is the 
brother-in-law of Anthony Accardo. 

The Chairman. Anthony who? 

Mr. Calabrese. Accardo. 

The Chairman, Mr. Senese, do you want to make any comment 
about that? 

Mr. Senese. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you honestly believe that if you answered that 
question truthfully that a truthful answer thereto might tend to in- 
criminate you ? 



17792 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Senese. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Allri^ht. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. That will be all for now, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. The committee will stand in recess until 10 :30 in 
the morning. The morning session tomorrow will be in room 318, the 
caucus room, in the Old Senate Office Building. 

(Members of the select committee present at time of recess : Sena- 
tors McClellan and Goldwater.) 

(Whereupon, at 4 :15 p.m. the select committee recessed, to reconvene 
at 10 :30 a.m., Thursday, March 12, 1959, in room 318, Senate Office 
Building.) 



INVESTIGATION OF OIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 1959 

U.S. Senate, 
Select Committee on Iimproper Activities 

IN" THE Labor or Manageivient Field, 

Washington^ D.O. 

The select committee met at 10 :30 a.m., pursuant to Senate Resolu- 
tion 44, agreed to February 2, 1959, in the caucus room, Senate Office 
Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select com- 
mittee) presiding. 

Present : Senator John L, McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas ; Sena- 
tor Kai'l E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; Senator Sam J. 
Ervin, Jr., Democrat, North Carolina ; Senator Frank Church, Demo- 
crat, Idaho. 

Also present : Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel ; Alphonse F. Cala- 
brese, investigator; James F. Mundie, investigator; Jack S. Balaban, 
investigator; John D. Williams, investigator; Ruth Y. Watt, chief 
clerk. 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

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

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy, call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I would like to call a member of the 
staff, Mr. Balaban. 

The Chairman. Come forward, please. 

Mr, Kennedy, And Mr. Williams also. 

The Chairman. Be sworn, gentlemen. 

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, Williams, I do, sir. 

Mr, Balaban, I do, sir, 

TESTIMONY OF JACK S. BALABAN AND JOHN D. WILLIAMS 

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

Mr. Balaban. Jack Balaban. I am with the U.S. General Account- 
ing Office ; investigator. 

The Chairman. For how long ? 

Mr. Balaban. I have been with the General Accounting Office for 
25 years. 

The Chairman. You have been on loan to this committee since it 
began its investigations ? 

17793 



17794 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Balaban. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The next witness ? 

Mr. Williams. John Williams. I am a staff auditor with the U.S. 
General Accounting Office for about 18 years. I am on loan to this 
committee. 

The CHAiRMAisr. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Balaban, you were with the Senate Subcom- 
mittee on Investigations prior to that time for about 2 years ; is that 
right? 

Mr. Balaban. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you have been with this committee and its prede- 
cessor for about 4 years? 

Mr. Balaban. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Balaban, you have the records, and have ex- 
amined the records, in connection with the erection of a home for 
Mr. Joseph Glimco; is that correct? 

Mr. Balaban. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell us what those records reveal as to 
the cost of the home? 

Mr. Balaban. The home was constructed by Mr. Pantaleo. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Frank Pantaleo ? 

Mr. Balaban. Frank V. Pantaleo. 

Our early understandmg was that it was a joint venture between Mr. 
Pantaleo and Mr. Glimco. But the records show that Mr. Pantaleo 
sold the house to Mr. Glimco for $44,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was also an $18,000 mortgage that was taken? 

Mr. Balaban. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was an $18,000 mortgage from a bank which was 
advanced to Mr. Glimco to help him pay for the purchase of the home ; 
is that right? 

Mr. Balaban. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. This house is at 1215 North Oak Park Avenue, Oak 
Park, 111.? 

Mr. Balaban. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And it was purchasesd on October 7, 1953 ; is that 
right ? 

Mr. Balaban. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. In whose name was this house registered ? 

Mr. Balaban. There was a trust agreement, and the beneficiaries 
of that trust agreement were Mr. Joseph P. Glimco, and Miss Laverne 
Murray. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who is Miss Laverne Murray? 

Mr. Balaban. Miss Laverne Murray is Mr. Glimco's secretary in 
the health and welfare fund of local 777. 

Mr. Kjinnedy. And she gets paid by the health and welfare fund ? 

Mr. Balaban. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. She gets salary from them ? 

Mr. Balaban. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. For a period of time she was also being paid by the 
union; is that right? 

Mr. Balaban. That is correct. 

Mr, Kennedy. This house was sold around July of 1956; is that 
riffht? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17795 

Mr. Balauax. That is correct, sir. To Peter Pappas. 

Mr. Kknxedy. P-a-p-p-a-s? 

Mr. ]i\LAiiAX. Tliat is correct, sir. 

Mr. IvEXXEDT. Who is Mr. Peter Pappas? 

Mr. Balabax. Mr. Peter Pappas was at that time a part-owner of a 
restaurant in Chicago known as the Kanger Kestaurant. It was on 
North Avenue in Chicago. 

Mr. Kexxedy. A restaurant frequented by Glimco? 

Mr. Balabax. By Glimco and others. 

Mr. Kexxedy. They sold the house for some $40,000 ; is that right ? 

Mr. Balabax'. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kexxedy. And they received checks for that house? 

Mr. Balabax. Tliey did. 

Mr. Kexxedy. What happened to that money? 

Mr. Balabax. The checks went from the bank that Mr. Pappas 
dealt with to the Pioneer Trust Co., the bank that Mr. Glimco and 
Miss Laverne Murray dealt with. So what happened was that the St. 
Paul Federal Savings Bank, Pappas' bank, issued two checks, one for 
$15,069.97, and one for $16,723.02, and they were turned over to the 
bank because they were holding the property in trust. The bank, in 
turn, turned the two checks over to Mr. Glimco and Miss Laverne 
Murray. They took the checks to a bank where Mr. Pantaleo dealt, 
and they endorsed the two checks, which we have here. We have 
photostatic copies of the two checks here. They endorsed the checks 
and Mr. Pantaleo cashed them for them, and Mr. Glimco and Miss 
Murray must have obtained the proceeds from the two checks. 

Mr. Kexxedy. The checks, in any case, were turned into cash by 
Mr. Pantaleo ; is that right? 

Mr. Balabax. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairmax'. The checks to which Mr. Balaban has testified may 
be made exhibit No. 3. 

(Checks referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 3" for reference and 
may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairmax". Are there more than one check ? 

Mr. Balabax. There are two checks. 

Mr. Kexxedy. During approximately the same period of time, Mr. 
Balaban, was there construction work going on at the union head- 
quarters, local 777? 

Mr. Balabax. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kexxedy. Who was doing that construction work? 

Mr. Balabax. The renovations were done by Mr. Frank V. Pan- 
taleo, who at one time operated as Frank V. Pantaleo & Co. 

ISIr. Kex'xedy. That is the same gentleman ? 

Mr. Balabax'. That is the same gentleman who built this house for 
Mr. Glimco and Miss Murray. 

Mr. Kexxedy. How much money Avas paid by local 777 to Mr. 
Frank Pantaleo for this construction work? 

Mr. Balabax-. We will have the exact figures. It was approxi- 
mately $85,000. 

Mr. IvExxEDY. $85,325 ? 

Mr. Balaban. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kexxedy. That was for remodeling the union building? 



17796 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Balaban. That is right, 

Mr. Kennedy. Those checks were issued during the period of De- 
cember 8, 1952, to December 18, 1953 ; is that right? 

Mr. Balaban. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Most of that money was issued between December 8, 
1952, and April 24, 1953 ; is that right ? 

Mr. Balaban. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. In fact, all but $10,710 of the sum was issued during 
that period of time ? 

Mr. Balaban, That is right, sir. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. So some $74,615 was paid to Pantaleo between De- 
cember 8, 1952, and April 24, 1953 ? 

Mr. Balaban, That is right, sir. 

We have a schedule here, sir, that sets forth just how these pay- 
ments were made. We have photostatic copies of all of the checks 
from local 777 to Frank V. Pantaleo and Frank V. Pantaleo & Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just in connection with this, the home that was 
built for Joey Glimco was built and paid for during the period April 
through October of 1953 ? 

Mr. Balaban. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have gone in to obtain the books and records of 
local 777, and we have specifically requested any invoices to sub- 
stantiate the payments of $85,000 plus to Mr. Pantaleo ; is that right? 

Mr. Balaban. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have we received those invoices to substantiate these 
payments ? 

Mr, Balaban, No, sir; we have never been able to get any of those 
invoices. 

Mr, Kennedy. We have not received any invoices to support the 
payment of the $85,000 ? 

Mr. Balaban. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And we have gone into whatever books and records 
they made available and there are no such invoices; is that right? 

Mr. Balaban. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have also gone to Mr. Pantaleo to have him 
produce for us the records to show that he performed this construc- 
tion work for the union, have we not ? 

Mr. Balaban. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he has refused to make any records available ? 

Mr, Balaban, That is correct. 

The Chairman, Do you find, in fact, any repair or construction 
work was done for the union ? 

Mr, Balaban. Yes, sir ; there was certain work that was done. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have an expert witness on that, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. I see. What is the point in this? Do you think he 
was considerably overpaid for the amount of work actually done? 

Mr. Balaban. Yes, sir ; we have reason to believe so. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have an affidavit from Mr. Thomas W. Havey, 
a certified public accountant from Chicago, 111. ? 

Mr. Balaban. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He made an audit of local 777-s books covering the 
period up to the year 1954 ; is that right ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17797 

Mr. Balaban. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have that affidavit there ? 

Mr. Balaban, We have it, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. I will return to that, Mr. Chairman. 

Do you have the schedule of payments made by the union ? 

Mr. Balaban. Yes, sir ; I do. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could we have those examined, jMr. Chairman, and 
made an exhibit for reference ? 

The Chairman. About how many checks are there? 

Mr. Balaban. About 15 checks. 

The Chairman. That covers a total of how many thousands of 
dollars ? 

Mr. Balaban. That covers $85,325. 

The Chairman. For a period of about 4 months ? 

Mr. Balaban, No; it is a period of almost a year, sir; from Decem- 
ber 8, 1952, to December 18, 1953. 

The Chairman. Nearly a year. 

Mr. Balaban. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Is that a list of the checks you have there? 

Mr. Balaban. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. The date and the amount ? 

Mr. Balaban. The dates and the amounts and the check numbers. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 4, 

(The list referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 4*' for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. Do you have the canceled checks ? 

Mr. Balaban. We have the canceled checks and the check stubs. 

The Chairman. The canceled checks may be made exhibit No. 4A 
and the stubs exhibit 4B. They may be in bulk, of course. 

(The checks and check stubs referred to were marked "Exhibits 4A 
and 4B," respectively for reference, and may be found in the files of 
the select committee.) 

Mr. ICennedy. Out of that amount there was $74,615 paid between 
December 8 and April 24 ? 

The Chairman. That is what I had in mind. The bulk of it was 
in a period of 4 months. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have the affidavit ? 

Mr. Balaban. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Present it to the chairman. 

(The document was handed to the Chair.) 

The Chairman. We have an affidavit from Mr. Thomas Ilavey, 
dated the 15th of January 1959, This affidavit may be printed in 
full in the record at this point. The pertinent parts of it are : 

I am a certified public account, licensed in the State of Illinois, with business 
address at 105 West Adams Street, Chicago, 111. 

As a result of an independent audit of the financial records of local 777, IBT, 
covering the period September 1, 1949, to August 31, 1954, I issued an un- 
qualified certificate as a certified public accountant. In connection with this 
certificate, I included a section in my report which may be identified as "Scope 
of Audit." In this scope section and in connection with the audit of cash dis- 
bursements, there appears the following statement : 

"We examined bills and invoices in support of all disbursements of $100 or 
more, with the exception of agents' expenses as shown on schedule 4." 



17798 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

This affidavit will be printed in the record in full. 
(The complete affidavit is as follows :) 

Affidavit 
State of Illinois, 
County of Cook, ss: 

Thouias Havey, 9441 South Winchester Avenue, Chicago, 111., being duly 
sworn, deposes and states : 

I make this statement at the request of John D. Williams and James F. 
Mundie, known to me to be investigators for the U.S. Senate Select Committee 
on Improper Activities in the Labor or Management Field. This statement 
is made of my own free will, without any promises of favor or immunity. I 
have been informed and realize that this statement may be read and used in 
a public hearing before the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities 
in the Labor or Management Field, and swear that the statements contained 
herein are true. 

I am a certified public account, licensed in the State of Illinois, with business 
address at 105 West Adams Street, Chicago, 111. 

As a result of an independent audit of the financial records of local 777, IBT, 
covering the period September 1, 1949, to August 31, 1954, I issued an unqualified 
certificate as a certified public accountant. In connection with this certificate, 
I included a section in my report which may be identified as "Scope of Audit." 
In this scope section and in connection with the audit of cash disbursements, 
there appears the following statement : 

"We examined bills and invoices in support of all disbursements of $100 or 
more, with the exception of agents' expenses as shown on schedule 4. 

(Signed) Thomas Havey. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, the point of this affidavit is that in 
the period of time that this certified public accomitant made the re- 
view of the records, all of these invoices were in existence and 
present. Those invoices since that time have disappeared from the 
union headquarters. The invoices, of course, would show whether 
the work that was being done was work that was being done on the 
union headquartei"s or work that was being done in other areas. 

The certified public accountant would not be examining them ex- 
cept to know that the invoices existed. 

Of course, when we began our investigation, we would be trying to 
determine whether the work was actually done at the union head- 
quarters or not. Those invoices, at least since the time of tliese 
certified 

The Chairman. In other words, the accountant obviously found 
invoices supporting these expenditures, that is, statements and bills, 
but he does not know whether the work that the invoices and the 
materials supplied was work actually done on the union property. 

Mr. Balaban. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. The question is, and what we were interested in, 
was whether bills submitted in the name of the union and to the 
union for supplies or for work and materials furnislied for construc- 
tion of the home of Glimco were charged to the union. 

Mr. Balaban. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. To refresh your recollection, Mr, Chairman, in the 
investigation that we made some 2 years ago into the activities of 
Mr. Beck, where we found that he was using the same contractor for 
the erection of his home in Seattle, Wash., he was also doing some 
construction work on the union headquarters. 

He was sending all the invoices for the construction of the work 
done on his home and his son's home to the union headquartei-s and 
then approving them and then paying them out of union funds. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17799 

The Chairman. Do you tliink apparently the same procedure was 
possibly followed here? 

Mr. Kennedy. The next witness will clarify it. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. There is just one other matter that I want to place 
into the record. 

We have some minutes of local 777, do we not ? 

Mr. Balaban. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. Minutes of its meetings ? 

Mr. Balaban. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. In connection with any improvements being done 
in the union headquarters ? 

Mr. Balaban. There is just a very slight note here about that 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you read the only reference in the union 
minutes to this work being done in the union headquarters? 

Mr. BaLu^ban. May I read the whole thing? It is very short. 

The Chairman. What is the date of the minute ? 

Mr. Balaban. The date of the minute is December 1, 1952, 

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

The CHAIR:^rAN. Is that the original minute ? 

Mr. Balaban. It is a photostatic copy of the original minute book. 

The Chairman. All right. It may be made exhibit No. 5. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 5" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. Now you may read it into the record. But I 
would like that photostatic copy preserved. 

Mr. Balaban. December 1, 1952. Regular meeting called to order at 8 p.m. 
Roll call : All officers present. 

Minutes of previous meetings read and approved. 

Busine.ss disposed of: 

A report to the members of the negotiations and the offers made by both 
companies. After reading off the gains made to the men, the new contract, 
Brother Marcie mentioned that due to taking in drivers' families into our 
welfare plan he recommends that an office be built into the hall providing more 
space for additional records regarding hospitalization only. After much dis- 
cussion on the question, I^eo Rothbart made a motion, seconded by Steve La 
Scola, to accept Brother Marcie's recommendation. The motion passed unani- 
mously. 

There being no further business, a motion to adjourn was adopted at 8 :15 p.m. 

It started at 8 and the whole meeting was over at 8 :15 p.m. 

(Signed) Robebt IVIakkov, 

Recording Secretary. 

That is all we have. 

The CiLMRMAN. Have you searched the minutes of the meetings 
during all this period of time to ascertain whether any other official 
action at their meetings was taken with respect to the improvements 
on this property? 

Mr. Balaban. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. This is the only entry into the minutes of this 
local with respect to these improvements that could have involved 
this expenditure? 

Mr. Balaban. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That provides for some additional space within 
the office for the files in connection with hospitalization only? 

Mr. Balaban. That is right, sir. 



17800 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. How much did it ultimately cost the union to get 
that? 

Mr. Balabax. $85,325. 

The Chairman. To provide space for the jfiles of the hospital wel- 
fare plan ? 

Mr. Balaban. There will be another witness that will go into that 
in detail. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, also may we make an exhibit for 
reference the documents in connection with Mr. Glimco's home? 

The Chairman. What file do you have there? Briefly identify 
the file you have with reference to Mr. Glimco's home, with respect 
to that building, so I can identify them sufficiently to make them an 
exhibit. 

Mr. Balaban. This is the land trust agreement, with the Pioneer 
Trust & Savings Bank. 

The Chairman. Just give a list of the different things you have. 

Mr. Balaban. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. In the order in which the list is given, thej^ will be 
made exhibit Nos. 6 A, B, C, D, and so forth. 

(Documents referred to were marked "Exhibits 6A, 6B, 6C" et seq., 
for reference and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. You can summarize some of those things. 

Mr. Balaban. There are the documents covering the purchase of 
the lot by Mr. Pantaleo, the mortgage payments by Mr. Glimco and 
Miss Murray on the $18,000 mortgage, the documents covering the 
sale of the property to Pappas, the purchase agreement where Glmico 
and Murray sold the property to Pappas, the real estate sales con- 
tract covering the sale of the property, the cover sheets covering the 
trust to Miss Murray and Mr. Glimco. 

The Chairman. Does that cover the documents ? 

Mr. Balaban. That will cover the documents, sir. 

The Chairman. They will be made exhibits as directed. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all from these witnesses, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, gentlemen. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. George Blum. 

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. Blum. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE BLUM 

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

Mr. Blum. My name is George Blum. My residence is 819 North 
Kenilworth Avenue, Oak Park, a suburb of Chicago. I have been an 
investigator and an adjuster of fire claims for the past 36 years. 

The CiiAmMAN. For what company ? 

Mr. Blum. It is my own organization the last 19 years. 

The Chairman. You have an independent service? 

Mr. Blum. The last 19 years independent, and prior to that with 
the bureau. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17801 

The ChairinLcVn. Thank you very much. 

Do you waive counsel ? 

Mr. Blum, I do. 

The Chairman. Proceed. Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kexxkdy. Mr. Blum, could you describe for the committee a 
little bit what you do, what your functions are '? 

Mr. Blum. When a fire loss occurs and a claim is made under an in- 
surance policy, the company assigns an adjuster to investigate the facts 
and to determine the merits of the claim and to work out an agreement. 

The Chairman. To assess damages or undertake to appraise the 
amount of loss ? 

Mr. Blum. Along with other facts, yes. 

In that work, I have to work with personal property and real prop- 
erty. Buildings are probably more frequent than personal property. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have been doing this for how many years now ? 

Mr. Blum. Thirty-six years. 

Mr. Kennedy. In connection with that, do you have to make ap- 
praisals of the value of property, the value of a wall, the value of 
floors, furniture? 

Mr. Blum. Yes. That is routine in our work. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. You have been doing this, as you say, for a large 
number of years : many, many years ? 

Mr. Blum. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you make any investigation of a fire in local 777 
of the Teamsters back in 1947 ? 

Mr. Blum. I did. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Would you relate that briefly to the committee? 
Wliat happened ? 

Mr. Blum. To the south of the union hall building was a three-story 
older flat building that was owned by the same interest which had a 
very serious burn. 

It was what we call adjoining and communicating, in that there 
were openings through into the imion hall for fire-escape purposes and 
other uses. That building burned so badly it was subsequently 
wrecked, and the site had become a parking area. 

As part of that w^ork, I had to go into the building, the union hall 
building, to look at claims for smoke and minor repairs. 

Mr. Ivennedy. At that time did you make an investigation of the 
union headquarters itself ? Did you go through and study the union 
headquarters ? 

Mr. Blum. I was in the building ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you were back there again in 1957; is that 
right? 

Mr. Blum. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was that in connection with ? 

Mr. Blu^f. There was a serious fire that originated on the fii-st floor 
of the union building and burnt the undei-side of the second floor, and 
due to firemen chopping through, had troubles on the second floor as 
well. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did you make this investigation in 1957 ? 

Mr. Blum. The fire was on January 4, and it was within the month. 
I wavS in the building about 4 days after the fire and then again early 
in February, to check out a detailed claim figure. 



17802 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. During the period of 1947-57 there had been some 
improvements made within the union headquarters ? 

Mr. Blum. I noted at once that there were new offices which had 
been built in an area that had been all meeting hall, auditorium, on 
my first trip. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have a map, Mr. Chairman, a chart. This was 
prepared by a staff member after consultation. But the witness can 
discuss the situation. 

Do you have a similar kind of chart ? 

The Chairman. I present to you a chart which purports, or a draw- 
ing which purports to show some of the arrangements in the meeting 
hall with respect to rooms that were in the hall, or constructed in the 
meeting hall. 

I hand it to you and ask you to examine it and state if you can 
identify it as representing the situation that you are about to testify 
to. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Blum. Yes, I can. I have one I made of my own that I can 
match it with. 

The Chairman. In other words, the one you have prepared your- 
self is comparable to the one that has been presented to you by the 
Chair? 

Mr. Blum. Yes. 

The Chairman. The one presented to you by the Chair, then, may 
be made exhibit No. 7. 

(Drawing referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 7" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee. ) 

The Chairman. As you testify, you may refer to it, if it compares 
with your own, so that we can keep it as a document as an official part 
of the evidence. 

Take exhibit No. 7, and from it testify with respect to the changes 
and other pertinent facts the committee is interested in. 

Mr. Kennedy. First let me ask you : Did you spend a considerable 
amount of time, and is it part of your responsibilities to spend a con- 
siderable amount of time studying the lay-out of an area where you 
have to make some investigations ? 

Mr. Blum. Yes. The claim was prepared room by room and sur- 
face by surface. It was necessary to check every bit of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you would become an expert on each room and 
on each surface in that room, is that right, whether it is the floor, the 
ceiling, or the walls ? 

Mr. Blum. I become familiar with it all ; yes. 

Mr. Kjennedy. Then you have to go over that subsequently in detail 
as to the damage that might have been caused so that you have a full 
knowledge and information in connection with each room or each 
area? 

Mr. Blum. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Getting into the overall figures, you were contacted 
by a member of the staff of the committee ; is that right ? 

Mr. Blum. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you were requested to make an appraisal as to 
what improvements had been made from the year 1947 to 1957, when 
you went back in to make this fire adjustment; is that right? 

Mr. Blum. That is correct. 



UVIPROPER ACTR'ITIBS IN THE LABOR FIELD 17803 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell the committee what your instruc- 
tions were by a member of the staff ? 

Mr. Blum. I was asked to prepare from my notes, my drawing, and 
my recollection of the place, an estimate of the cost of preparing the 
new rooms that I noted in my second visit, and any new work done on 
the second floor. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were there any further instructions as to how it 
should be prepared ? 

Mr. Blum. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Any instructions as to whether it should be done on 
a~generous basis ? 

Mr. Blum. It was asked that I resolve all doubts on the generous 
side ratlier than the skimpy side ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. As far as the union was concerned, as far as the 
expenditures were concerned ? 

Mr. Blum. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy, Based on that, and giving a generous appraisal, can 
you tell us what the cost of the readjustments on that floor would have 
been, in your estimation ? 

Mr. Blum. Observing that request, I prepared an estimated cost of 
doing the new construction and the new decorating and the new work 
of $26,8 )3 on the second floor. 

The Chairman. Did you more or less itemize it in your statement 
of it? 

Mr. Blum. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you have before you a copy of your worksheets 
in arriving at these figures? 

Mr. Blum. I do. 

The Chairman. A copy of what the witness testifies — I hand you 
here what I understand to be a copy. Do you have it before you ? 

Mr. Blum. Yes. 

The Chairman, Is that true and correct according to your best 
judgment? 

Mr. Blum. I have not checked it against my original. The total is 
the same ; yes. I have not read the details, but the total figures are the 
same as mine. 

The Chairman. All the figures are the same as yours ? 

Mr. Blum. The total figure is identical. 

The Chairman. Make a brief comparison so you can satisfj' your- 
self that it is correct. 

Mr. Blum. All the figures appear to match. 

The Chairman. It may be made exhibit No. 8, 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No, 8" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. I will come back to that, but what I wanted to ask 
you was this: In addition to the $26,000-plus, were there certain 
other improvements that you noted within the union headquarters? 

Mr, Blum, I saw some evidence of new work on an office on the 
first floor which, in its finish, could be identified as similar to that 
upstairs. There was also work done on the heating plant, the heating 
system, 

Mr. Kennedy. "What would you estimate the cost of the work done 
on the first floor, generously ? 



17804 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Blum. On the first floor? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Blum. I haven't made an estimate, but if I had to, I would 
say between $1,500 and $2,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the heating plant, again, generously, and the 
basement ? 

Mr. Blum. That is a little more difficult. But I would say ^wssibly 
$6,000 or $7,000. There were new valves, a new oil burner, as I i:ecall 
it, and possibly a new boiler that had been installed. 

Mr. Kennedy. So analyzing this on a very generous basis, as far as 
the expenditures that were made, you would come up to a figure of 
some $35,000 ; is that right ? 

Mr. Blum. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. $35,803; just under $36,000. That would be for 
these improvements th;^t were made in the union headquarters during 
the period of 1947 to 19 7? 

Mr. Blum. I couldn't say that that was entirely what I had done. 
That is the new work that I saw evidence of at the time of my visit. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was the maximum work that could have been 
done ? 

Mr. Blum. Yes. Wlien it was done, I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, of course, we are referring just to a 
year's period, so we are again giving them the benefit of the doubt 
that all of this work that was done during this period of time of 1947 
to 1957 was done by Mr. Pantaleo during the period 1952-53, for 
which he was paid some $85,000. 

But giving him a generous estimate on all the construction work 
that was done within the union headquarters, and assuming that it 
was all done by Mr. Pantaleo during the period 1952-53, the most 
that we can come up with, according to this expert in the field, is some 
$36,000, which of course, leaves some $50,000 unaccomited for. 

The Chairman. From the time you were in there in 1947 and back 
in there in 1957, from the testimates you made at the time, the work 
you did in appraising the situation, you found that at most, about 
$35,000 to $36,000 would cover all improvements or changes that 
had been made during that 10-year period ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Blum. Yes. 

The Chairman. That is the way you have testified as I miderstand 
you. 

Mr. Blum. Yes. 

The Chairman. In other words, you do not know when the changes 
were made, but they were made sometime within that 10-year period? 

Mr. Blum. That is correct. For example, I have considered 
painting and decorating which possibly had been done within the year. 

The Chairman. In other words that might have occurred 

Mr. Blum. Rather than a new wall, you might say. 

The Chairman. But for all of that, you have made allowances, 
and you say it does not total in excess of $36,000? 
Mr. Blum. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Tliat is for the whole period. Now we find from 
their records that in a ])eriod of a year's time, thev spent about 
$85,000 ; whereas, you find only $36,000 worth in the period of 10 
years. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17805 

Mr. Blum. That is correct, apparently. 

The Chairmax. Is there anything further? 

Mr. Kennedy. How can you get it down so exactly, Mr. Blum? 

For instance, you have the floor here of 1,128 feet, at 55 cents. 
How are you able to get it and know that all the floors were being 
done, and that the volume of work was 1,128 feet? 

Mr. Blum. You are speaking of the second floor now ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Blum. Tliere was obviously a newer asphaltum tile floor 
tla-oughout the second floor in the meeting hall, in the offices, in the 
new offices, and in the old oflices. So I took that in on an area basis 
at the unit price. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about the offices that were built? How can 
you remember where new offices were constructed, for instance ? 

Mr. Blum. It was quite easy. 

Referring to your exhibit Xo. 7, tliere is a cross-hatched line that 
indicates a brick w^all running about midway through the office sec- 
tion. At the time of my first visit, there were no offices to tlie rear 
of that brick wall. The offices were all in the front, toward the 
street. At the time of my second visit, the offices were still in the 
front, but there was a new set of offices back of that brick wall. 
Everything was new back of that. 

Mr. Ivennedy. So you considered everything back of that brick 
wall in yom" appraisal ; is that right ? 

Mr. Blum. I considered all the construction as new there. In 
addition to tliat, I have estimated new trim and surface work on the 
older offices in the front — painting, new floor surfaces, and so forth. 

The Chairman. The chair hands you a photograph and asks you 
to examine it and state if you identify it. 

(The photograph was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Blum. Do you want me to identify that? 

The Chairman. Do you identify the photograph I have presented 
to you? 

Mr. Bluth. Yes. 

The Chairman. What is it? 

Mr. Blum. It is the street face of the building that we are talking 
about. 

Tlie Chairman. In other words, this is the building now that you 
have been testifying about, the street outside view of the building? 

Mr. Blum. Correct. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 8A. 

(Plioto referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 8A" for reference and 
may be foimd in the files of the Select Committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Would there be any purpose, so far as you are con- 
cerned, financially, for you to make a low appraisal of the construc- 
tion work that was done in the miion headquarters? 

Mr. Blum. No. 

jVfr. Kennedy. You have made a study of the records, wliich has 
taken you some time. You liave done that as a public service, is 
that con-ect — made this appraisal at the request of the committee as 
a public sen-ice ? 

Mr. Blum. Do you mean as opposed to an adjuster? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

36751— 59— pt. 49 8 



17806 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Blum. Yes, I was through with my work on the claim when 
Mr. Nulty approached me to do this. 

Mr. Kennedy. So it had nothing to do with your work? 

Mr. Blum. None at all. 

Mr. Kennedy. So this appraisal you have made has been made 
as a public service and there has been no financial interest in it what- 
soever so far as you are concerned ? 

Mr. Blum. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you considered in this appraisal a margin of 
profit, have you not, as far as the contractor is concerned? 

Mr. Blum. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And also overhead ; is that right ? 

Mr. Blum. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe that is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairivl^n. Are there any further questions ? 

If not, thank you very much. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Pantaleo. 

The Chairman. 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 
nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Pantaleo. I do. 

TESTIMONY OP PRANK V. PANTALEO, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
H. CLIFPORD ALLDER 

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

Mr. Pantaleo. Frank Pantaleo. I live at 1141 Fair Oaks, Oak 
Park, 111. 

The Chairman. What is your business or occupation, Mr. Pantaleo ? 

Mr. Pantaleo. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you have counsel ? 

Mr. Pantaleo. Yes. 

The Chairman. Counsel, identify yourself for the record. 

Mr. Allder. H. Clifford Allder, Washington, D.C. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Pantaleo, what we are interested in is this con- 
struction work that was done at the union headquarters for which you 
were paid some $85,000. According to the expert testimony of the 
previous witness, the construction work itself was only worth $35,000. 

Would you explain that to us ? 

Mr. Pantaleo. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell us why you were paid the extra 
$50,000? 

Mr. Pantaleo. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did that go in part for the construction of the home 
of Mr. Joseph Glimco ? 

Mr. Pantaleo. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer miglit tend to incriminate me. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIBS IN THE LABOR FIELD 17807 

Mr. Kennedy. You also did some of the construction work of Mr. 
Senese's home, wlio is another union official. Was that also to pay for 
the work done on his home ? 

Mr. Pantaleo. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have been in the construction business since 
1953 ; is that right? I am mistaken. Since 1949 ? 

Mr. Pantaleo. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And during 1953 you had space in the building that 
■was owned by local 777 ; is that right ? 

Mr. Pantaleo. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
Ibelieve my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was prior to your moving to your present 
address. At least for part of that time that you were in the head- 
quarters of local 777, you paid no rent to the union; is that right? 

Mr. Pantaleo. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Initially, according to the testimony of Cherry Nose 
'Gioe before the Kefauver committee in 1950, he states that he was 
in the construction business with you. Is that right ? 

Mr. Pantaleo. I respectfully dexjline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. He said he was a partner of yours. I refer to pages 
75 to 110 of his testimony, in part 5 of the Kefauver committee 
hearings. 

Mr. Pantaleo. I respectfully decline to answer, because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was from there, after you were a partner of 
Cherry Xose Gioe, that you moved into the union headquarters and 
had this arrangement or affiliation with Mr. Joey Glimco ? 

Mr. Pantaleo. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you make available to the committee any 
of the records of your company or of yours that indicate that you 
performed more than $35,000 worth of work on union headquarters? 

Mr. Pantaleo. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, this witness has received a subpena 
to make those records available. 

The Chairman. Where is the subpena ? 

Were you subpenaed, given a subpena to produce your records ? 

Mr. Allder. When, Senator ? Might we ask when ? 

The Chairman. I will have to get the original. I just thought 
maybe he would remember. 

Mr. Kennedy. April 23, 1958. 

Mr. Allder. I might state, Mr. Kennedy, later you put a subpena 
on the certified public accountant. I came over here with him and 
turned over the records. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is for whatever records this witness has, his 
personal records. 

Mr. Allder. They were the records in the hands of the auditor and 
there are no other records than those records. 



17808 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy, This witness has no other records than those records ? " 

The Chairman. Let us let the witness testify to that. I am per- 
fectly willing for counsel to make an explanation. 

Mr. Allder. I am trying to explain why, in answer to a subpena, 
he has not brought something here this morning; that is all, Senator. 

The Chairman. I understand, but I want to interrogate the witness 
about it. As I understand you, Mr. Counsel, after the subpena was 
served, you did bring such records as you had, as the witness had, and 
delivered them to the committee ? 

Mr. Allder. They were obtained from the auditor, Senator ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. In other words, you are contending that at the time 
the subpena was served, all of the records were in the hands of the 
auditor, and that this witness had no records ? 

Mr. Allder. No, sir ; with one exception. There were certain per- 
sonal records of his, not connected with the operation of the business, 
that were not in the hands of the auditor. We produced them here, 
pursuant to the subpena. 

I told Mr. Kennedy that they were here, but we would not surrender- 
them, that he would stand upon his privilege. It was a busy after- 
noon, and Mr. Kennedy excused him, subject to being recalled later on.. 
He was not brought to the witness stand. 

Now I think mistakenly today he has not brought those personal 
records with him. If given an opportunity, he will, but he will not 
turn them over to the committee but will stand upon his privilege. 

The Chairman. Let me ask the witness : Did you, in response to the 
subpena ordering you to produce your personal records, did you along 
with your counsel bring those records to the committee in response to 
the subpena? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Pantaleo. Yes. 

The Chairman. That was some time last year; is that correct? 

Mr, Pantaleo. I believe so. 

The Chairman. You did bring them and did deliver them, or bring 
them physically to the committee ? 

Mr. Pantaleo. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. But you declined to turn them over to the commit- 
tee because you invoked the privilege of the fifth amendment in taking 
the position that to do so might tend to incriminate you; is that 
correct ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Pantaleo. Yes. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Let me ask you : You don't have them with you today, those per- 
sonal records? 

Mr. Pantaleo. I do not. 

The Chairman. If you had them present, would you produce them 
to the committee ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Pantaleo. I stand on my privilege. 

Tlie Chairman. You would invoke the fifth amendment privilege 
against self-incrimination as to your personal records ? 

Mr. Pantaleo. I would. 

The Chairman. You would do that. I see. 

Mr. Pantaleo. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 17809 

The Chairmax. Well, in the meantime I might ask you another 
question or two. 

Did you enter into a conspiracy Avith Joseph Glimco, or with him 
and others, including ]Mr. Senese — did you enter into an agreement or 
conspiracy with him to use union funds to build houses for them ; in 
other words, to rob the union members of their dues money ? Did you 
do that? 

Mr. Pantaleo. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to inciiminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you want to deny that you did it, that you were 
a party to these crooked arrangements to rob these men who work, out 
of the dues money they paid into the union ? 

Do you want to take this occasion now, here in public, to deny that 
you did it ? 

Mr. Pantaleo. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. It may. You have been given the opportunity to 
deny that you did such a thing, haven't you ? 

Mr. Pantaleo. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. The record speaks for itself. You have been given 
the opportunity here now. Are you a crook, and are you engaged in 
crooked practices and activities in your work ? 

Mr. Pantaleo. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you want to deny that you are ? You are given 
the opportunity to. 

Mr. Pantaleo. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kemiedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. I just want to make sure that the record is clear. 

We don't have any records now in connection with the payments 
by the union to Mr. Pantaleo, or any of his companies, in connection 
with the construction work of the union headquarters. That is under- 
stood, is it not ? You are not proceeding under the assumption that 
we have any records in connection with that, as far as Mr. Pantaleo 
is concerned? 

Mr. Allder. I really don't know, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. I just wanted to make sure that it is understood. 
We received some records from the accountant which were the 
accountant's records, but we did not have any of the records of Mr. 
Pantaleo in connection with the union construction, or the work that 
was done at the union headquarters. 

Mr. Allder. If you say that is true, I know it is, Mr. Kennedy. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Pantaleo, Mr. Chairman, according to the tes- 
timony we had yesterday, also has an interest in the Vernon Farm 
Products, which is a business located in the Fulton Street Market. 

Would you tell us about that, Mr. Pantaleo? 

Mr. Pantaleo. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And involved in that is also Mr. Victor Comforte, 
who was a subcontractor in the work that was done at the union head- 



17810 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

quarters and who is one of the owners of the Broadway Sheet Metal 
Co.? 

Mr. Pantaleo. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr, Kennedy. Involved in both of these companies, Mr. Chairman, 
both Vernon Farm Products and the Broadway Sheet Metal Co., 
according to the testimony of yesterday, is Mr, Dominic Senese, who 
was the business agent of local 703. 

Isn't that correct ? 

Mr, Pantaleo. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr, Pantaleo attended the Plotfa banquet in Detroit 
with Mr, Joseph Glimco, Mr, Chairman, and the bill was paid by 
local 777 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. 

Isn't that right? 

Mr, Pantaleo, I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr, Kennedy, Can we have these documents in connection with 
that made an exhibit, Mr, Chairman, by Mr. Calabrese?' 

TESTIMONY OF ALPHONSE F. CALABRESE— Resumed 

The Chairman. Mr. Calabrese, you have been previously sworn? 

Mr. Calabrese. I have. 

The Chairman. I hand you here certain photostatic copies of ma- 
terial. Will you examine it and state if you identify it? 

Mr. Calabrese. These are photostatic copies of a voucher and hotel 
bills for the period April 21, 1956. These were obtained from the 
files of local 777. The voucher, which is dated April 24, 1956, is 
signed by George Marcie on the same date, and reads — 

Expenses for entire executive board for gas, parking, lunches, on way to 
Detroit and back, to James Hoffa testimonial dinner, held on April 20, 1956, 
money to be reimbursed to Connors, Coca, and Glimco, .$126.50. 

Attached thereto is a listing, an itemization, of charges made by the 
Hotel Statler, Detroit, Mich., for the period April 21, 1956, in the 
amount of $308.08. One of the group that is shown as being charged 
for a room is F. Pantaleo, April 21, 1956, $8.49. 

The Chairman, That may be made exhibit No, 9, for reference 
only. 

(Documents referred to were marked "Exliibit No. 9" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

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

The Chairman. Are you a member of that union ? 

Mr, Pantaleo, I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman, Why were your expenses paid to go to that Hoffa 
meeting? 

Mr. Pantaleo. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Is that the way they build up such a big attendance, 
go out and round up all the hoods, thugs, and crooks they can, and pay 
their expenses to get them to these meetings ? Do you want to answer 
that? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIBS IN THE LABOR FIELD 17811 

Mr. Pantaleo. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You may stand aside. 

Is there anything further ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, Mr. Chairman, but not of this witness. 

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Miss Laverne Murray. 

The Chairman. Miss Murray, come forward, please. 

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

Miss Murray. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF LAVERNE MUREAY, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
H. CLIFFORD ALLDER 

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

Miss Murray. My name is Laverne Murray. I reside at 439 North 
Central. 

The Chairman. Miss Murray ? Is it Miss Murray ? 

Miss Murray. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And, Miss Murray, what is your work or occupa- 
tion, please ? 

Miss Murray. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you have counsel ? 

Miss Murray. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Let the record show the same counsel appears for 
this witness as for the preceding witness. 

Miss Murray, do you honestly believe — are you conscientious about 
that — do you honestly believe that if you told what your profession 
is, what your work is, what your livelihood is, that it might tend to 
incriminate j'ou ? 

Are you honest about that ? 

(The witness conferred with her counsel.) 

Miss Murray. I do. 

The Chairman. You are ? I am sorry for you. 

Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

It is pitiful, pitiful. 

Mr. Kennedy. Miss Murray, you have been working for Mr. Glimco 
in the health and welfare office ; is that right ? 

Miss Murray. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And for a period of time, you were being paid both 
by the union and the health and welfare fund; is that ri^it? 

Miss Murray. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. One of our major interests in your testimony. Miss 
Murray, is in connection with the purchase of this home that was 
made in your name as well as in the name of Mr. Joseph Glimco, at 
the same time the work was being done at tlie union headquarters. 
The home was being constructed by Mr. Frank Pantaleo. Were 
union funds used in connection with the purchase of that home? 



17812 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Miss Murray. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Will you tell us anything about the purchase of that 
home in 1953 ? 

Miss Murray. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Were you working for the union at that time? 
Were you one of its employees ? 

(The witness confen-ed with her counsel.) 

Miss Murray. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Did you enter into a conspiracy or arrangement 
with these crooks and thugs and cheats to rob the iniion men who 
work and pay tlieir dues out of their just rights, and the money 
that they had put into their treasury? Did you enter into such an 
agreement and work with them to that end ? 

Miss Murray. I respectfully decline to answer because 1 honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. Mr. Chairman, we can place in by an investigator 
the figures as to how much money Miss Murray was making from the 
union welfare fund. 

I would also like to ask questions about some of the bills of the 
union. 

Your salary, Miss Murray, is $150 a week; is that right? 

Miss Murray. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you began your employment in March 1951; 
is that right ? 

Miss Murray. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are you married ? 

(The witness conferred with her counsel.) 

Miss Murray. I am not. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Are your father and mother living ? 

Miss Murray. They are. 

Mr. Kennedy. Miss Murray, under the union constitution, you are 
to be under bond ; is that correct ? 

(The witness conferred with her counsel.) 

Miss Murray. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it correct that you had difficulty obtaining a 
bond, and that ultimately it was canceled ? 

Miss Murray. I respectfully decline to answer because 1 honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you think it would incriminate you for you 
to have such a reputation that a bonding coni])any would not give a 
bond or security for your integrity and good conduct with respect to 
financial affairs? 

Miss MuRR.\Y. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 



nUPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17813 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr, Chairman, the fidelity bond with the Fidelity 
and Deposit Co., of Baltimore, Md., obtained through the Indianapolis 
branch, was canceled for IVIr. Glimco on May 15, 1956, shortly after it 
was obtained on February 10, 1956. 

Can you tell us why the bond was canceled ? 

Miss Murray. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that your fidelity bond was canceled on May 12, 
1958, because of nonpayment of premiums; is that right? 

Miss MuRR^\Y. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it correct that mitil the union, the international 
union, obtained a bond from Lloyds of London, both you and Mr. 
Glimco had no bond ? 

Miss Murray. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are you still working there at this office? 

Miss Murray. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Well, if you are, you and Glimco and the whole 
gang ought to be kicked out, you right along with them. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I would like to call Mr. Calabrese 
in connection with one of these bills. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Calabrese. You have been pre- 
viously sworn, Mr. Calabrese. 

TESTIMONY OF ALPHONSE F, CALABRESE— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Calabrese, did we find that Mr. Glimco mad© 
a trip to the Bel Air Hotel, Los Angeles, Calif.? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that trip charged to the union? 

Mr. Calabrese. It was. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Would you relate to the committee what the circum- 
stances were in comiection with that trip, and how much it cost the 
union ? 

Mr. Calabrese. We located bills to the union from the Hotel Bel 
Air in Los Angeles, Calif., addressed to Mr. J. Glimco, 1224 North 
Park Avenue, Oak Park, 111., dated July 2, 1953. The room number 
was 129-30. The amount, apparently the amount of the room, was 
$30. Below that is the number "1," indicating, apparently, one 
person. 

The charge shown on July 9, 1953, is $1,045.65. 

IVIr. Kennedy. Do we find from an examination of the records that 
that was paid for by the union? 

Mr. Calabrese. That was paid by the union, by union check No. 
11408. 

The Chairman. The hotel bill you referred to may be made exhibit 
No. 10. The check you are referring to may be made exhibit lOA. 

(The hotel bill and the check referred to were marked "Exhibits 
10 and lOA," respectively, for reference, and may be found in the 
files of the select committee.) 



17814 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Calabrese. It was dated July 9, 1953, payable to the Hotel 
Bel Air, $1,045.65, signed "George Marcie, Secretary-Treasurer, Jo- 
seph P. Glimco." 

Mr. Kennedy. Do we find this was a trip for Mr. Glimco and Miss 
Murray ? 

Mr. Calabrese. We caused an investigation to be conducted at the 
Hotel Bel Air, and the records of that hotel indicate, on the ledger 
account, a Mr. and Mrs. J. Glimco, 1224 North Park Avenue, Oak 
Park, 111., and a listing of the expenses from the period July 2 through 
July 10, 1953. The amount is identical with the check, $1,045.65, 
and a charge of $7.29 to the over-and-short account. 

The Chairman. To what ? 

Mr. Calabrese. To the over-and-short account. Apparently the 
check was made out on July 9, for $1,045.65, and covered all expenses 
except $7.29, which was charged off. 

The Chairman. What have you ascertained, that the bill actually 
covered two persons instead of one? Is that what it shows? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. You made some reference to this witness, Miss 
Murray. How do you identify, if you do, that she was there, the 
woman in the case ? 

Mr. Calabrese. I might state this, first of all : The ledger card in- 
dicates that there were two persons. The ledger card also indicates 
it is a Mr. and Mrs., with expenses of photographs of $40.97 on July 
9, beauty shop of $17 on July 9; photographs again on July 7 of 
$79, flowers on July 7, $25.88. 

Mr. Glimco's address at that period was 629 Selbourne Road, 
Riverside, 111. Miss Murray's address was 852 North AVashington 
Boulevard, Oak Park, 111. 1224 North Oak Park Avenue is the home 
of Mrs. Vincent C. Shay, who has lived there for the past 20 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is the address that was given ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes. 

We talked to Mrs. Shay, and she advised that prior thereto this 
was the home of Mr. William J. "Witt" Hanley, the boss of 703, 
prior to the day that Mr. Glimco came over and started his activities 
on the Fulton Street Market. 

Mr. Kennedy. So in substance, the correct address was not given 
in the registration ? 

Mr. Calabrese. It was not. 

Mr. Kennedy. iVn address of a friend of Mr. Glimco's was given ? 

Mr. Calabrese. An address of a person with whom he was familiar 
with and friendly with, yes. 

The Chairman. May I ask you at this point, Miss Murray, if there 
was any union business going on out there at that time that you know 
of? 

Miss Murray. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Calabrese. The check, with copies of Miss Laverne Murray's 
handwriting as obtained from the Suburban Trust & Savings Bank, 
Oak Park, 111., applications filed with the United States Fidelity & 
Guarantee Co., Baltimore, Md., containing her signature 

Mr. Kennedy. Anyway, we made a comparison. Just say we made 
a comparison. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIBS IN THE LABOR FIELD 17815 

Mr. Calabrese, Examples of her handwriting, as we have estab- 
lished them, were sent to the FBI for a comparison with the hand- 
writing on the check No. 11408. The FBI reported that tlie hand- 
writing submitted by the committee, exhibited ao:ainst the handwrit- 
ing on the face of tfie check, was identical with Miss Murray's. Ac- 
cordingly, by this identification, it would be apparent that Miss Mur- 
ray had to be at the Bel Air Hotel on July 9, 1953, to have written 
the exact amount for the payment of the bill. 

The Chairman. In other words, it appeared that the check was 
given there at the hotel for payment of the bill. In other words, there 
was no bill sent to the union and then the check sent back ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

The Chairman. The date of the check and the date it was deposited 
indicates that ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes. The date of the check is July 9. 

The Chairman. And the check is in the handwriting, according to 
the FBI, and according to the other records, of the witness Miss 
Murray ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes, with the exception of the signatures of 
Secretary -Treasurer George Marcia and the president, Joseph Glimco. 

The ink that Mr. Glimco signed his name with appears to be iden- 
tical with the rest of the handwriting that the FBI identified as Miss 
Laverne Murray's handwriting. 

The Chairman. Those docimients may be made exhibits 10 B and 
C, and so forth, keeping them all in one exhibit with separate letter- 
ing. 

(Documents referred to were marked "Exhibits lOB, IOC, et seq.", 
for reference and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Calabrese. There is one other aspect to this. The check 11408, 
dated July 1953, was apparently taken out of order, that is, from 
blank checks, from a book of checks. This check was pulled out, from 
the regular accoimt of 777. 

Mr. Kennedy. The check that was used to pay this hotel bill ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is right. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Evidently they had taken the checks with them in 
blank, signed in blank by one of the officers of the union. T\^ien they 
stayed at the hotel. Miss Murray filled in the name of the hotel, 
Mr. Glimco signed the check, and they paid this $1,000, or whatever 
the amount was, $1,000 plus, to the hotel for the bill ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Further evidence in connection with that is the fact 
that the check is out of order ? 

Mr. Calabrese. It is out of order. The cash expenditure for the 
month Jime 1953 has this check, 11408, listed, but they have an entry 
under column "To whom paid," "Entered on page 74." 

Page 74 is cash expenditures for the month of July 1953. There 
are items listed for the 24th, the 27th, the 31st, and then nnderneath 
that, on July 9, check No. 11408 to the Hotel Bel Air, "Entertainment 
expenses." 

The Chairman. Entertainment expenses? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. Tliat is what it was charged to — 
$1,045.65. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further? 



17816 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

If not, that last matter may be made a part of exhibit 10. 

Is there anything; further? 

Mr. KJENNEDY. And this trip, of course, was out of union funds? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes, that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was immediately after that, or during this period 
of time, that the home was constructed ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is right. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. In the name of Miss Murray and Mr. Glimco ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes. Miss Murray moved into it some time in 
October 1953. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Miss Murray moved into the home ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes. 

The Chairman. Do you mean Miss Murray moved into this home- 
we have been talking about ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes. 

The Chairman. Do you live in that house ? 

Miss Murray. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly" 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. Stand aside. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. I^nnedy. Mr. Comforte. 

The Chairman. Come forward, Mr. Comforte. 

Be sworn, please, sir. 

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

Mr. Comforte. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF VICTOR COMFORTE 

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

Mr. Comforte. Victor Comforte, 2956 Jerome, Chicago. 

The Chairman. What is your business or occupation, please, sir ? 

Mr. Comforte. Mr. McClellan, I respectfully decline to answer be- 
cause I honestly believe that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I will tell you, so many have appeared here and 
have said that, they are becoming quite convincing to me. I think you 
are engaged in such practices that you can't A^ery well talk about them 
without self-incrimination. I am pretty well convinced. 

Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Comforte is the vice president of the Broadway 
Sheet Metal Works. 

The Chairman. Do you waive counsel ? 

Mr. Comforte. I do, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Excuse me. He was vice president until 1958 when; 
the partnership was dissolved, Mr. Chairman, in the Broadway Sheet 
Metal Works. 

Is that right? 

Mr. Comforte. Mr. Kennedy, I respectfully decline to answer on 
the grounds that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17817 

Mr. IVENNEDY. He is presently acting secretary-treasurer of the 
Broadway Sheet Metal Works, Inc. The other stockholders are Mr. 
Moody and Mr. Senese, union officials. 

Is that right, Mr. Comf orte ? 

Mr. CoMFORTE. Mr. Kennedy, I respectfully decline to answer on 
the grounds that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kexxedy. We have had that testimony in the record, Mr. 
Chairman, and the record also indicates that Mr. Comforte is, in 
which he was in partnership with Mr. Senese, the union official, got 
paid some $15,570.84. from Mr. Pantaleo, for the work on remodeling 
the local. 

Is that right? 

Mr. Comforte. I respectfully decline to answer, sir, and I honestly 
believe that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Did 3' ou actually do that amount of work, that you 
should get paid the $15,000 ? 

]Mr. Co]MFORTE. I respectfully decline to answer, sir, and I honestly 
believe that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell the committee how it was that Mr. 
Senese, a union official, was made a partner in that company ? 

Mr. Comforte. I respectfully decline to answer, sir, and I honestly 
believe that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, could I call a witness in connection 
with that? 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Mundie made an examination of the records of 
the coinpany. 

The Chairman. Be sworn, Mr. Mundie. 

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. Mundie. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES F. MUNDIE 

The Chairman. Mr. Mundie, you are a member of the staff of this 
committee ? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

The Chairman. You have been in Government service how long? 

Mr. Mundie. Thirty-eight years. 

The Chairman. You were loaned to this committee? You are on 
loan to this committee from what agency of Government? 

Mr. ISIuNDiE. The U.S. Treasury Department. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been with the Treasury Depart- 
ment ? 

Mr. Mundie. Pretty nearly 30 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been working with this com- 
mittee now ? 

Mr. INIuNDiE. Approximately 2 years. It will be 2 years the 25th 
of March. 

Mr. Kennedy. Almost since its inception ? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

]\Ir. Kennedy. Have you made an examination of the records of 
the Broadwav Sheet Metal Co. ? 



17818 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. MuNDiE. I have. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you relate to the committee what it indi- 
cates as far as Mr. Senese becoming a partner? 

Mr. MuNDiE. On April 30, 1954, an entry was made on the Broad- 
way Sheet Metal Co. records as follows : "L. A. Moody, capital $1,000; 
Victor Comforte, capital $1,000," which means that each one gave 
$1,000 equity, and credited Dominic Senese with $2,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. So the two partners who owned this company gave 
up, for reasons unknown, $1,000 apiece, and credited it to Mr. Senese, 
a union official ; is that right ? 

Mr. MuNDiE. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you tell us why you would give up a third of 
your interest in the company to Mr. Senese ? 

TESTIMONY OE VICTOR COMFOETE— Resumed 

Mr. Comforte. Mr. Kemiedy, I respectfully decline to answer, and 
I honestly believe that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. This company also did the work, from an examina- 
tion of the records we know they did the work, at the union head- 
quarters ? 

Mr. MuNDiE. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. They got paid how much ? 

Mr.MuNDiE. $15,570. 

Mr. Kennedy. They have also done work on Mr. Senese's home? 

Mr. MuNDiE. That 1 do not know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Comforte, Mr. Chairman, also has an interest in 
the Distributing Corp. of Illinois. Is that right? 

Mr. Comforte. Mr. Kennedy, I respectfully decline to answer, and 
I honestly believe that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. This, Mr. Chairman, is a jukebox company in Chi- 
cago. 

Is that right ? Mr. Comforte, is that correct ? 

Mr. Comforte. Pardon, sir? 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that a jukebox company in Chicago that dis- 
tributes jukeboxes ? 

Mr. Comforte. I respectfully decline to answer, Mr. Kennedy, and 
I honestly believe the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You also receive some salary from the Biltmore 
Distributing Co. Would you tell us what that is? 

Mr. Comforte. I respectfully decline to answer, sir, and I honestly 
believe tliat the answer maj' tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, it is of some interest that the Broad- 
way Sheet Metal Co., the company that we have been discussing, re- 
ceived on subcontracts some GO percent of all the Nike missile sites 
that are constructed around Chicago; that some 60 percent of that 
work is done on a subcontract basis. 

The Chairman. By what company ? 

Mr. Kennedy. By this company owned by Mr. Comforte and the 
company owned by Mr. Senese, the union official. 

The Chairman. Do you mean we have a company whose officers 
or whose owners come in here and take the fifth amendment about 
their business transactions that are noAv connected with Government 
work on part of our defense system ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17819 

Mr. Keknedy. Sixty percent, rouglily, Mr. Chairman, of all the 
Nike sites around Chicago, the -work is done by this company, or has 
been done in the past. 

The Chairman. Is that correct ? 

Mr. CoMFORTE. I respectfully decline to answer, sir. I honestly 
believe that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you mean to say that working for the Federal 
Government, doing contract work for it, might tend to incriminate 
a citizen of this country, or are you a citizen ? Are you a citizen of 
the United States ? 

Mr. CoMFORTE. Native born, sir. 

The Chairman. Native born. Do you mean to say that a contract 
with the Federal Government of the United States, in connection 
with its Defense Establishment, or defense facilities, is of such a nat- 
ure that you can't talk about it without possible self-incrimination? 

Mr. CoMFORTE. Mr. McClellan, I respectfully decline to answer and 
I honestly believe tliat my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The CiiAiRiiAN. Mr. Counsel, wliat interest does this man have in 
this company ? 

Mr. IvENNEDY. There are three people that own the company. Mr. 
Dominic Senese, wlio is the union official who took the fifth amend- 
ment yesterday, and Mr. L. A. Moody, who also has an interest in the 
company. It was incorporated, as I pointed out, in 1958. 

The Chairman. According to our information, what are the re- 
spective interests of these three pei-sons in the company ? 

Mr. Kennedy. It is approximately one-third each, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. These are the three owners of it, according to our 
information ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. 

The Chairman. And two of them now have taken the fifth amend- 
ment before this committee when we interrogated them about a trans- 
action, a business transaction, they had with the union? 

Ml". Kennedy. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. And in which it appears that the imion members 
were robbed of several thousand dollars. Is that correct? 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, at least the money disappeared, Mr. Chair- 
man. As the testimony has indicated, some $85,000 was paid for 
work tliat should have cost some $35,000 maximum. 

The Chairman. Now we find these same characters and their com- 
pany out doing work for the Government in preparing its defense 
installations in this country ; is that correct? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. 

The Chairman. The Chair shall direct a letter to the department 
of government having jurisdiction of this construction work, and 
which is responsible for making these contracts, to make immediately 
a thorougli investigation into the activities of this company. 

If what the record has disclosed here is truej I think they should be 
hereafter eliminated from eligible consideration as a bidder on any 
Government work. I do not believe this Government ought to be 
doing business in the building of its Defense Establishment in this 
countiy, the thing upon which our very survival may depend — I 
don't think our Federal Government should be doing business with 
people who have to hide behind the fifth amendment with regard to 



17820 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

their business transactions. I hope some prompt and effective action 
is taken to correct this situation. 

Senator Church, have you any comment ? 

Senator Church, No comment except, Mr. Chairman, that I concur 
in the sentiments you just expressed, wholeheartedly. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, he also has an interest in the Koren 
Kesearch & Engineering Co., of 1231 West Chicago Avenue. 

Could you tell us what that company does ? 

Mr. CoMFORTE. Mr. Kennedy, I respectfully decline to answer. I 
honestly believe that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is another company, Mr. Chairman, in which 
we are interested, again with Mr. Koren, as he was interested in the 
jukebox distributorship with Mr. Koren. 

Mr. Koren also owns the King Cole North Shore Hotel in Miami, 
Fla. He is also interested in the Vernon Farm Products Co., which is 
a company that operates down in the Fulton Street Market. 

Is that right ? 

Mr. CoMFORTE. I respectfully decline to answer, sir, and I honestly 
believe that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Again, in this company, Mr. Chairman, is Mr. Frank 
Pantaleo, as well as Mr. Senese, the union official. Mr. Frank 
Pantaleo, the contractor, as well as Mr. Senese's wife, are in this 
company, which operates in the Fulton Street Market. 

Is that right? 

Mr. Comforte. I respectfully decline to answer, sir, on the grounds 
that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr, Kennedy. That is according to the testimony that we had 
yesterday afternoon. 

He is also an associate of Juke Box Smitty. He was a solicitor- 
investigator for the Illinois Phonograph Owners, Inc. 

Is that right? 

Mr. Comforte. Mr. Kennedy, I respectfully decline to answer on 
the gromids that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy, Back at the end of the 1940's, Mr. Chairman, and I 
believe the arrangement has been changed since that time, it was 
possible to go in and get your arrest record or whatever criminal 
record you might have, destroyed. Mr. Comforte made that request 
and was successful in doing so. 

Is that right, Mr. Comforte ? 

Mr. Comforte. I didn't get that, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That up until recently, ujd until the new administra- 
tion or the administration that is in at the present time, it was possible 
to go into the police department and, under certain circumstances, have 
your police record destroyed. You were successful in doing that in 
1949. Isn't that correct? 

Mr. Comforte. I respectfully decline to answer, sir, and I honestly 
believe tliat the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was destroyed on March 16, 1949, at your 
request, was it not? 

]\Ir. Comforte. I respectfully decline to answer, sir, on the grounds 
that tlie answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had been involved in labor racketeering during 
the 19.30"s, and was recognized as an enforcer during the 1930's in the 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 17821 

attempt to organize garage workers and parking lot attendants ; is that 
right, Mr. Comf orte ? 

J\Ir. CojrFORTE. I respectfully decline to answer, sir, on the grounds 
that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you became associated with Juke Box Smitty, 
and then you became associated with the association, the employers, 
and did work for them ; is that right ? 

^Ir. CoMFORTE. I respectfully decline to answer, sir, and I honestly 
believe that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

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

The Chairman. The Chair will direct that a transcript of the testi- 
mony of this morning, this whole record since we began, because it 
deals with people tliat are involved in this corruption, be transmitted 
promptly to the Defense Department with the request that it be made 
available to that agency or authority in the Defense Department wliich 
is responsible for these contracts, and that they promptly report back 
to the committee as quickly as feasible just exactly what the situation 
is, and what action it is contemplated they will take to have the Gov- 
ernment hereafter do business with people who can open their books 
to the public and let us know what the nature of their transactions are ; 
in other words, where they can be honest enough to look the Govern- 
ment and the people wlio compose this country in the face and make 
honest, truthful statements about their business transactions, not only 
with the Government, but with labor unions in this country, the agency 
or the authority that represents collectively masses of working people 
who are out on the job, who are earning their living by the sweat of 
their brow, and who are entitled to the protection of officers of integ- 
rity, men who can come before any tribunal established by lawful au- 
thority in this country and give an accounting of their relationship 
and their financial transactions with such organizations. 

Is there anything further ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, to complete the record, as we ex- 
plained, Mr. Senese came into the sheet metal company by having this 
witness as well as the other partner turn over $1,000 apiece of their 
capita] account. 

I would like to ask Mr. Mundie if we have any figures as to what 
that is worth at the present time. 

Mr. Mundie. $22,935.71 as of April 30, 1958. 

Mr. Kennedy. And we find no investment that they made ? 

Mr. iSIuNDiE. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. The contracts that these gentlemen have received on 
these Nike missile bases are all subcontracts, are they not, Mr. 
Calabrese ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Let us ascertain who the prime contractor is and 
get some assurances from them that they are not going to use these 
people. I think certainly the Federal Government can see to it that 
they are not used on these subcontracts, people who cannot give an 
accounting of their financial transactions when they are having busi- 
ness dealings with the officers and authorities who represent the work- 
ing people, the organized working people in this country. 

Is there anything else ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

36751— 59— pt. 49 9 



17822 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

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 Church.) 

(Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the select committee recessed, to recon- 
vene at 2 p.m. the same day.) 

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 Ervin.) 

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I would like to put some more figures 
into the record, based on the staff's investigation. In connection with 
that, I would like to call Mr. Mundie. 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES E. MUNDIE— Kesumed 

The Chairman. All right, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Mundie, in connection with Mr. Glimco, did 
we find that he has any bank accounts at all ? 

Mr. Mundie. Nowhere in our investigation did we disclose a bank 
account in the name of Mr. Joseph P. Glimco. 

Mr. Kennedy. He, like Mr. Hoff a, deals completely in cash ; is that 
right? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. All his transactions are in cash ? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. What procedure does he use when he needs a check ? 

Mr. Mundie. Well, he has places of business that he is interested in 
draw checks for his personal needs, and then reimburses them with 
cash. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat sort of example do you have of that? 

Mr. Mundie. I have an example here of a check from JNIr. Coca. 
It is dated August 21, 1958, to the Prudential Life Insurance Co. in 
the amount of $29.05. It is a payment on a life insurance policy. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is one of many, many examples of any time 
that he actually needs a check and cannot deal in cash, it would appear 
that he goes to a friend or a company in which he has an interest and 
has them draw a check ? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then possibly reimburses them for that money ? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. But he never deals in checks himself? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Nor does he have any bank accounts? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Does he buy any stocks? Do we find that at all? 

Mr. Mundie. During our investigation 

Mr. Ivennedy. Just if you could answer the question 

Mr. Mundie. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Does he buy the stocks, however, in his own name? 

Mr. Mundie. No. He buys the stock in his children's name, his 
wife's name, and his own name. 



EVIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17823 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you give us some examples of that ? 

Mr. MuNDiE. Yes. During the years of 1956 to 1958, he purchased 
337 shares of A. T. & T. in the amount of $53,958.31. 

The Chairman. What year was that ? 

Mr. MuNDiE. Between 1956 and 1958. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. First, how do you know that the stock was pur- 
chased by him ? 

Mr. MuNDiE. I have applications at the Kiverside National bank 
where the stock was purchased. 

Mr, Kennedy. In whose name was this stock purchased ? 

Mr. MuNDiE. 175 shares was purchased in the name of Joseph P. 
Glimco, Jr. 

Mr. Kennedy. ^Yho is that? 

Mr. MuNDiE. That is his son. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes? 

Mr. MuNDiE. 121 shares were purchased in his daughter's name, 
Joanne M. Glimco. 

Thirty-seven shares was purchased in his daughter's name and his 
wife, Lena Glimco. 

Three shares in his son and his daughter's name, Joseph Glimco, 
and his son's name, Joseph P. Glimco, Jr., and one share in Joseph, 
Jr., and his wife's name, making a total of 337 shares. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do we find that Mr. Pantaleo plays any role in this ? 

Mr. MuNDiE. I have an application dated December 12, 1956, for 
10 shares of stock in the amount of $1,700. This application was 
signed by Frank V. Pantaleo. 

On January 21, 1956, another 10 shares of A.T. & T. This appli- 
cation was signed by Frank V. Pantaleo. The total of those two 
purchases was $3,509.95. 

Mr. Kennedy. Going back to the A.T. & T. stock, you stated that 
it was 1956. Is the correct date 1953 to 1958, rather than 1956 ? 

Mr. Mundie. Yes, that is correct. 

The Chairman. Does this represent several different purchases 
during those years, or were they all purchased at one time? 

Mr. Mundie. It was purchased over the period. 

The Chairman. In other words, 175 shares, I believe you said, was 
to his boy ? 

Mr. Mundie. Yes. AVell, that was purchased over a period of time. 

The Chairman. It wasn't all purchased, 175 shares at one time, 
but different purchases over those years aggregated 175 shares? 

Mr. ]MuNDiE. Yes. 

The Chairman. That is true with respect to the others ? 

JMr. Mundie. Yes. 

The Chairman. All right. 

And over that period of time, what did these particular shares 
amount to, the value ? 

Mr. Mundie. $53,958.31. 

The Chairman. That is a purchase price, that is what he paid. 
That is not their value now ? 

Mr. Mundie. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You are talking about at the time of purchase? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

The Chairman. The value is the figure you gave ? 



17824 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Mtjndie. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. I have some other matters I would like to put into 
the record. 

The significance or importance of the stock, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. 
Mundie's testimony, is the fact that Mr. Glimco does not deal in bank 
accounts, he just deals in cash; that when he has to make checks out, 
he goes through his friends or companies that he is interested in. 
Wlien he is making purchases of stock, getting ownership of stock, 
in at least the majority of cases he does it in the name of his family 
rather than, again, in his own name. 

Mr. Balaban, I would like to ask you about the use of some union 
funds. Did Mr. Glimco keep an apartment in Chicago ? 

TESTIMONY OF JACK S. BALABAN— Kesumed 

Mr, Balaban. Yes, sir ; he does. He has an apartment, a room, in 
the Oak Park Arms Hotel, in Oak Park, 111. 

The Chairman. Oak Park ? 

Mr. Balaban. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. The Oak Park Arms Hotel ? 

Mr. Balaban. That is riglit, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that room was rented under the name of Joe 
Glimco ? 

Mr. Balaban. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. At $7 a day? 

Mr. Balaban. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And these rentals were charged to organizing ex- 
pense or to rental expense? 

Mr. Bal^vban. It was charged to first organizing expense and more 
recently to a rental expense. 

Mr. Kennedy. Prior to our investigation it was organizing expense ? 

Mr. Balaban. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much does this room cost the union ? 

Mr. Balaban. For the years from 1955, when he first started- — — 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat month in 1955 ? 

Mr. Balaban. In September 1955 through April 1958, the amount 
was $6,282.62. But they are still continuing to use that. The amount 
is more now. 

Mr. Kennedy. Has there been anything in the minutes in connec- 
tion with this room ? 

Mr. Balaban. There wasn't earlier, but since the investigation they 
started to put into the minutes the rental of this room at the Oak Park 
Arms Hotel. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was an entry made in December 1957, which 
was the first indication that the union was paying for the room ; is 
that right ? 

Mr. Bal.\ban. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And at that time it said they gave approval to ex- 
penses for the Oak Arms Hotel ; is that right ? 

Mr. Balaban. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. But until that, some 2 years after they had the room, 
there had been no mention in the minutes ? 

Mr. Balaban. That is correct, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIBS IN THE LABOR FIELD 17825 

Mr. Kennedy. On another matter, do we find that the union pur- 
chased a lot at Sun Valley? 

Mr. Balaban. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you relate to the committee what the records 
show on that ^ 

The Chairman. Mr. Calabrese, do you have the answer on that? 

TESTIMONY OF ALPHONSE F. CALABRESE— Resumed 

Mr. Calabrese. We found from a review of the records of local 777 
that they purchased a lot from the Sun Valley, Inc. The purchase 
was made by check dated February 29, 1956, signed by George Marcie 
and Joe Coca, for the purchase of one lot by union for investment. 
The sum ^^ as $890. 

Mr. Kennedy. What do the minutes say as explanation for this? 

Mr. Calabrese. This was charged to the general fund with the ex- 
planation "As per instructions from Ploffa as good investment in a lot. 
The executive board passed the motion to purchase one lot." 

Mr. Kennedy. "As per instructions from Hoffa as a good invest- 
ment"' in a lot? 

Mr. C1A.LABRESE. That is correct. 

The Chairman. That is the one that Hoffa had an option to pur- 
chase how much, 45 percent of it? 

jNIr. Kennedy. He and Brennan at the original cost, in which they 
were then promoting among the Teamster members, and where they 
transferred $500,000 out of a bank in Detroit to a Florida bank which 
paid no interest, to induce the Florida bank to loan money on Sun 
Valley. 

How much was spent by local 777 at the international convention 
in Miami Beach, Fla., in September 1957? 

JNIr. Calabrese. The exact figiires I will have to give you at a little 
later date. However, in this figure there was an item included in the 
amount of $-1,289.89. It was an expenditure for one-third of the entire 
cost of the "James Hofl'a Dinner, September 29, 1957." 

This was a party given at the Hotel Fontainebleau for Mr. Hoffa. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know who paid the other two-thirds? 

Mr. Calabrese. I believe there were two other Chicago locals that 
split, two other Teamster locals that split the charges on this dinner. 

JSIr. Kennedy. The cost of the dinner was some $13,000; is that 
right? 

Mr. Calabrese. Approximately, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. At least one-third or more was paid by the local in 
Chicago ? 

Mr. Calabrese. 777. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is local 777, this local. But do you know what 
the other two-thirds was paid by ? Do you have that ? 

Mr. Calabrese. The total amount was $12,869.68. 

The Chairman. Who paid the other two-thirds? That is what we 
are trying to find out. Do you know ? 

Mr. Calabrese. I believe it is 743. I am not sure of that. That is 
the identity of one of the locals. The third one I don't have the 
answer to at this time. 



17826 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. We had one of the officials of the union before our 
committee in the beginning of the year, Mr. Chairman. The number 
slips my mind. 

Then there were other costs down there. The King Cole Hotel; 
is that right ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. There was a charge of $864.33, 
paid to the King Cole North Shore Hotel in Miami Beach, Fla., for 
two cabana parties. 

The Chairman. Two what ? 

Mr. Calarrese. Two cabana parties. 

On September 29 and October 5, 1957. There is a note that this 
King Cole North Shore Hotel is the hotel that is owned by Louis 
Koren, wlio was mentioned earlier as owning the Koren Research that 
Mr. Comforte had a business interest in, and also the Distributuig 
Corp., of Illinois. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was for entertainment of the "other delegates," 
these two cabana parties ? 

Mr. Calabrese. They were for entertaining expenses at the King 
Cole Hotel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Entertainment for "other delegates," is that right, 
for these two cabana parties? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. For $864.33. Then did they take a trip while they 
were down there ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes. There was a trip that was sponsored by an 
agency known as Journeys International, in Chicago, 111. It was an 
all-expense tour of the Caribbean Islands. This trip was made by 
three of the delegates, George Marcie, Joseph Coca, and Oscar Kof kin. 

Mr, Kennedy. Who is Marcie ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Secretary-Treasurer of local 777. 

Mr. Kennedy. Joe Coca ? 

Mr. Calabrese. He was at that time president of local No. 777. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Kof kin ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Mr. Kofkin is vice president of local No. 777. 

Mr. Kennedy. So they made an all-expense tour of the Caribbean 
Islands with three delegates ; is tliat right ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes ; at a total expense of $1,656. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who paid that? 

Mr. Calabrese. The union paid that. I might say this was right 
after the election of Mr. Iloffa — during the convention in Miami. 

The Chairman. In last year ? 

Mr. Calabrese. In 1957, that is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. 1957? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. There were many Teamster officials that went on 
this tour, but this is how much was paid by that local ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes, that is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. The other Teamster officials had their bills paid by 
their own locals? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes, apparently so. 

Mr. Kennedy. I understand there were two plane loads of Team- 
ster officials that made this trip ? 



IMPROPER ACTTVITIBS IN THE LABOR FIELD 17827 

Mr. Calabrese. That would be correct. They had two separate 
trips. One group swung one side of tlie tour and tlie other w^ent the 
other way. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they meet then half-way ? 

Mr. Calabrese. I don't think so. I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Glimco also attended the trial of Mr. Hoffa 
here in Washington, D.C. ? 

JNIr. Calabrese. He was in Washington, D.C, during that period, 
yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much did the union pay for his hotel bills? 

Mr. Chairman, could we make these documents, on which JNIr. Cala- 
brese has based his testimony, exhibits ? 

The Chairman. They can be made exhibit in bulk, exhibit No. 11. 

(Documents referred to were marked "Exhibit 11" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

]\Ir. Calabrese. Would you restate the question, please ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Glimco also come here to Washington when 
Mr. HotFa was being tried ? 

Mr. Calabrese. He did. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was in Federal court. How" much did the 
miion pay for his hotel bills on his visit here to Washington ? 

Mr. Calabrese. For the period June 19- June 20, June 23 through 
July 24, 1957, the union paid $5,630.29 to the Woodner Hotel for tlie 
expenses of Mr. Glimco and jNlr. Kof kin. 

The Chairman. Who? 

Mr. Calabrese. Mr. Kofkin. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is the other union official. 

The Chairman. Over what period of time was that ? 

Mr. Calabrese. For the period June 19-20, June 23 through Jidy 
24, 1957. 

Tlie Chairman. What is that for, about a month's time or a little 
more? 

Mr. Calabrese. Approximately, yes, sir. 

The Chairman. About a month and 3 days; is that correct? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. A month and 3 days and it paid out a total of 
$5,630.29 for the two who were here? 

Mr. Calabrese. The two that we Iniow of, Senator. 

The Chairman. I beg your pardon ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Two that we know of. The registration card in- 
dicates Oscar Kofkin and party. 

Senator Ervin. Give me those figures again. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. That is not the complete figure, Mr. Calabrese, that 
$5,000. 

Mr. Calabrese. For the period June 19-Jiine 20 

Mr. Kennedy. I am talking about the expense for the whole period 
of time of their coming down. 

Mr. Calabrese. The total expense would be $7,094.55. 

Mr. Kennedy. The question is how much it cost local 777 for them 
to come here and remain while Mr. Hoffa was being tried. 

Mr. Calabrese. The total figure would be $7,094.55. 

Senator Ervin. If my figures are correct, that covers a total period 
of 35 days, $200 a day, $100 apiece. 



17828 IMPROPER AcrrviTiE'S m the labor field 

Mr. Calabrese. That would be about correct, Senator. 

Senator Ervin. They must have gotten title to a couple of rooms, 
fee simple title. 

The Chairman. I do not know whether they got the title, but they 
apparently bought them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Also, when one of the attorneys that was involved 
in this case down here came to Chicago, he had his bill paid by the 
Teamsters Union. 

The Chairman. Wlio is that ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you relate that to the committee ? 

Mr. Calabrese. This attorney, after the trial, made a trip to Chi- 
cago and stayed at the hotel in Chicago, and his bill was paid by the 
Taxicab Drivers Union, local 777, a total of $216.43. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was he doing for local 777 ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Nothing that could be ascertained. 

Mr. Kennedy. But the union nevertheless paid his bill when he 
was in Chicago ? 

Mr. Calabrese. They did, and they marked it "Hotel bill as per 
Kof kin's instructions, public relations, entertaining." 

The Chairman. Do you have the document there showing it? 

Mr. Calabrese. I do. 

The Chairman. That document may be made exhibit 12. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 12" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. The other documents that you have been testifying 
from, do you have those ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes, I do. Senator. 

The Chairman. They may be made exhibit 13, in bulk. 

(Documents referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 13" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Glimco is in frequent touch with Mr. Hojffa, 
is he not ? 

Mr. Calabrese. He has been, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And while here in Washington, D.C., during the 
trial, he was in frequent touch with the various attorneys in con- 
nection with the case ? 

Mr. Calabrese. He was. 

Mr. Kennedy. All of which was paid, of course, out of union funds. 
He was also in touch with a Mr. Murray H. Olf , was he not ? 

Mr. Calabrese. The call was made to Mr. Murray H. Olf from his 
apartment. 

Mr. Kennedy. T^Hio is Mr. Olf ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Mr. Olf has the reputation of being a gambler 
here in Wasliington, D.C., and is supposed to be closely associated 
with Frank Costello. 

Mr. Kennedy. His name came up in the Kefauver hearings? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he a witness in the Kefauver hearings ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Mr. Costello ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No. 

Mr. Calabrese. Mr. Olf? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Calabrese. That is my understanding, that he was. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17829 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Do you kiiow what, he was in touch Avith Mr. Olf 
about ? 

Mr. Calabrese. We have no information on that, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. We also have telephone calls from Miss Murray's 
apartment and Miss Murray's home to jMr. Hofi'a ? 

Mr. Calabrese. There has been 

The Chairman. Do you mean the Miss Murray who testified here 
this morning ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes, Senator. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was one incident of that? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that during the trial ? 

Mr. Calabrese. I believe that was subsequent to it, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. The expenses that you gave for the trip to Florida 
Avere not the regular expenses of the delegates' trip down there to 
attend the convention, but these were extra expenses, were they not? 

Mr. Calabrese. Extra, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. The payment for Mr. Hoifa's dinner and the trip 
around the Carribean Islands? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. This was over and above the regular expenses? 

Mr. Calabrese. What they got, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe that is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Very well, gentlemen. 

Mr. Kennedy. In connection with the same matter, I would like 
to call Mr. Maurice Adler. 

The Chairman. Be sworn, please. 

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

Mr. Adler. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF MAUEICE ADLER 

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

Mr. Adler. Maurice A. Adler, 915 Sheridan Koad, Evanston, III. 
I operate the Acme Secret Service, Ltd., an investigating agency in 
Chicago. 

The Chairman. You operate what? 

Mr. Adler. An investigating 

The Chairman. A private detective agency is what it amounts to ? 

Mr. Adler. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you waive counsel ? 

Mr. Adler. Yes, sir. But for the record, I would like to request 
an opinion from this committee as to whether, in my capacity as 
investigator, I am not entitled to the privilege? 

The Chairman. I do not believe that privilege extends to an inves- 
tigator. Can you cite me any law where it does ? 

Mr. Adler. No. I consulted counsel before coming here. My 
lawyer in Chicago was not quite certain. There was no precedent 
as far as the State of Illinois was concerned. 

The Chairman. Let's make one now and let somebody test it. Let's 
proceed. 



17830 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr, Kennedy. I might say, Mr. Chairman, we have had investi- 
gators in the past who have testified. 

The Chairman. I do not know any statute that extends the priv- 
ilege to investigators. 

Senator Ervin. The privilege onlj^ extends to priest and penitent, 
attorney and client, and physician and patient. I do not know any 
other area. Newspapermen have claimed another area. 

The Chairman. Your protest will be noted for the record. Your 
request that you be granted the privilege will be denied by order of 
the Chair; unless there is objection on the the part of the committee, 
that will be the final order of the Chair, and you will be ordered and 
directed to testify. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Adler, you were hired by Mr. Joey Glimco? 

Mr. Adler. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that was to conduct a surveillance, was it not? 

Mr. Adler. An investigation that included surveillance; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was an investigation of certain police officials 
of the Chicago Police Department ? 

Mr. Adler. Policemen ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Certain policemen? 

Mr. Adler. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That surveillance went on for how long a period of 
time ? 

Mr. Adler. Between the period March 4, 1957, to the period of 
March 25, 1957. 

Mr. Kennedy. And at that time you were following these police- 
men on the instructions of Mr. Glimco ? 

Mr. Adler. Part of the time ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were also conducting a surveillance outside the 
police department and also outside their homes ? 

Mr. Adler. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. The purpose, initially at least, was to determine 
whether they were participating in any wiretapping; is that right? 

Mr. Adler. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you found no evidence of that ? 

Mr. Adler. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. At one time, Mr. Glimco thought, according to the 
information that I understand is available, he thought they might 
be digging underground and coming in through the bottom of the 
union headquarters ? 

Mr. Adler. Not digging, but perhaps tapping on an underground 
telephone cable. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that they were disguising themselves as under- 
ground workmen ; is that it ? 

Mr. Adler. Well, I guess that is a good way of putting it ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You found no evidence to that effect ? 

Mr. Adler. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Glimco had a contact in the police department, 
did he not ? 

Mr. Adler. This would be a supposition. 

Mr. Kennedy. Ho gave you information and told you somebody 
in the police department who w^ould give information as to what 
these officials were doing, did he not ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17831 

Mr. Adler. AVell, there was somebody supposed to have been a 
source of information. The individual or parties were never iden- 
tified to me. 

Mr. Kennedy. A representative of your office, however, was in con- 
tact with them ? 

Mr. AuLER. Was in contact with a person, yes, who was supposed 
to have information. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was to give you information as to the goings 
and comings of these police officials ? 

Mr. Adler. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you laiow who it was in the police department 
who was furnishing this information ? 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Your office was in contact with them, but didn't 
learn their identity ? 

Mr. Adler. I am sorr}- 

Mr. Kennedy'. Your office was in contact with this police official 
who was giving information on his fellow policemen ? 

Mr. Adler. This was not a police official, as far as I had knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you laiow Avho it was ? 

Mr. Adler. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was their position in the police department? 

Mr. ^Vdler, I don't believe they were associated with the police de- 
partment, but I believe they were in a position of acquiring infoima- 
tion from the police department. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you describe that more completely ? 

Mr. Adler. That is about the best description I can give. The 
channels were not described to me. It was merely that this person 
could be used as a source of information. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was the person at that time operating in the police 
department ? 

Mr. i\j)LER. Not tliat I had knowledge of ; no, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand they were operating in the 
police department? 

Mr. Adler, My impression was that they were not part of the police 
department. 

Mr. Ivennedy. T^^iere were you in contact with them or where was 
your office in contact with them ? 

Mr. Alder. I didn't make a contact, myself, but I believe it was a 
restaurant. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did you understand they were going to obtain 
this information on these police officers ? 

Mr. jVdler. I merely assume they had a source for this type of in- 
formation. I didn't inquire as to what form it took. 

Mr. Kennedy. Some of the reports that you made indicated that 
the individual knew at the very time that these police officials were 
leaving their job, what time they were coming back, what they were 
doing within the police department. Obviously, they had some in- 
formation directly Avithin the i^olice department. 

Mr. ^Vdler. It was indicated to me that they would liave this knowl- 
edge. How they came by the knowledge was not explained. 

Mr. Kennedy. How could they possibly come to have the knowledge 
unless the}'' were actually working in the police department them- 



17832 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

selves? I am giving you examples which I am sure you remember, 
where they were describing when their fellow police officials were leav- 
ing the police headquarters and when they were returning, when they 
would be back on duty. 

Mr. Adler. Or if they knew somebody in the police department. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have no more identification of them than that? 

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

The Chairman. In other words, you honestly believe, though, that 
information had to originate from the Police Department. You 
don't get it directly from someone in the department, but the source 
you got it from could not have known unless they got it from the 
department or through someone in the department who knew ? 

Mr. Adler. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And was that arrangement made by Mr. Glimco ? 

Mr. Adler. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was not any contact of yours ? 

Mr. Adler. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was all done by Mr. Glimco ? 

Mr. Adler. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was the one that was able to obtain this infor- 
mation ? 

Mr. Adler. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You also protested, as I understand it, and your 
report would seem to indicate, the amount of money that was going 
into this investigation, did you not ? 

Mr. Adler. The investigation was rather lengthy, and, in my opin- 
ion, was growing expensive. 

Mr, Kennedy. Didn't you bring this to Mr. Glimco's attention ? 

Mr. Adler. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he indicate to you that money was no object? 

Mr. Adler. He said not to worry about it, and to continue the in- 
vestigation so long as he directed it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you not raise that question about the amount 
of money involved? Didn't you raise that question several times 
with him ? 

Mr. Adler. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he indicated to you that he wanted to go ahead 
with the investigation, that the money part was not important? 

Mr. Adler. He indicated he desired to go ahead with the investi- 
gation ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much money did you receive for that investi- 
gation ? 

Mr. Adler. $3,840. 

The Cftairman. That is for a period of less than a month? 

Mr. Adler, Actually, it was 19 calendar days. 

The Chairman, $8,800 for 19 calendar days? 

Mr, Adler, Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That is approximately, then, $200 a day; that is, 
overall, I am sure you had some expenses. 

Mr. Adler, Yes, sir. 

The Chairman, But the overall was $200 a day ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 17833 

Mr. Adler. Approximately. 

Mr. Kennedy. You received union checks for that ? 

Mr. Adler. I received one union check ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. For that full amount ? 

Mr. Adler. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. In other words, it was paid with union money? 

Mr. Adler. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. AVhat was he being tried for at that time ? 

Mr. Kennedy. He was being tried, Mr. Chairman, in connection 
with extorting money from certain people in the Fulton Street 
market, which had nothing, of course, to do with local 777 of the 
Teamst^ii's Union. But he had these close contacts with local 703 
of the Teamsters Union. 

The Chairman. In other words, the charges against him were not 
in connection with union business proper, but his own activities, 
extracurricular, outside of union business, as such ? 

Mr. Ivennedy. Yes. He hired an investigator to conduct a sur- 
veillance of police officials or policemen in the Chicago Police De- 
partment and paid for that surveillance out of union funds. 

The Chairman. What I am getting at is that the charges that were 
pending against him at the time, on w^hich he was being prosecuted, 
were not for acts that he had done as a union official, were they ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No, as far as local 777. He is a major power in a 
number of different locals in the Chicago area, including local 703, 
which operates in the Fulton Street market. But he has no official 
position there. 

The Chairman. Actually, it was extortion that he was charged 
with? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is right. 

The Chairman. No legitimate union has a right to extort, to en- 
gage in criminal extortion. If he had engaged in extortion, that was 
an exercise or act of his over and beyond his duties as a union of- 
ficial ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

The Chairman. And when he gets caught or gets accused of it, then 
he takes union money to defend himself. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Mr. Chairman, this $3,840 is part of the $124,000, 
approximately^, that we stated was used in connection with the trial 
of Mr. Glimco at that time. 

The Chairsian. That is a part of the $124,000 ? 

Mr. Ivennedy. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Mr. Kjennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Are there any questions. Senator Ervin? 

Senator Ervin. No questions. 

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Ivennedy. I would like to call the secretary-treasurer of local 
777, Mr. George Marcie. 

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

Mr. IVIarcie. I do. 



17834 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE MARGIE, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
H. CLIFFORD ALLDER 

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

Mr. Margie. George Marcie, 2332 Farwell Street, Chicago, HI. 

The Chairman. Plus your occupation or business ? 

Mr. Margie. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly be- 
lieve my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you have coimsel ? 

Counsel, identify yourself. 

Mr. Allder. H. Clifford AUder, Washington, D. C. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Mr. Marcie, you are secretary-treasurer of local Y77 
and have held that position since 1937 ; is that right ? 

Mr. Margie. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly be- 
lieve my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You receive a salary of some $15,600 a year, and are 
furnished with a new Cadillac practically every year, although they 
did skip last year, I think. 

Mr. Margie. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Ivennedy. But you have your 1959 Cadillac? 

Mr. Margie. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly be- 
lieve my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are a member of the executive board and repre- 
sentative of the union on the health and welfare plan of local 777? 

Mr. Margie. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. In addition to your regular expenses from the un- 
ion, you also have some rather extraordinary expenses, do you not, 
that you charge to the union ? 

Mr. Margie. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr, Kennedy. Do you belong to the Tarn O'Shanter Country Club 
in Chicago ? 

Mr. Margie. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. I^JENNEDY. The union pays your bills at the Tarn O'Shanter 
Club? 

Mr. Margie. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could I call an investigator on that, Mr. Chairman? 

Tlie Chairman. Come forward, Mr. Balaban. 

All right, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Balaban, have we made a study of local 777 to 
determine the amount of charges, the amount of bills that have been 
paid to Tam O'Shanter Club by local 777 ? 

TESTIMONY OF JACK S. BALABAN— Resumed 

Mr. Balaban. Yes, M^e have, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. During what period? 

Mr. Balaran. During the period of May 1952 to December 1956. 



IMPROPER ACTTVITIBS IN THE LABOR FIELD 17835 

Mr. Kennedy. This is for Mr. Marcie ; is that right ? 

Mr. Balaban. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. For liis membership in the club ? 

Mr. Balaban. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And for his entertainment ? 

Mr. Balaban. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And for his playing golf ; is that right ? 

Mr. Balaban. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much has the union paid ? 

Mr. Balaban. $10,611.99. 

Mr. Ivennedy. The union paid that? 

Mr. Balaban. The union, local 777 paid that. 

The Chairman. That came out of the dues money that these workers 
paid into the union ? 

Mr. Balaban. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. Just like the same money they paid on that hotel 
bill out in California for a little entertainment ; is that right ? 

Mr. Balaban. That is right. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Mr. Marcie, how would that possibly help your 
union position ? "Wlio were you taking out there to play golf with ? 

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE MARCIE, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
H. CLIFFORD ALLDER— Resumed 

Mr. Marcie. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer miglit tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you taking the head of one of the taxicab 
companies or what ? How was it helping the union that you should 
go out and play golf ? 

Mr. Marcie. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is a local union. You are not a Joint Council 
oiRcial or an International official. You are a local official. How could 
you possibly explain the charge of some $10,000 for a membership 
in the Tam O'Shanter County Club? 

^Ir. ]Marcie. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. I^nnedy. Also, Mr. Marcie, you have some other things that 
are going for you, do you not ? You li ave some businesses ? 

yir. JNIarcie. I respectfully decline to answer because I lionestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Is this man interested in that company that is 
doing the Government work ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Xo; but he has some other companies that are of 
some interest. 

You are married to Rose ■Marcie and you have a son, Don : is that 
right? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

yir. Marcie. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you set them up in businesses ? Have you set 
up any businesses in their names ? 

Mr. Marcie. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 



17836 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. You, your wife, and your son Don own or have an 
interest in two businesses, the Don Marcie Co. — Don Marcie, Inc.; 
is that right ? 

Mr. Marcie. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Is that business enterprise engaged in some ille- 
gitimate business or unlawful business ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Marcie. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. If it is engaged in a lawful business, do you think 
you could answer without incriminating yourself ? 

Mr. Margie. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are you so corrupt in all of your dealings that 
you can't talk about them anywhere in decent society ? 

Mr. Margie. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. The second company is the Best Sanitation & De- 
odorizing Co. Both of these companies occupy space in this building 
that is owned by local 777 of the Teamsters. 

The Chairman. Do you pay any rent for the space that you occupy 
with these company enterprises of your own ? 

Mr. Margie. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. How much have you chiseled these union members 
out of in the course of time that you have served as an officer of their 
union ? How much ? 

Mr. Margie. I respectfully decline to answer the question because 
I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you deny that you have been chiseling them 
out of tlieir money ? Do you deny it ? 

Mr. Margie. I respectfully decline to answer the question because 
I honestly believe the answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I expect it would. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. The Best Sanitation is a company which performs 
janitorial and deodorizing services in toilets. I will show the perti- 
nency of that in a second. 

I would like to ask some questions of the investigator in that con- 
nection. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF JACK S. BALABAN— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Balaban, have we found that ]\Ir. Glimco has 
solicited accounts for the Best Sanitation & Deodorizing Co.? 

Mr. Balaban. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you tell what evidence we have on that? 

Mr. Balaban. We have an affidavit from an industrialist in Chi- 
cago, Titus Ilaffa, where he says that he was solicited by Mr. Glimco 
for tlie Best Sanitation Service. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17837 

We also received information from the phonograph people that 
they were using the service. Tliat information was that local 710, the 
Highway Drivers, were using that service. We have a list here. 

Mr. Kennedy. These were accounts procured by Mr. Glimco ? 

Mr. Balaban. We don't know that all of them were, but these that 
I mentioned were. We have a list. 

i\Ir. Kennedy. Mr. Titus Hatfa is the owner of the Webcor and 
Dormeyer Corps. ? 

Mr. I3alaban. Amongst many others; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Also the Checker Cab Co. ? 

Mr. Balaban. The Checker Cab Co. and the Yellow Cab Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. Both cab companies use Best Deodorizing? 

Mr. Balaban. Yes. I do know that Mr. Glimco solicited the 
Checker Cab. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the Kingsbui-y Iron & Metal Co. ? 

Mr. Balaban. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is it also true that Mr. Joseph Glimco, Jr., is on the 
payroll of the company '? 

Mr. Balaban. He was, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. For w^hat period of time ? 

Mr. Balaban. During part of 1957 and part of 1958. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he on there as a salesman ? 

]Mr. Balaban. The records show that he was supposed to be a sales- 
man; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He received a salary of how much ? 

Mr. Balaban. $130 a week. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Have you the names of the companies that the Best 
Sanitation & Deodorizing Co. does business with? 

Mr. Balaban. A partial list ; yes, sir. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Local 703, the Produce Drivers; local 704, the Coal 
Drivers; local 705, the Truck and Oil Drivers; local 710, the Meat 
Drivers; local 714, the Machineiy and Scrap Iron Drivers; local 
724, the Florist Drivers ; local 777, the Taxi Drivers ; local 777 He-alth 
and Welfare Fund; local 781, the Miscellaneous Warehousemen; is 
that right ? 

Mr. Balaban. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. These are some of the Teamster Unions that they 
do business for ? 

Mr. Balaban. That is right. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Also local 548 of Journeymen Barbers? 

Mr. Balaban. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Local No. 130 of the Plumbers Union? 

Mr. Balaban. Yes, sir. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Local No. 593 of the Eestaurant Workers Union? 

Mr. Balaban. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Local No. 136 of the Machinery Movers? 

Mr. Balaban. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Local No. 87, the Amalgamated Meat Cutters? 

Mr. Balaban. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Local No. 44, Chicago Joint Board ? 

Mr. Balaban. Yes, sir. 

36751— 59— pt. 49 10 



17838 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. ICennedy. Local No. 24, Toy and Novelty Workers ? 

Mr. Balaban. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Local No. 18, the Plastic Workers ? 

Mr. Balaban. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. The Yellow Cab Co. ? 

Mr. Balaban. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Checker Cab Co. ? 

Mr. Balaban. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Transportation Maintenance Co. ? 

Mr. Balaban. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Rock Road Construction Co. ? 

Mr. Balaban. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. The Orchid Flower Shop ? 

Mr. Balaban. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy, ^¥ho owns that shop ? 

Mr. Balaban. It was owned by the wives of Mr. Capezio, Tony Ca- 
pezio, and Anthony Campagna. 

Mr. Kennedy. Little New York Campagna? 

Mr. Balaban. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. The wives of the two leading gangsters in Chicago 
own this flower shop ? 

Mr. Balaban. Yes, sir. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Did local 777 purchase all their flowers from this 
flower shop ? 

Mr. Balaban. They did, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That would approximate about $1,000 a year? 

Mr. Balaban. A little over that, I believe. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Premium Beer Sales, was that another account ? 

Mr. Balaban. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. The Luxor Baths ? 

Mr. Balaban. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Lormar Distributing Co. ? 

Mr. Balaban. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Automatic Phonograph Distributing Co. ? 

Mr. Balaban. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Keeshin, Inc. ? 

Mr. Balaban. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Shoreland Hotel ? 

Mr. Balaban. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Racine Auto Supply ? 

Mr. Balaban. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Frank Pantaleo & Co.? 

Mr. Balaban. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. AMI Sales Corp. ? 

Mr. Balaban. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Kingsbury Iron & Metal Co. ? 

]\fr. Balaban. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Premium Beer Sales is the company in wliich Mr. 
Tony Acardo has an interest ? 

Mr. Balaban. That is right, 

Mr. Kennedy. We liave also luid testimony in connection with the 
Lormar Distributing Co., Frank Paulaleo, the AMI Sales Co. We 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17839 

have had testimony m connection with a good number of these com- 
panies, Mr. Chairman. 

Rose Marcie is the principal stockholder of Don Marcie, Inc. ? 

Mr. Balaban. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. But the company is owned by herself, her husband 
and her stepson, Don Marcie ? 

Mr. Balaban. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. This company manufactures beauty products? 

Mr. Balaban. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was originally called the Gro-Mar Industries, 
Inc.? 

Mr. Bal/Vban. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was incorporated in the year 1953? 

Mr. Balaban. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was originally called the Gro-Mar Industries, 
Inc., and that company also occupied space in local 777 ? 

Mr. Balaban. It did, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did we find from an investigation of the records 
that no rental was received from the Gro-Mar Co. for the years 1953 
or 1954? 

Mr. Balaban. That is correct. The records show no rental re- 
ceived. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did we investigate the records, however, of the Gro- 
Mar and Don Marcie, Inc. ? 

Mr. Balaban. That is right, sir; we did. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Wliat did they show ? 

Mr. Balaban. We found that there was $1,200 in rent that the com- 
pany charged as rent expense, and there were checks drawn but these 
checks were never deposited with the taxicab union. 

Mr. Kennedy. That the records of the miion show that no rent 
was paid, the records of the company show that there was rent paid, 
that checks were drawn for that company, and we find that those 
checks were never deposited to the bank account of the union? 

Mr. Balaban. That is right, sir. We don't have all 

The Cha.ir]man. Were they cashed ? Were the checks cashed ? You 
said they were drawn. 

Mr. Balaban. That is right, sir. We have the cliecks here. It 
would appear that they were cashed. 

Tlie Chairman. By whom ? 

Mr. Balaban. We can't determine who. We can't get anybody to 
admit that they endorsed the checks. One of them was not endorsed 
at all. A $100 check was not. It was just made out to cash. The stub 
shows that it was for rent. There is no endorsement on that check at 
all. 

The one for $500, however, is endorsed, and we have been unable to 
ascertain just who did endorse and cash that check. But we do know 
that the funds did not go into the taxicab union and there is no record 
that this money was received in the taxicab union. 

The Chairman. Is that union 777 ? 

Mr. Balaban. Local 777 ; that is right. 

The Chairman. The treasury did not get it, according to the 
records ? 

Mr. Balaban. That is right, according to the records. 



17840 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. So here we have in these two companies the union 
officials having an interest in them, and the companies being located in 
the union headquarters, and that they are doing business then with 
companies with which the union itself has contracts? 

Mr. Balaban. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is, as far as the deodorizing company is con- 
cerned ? 

Mr. Balaban. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And as far as the other company is concerned, the 
beauty products company, we find that although the records show that 
they jDaid money for rent, this money was never deposited to the ben- 
efit of the union ? 

Mr. Balaban. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And one of the union officials is one of those who is 
an officer of these companies ; and an owner of these companies ? 

Mr. Balaban. That is correct. 

Mr, Kennedy. Then Mr. Glimco's son was a salesman, at least for 
a part of the time, for one of these companies ? 

Mr. Balaban. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. The deodorizing company ? 

Mr. Balaban. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. It would just indicate, Mr. Chairman, the many 
ways in which this penetration into business can also take place. 

The Chairman. Those checks and stubs may be made exhibit Nos. 
14A, B and C. 

(Checks referred to were marked "Exhibit Nos. 14A, B, and C for 
reference and will be found in the appendix on pp. 18080-18082.) 

Mr. Kennedy. And can we put into an exhibit the records of the 
Best Sanitation ? 

The Chairman. They may be made exhibit No. 15. 

(Documents referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 15"' for refer- 
ence and may be found in the filevS of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to ask one other question. 

Could he identify that? 

The Chairman. Mr. Marcie, I hand you a photostatic copy of an 
invoice made out to Taxi Drivers Union, local 777, No. 11205. It 
states it is for removing all glass and old frames in entire building, 
remodeling all front entrances, and installing glass brick in windows 
as per agreement. 

It appears to be in the amount of $2,750, from Schor Glass Co. I 
ask you to examine it and state if you identify it. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you expla-in what that is, Mr. Balaban? 

The Chairman. Just a moment. I just handed it to the other 
witness. 

Have you examined the invoice the Chair presented to you? 

Mr. Marcie. I have, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you identify it? 

Mr. Margie. I respectfully decline to answer because I lionestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. The invoice may be made exhibit No. 16. 

(Invoice referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 16" for reference 
and will bo found in Ihe appendix on p. 18083.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17841 

The Chairman. Mr. Balaban, will you examine this exhibit No. 
16, this invoice, and "five the committee an explanation of it? 

(The docmnent was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Balahax. The peculiar tiling about this document, sir, is that 
it seems to be a regular invoice with the Schor Glass Co. This was 
a £:lazin<^ contractor who rented space in the building o^^^led by 777. 
Printed over that are the words "Gro-Mar Construction Co." We 
talked to Mr. Bankendorf, who was the owner of Schor Glass Co., 
and he knew nothing about this company. Nobody seems to know 
anything about who Gro-Mar Construction Co. is. 

The check is missing, and it is among those checks that are missing. 
We don't have the check nor the stub. We can't tell who endorsed 
and cashed the check, but we do know it was charged on the books. 

The Chairman. Did the union pay it? 

Mr. Balaban. The union paid it; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Marcie, did you steal that money from the 
union, too? 

IMr. ISIarcie. I respecfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Xow we have the amount of flowers that have been 
purchased bv local 777 from this flower shop which is owned, as 1 
say, by the wives of two of these leading gangsters. 

Could we place that into the record ? 

The ChairjVIAn. All right. 

TESTIMONY OF ALPHONSE F. CALABRESE— Resumed 

Mr. Calabrese. For the period 1950 through April 30, 1958, a 
total amount of $11,973.31. 

The Chairman. $11,000 what? 

Mr. Calabrese. $973. 

The Chairman. In other words, for a period of — what is that, 8 
years? 

Mr. Calabrese. Seven and a quarter years. 

The Chairman. For a period of a little over 7 years, the total flower 
bill that they bought from the gangster shop — is that what you said 
it was? 

]Mr. Calabrese. It was ovvned b}- the wives of Mr. Campagna and 
]VIr. Capezio. 

The Chairman. A total of $11,973.31? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further? 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you tell us anything, Mr. Marcie, about these 
two companies? 

j\Ir. jVLvrcie. I reispectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Through you and Mr. Glimco you were putting pres- 
sure on these various employers to do business with these companies? 

Mr. Margie. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you regard such tactics as have been shown here 
to be those of a racketeer and gangster? Do you? 

Mr. Marcie. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 



17842 IMPROPER ACTWITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. You don't think they are actions of honest men, 
do you ? 

Mr. Margie. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. These are companies either that you have put pres- 
sure on or where the union had a contract or where the company itself 
was owned by an individual with a police record; is that correct? 

Mr. Margie. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you make these exhibits, please? 

The Chairman. The documents regarding the purchase of the flow- 
ers may be made exhibit No. 17, and the affidavit of Mr. Titus Haffa 
may be made exhibit No. 18. 

(Documents referred to were marked "Exhibits Nos. 17 and 18" 
for reference and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Calabrese. Next are the rent checks by Don Marcie, Inc., the 
checks and stubs. 

The Chairman. Do you mean the checks in payment ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes. 

The Chairman. They were made exhibits No. 14A, B, and C. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. What other docimients have you ? 

Mr. Balaban. Tam O'Shanter. 

The Chairman. That will be made exhibit No. 19 in bulk. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 19" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all ? 

Mr. Balaban. That is all. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Oscar Kofkin and Mr. Joe Coca. 

The Chairman. Come forward, please. Be sworn. 

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

Mr. Kofkin. I do. 

Mr. Coca. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF OSCAR KOFKIN AND CLOVIS JOSEPH COCA, 
ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, H. CLIFFORD ALLDER 

The Chairman. Begimiing on my left, the witness on my left, will 
you state your name, your place of residence, and your business or 
occupation ? 

Mr. CoGA. Joseph Coca, 4419 North Lavergne Avenue, Chicago, 111. 

The Chairman. What is your business or occupation, please? 

Mr. CoGA. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly be- 
lieve my answer might tend to incrunmate me. 

The Chairman. The witness on my right, what is your name ? 

Mr. Kofkin. Oscar Kofkin, 6256 North Eidgeway Avenue, Chicago. 

The Chairman. Have you got a business or occupation ? 

Mr. Kofkin. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Let the record show that the same counsel appears 
as for the previous witness. 

Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17843 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Kofkin, you are a vice president of local 777? 

Mr. Kofkin. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Is he an officer ? 

Mr. Kj;nnedt. He is vice president. 

The Chairman. Is there any officer in that union that you know of 
that can come here and testify without possible self-incrimination? 
Do you know of any ? 

Mr. KoFKiN. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. If you had an honest man in there, it might in- 
criminate the whole works. 

Mr. Kennedy. You received a salary of some $13,500 from the 
union, did you not, in 1957, Mr. Kofkm? 

Mr. KoFKiN. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have long been a close associate of Mr. Glimco ? 

Mr. KoFKiN. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. I^nnedy. Have you been with the union since its inception, 
Mr. Kofkin? 

Mr. KoFKiN. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Ivennedy. You have no convictions, as far as your police rec- 
ord is concerned ? 

Mr. KoFKiN. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Ivennedy. You have been arrested a number of times, once for 
murder and another time for assault with a deadly weapon, have you 
not? 

Mr. KoFKiN. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe mj answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were acquitted in the murder matter; is that 
right? 

Mr. KoFKiN. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Can you tell us what happened in the assault with 
a deadly weapon ? 

You came down here and stayed with Mr. Glimco in the Hoffa 
trial? 

Mr. KoFKiN. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Hoffa want you and Mr. Glimco here to 
keep him company ? 

Mr. KoFKiN. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Mr. Coca, you are president of local 777; is that 
right? 

Mr. Coca. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly be- 
lieve my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Ivennedy. You are now the trustee and office manager of local 
777 ; you stepped aside and turned your former position over to Mr. 
Joey Glimco. Is that right ? 



17844 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Coca. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly be- 
lieve my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were president of the local from the time that 
Abata was forced to resign in 1952 until February of 1958, when Joey 
Glimco became president ; is that right ? 

Mr. Coca. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. "V\niy did you quit when you had 2 more yeai-s to go 
on your term ? 

Mr. Coca. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. The fact is that you and your fellow Teamster 
officials just feel that you own this local and you can move your 
positions around as you see fit ? 

Mr. Coca. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you tell us about the union paying some $85,000 
to Mr. Pantaleo in connection with the building construction work, 
the remodeling of the building in 1952-53 ? 

Mr. Coca. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly be- 
lieve my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did you pay him $85,000 when it was only 
worth some $35,000? 

Mr. Coca. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly believe 
my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You received a salary in 1957 of some $13,500 from 
the union ; is that right ? 

Mr. Coca. I respectfully decline to answ^er because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. I will correct that, Mr. Chairman. That is $13,100. 

It was $13,100 ; is that right ? 

Mr. Coca. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you approve of the payments to Mr. Pantaleo? 

Mr. Coca. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly be- 
lieve my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Joey Glimco actually runs this union, does he 
not ? 

Mr. Coca. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly believe 
my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us what the necessity of the Oak Park 
Arms Hotel i-oom was ? 

Mr. Coca. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly be- 
lieve my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you enjoy your trip through the Caribbean at 
union expense? 

Mr. Coca. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly be- 
lieve my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you enjoy it, Mr. Kofkin? 

Mr. Kofkin. I i-espectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminaite me. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further? 

Senator Mundt? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17845 

Senator Mundt. I have no questions. 

The CiiAiitMAN. Stand aside. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Joey Glimco. 

The CiiAiKMAN. Be sworn. 

Do you solemnly swear the evidence you shall give before this 
Senate Select Committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and 
notliing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Glimco. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH P. GLIMCO. ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
H. CLIFFORD ALLDER— Resumed 

The Chair]vl\n. State 3^our name, 3^our place of residence, and 
your business or occupation. 

Mr. Glimco. Joseph Paul Glimco, 629 Selbourne Road, Riverside, 
111., and I am an American citizen. 

The Chairman. Well, since you are so anxious to testify now, we 
will help you. 

When did you become an American citizen ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I order, with the approval of the committee, since 
you voluntarily suggested you are an American citizen, sir, I order 
and direct you to state when you became an American citizen. 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. That order will continue throughout the duration 
of your appearance on the witness stand. 

Senator Mundt. May I say that I think the Chair is on exceedingly 
firm ground. If the witness persists in being in contempt of the 
committee on this point, we should certainly take every step that we 
can in citing him for contempt of Congress, because by no remote 
stretch of the imagination can any judge hold that becoming a citizen 
of the United States, telling us the date on which he obtained that 
great distinction, could incriminate anybody. 

Too many people try to avoid deportation and denaturalization, 
and we should not permit that to stand in the record, Mr. Glimco. 

If you want to let that stand in the record before this committee 
and the Congress, and are ashamed of your American citizenship to 
that extent, let the record so declare. 

The Chairman. He might have been born here, I don't know. 

Senator Mundt. It is certainly something that the naturalization 
authorities ought to take under consideration, if we have a man here 
ashamed of his citizenship of the United States, if, indeed, he is a 
citizen. 

The Chairman. He volunteered the information that he is a citi- 
zen of the United States. 

I certainly have a right and this committee has a right to inter- 
rogate him. 

^Vlien did you become a citizen? You understand that you are 
being ordered by this committee, representing the Senate of the 
United States — you are ordered and directed by this committee to 
answer that question. 



17846 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Do you ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You are ordered now and directed to answer that 
question. 

Do you understand it, that you are being ordered and directed to 
answer that question ? 

Mr. Glimco, I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Glimco is an important Teamster 
official, through his contracts with the underworld in Chicago. The 
fact that he is now a very close associate of Mr. Hoffa, the inter- 
national President, is shown through his direct contracts with Mr. 
Hoffa. According to the testimony, he has been receiving money 
from employers and has shaken them down. 

I would like to start with the beginning of the testimony before the 
committee. Mr. Abata testified that all the union officials when this 
local was first started, or after it had been going for several years, 
had to kick back a certain amount of their salaries to you ; is that cor- 
rect? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. This amounted to some $3,000 a month ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was more than $3,000 a month that you got in kick- 
back, is that right, Mr. Glimco ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr, Kennedy. Not being content with that, you also took a certain 
percentage of the business of the various people — the merchants who 
were working the Fulton Street Market? 

Mr. Glimco, I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me, 

Mr. Kennedy. We have had the testimony of Mr. Nelson, that he 
had to make a kickback to you in order to operate in the Fulton Street 
Market. 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr, Kennedy, We also have the testimony in connection with these 
unusual payments that were made to Mr. Mallec. Did you receive 
that money from Mr. Mallec ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. We had the fact that they made these payments not 
just because of you, but, because of whom you represented — people 
such as Tony Accardo. Do you know Mr. Accardo ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer miglit tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Paul "The Waiter" Kicca? Do you know him? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17847 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer miglit tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tough Tony Capezio ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Little New York Campagna? Mr. Glimco? 

Mr. Glimco. Pardon? 

I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly believe my an- 
swer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Gus Alex ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfulh'' decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr, Kennedy. You rely on those people, do you not, in order to get 
these kickbacks, Mr. Glimco ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then when you were indicted in 1953 for receiving 
other kickbacks, other than have been testified to before this commit- 
tee, you used these kind of contacts in order to intimidate the witnesses 
and get them to change their story ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I believe my 
answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yet you said at your naturalization proceedings in 
January 1939 : 

They have a perfect right at any time in the future, if citizenship is given to 
me, to take it away from me at any time. They have that right. I am not ask- 
ing for something I am going to take and abuse. 

You got your citizenship and abused it ; did you not ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You became a union official. You never were in- 
terested in the slightest in the union membership. 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever do anything to help the union mem- 
bership, one thing ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to i ncriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were one of the major supporters of Mr. Hoffa, 
and he is one of your major supporters. Is it because of this back- 
ground that you have ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't care anytliing about yourself and these 
other people who are gangsters and hoodlums, do you ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you defraud the union by charging the con- 
struction of jour own home to the union, just like Mr. Dave Beck? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would agree witli you. 

The Chairman. I believe it would."^ 



17848 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. You can't tell us anything about that, can you, 
Mr. Glimco ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You can have a lot of tough people call up witnesses, 
poor businessmen, poor members of the union, who can't afford to 
protect themselves, and have them intimidate these people, but you 
can't come before this committee and answer any questions, can you, 
Mr. Glimco ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You haven't got the guts to do that, have you, Mr. 
Glimco ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Morally you are kind of yellow inside, are you 
not ? That is the truth about it ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tencl to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened to the $50,000, the extra money that 
was paid Mr. Pantaleo ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell the committee what you were doing 
at the Bel Air Hotel in California ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. For what piu"pose did you go out there with Miss 
Murray ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did the union pay some $1,000 for that trip? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did you give a false address? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfull}^ decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are you married? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Glimco. I am, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you have children ? 

Mr. Glimco. Yes. 

The Chairman. What kind of entertainment did you provide out 
there and have the union pay for? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I see. 

Proceed. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. What did you have the room at the Oak Park 
Hotel for? 

Mr. Glimco. Excuse me. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17849 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you tell us why that was charged to enter- 
tainment also ^ 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you tell us why the union paid for the Carib- 
bean trip for the union officials ? 

Mr. Glimcx). I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why was it in the interest of the union to spend 
over $7,000 so that you and Mr. Kofkin could stay with Mr. Hoffa 
diu'ing the trial? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. How was that helping the union membership of the 
Teamsters, Mr. Glimco? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestLv 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Ivennedy. You considered that these unions belonged to you 
and Mr. Hoffa, and that you could use the funds as you saw fit; is 
that right? 

^Ir, Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. How were you able to make this arrangement with 
the two taxicab companies, that you would pay them Ti^ or 10 per- 
cent and then T^^ percent for collecting the dues? How did you 
happen to make that arrangement? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you regard the way you have gotten a lot of 
this money as just plain stealing it ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Have you any other explanation about the way 
you got it, any other term to describe it ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have been arrested 36 times, or are we under- 
stating it, Mr. Glimco ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you able to get out of convictions in those 
cases by intimidating the witnesses ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell the committee why the health and 
welfare fund was not trusteed, Mr, Glimco ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you tell us anj^thing about Mr. Marcie and his 
companies ? Can you tell us anything about them ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. T\\liat about the Best Sanitation Co. ? 



17850 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You arranged accounts for toilet deodorizers; that 
was one of the things that you did, Mr. Glimco ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that a toilet deodorizer salesman ? Is that what 
you were? 

Mr. Glimco. 1 respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was the same time that you held the union 
position ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Do you think that that helped local 777 member- 
ship? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You also control local 703 of the Teamsters? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You get a salary, and these other matters we have 
been discussing have been above and beyond that, but you get a sal- 
ary from local 777 of some $20,000 ; is that right ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you were able to get also a 1959 Cadillac con- 
vertible which was purchased by the union ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr, Kennedy. Can you tell us anything that you do for the union 
membership ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you tell us one benefit you have ever gotten 
for the union membership ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, there are other matters in connection 
with the awarding of the insurance, that we will be going into. I 
am sure that Mr. Glimco would like to give us some information. 
But I will not ask him about these questions until the testimony has 
been presented. 

The Chairman. Mr. Glimco, you will remain under your present 
subpena, subject to being recalled by the committee at such time as 
it may desire to have further testimony from you, or, rather, to inter- 
rogate you further. I doubt if we will get much testimony from you. 

Do you acknowledge that recognizance? 

Mr. Glimco. I do, sir. 

The Ciiaikman. All right, sir. In the meantime, the Chair is 
instructing the staff of the committee to draft proper documents to 
have you and Mr. Dominic Senese, who appeared yesterday, to have 
each of you cited for contempt of this committee. I am also instruct- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 17851 

ing that this transcript be sent to tlie Justice Department for its 
immediate attention, looking towards the revocation of your citizen- 
ship. I do not believe any man who, on the face of it, at least, has 
a record like you, who has violated the trust reposed in him when 
tliis country granted him citizenship, should be permitted or privi- 
leged to enjoy that status any longer. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. You did not misunderstand me, did you ? 

Mr. Glimco. Sorry? 

The Chairman. You did not misunderstand me, did you ? 

Mr. Glimco. I didn't. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

You may stand aside. 

Mr. Kennedy. We will need him back probably Wednesday of next 
week. 

Mr. Allder. If you will notify me, Mr. Kennedy, one day before, 
I will have him here. 

The Chairman. All right. The conmiittee stands in recess until 
10 : 30 Tuesday morning. 

(Whereupon, at 4: 47 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 
10 : 30 a.m., Tuesday, March 17, 1959.) 

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



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 1959 

U.S. Senate, 
Select Committee on Improper AcTrvrriES 

IN THE Labor or IVLvnagement Field, 

Washington^ B.C. 

The select committee met at 11 a.m., pursuant to Senate Resolu- 
tion 44, agreed to February 2, 1959, in the caucus room, Senate 
OflSce Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select 
committee) presiding. 

Present: Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Senator 
Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; Senator Frank Church, 
Democrat, Idaho ; Senator Homer E. Capehart, Republican, Indiana. 

Also present: Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel; Alphonse F. 
Calabrese, investigator; Martin S. Uhlmann, investigator; Jack S. 
Balaban, investigator; James F. Mundie, investigator; John D. 
Williams, investigator ; Ruth Y. Watt, chief clerk. 

The Chaerivian. The committee will be in order. 

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

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we are going into a different situa- 
tion, and a different matter now in connection with the Dearborn 
Insurance Agency and the Occidental Insurance Co., and the re- 
ceipt by these companies of the insurance of various unions in the 
Chicago area, unions of the Teamsters as well jxs the Hotel and 
Restaurant Workers. 

I would like to give some of the background of the Dearborn In- 
surance Agency, and to do this I would like to call a member of the 
staff, Mr. Calabrese. 

The Chairman. Come around, Mr. Calabrese. 

You have been previously sworn in this series of hearings; have 
you? 

Mr. Calabrese. I have. 

The Chairman. All right, you may proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF ALPHONSE F. CALABRESE— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Calabrese, you have made a study of the Dear- 
born Insurance Agency ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes, and its predecessor corporation. Dearborn 
Insurance Agency, Inc. 

36751— 59— pt. 49 -11 17853 



17854 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you give us a little bit of the background of 
that company, and for whom it worked, and by whom it was set up ? 
I would like to get any names that you mention, and would you 
spell those that are important ? 

Mr. Calabrese. The principal officer in this Dearborn Insurance 
Agency, Inc., was Harland Maris. 

The Chairman. You mean the organizer ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes. 

The Chairman. What is his name? 

Mr. Calabrese. H-a-r-1-a-n-d M-a-r-i-s, a resident of Oakland, 
Calif., and who was an agent for a general agent Harry Wraith, 
W-r-a-i-t-h, in Oakland. The general agency was with the Occi- 
dental Life Insurance Co. of California, in Los Angeles. 

Mr. Kennedy. The Occidental is the one that handles the insurance 
of the Western Conference of Teamsters ; is that right ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. All right. Proceed. 

Mr. Calabrese. Mr. Maris met Mr. Frank Keenan, K-e-e-n-a-n, 
in 1948 or 1949, at Pebble Beach, Calif., while playing golf. Mr. 
Keenan was an alderman in Chicago and the county assessor in Cook 
County, Cliicago, 111. 

Senator Mundt. What year was this ? 

Mr. Calabrese. In 1948 or 1949, Senator. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. We have the documents to show how they met, and 
they mention that in some letters; is that right? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes, and also through an interview Avith Mr. Maris 
himself, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Keenan interested Mr. Maris in coming to Chicago to try to 
obtain pension plans for unions in the Chicago area. Mr. Maris 
accepted and did go out, and for a year or so endeavored to get pension 
plans through various local unions, contacts from which he obtained 
from Keenan and certain others that I will discuss later. 

But he was unsuccessful in his endeavor to obtain the pension 
plans. However, he was successful in obtaining health and welfare 
plans in 21 cases, and I will refer to them as 21 Chicago cases, most 
of which were local unions in the Chicago area. One of them was 
local 777, Joe Glimco's Taxicab Union. 

As a result of this, or on the basis of this work they were to obtain, 
that they felt they were going to obtain in Chicago, Dearborn In- 
surance Agency was incorporated under the laws of Illinois on March 
3, 1949, and the stockholders of record were H. Maris, president, 65 
shares; John W. Murray, vice president, 26 shares. 

Mr. I^nnedy. Wliowashe? 

Mr. Calabrese. He is a Chicago businessman, and real estate con- 
struction business, and he was necessary to the corporation because 
he was, or he had a resident broker's license, which was necessary 
under the Illinois law for Dearborn to obtain these policies, these 21 
Chicago cases. 

The third one was Mr. Frank Keenan, who held 26 shares. 

The fourth one was Mr. Elmer Crane, listed as secretary, and Mr. 
Crane, C-r-a-n-e, held 26 shares, and Mr. Crane is a local attorney. 

The lifth member was Mr. Allen Creitz, A-1-l-e-n C-r-e-i-t-z, who 
held 39 shares, making a total of 195 shares, and the par value was 



liVIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17855 

$10. Mr. Creitz was the group manager of the group department of 
Occidental Life Insurance Co. in Chicago. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was actually working for the company ? 

Mr. Calabrese. He was actually working for Occidental Life In- 
surance Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he also became interested in this brokerage 
company, to handle the insurance ? 

Mr, Calabrese. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was doing both things ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was Occidental Life Insurance Co. aware that he 
also had an interest in this brokerage company? 

^Ir. Calabrese. As far as we are able to ascertain, they stated no, 
they were not aware of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was no indication that they were aware of it? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is right. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. That was Mr. Creitz, who had the double interest? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Since that has been brought to the attention of the 
Occidental Insurance Co. within the last week or so, his services 
have been terminated with the Occidental Insurance Co.? 

Mr. Calabrese. I believe he was asked to resign, yes. 

Now, this corporation was in existence until May 31, 1952, at which 
time it was dissolved and the Dearborn Insurance Agency, a partner- 
sliip, was formed on June 1, 1952, and the partners were : 11. R. Maris, 
and he had a 34 percent interest in the partnership and a salary of 
$7,200 a year; Mr. Elmer Crane had a 22 percent interest, and his 
salary was $3,000 a year; and Mr. Creitz had a 22 percent interest, 
and he had a salary of $3,000 a year; and Mr. Jolm Murray, 22 per- 
cent, and he had a salary of $3,000 per annum. Mr. Creitz was in 
the partnership up mitil May 31, 1957, when for reasons of his own 
he felt that he had best sever his connection with the partnership. 

The Chairman. What did this partnership do now ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Well, the partnership actually took over the assets 
of Dearborn Insurance Agency, Inc., and they dissolved the corpora- 
tion and they became partners. 

The Chairman. In other words, the Dearborn Insurance Co., Inc., 
was dissolved and the assets or the interest in it was distributed among 
partners ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Among the partners, yes. 

And I might add, Mr. Keenan left the corporation in May of 1952. 
His shares were turned in and were purchased by Mr. Murray for 
$5,000. ^ 

The Chairiman. "When was this partnership entered into and the 
corporation dissolved ? 

Mr. Calabrese. The corporation was dissolved on May 31, 1952, and 
the partnership begins on June 1, 1952. 

Mr. Kennedy. There is some indication, which we will go into in 
greater detail, that there were some silent partners involved in this 
insurance company ; is that right ? 
Mr. Calabrese. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. In the brokerage agency, in the Dearborn Insurance 
Agency ? 
Mr. Calabrese. Yes ; that is correct. 



17856 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to put in the figures. They were able 
to obtain the business of these 21 different groups; is that right? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I would like to place them in the 
record. We have a chart which we can introduce which breaks down 
the figures that were involved, and how much the Dearborn Insurance 
Agency received. I believe it would be best to put it in at this time. 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes; that is correct. I have a copy of it here. 

The Chairman. Can that be placed in the record as an exhibit, or 
does it have to be printed in the record ? 

Mr. Calabrese. We can place this in as an exhibit, Senator. 

The Chairman. That will be made exhibit No. 20. 

(Chart referred to was marked exhibit No. 20 for reference and 
will be found in the appendix on p. 18084.) 

The Chairman. State what it does and what the chart is. 

You hold a duplicate of the chart now being displayed on the 
board ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. What does this chart reflect ? What is it intended 
to convey ? 

Mr. Calabrese. It reflects first the amount of moneys that tlie in- 
surer. Occidental Life Insurance Co. of California, received as a 
result of these 21 Chicago cases from March 1950 to February 1959, 
according to the figures that Occidental made available to us. 

The Chairman. That is from its clients, the total amount of money 
it received from its clients ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes. 

The Chairman. From the insurance company who it handled busi- 
ness for ? 

Mr. Calabrese. In the form of premiums ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That is what I am talking about, from premiums? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct, sir. The figure is $16,154,443.96. 

Mr. Kennedy. The next figure is the figure we are primarily con- 
cerned with ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. The next figure is the commis- 
sions and other fees paid by Occidental from March 1950 to Febru- 
ary 1959, which is in the amount of $1,015,611.10. This $1,015,611.10 
is then broken down to show how it was distributed. 

The Chairman. Do you mean who got the money ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes. 

The Chairman. The $1,015,000 is profit or commissions paid for 
the services that the company rendered ? 

Mr. Calabrese. It is commissions and other fees. Senator, such as 
administrative expenses. 

The Chairman. I understand. But it is the total amount that the 
Dearborn company got ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Not quite. Senator. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. It is the total amount that the Dearborn Insurance 
Agency received, plus other o;roups received as brokerage groups? 

Mr. Calabrese. Right, which, for the most part Maris controlled. 

Mr. Kennedy. As it will be explained, Mr. Chairman, all of the 
brokerage fees did not go directly to the Dearborn Insurance Agency, 
for reasons tiuit will be explained. Some of the money was channeled 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17857 

directly to Mr. Maris, rather than the Dearborn Insurance Agency. 

The Chairman. No doubt your explanation will clear it up as we 
go along. 

Mr. Calabrese. The circle represents $1,015,000. 

The Chairman. What circle '( 

Mr. KJENNEDT. The circle on the chart. 

Mr. Calabrese. $739,206.86 was paid to Dearborn Insurance 
Agency, Inc., and Dearborn Insurance Agency, by Occidental. The 
next breakdown is $3,684.54 which was paid to the Marris-Scully 
Corp. 

The Chairman. How much was that ? 

Mr. Calabrese. $3,684.54. At this point, I might explain that once 
the policies have been awarded on these 21 Chicago cases, Mr. Maris 
went to Occidental Life Insurance Co. personnel and advised that 
since he had expended large sums of money in Chicago endeavoring 
to obtain these 21 cases, that he felt that he should get a commission 
or override direct to him. 

The Chairman. That is where the overcommission or overage com- 
mission comes in ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Another commission. 

The Chairman. Over and above and exclusive of that paid to the 
company ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is right, to Dearborn Insurance Agency. 

The Chairman. It is an individual, a personal payment ? 

Mr. Calarbese. Eight. This was done in the fonn of a contract 
between Occidental Life Insurance Co. and the Maris-Scully Corp., 
which had been set up on January 15, 1949, and was incorporated uncfer 
the laws of California. It was located in Oakland, Calif. 

The stockholders were Maris, who had 85 shares, Clarence Scully, 
who had 10 shares, and who was also an agent working out of the 
Harry Wraith General Agency in Oakland, and Miss Aileen Tipton, 
who had five shares. Miss Tipton was Mr. Maris' secretary from 1946 
until approximately 1956. 

This corporation then was dissolved on January 31, 1951, and the 
assignment of the rights that the Maris-Scully Corp. had with Occi- 
dental was then assigned directly to Harland R. Maris. So Harland 
R. Maris, as an individual, then received $5,192.74 from Occidental. 

Then Mr. Maris formed the Wheeler-Maris Co., another California 
corporation located in Oakland, and this was incorporated on Novem- 
ber 1, 1951. The stockholders were Mr. Maris, with 55 shares; his 
wife. Merle Maris, with 40 shares, and Miss Aileen Tipton who re- 
ceived 5 shares in approximately 1955 or 1956, making a total of 100 
shares. 

The assignment of the rights that Mr. Maris had individually inso- 
far as Occidental was concerned, was assigned to the Wheeler-Maris 
Co. so that we find that as of December 31, 1951, when the rights were 
assi<^ned, to December 1957, Wheeler-Maris received $165,986.91 from 
Occidental Life Insurance Co. 

Senator Mundt. Were tliese rights in the form of a written contract 
with Occidental ^ 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. Senator, as I understand. 

Senator Mundt. You have read the contract ? 

Mr. Calabrese. They were agreements that changed with each 
change in the policy. But we have that information from Mr. Dandy 



17858 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

of Occidental Life, who is here. We have the termination of the 
contract. 

Senator Mundt. What, in general, was the nature of the services 
that Mr. Maris or his companies provided for Occidental ? 

Mr. Calabrese. They provided no services, sir. 

Senator Mundt. What did the contract provide? It had to have 
some basis for the making of payments by the Occidental Co. 

Mr. Calabrese. I can't tell you specifically. Maybe Mr. Dandy can 
tell you more specifically, Senator Mundt. But the underlying basis 
for making these payments, as I stated, is the fact that Mr. Maris, at 
the time that the payments were to be made on the basis of these 21 
cases, went to Occidental and stated that for the expenses that he had 
expended and for all of his time he had used up in Chicago in en- 
deavoring to get these 21 cases, he should be given a special conunission. 

Senator Mundt. What I am trying to establish for the record is 
whether or not on occasion Occidental Life Insurance Co. simply gave 
a gratuity to Mr. Maris, or whether that was a business transaction, 
based on some contractual relationship. 

Mr. Calabrese. I can say this : that there was a contract. 

Senator Mundt. Do you recall what the contract provided as a quid 
pro quo? What did Maris have to do to get $5,000? Was it on a 
commission basis ? Was it on a period of time ? 

Mr. Calabrese. He was to get a percentage of the commission. We 
have a breakdown of the commissions. That is where we get the 
figures. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Maris was to get a percentage of the commis- 
sions that were paid to the Dearborn Co. ? 

Mr. Calabrese. A percentage of the premiums paid to Occidental. 

Senator Mundt. On the business provided by the Dearborn Agency ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct ; yes. On the 21 cases. 

Senator Mundt. He got sort of an overriding fee on any business 
that Occidental received from the Dearborn Agency. So the amount 
of his check rose and fell in accordance with the business provided 
Occidental by the Dearborn J^gency ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is right. 'The total figures, from a quick cal- 
culation, under the two corporations and the individual setup, he re- 
ceived about $175,000. That is over and above anything that was 
given to Dearborn Insurance Agency. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just to get the record clear, that was based on the 
fact that he was able to get these 21 cases initially. He stated that 
because of his services in obtaining these 21 cases, most of them union 
cases, that he should be paid an extra fee. 

So he went out and arranged with Occidental that he would get a 
certain percentage of all the premiums that came from these 21 cases. 

Senator Mundt. Do you mean he received what lawyers would call 
a finder's fee and what insurance people would call a commission ? 

Mr. Kennedy. A commission plus a commission. He received the 
commission through the ordinary arrangement in the Dearborn Insur- 
ance Agency, and unbeknownst to his j^artners, the Dearborn Insur- 
ance Agency got an overriding commission, because the partners 
thought this was the only commission being paid while, in fact, there 
was anotlicr commission being paid. 

Senator Mundt. Did you examine the books of Occidental to deter- 
mine whether or not the commission received on this business by the 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17859 

Dearborn Agency was a standard commission which was paid to un- 
derwriters of business of this type '? 

Mr. Calabrese. I tliink that Mr. Uhlmann will be the one to answer 
your question on that, Senator Mundt. He has made a study of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You can answer the question and then the details 
will be supplied by Mr. Uhlmann. 
Mr. Calabrese. Would you repeat it, Senator ? 
Senator Mundt. I am trying to find out whether the Dearborn 
Agency received from the Occidental Co. the standard commission 
which would ordinarily be jjaid an underwriter for business of this 
type to determine whether this man Maris got his money as a result 
of the Dearborn Agency getting a smaller commission or whether 
they broke the commission up at the Occidental end and gave part 
of it to Dearborn and part of it to Maris ? 

Mr. Calabrese. I will have to answer it this way, Senator. Mr. 
Dandy advises tliat the moneys that went to Mr. Maris and the com- 
panies I spoke of, those moneys came from what would have gone to 
Dearborn Insurance Agency, Inc. In other words, they received less. 

Senator Mundt. In other words, the Dearborn Agency received a 
smaller commission than the Occidental Life Insurance Co. would 
have paid to the Sunshine Insurance Agency of Dallas, Tex., provid- 
ing the same business ^ 

Mr. Calabrese. Well, you are comparing it with another company 
and I cannot answer it that way. Senator. 

Senator Mundt. Well, life insurance agencies are a little different 
than jukebox concerns. They are under pretty careful sciiitiny by 
public accountants and auditors. This is a pretty carefully controlled 
business because of the quasi-public nature of it, and the fact that 
the policyholders are dependent upon the integrity of the company. 

They cannot promiscuously have a whole series of commission 
arrangements, whereby they pay one fellow 50 percent and the other 
fellow 10 percent, and things of that type. There are a lot of rules and 
regulations which apply. 

What I am trying to find out is whether or not the Occidental Co. 
paid the Dearborn Agency the regular standard commission for this 
type of business and then paid Maris something on top of that or 
whether, in order to provide the money that Maris received, they 
chiseled down somewhat the commission that the Dearborn Agency 
received as against the normal commission for this type of business. 

Mr. Calabrese. Senator, we will have the witness who will testify 
that the commissions were greatly in excess. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were greatly excessive commissions that were 
paid to the Dearborn Insurance Agency and to Maris. 

Senator Mundt. That is what I am trying to find out. 

Senator Capehart. What was wrong with this Occidental opera- 
tion ? Did the Occidental Co. do anything wrong ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is a question, Senator, that perhaps Mr. Dandy 
can explain better than myself, as to whether anything was wrong. 

Senator Capehart. What are you trying to prove ? 

Mr. Kennedy. We are just trying to put some figures in. 

Senator Capehart. Please let me ask the question. 

"\'VTiat are you trying to prove ? 

Mr. Calabrese. We are trying to show the background of this whole 
operation. Senator, for one thing. In order to understand what we 



17860 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EN THE LABOR FIELD 

will show later, jou will have to know the background on these com- 
panies and entities that we speak of. 

This situation was brought in. This point that we are bringing 
out is that this is a tacit agreement made by Occidental with Mr. Maris 
imbeknownst to the Dearborn Insurance Agency, Inc., and the Dear- 
bom Insurance Agency, the partnership. That is the point we are 
trying to bring out there. 

Senator Capehart. The point I am trying to make is, What did 
Occidental do that was wrong ? Did they violate any law ? Is there 
any reason why the Dearborn Agency should have known what they 
paid Maris ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Well, it will reflect on the commissions, Senator. 
In other words, we will have a witness testify subsequently that the 
commissions were in excess to what the 

Senator Capehart. The commissions that who received ? 

Mr. Calabrese. The commissions paid by Occidental to these en- 
tities that we speak of, Senator. 

Senator Capehart. Was what ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Was greatly in excess of the norm. 

Senator Capehart. Greatly in excess of what ? 

Mr. Calabrese. In excess of the standard commissions. 

Senator Capehart. Well, so what ? They did it, didn't they ? Did 
they have a right to do it? My point is, Did they violate any law 
in doing it ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Senator, there is a code of ethics that is set up. 
Again, that is for Mr. Dandy. It might be better to ask Mr. Dandy 
if there is anything incorrect. We are just trying to present the 
picture as we found it in trying to explain this operation, Senator. 

Senator Capehart. Then the Occidental Insurance Co. insured the 
accounts of 21 companies or unions in Chicago ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

Senator Capehart. And the Dearborn Agency was the insurance 
agency that handled the accounts ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

Senator Capehart. And sold the insurance to these unions ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 
^ Senator Capehart. Then, this Maris, he got a commission in addi- 
tion to the Dearborn ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

Senator Capehart. And your point is that that was wrong ? 

Mr. Calabrese. My point is merely to bring out the facts. Sen- 
ator. 

Senator Capehart. Did I state the facts correctly ? 

Mr. Calabrese. You did state the facts correctly. Senator. 

Senator Capehart. Now, it is up to somebody else besides you to 
prove whether it was wrong or right ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Well, as I pointed out, we will have another wit- 
ness that will testify that from a study of the commissions paid by J 
Occidental to these entities, it was greatly in excess. ■ 

Senator Capehart. My next question is: Who— I gather there is 
obioction to the questions I am asking. 

The Chairman. There are no objections to the questions whatso- 
ever. Proceed. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17861 

Senator Capehart. I am trying to find out. AVhere is the Oc- 
cidental Insurance Co., a very, very fine, reputable California com- 
pany. I was trying to find out what it was that they did that was 
wrong? They sell what we call gi-oup insurance, I presume, to these 
21 unions in Chicago. That is health, accident, and I presume, life. 
I don't know. 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

Senator Capehart. They paid the Dearborn agency in Chicago 
to handle the account they sold these other companies. Then this 
other company got a commission in addition to that. 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

Senator Capehart. Do you know whether or not the employees 
of these unions that have paid the premium paid higher premiums 
as a result of this operation ? 

Mr. Calabrese. The employees? 

Senator Capehart. Yes. 

Mr. Calabrese. The employees paid nothing, Senator. 

Senator Capehart. \\'Tio paid them? 

Mr. Calabrese. The employers. 

Senator Capehart. The employers paid them ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes. 

Senator Capehart. Well, then, what has it all got to do with the 
union? What is it in here for in the first place? I mean, if the 
employers paid it and the union members had nothing to do with 
it, and paid nothing on it, what has it to do with what we are in- 
vestigating here, labor investigation ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Well, Senator, under the wage agreements that 
the various unions had, a provision was in which provided whereby 
the employers that have the contract with that local union would 
pay certain amounts of money. 

Senator Capehart. They would pay the premiums on these insur- 
ance policies? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is right. 

Senator Capehart. For their employees ? 

Mr. Calabrese. For their employees who were members of that lo- 
cal union. 

Senator Capehart. And their employees belonged to the Team- 
sters Union? 

Mr. Calabrese. They were not all Teamsters Union cases. There 
were some ; yes. 

Senator Capehart. lYhat I am trying to find out is who violated 
any law or who got hurt, or what is the connection here ? 

Mr. Calabrese. What we are trying to do. Senator, is lay the back- 
ground to show you what happened in the way these cases were ob- 
tained. Tliat is the reason for this background information. 

Senator Cjapehart. In other words, that these gentlemen operating 
this Maris agency and the Dearborn agency were union officials? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is what we intend to show. Senator. Not 
union officials, but they had union connections. 

Senator Capehart. But you just testified tliat the union member did 
not pay any of the premium, that the employer paid it all. 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

Senator Capehart. Where does the union membership then enter 
into the picture at all, if he got full and complete coverage ? 



17862 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. There may be a very serious question about whether 
he did or did not. We have been into these things before. Let me 
point out that we are putting this in as background information. 
There will be other witnessses come along and it will be necessary to 
have this information to understand the other testimony as it unfolds. 

Senator Capeiiart. I see. All right. 

The Chairman. I do not know whether it will show anything 
wrong. You do not have to necessarily show a crime to show some- 
thing is improper. We have found many improprieties I think in the 
course of the hearings we have conducted which may not be crimes, 
but they may need legislation to correct them or to regulate them. 

As you put on this testimony, you get some background information 
that simply helps you to understand the whole pattern of it after you 
have concluded with all of the testimony. This is information that 
we thought was a basis for the study of this particular transaction 
and how it operated. 

Senator Capehart. My question is: Who are we trying to impress 
with this sort of information ? The committee ? 

The Chairman. I am not trjdng to impress anybody. I am a mem- 
ber of this committee, and I am going to hear the testimony. I may 
be impressed and I may not be. As to making a decision as to whether 
it was right or wrong, an impropriety, that is primarily addressing 
itself to the committee members. 

Are there any further questions ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Calabrese, these insurance entities are set up 
based on a bargaining relationship between the union and the com- 
pany ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Instead of, for instance, having higher wages in a 
particular instance, it would be agreed that the company or cor- 
poration will pay so much for insurance; is that right? It is part of 
the bargaining agreement? 

Mr. Calabrese. It is. 

Mr, Kennedy. So instead of the employees getting paid maybe 25 
cents more per hour, it might be agreed that the company will pay 
$1.50 or $2 per week into the insurance ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is right. 

The Chairman. In other words, this is what you term a fringe 
benefit? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy, Wliich comes directly into the bargaining rela- 
tionships between unions and employers ; is that right ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

Mr, Kennedy. Now, would you continue as to this arrangement 
that was made and would you explain it ? 

Mr. Calabrese. As I say, the Wheeler-lMaris Corp, agreement with 
Occidental Life Insurance Co. was terminated in December of 1957 
when the partners went on to Occidental and pi*esented them with 
facts that they learned, that this tacit agreement had been going on, 
and Occidental agi'eed to terminate, Wheeler-Maris received no more 
money as of December 31, 1957. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES DsT THE LABOR FIELD 17863 

Now, the next section shows that the Harry Wraith General Agency, 
Oakland, Calif., received $100,112.38. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was Harry Wraith ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Harry Wraith was the general agent of Occidental 
Life Insurance Co. of California. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is not an unusual procedure, is it, Mr. Cala- 
brese? 

Mr. Calabrese. The only unusual thing about it w^as that Mr. 
Wraith's agency had nothing to do with the processing of the claims 
or anything else. It was in Oakland, whereas the 21 Chicago cases 
are located at Chicago. 

Senator Mundt. Did you establish whether there was a general 
agent for Occidental in Illinois? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes, in Chicago. 

Senator Mundt. Did he receive any commissions? 

Mr. Calabrese. No, he did not. 

Senator Mtjndt. It is a bit unusual that the general agent in Cali- 
fornia would get the money instead of the general agent who has 
jurisdiction over the area where the insurance policies are written, 
is it not ? 

Mr. Calabrese. It was unusual, yes, and it was brought up in the 
early days, in 1950, about whether they should allow or not allow Mr. 
Wraith that override, and it was agreed that they should, because of 
the services that he had rendered Mr. Maris, especially financialwise, 
in endeavoring to obtain the Chicago cases. 

Senator Mundt. But they did go entirely around the general agent 
for the State of Illinois, and he received nothing? 

Mr. Calabrese. He received nothing, and the only thing that was 
received in Chicago by the Occidental representative was the percent- 
age of first-year commissions by the branch manager of Occidental 
Life Insurance Co., which is different from the general agency. 

Mr. Kennedy. So he received some $100,000, and was there any 
other payment out of it ? 

Mr. Calabrese. The last figure was $1,427.67, which was given aa 
miscellaneous brokerage fees to a Chicago firm. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, I would like to call Mr. Uhlmann, to make a 
comparison between what was received in connection with this case, 
and what would be received under the so-called code of ethics of insur- 
ance brokerage. 

Mr. Calabrese. I have here in front of me a copy of the termination 
agreement between Occidental Life Insurance Co. of California, and 
the Wheeler-Maris Co., and the termination agreement is effective the 
Slst day of October 1957, and which speaks for itself, that the agree- 
ment between Occidental and the Wheeler-Maris was terminated. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 21 for reference. 1 
don't know whether it has any pertinency or not. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 21" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. The document can be referred to. 

Is there anything further ? 

Mr. Kennedy. He will have to be recalled. 

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Uhlmann. 

The Chairman. Will you be sworn, please ? 



17864 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

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. Uhlmann. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF MARTIN S. UHLMANN 

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

Mr. Uhlmann. My name is Martin S. Uhlmann, and I live in 
Arlington, Va. I am a member of the staff of the Senate Select Com- 
mittee on Improper Activities in the Labor Management Field. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Uhlmann, have you made a study of this ? 

How long have you been working for the Govermnent, Mr. Uhl- 
mann ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. I am now in my 26th year. 

Mr. Kennedy. What Government agency were you with prior to 
coming with this committee? 

Mr. Uhlmann. The General Services Administration. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was your position with them ? 

Mr. Ulhmann. I was in charge of the Audit Division, in relation 
to contracts that primarily were identified with the stockpiling of 
strategic and critical materials. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was your position with them ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Director of the audit work in connection with con- 
tracts that were awarded in relation to the stockpiling of strategic 
and critical materials. 

Mr, Kennedy. How long have you been with this committee then? 

Mr. Uhlmann. About a year and a half. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you are a certified public accountant ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes, sir; I am. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been a certified public account- 
ant? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Roughly 30 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Uhlmann, have you made a study of the broker- 
age fees that have been paid in connection with the insurance for 
which the Occidental Insurance Co. is the carrier and the Dearborn 
Agency is the broker? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes, sir ; I have. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do we find that the brokerage fees that were paid 
to the Dearborn Insurance Agency, to Mr. Maris and certain other 
entities, were excessive ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes, we found them to be excessive. 

Mr. Kennedy. Excessive in comparison with what standard? 

Mr. Uhlmann. With the code of ethical practices that has been 
adopted and accepted by virtually all State insurance departments, 
and in any event it is identified as the code of ethical practices of 
the National Association of Insurance Connnissioners. 

Senator Mundt. I think the pertinent point here would be, if 
you have made a study, whether the commissions paid for this family 
of companies and unions in Chicago, via Occidental, was a higher 
commission than Occidental was paying for similar types of business 
in other parts of the country. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17865 

Mr. Uhlmann. I do not have before me the commission scale that 
Occidental has been paying for similar business elsewhere. 

Senator Mundt. Would you try to obtain it, or did they refuse to 
give it to you, or was it not available, or perhaps did you not make 
an effort to get it? 

Mr. Uhlmann. I am told that no effort was made to get it. I was 
not engaged in that phase of the investigation. 

Senator Mundt. I am trying to find out. If we have information 
on that it would be very relevant and very pertinent. 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. I might say. Senator, that we went into Occidental 
Insurance Co. about March of 1957, particularly into the awarding 
and the reciving of insurance for the Western Conference of Team- 
sters, which was awarded by Mr. Dave Beck. We went into the 
fact that George Newell, who was the broker, received very high 
commissions, and that he then went into business with Mr. Frank 
Brewster, and then there was the payment to Mr. Frank Brewster 
for walking his horse. We went through all of that business. Then 
there was the fact that they went into a company in which Mr. 
Brewster made some $40,000, how they went in as equal partners, and 
how Mr. George Newell lost some $40,000, and the fact that there 
were excessive commissions paid in that particular case. 

Rather than going through all of the cases that the Occidental In- 
surance Co. had, we made a comparison to the standard that was set 
up by insurance companies generally as to what commissions should 
be paid. We thought that was the best standard to use. 

Would you relate, Mr. Ulilmann, what we have found regarding the 
commissions that should have been paid in a case such as this, accord- 
ing to these standards set up by the insurance companies themselves ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes. I have before me the information related to 
the premium volume and the commissions that have been paid to the 
various insurance agents and brokers and those commissions have been 
related or compared with the amounts provided for by the code. They 
do show rather extensive and considerable excessive payments. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you give us some examples, please? 

Mr. Uhlmann. In the case of the larger policies that were handled 
with respect to this investigation, I have before me the figures related 
to local 710. 

Mr. Kennedy. Of the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Uhlmann, Yes, in Chicago. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Of which Mr. Sandy O'Brien is the head ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes, he is the head of it. As a matter of fact, his 
vice president was a member of the two-man negotiating committee 
that had initially awarded the Central States insurance to another 
company some years back, on which Occidental had competed. How- 
ever, within a matter of 10 days or so, this very same pei-son who was 
joined on this negotiating committee by Mr. Hoffa, withdrew from 
this Central States fund on the ground that the policy itself was un- 
satisfactoi-y from the standpoint of local 710. Yet, he was one of two 
men who participated in the awarding of this with Mr. Hoffa. 

In relation to local 710, we find that there has been paid commissions 
over the years of $250,800, and mider the code those commissions 
would have amounted to $86,000, resulting in an excess in commis- 
sions paid of $164,000 on local 7l0's insurance. 



17866 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Percentagewise, what is the excess? 

Mr. Uhlmann. I beg your pardon ? 

The Chairman. Percentagewise, what is the excessive amounts of 
payments? In other words, based on the regular standard or code, 
how much percentage did they pay over and above what would be 
regarded as proper by that ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. It is about 63 percent. 

The Chairman. In other words, they paid about 163 percent for 
what should have been obtained for 100 percent ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Is that a mathematical calculation ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes, and I am making it right now. 

The Chairman. We can understand it in those terms possibly better 
than with words. 

Mr. Kennedy. They paid how much again in commissions ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. They paid $250,000, and I am rounding the figui-es 
out. Under the code the commissions would have been $86,000. 

Mr. KJENNEDT. About a third as much ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. That is right. 

The Chairman. That is more than any 63 percent more. 

Mr. Uhlmann. Another way of saying it, and it depends on how 
we use the figures, but it would be 200 percent more. That is another 
way of saying it. 

The Chairman. That is what I am getting at. In other words, if 
the regular fee was $86,000, and they paid $250,000, then they are pay- 
ing more than 200 percent over and above what it should be. That is 
over and above the regular commissions. It would be three times as 
much as they should be paying. 

Mr. Uhlmann. That is right. 

The Chairman. That is what I was trying to get at, and you said 
63 percent. 

Mr. Uhlmann. My ratio was a little off. 

The Chairman. All right. What you are trying to say, in other 
words, is that they paid nearly twice as much as they should have 
paid? 

Mr. Uhlmann. That is right. 

The Chairman. Or three times as much as they should have paid ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. That is right ; three times. 

Senator Capehart. What percentage commission did they pay in 
relation to the premium ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Well, it varied. Senator, as it does in the case of 
most policies. In the early years it, of course, was higher, and that is 
in accordance with the procedure. 

Senator Capehart. Wliat was the percentage ? If the premium was 
$100, let us say, what percentage did the Occidental Co. pay ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. They paid 10 percent. 

Senator Capehart. What is the code-of -ethics percentage that they 
should have paid ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. For first-year commissions, it is a rather compre- 
hensive formula that has to be pursued in establishing these things. 
It would be roughly one-third the figure. 

Senator Capehart. I mean in relation to the 10 percent, and you 
say they paid 10 percent commission, or 10 percent of the premium 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 17867 

to the agents. Now, what was the code of ethics on that same insur- 
ance, and Mhat would they pay ? 

]Mr. Uhlmaxx. On that vohime of premium, it would be a little 
over 3 percent. 

Senator Capehart. A little over 3 percent ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes, sir. 

Senator Capehart. On that volume of premiums ; on the first year's 
premiums ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes, sir. 

Senator Capehart. It would be a little over 3 percent ? 

Mr. Uhlmaxn. Yes, sir. 

Senator Capehart. In other words, what companies paid 3 percent? 

Mr. Uhlmaxx. I would like to say this, that it has been tevStified 
here by an expert witness on an earlier occasion recently in relation 
to another insurance matter that was before this committee, who 
incidentally was a participant in the development of this code to 
which we have just referred. He has testified that the code adopted 
by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners was the 
result of a study that had been made of a large number of companies 
over a period of 10 years, and that the code encompasses the rates 
that had been paid by these companies during that period of time. 

Senator Capehart. Do you have the so-called code-of-ethics rates 
there that you could put in the record ? 

Mr. Uhlmaxx. Yes, sir. 

The Chairmax. They would already be in the record. 

Mr. Uhlmaxx. It has already been inserted in the record at an 
earlier hearing. 

Senator Capehart. Your testimony is that the Occidental Life 
Insurance Co. paid about three times as much commissions on this 
business as the code of ethics provided ? 

Mr. Uhlmax. Approximately. 

Senator Capehart. Three times as much ? 

Mr. Uhlmaxx. Yes, sir. 

Senator Capehart. Do you know nnj reason why they paid it ? 

Mr. Uhlmaxx". The reason why they paid it ? 

Senator Capehart. Yes. 

Mr. Uhlmax'x. Well, there may be several reasons for it. It is a 
little difficult for me to read into the minds of the insurance people 
what they negotiated with the company. I find it impossible to de- 
termine what they had up their sleeves, shall we say, when they agreed 
to pay this commission. 

Senator Capehart. Let me ask you, there was nothing illegal about 
it ; was there ? 

Mr. Uhlmax^x. No, sir. 

Senator Capehart. I want to get back to this again, that the em- 
ployers or the employees paid the full premium. 

Mr. UiiLMAxx\ Yes, sir; it is standard, in the main, for the em- 
ployer by way of a fringe benefit, to pay these premiums. 

Senator Capehart. In this instance, did he pay it all ? 

Mr. Uhlmax X, Yes, sir. 

Senator Capehart. The common practice, or maybe not the com- 
mon practice, for the employer to pay half and the employees to pay 
half on group insurance. 

Mr. Uhlmann. Well, not in labor union work. 



17868 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Capehart. The employer pays it all ? 

Mr. UnLMANN. Yes, sir. It may not be illegal, Senator, but it, I 
believe, has already been established before this committee that the 
impact of excessive commissions, and especially when the excess is as 
great as it is in this case, and these other cases I have here before me, 
that it can only do one of two things: One, it results in a greater 
premium being charged, of necessity, by the underwriter — the insur- 
ance company — or the level of benefits to the rank and file union mem- 
ber and his family necessarily must be reduced. 

Senator Capehart. Or it could mean that the insurance company 
made less profit? 

Mr. Uhlmaxn. No, sir. Because in a discussion of the subject with 
an officer of the company, I was told only this morning, as a matter of 
fact, that all other commissions that were paid with reference to these 
policies we are now discussing were, in fact, charged to either the 
welfare fund or the union as the case may have been, who paid the 
premiums. When I say paid them, I mean through which they were 
paid. 

As you pointed out earlier, it was the employer who footed the bill. 

Senator Capehart. I have just one more question, Mr. Chairman, 
and I will be through. 

There are two agencies here who received commissions on the same 
business, as I understand it. 

Mr. Uhlmann. There was the Dearborn Insurance Agency Co. and 
the Wheeler-Maris Co., and then — the Dearborn Agency, of course, is 
controlled by this man Maris — and the third is this general agent 
named Wraith, who is in Oakland, Calif. 

Senator Capehart. In other words, there were three different peo- 
ple who got an override on this business ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Well, I would prefer to use the term "commissions." 

Senator Capehart. Well, commission. 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes. 

Senator Capehart. My question is : Is that not a usual thing in the 
insurance business ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. I would say it is rather extraordinary. As a matter 
of fact, within my own experience I have not encountered a situation 
where a general agency is located — well, in this particular case, geo- 
graphically — as far as Chicago as opposed to Oakland, Calif. 

Senator Capehart. My question was : Is it not generally speaking 
that you have an agency manager who gets a commission, tlien you 
have a district manager who gets a commission and then you liave a 
salesman who gets a commission in selling insurance? Is that not 
about the rule? 

Mr. Ulmann. No, sir. Senator; I do not think that is the general 
practicx^. 

Senator Capehart. If I told you that I happen to liave a relative in 
the insurance business, and he represents, I think, the second largest 
insurance company in the United States, and that is the way they pay, 
would you believe me then ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Without a question. I dare say that the procedure 
that applied or, rather, the business ethics, shall we say, which are 
adopted by one company do not necessarily provide a foundation to 
be followed by other c()m]:)anies. I think thei*e is no question about 
that. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17869 

Senator Capehart. Do we know the percentage of the commission 
that Dearborn got and the commission that the other gentleman 
received i 

Mr, UiiLatANN. Yes, sir. 

Senator Capehart. Let us have that. 

Mr. Uhlmann. Of course, our remarks here are confined to local 
710. 

Senator Capehart. Yes. 

Mr. Uhl:maxx. The Dearborn people got 8 percent, Wheeler-Maris 
got 1 percent, and Wraith got 1 percent. 

Senator Capehart. Who ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Wraith, the general agent in California. 

Senator Capehart. That made the total of 10 percent? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes, sir. 

Senator Capehart. They had 10 percent straight through when 
they wrote the premium originally and then each year thereafter, or 
did the commission go down ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. It went down after the first year. 

Senator Capehart. Did they get 10 percent for 4 years? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Well, as a matter of f act^ — yes, they got — let me say 
this : They got 10 percent in the fii^t year, 8 percent in the second year, 
about 6 percent in the third year, and about 2i/2 in the fourth year, 
and on down. Then it dropped sharply. 

Senator Capehart. It dropped sharply ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes. 

Senator Capehart. Your position is that that is more commissions 
than an ordinary insurance company pays? 

Mr. Uhlmann. It is my position. I am testifying here only on the 
relationsliip between the commissions that have been paid by the 
Occidental Co. under this policy, as opposed to what it should have 
been under the code of ethical practices adopted by the National 
Association of Insurance Commissioners. 

Senator Capehart. Are you saying that the code of ethical prac- 
tices, then, is less than 10 percent down that you just related? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Without a question. It has been pointed out earlier 
how much less it is. Yes. 

Senator Capehart. On exactly the same type of insurance? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Well, on group insurance; yes, sir. There is a 
broad category, of course, that we are discussing here. My answer to 
your question would be yes, without a doubt. 

Senator Capehart. Without a doubt? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Without a doubt. Of course, I am quoting entirely 
from the experts who had developed the code, and who had made a 
study of it over a period of some 4 years, as I understand it. 

Senator Capehart. Did you check the records of any other insurance 
companies or just take the so-called code of ethics figures? 

Mr. Uhlmann. I took the code of eithics figures, but have had con- 
siderable discussions with top officials in several State insurance de- 
partments, whose judgment I regard very highly. I have also dis- 
cussed it with top officials in at least six insurance companies in several 
States. 

Senator Capehart. And they told you they pay a lower rate ? 

36751— 59— pt. 49 12 



17870 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Uhlmann. By and large, yes, sir ; a lower rate has always been 
paid, and that in more recent years — of course, since the code was 
adopted in 1957, they liave all inserted that in their contracts, so that 
the code 

Senator Capehart. Was this insurance written prior to the adoption 
of the code in 1957? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes. It started, some of it, in 1950 and some in 
1951. 

Senator Capehart. Then the next question is: What relationship 
does this have to the code if the code was not adopted until 1957 ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Well, the point is this, such as I see it, that since 
a good number of companies had, in fact, been paying these rates over 
a period of 10 years, as these experts have stated repeatedly — and, 
incidentally, as the code itself makes it very clear in its own language — 
that against that background we find a situation here where the rates 
of commissions paid are above and beyond the rates provided for by 
this code. It may well be that in the early years there was a little bit 
of play. 

I am not in a position to testify on that. I would prefer to avoid 
that. I would be getting into an area where I just don't belong. 1 
think the reason is obvious, that it involves negotiations between a 
company and a broker. 

Heaven knows there may have been any number of circumstances 
which made it possible for this agent to get this business with this 
company. I am sure you will agree to that. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Senator Mundt. I would like to inquire whether you looked at the 
union contract that they had with the company, and whether the con- 
tract specifiies that this insurance should be written either by the Dear- 
born Agency or by Occidential, or did it just provide for group 
coverage ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. I take it we are now discussing local 710. 

Senator Mundt. Well, we have 21 cases. You can take local 710 if 
you want to. 

Mr. Uhlmann. I think there is a different set of circmnstances there. 
As I stated earlier, the local 710 situation has a peculiarly, singularly 
interesting background in that one of the two men who was active and 
personally responsible in having this insurance awarded jointly with 
Mr. Hoffa for the Central States Conference, within a few days had a 
meeting of local 710 called, primarily for the purpose of throwing 
the company that had been selected to write the Central States insur- 
ance completely out the window in favor of Occidental. 

Of course, that gives rise to a number of questions which I think are 
self-evident. To get back to your question — and I am sorry to delay 
the answer to it — so far as I am aware, the contact itself initially 
did not specify Occidental. Wliatever motivating factors prevailed at 
the time for them to select that company is something I am not familiar 
with at all. 

Senator Mundt. Did any of these 21 contracts specify who was to be 
either the company or the agent? 

Mr. Uhlmann. 'Phe wage bargaining contract ? 

Senator Mundt. Well, I understood that this group insurance is 
provided for in a bargaining contract. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 17871 

Mr. Uhlmaxn. The bargaining contract is between tlie employers 
and the hibor unions. 

Senator IVIuxdt. That is correct. And that is in writing ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. And tliat has been signed? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. And it provided for group insurance ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. My question is whether it provided that group 
insurance was to be written by the Occidental Company or by the 
Dearborn Agency, or whether it simply stipulated the kind of group 
insurance that was to be provided. 

]Mr, Uhljiann. I believe that Mr. Calabrese is better qualified to 
answer that question. 

TESTIMONY OF ALPHONSE F. CALABRESE— Resumed 

Mr. Calabrese. Senator, I can say with regard to local 7T7, we 
examined the contract and the wage agreement, and it merely provides 
for the payment of so much per person per month for health and 
welfare. 

Senator Mundt. Without naming anybody? 

Mr. Calabrese. No. 

Senator Mundt. That is for local 770 ? 

Mr. Calabrese. No. 777. 

Senator Mundt. And you talked about 710. How about the other 
19? Was it the same thing? 

Mr. Calabrese. Senator, I would like to limit that. We examined 
two or three. We went into 2, actually, in detail, 2 of the 21 cases. 
I might give a little bit of background on this matter. 

Our interest originally stemmed from the fact that we had informa- 
tion that these cases were obtained, and particularly local 777, through 
union officials, and tliat the union officials had interest in Dearborn 
Insurance Agency, Inc. That is why we got into this thing originally. 
That is hov>- we got into the Dearborn Insurance Agency, Inc. 

Senator Mundt. I understand that. But they all involve unions. 
It seems to me if we are going to do an equitable job, we should look 
at all 19 contracts to see whether or not there was skulduggery in 
some and not others, whether it was prevalent throughout, whether 
the sam.e commission was charged on the business that local 777 got 
as against the wine dealers and some of these other people who were 
also covered. 

Mr. Calabrese. Those figures were made available, Senator. Those 
figures, for instance, on commissions, on the various cases, were made 
available by Occidental Life Insurance Co. at our request. That 
is Avhat Mr. Uhlmann is testifying from. 

Senator INIundt, The same commission was charged on each of these 
21 policies? 

TESTIMONY OF MARTIN S. UHLMANN— Resumed 

Mr. Uhlmann. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Is this lO-percent commission that we have been 
talking about just applying to 2 of the 19 cases? 



17872 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Uhlmann. I wish to say again that initially my testimony was 
confined to local 710. 

Senator Mundt. I got thrown off because you have 21 Chicago cases. 
I assumed that all 21 cases were included in this group of commissions 
in your circle. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. In that circle ? Yes, sir. 

Seantor Mundt. So that we have before us what happened in 21 
cases. I assumed that when you said they paid a commission of 10 
percent, that they paid that commission on all 21 cases. 

Do I now understand that they paid the 10-percent commission 
on only 2 of the cases, and code of ethics commission on the other 19? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Well, no ; they did not pay — first, let me answer the 
last part of your point, if I may. 

We found that at no stage had Occidental paid the code figures; 
that is, based on the figures that I have before me. This study that 
we have here, or the information I have before me, is confined to the 
larger groups, where the premium volume was rather extensive, and 
where the impact of any excessive commissions paid would have any 
material effect. 

The very small polices, which are included in the group of 21 here 
on the chart, it would seem, would not have a material effect either 
way. So for that reason the analysis was concentrated only on the 
larger policies. 

Senator Mundt. Let me put the question to you this way : Of this 
total in the circle, which I believe is $1,015,000, how much of that 
$1,015,000 in commissions received by the Dearborn Co. was paid 
for coverage of local T77 ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. You mean 710, 1 take it. 

Senator Mundt. Well, you jump around from 710 to 777. Let's 
get them both in and then we will have them. You mention 777 
some of the time and 710 some of the time. 

Mr. Uhlmann, If I mentioned that, I am sorry. I should correct 
the testimony. 

Senator Mundt. Have you not mentioned 777 at all this moiTiing? 

Mr. Kennedy. That was in connection with Mr. Calabrese's testi- 
mony. 

Mr. Uhlmann. I wasn't aware that I had mentioned 777. 

Senator Mundt. You did, Mr. Calabrese ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes ; I did. 

Senator Mundt. Let's get it from both of them. 

Mr. Uhlmann. Shall I proceed with local 710? 

Senator Mundt. All right. And let Mr. Calabrese give it to us 
for local 777. 

Mr. Uhlmann. Local 710 had several policies which, incidentally, 
made it more diflicult to make this computation. But under one of 
the policies, the aggregate commission as I stated earlier, was $250,000. 

Senator Mundt. I am just interested in the commission. You have 
$1,015,000 in commissions to account for. How much of that com- 
mission was paid for insurance covering local 710? 

Mr. Uhi.mann. $301,000 on all of the policies. 

Senator Mundt. Now, Mr. Calabrese, how much of it was paid for 
local 777? 

Mr. Calabrese. Mr. Uhlmann will have to give you that figure, 
Senator. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17873 

Mr. UiTLMANN. I have that, sir. 

Senator Mundt, All rio;ht. 

Mr. Uhlmann. On local 777, the aggregate commissions — again we 
have these various policies — I am sorry, Senator. You see, in making 
this analysis, of necessity I have to do so for each policy, and I did 
not come up with an aggregate, because the circumstances surround- 
ing each policy differed in such a way so that an aggregate figure, 
a composite figure 

Senator jMundt. Let me ask you this: Was 777 the biggest single 
union covered, or 710, wliichever it was ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. From what standpoint^ — commissions? Member- 
ship? 

Senator Mundt. Commissions. 

Mr. Uhlmann. Commissions? I would say 710, and 777 was the 
second largest. If you are interested in the third one, I can let you 
know. 

Senator Mttndt. No. What I am interested in is to find out 
whether Occidental had a different rate of commission for every 
group policy it wrote. 

You say most of it was covered by 710. But that is less than a 
third of the total. What I am trying to find out is whether or not 
they charged 10 percent commission in all 21 of these cases, or whether 
you just looked at one case and you did not look at the rest of them. 

Mr. Uhlmann. We looked at all of them. 

Senator Mundt. How about putting in, then, all 21 cases with the 
rate of commission they charged on each? That would simplify 
it. Can you do that ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Read them right off. 

Mr. Uhlmann. AVell, the larger — as I pointed out earlier, the real 
significance of the excessive commissions is concentrated on these larger 
policies, and it is for that reason that the analysis was confined to 
those groups alone. 

Senator Mundt. I am not quarreling with you. I just want to find 
out what the commission is on each of the 21 cases. Read off the 
union, give us its name, give us the percentage of commission they 
charged. I thought from your earlier testimony they charged 10 
percent straight across the board. 

The Chairiman. For clarification, let the Chair ask you: They 
charged different commissions on different policies or different size 
policies ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. The answer to the question is "Yes." 

The Chairman. Then you would have to make an analysis of all 
of the contracts and submit what it was on each contract ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes. 

The Chairman. Can you prepare such an analysis or statement of 
it and place it in the record ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you have such a statement now prepared? 

Mr. Uhlmann. I do not on all of them ; no, sir. 

The Chairman. Senator, do you want some of them given now, just 
by way of illustration ? 



]7874 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. That •would be helpful, and let him put the rest of 
them in after lunch. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Maybe I could explain, Senator, what we are trying 
to do. 

The Chairman. Well, they want this information. 

Mr. Kennedy. That will be fine, we will get the information and 
furnish it. But if we haven't got it now, it is my fault. I wanted Mr, 
Uhlmann to prepare some samples of the commissions so that the 
committee would have an idea as to the particular cases we ar& 
going to be discussing, specifically local 710, local 777, and the Hotel 
and Restaurant Workers Union, the large policies, what the com- 
missions were and the excessive commissions that were paid. 

As far as the overall figure is concerned, we have that figure of the 
$16 million, roughly, in premiums, and the commission of a little over 
$1 million. That would indicate that the commission, instead of being 
less, as it should have been, around 3 percent, and getting less eacli 
year, that overall commission is about 614 percent, which is higher 
than the commission that should have been paid. We have broken 
down the main policies, with which we will have to deal in the next 
day or so; we have broken those down to show what it is in those 
specific cases. 

Senator Mundt. Here is the question as I see it. You cannot make 
a comparison unless you have some standard to compare with. That 
is what I am trying to get into the record at this point. 

I asked you earlier whether you compared the commissions which 
Occidental paid in the Chicago area, with the commissions that Occi- 
dental paid in Dallas, Tex., or Toledo, or Detroit, or someplace else. 
You said you did not have that in the record. So we have no basis 
for comparison there. 

Then I inquired whether you have a basis or could tell us some other 
insurance company, by name, with the same kind of policy, what com- 
mission or commissions they paid, and you do not have that. You do 
have the code. But the code is a rather nebulous thing. 

You have a Franklin code when you deal with the printing business, 
you have an automobile dealers code when you have a repair job in 
the garage. But codes are seldom complied with right to the dot. So 
many types of insurance are written and commissions vary with dif- 
ferent types of insurance. 

We need some standards of comparison. Now T am trying to find 
a standard of comparison as to what the Occidental Co. paid in 
commissions to these 21 unions, as to whether or not they may have 
made a deal with some corrupt union official in one union — paid a 
bigger commission there — and for another union whether it was a 
legitimate piece of business on the face of it and they paid just the 
3 or 4 percent commission. 

We need some basis for making a comparison. Just to say 10 per- 
cent commission, unless we know positively it was the same kind of 
insurance, procured in the customary and usual manner, we have noth- 
ing with which we can compare it. It sounds very curious to say they 
paid 800 percent more than the code of ethics. 

I am trying to find out whether they did that straight across the 
board in all 21 unions or whether they did it in some of these unions 
where these officers, perhaps, were friends of somebody in the Dear- 



IIVIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17875 

born agency, or, at worst, somebody in the Occidental Co. So I do 
think in all 21 cases which are involved in this package of $1,015,000 
in commissions, we should have, No. 1, the total commission paid, 
which is $301,000 as far as local 710 is concerned, with a rate commis- 
sion of 10 percent, and, Xo. 2, the rate that the Occidental Co. paid 
each of the other 20 unions, which you will probably not be able to 
figure out right there on the stand. Maybe by this afternoon, how- 
ever, if the figures are available, you could give them. 

You said in answer to the Chair's question you could give us two or 
three of them now, but give us an indication that they had a variable 
rate of commission ; is that right? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes. 

Senator MuNDT. All right. 

Mr. Uhlmann. Senator, I believe it is important to point out that 
to be specific in relation to these 21 cases, the terminology that you 
would use here, for example, with respect to commissions paid under 
any of the 21 groups could hardly be the same across the board for any 
number of reasons. 

This is common practice throughout the insurance industry in rela- 
tion to group insurance cases for labor unions, as well as other group 
cases. For example, in one set of circumstances the number of mem- 
bers is a barometer as to how much the commision will be, because, 
translated into premium volume dollars, the number of members, of 
course, will have an influence on how much any insurance company 
will negotiate with an agent or with a welfare fund as to how much 
commission will be allowed in that set of circumstances. 

So, therefore, if we find a situation that prevailed, let us say. in 
710 at the time its insurance was given to Occidental as opposed to 
some of these very small groups — and a large number of them are 
relatively small — as to what those groups amounted to at the time that 
their insurance was turned over to Occidental, there alone we have 
one of about, I daresay, 25 or more varieties or circumstances that 
have a very important bearing as to what the commission rate would 
be. 

So to say categorically for example, if I should come up with a 
table that would show in the aggregate what the commissions were in 
relation to total premiums over a period of years, I am afraid it would 
be rather distorting, if not misleading. 

Senator Mundt. I cannot exactly follow why we should not have in 
the record the rate of commission paid in each of these contracts. 

Mr. Uhlmann. By years? We must do it by years because they 
fluctuate. 

Senator Mundt. You always get a bigger commission the first year, 
although you have a curious figure in tliere that I will ask you to ex- 
plain later, why the second year they should pay 11 percent. I can- 
not understand that. You said the first year was 10, the second year 
was 11, and tlien it dropped to 8. That is a very curious type of 
arrangement, I must say. But we will pass that one for the time 
being and try to get back to these 21 cases with the rate of commis- 
sion. 

What we are trying to find out is whether or not there is some- 
thing wrong with this 10 percent, something smelly, which on the face 
of it looks to be true. 



17876 IMPROPER ACTWITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Some kind of insurance is difficult to procure, some kind of insur- 
ance represents a bigger jeopardy to the insurance company, to the un- 
derwriter. The rates they charge for the premium are higher. 

I suppose there would be more hazard in driving a truck than there 
would be in the baby sitters union. 

So all of those factors would be involved. 

It should not be just to say 10 percent, 3 percent, 5 percent, with- 
out comparing it to anything except a code of ethics which was not 
in operation at the time, and which, I am sure, is not complied with 
100 percent by different companies. Some companies make a habit of 
paying bigger commissions. I do not quarrel with that if it does not 
jeopardize your financial structure. If they make a habit of paying 
higher commissions to certain favored clients, and to certain favored 
unions, or in certain favored areas geographically, then that is a horse 
of a different paint job again. What we are trying to do is get a com- 
parison someplace. 

The Chairman. Let the Chair make a suggestion. Let us take 710 
and go through it. Let us take one and make a thorough demonstra- 
tion of it, from beginning to end, and then let us see how many more 
we want and how long it will take to get them. 

But take 710 and start with it. 

How many contracts did it have ? Wliat was the initial commission 
paid on each contract, and how did it taper off ? It seems to me if they 
have a number of contracts it will take quite a bit of calculation to get 
this whole chart into the record for 21 companies. 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes, sir. 

The Chair:man. I can appreciate that. Let us take one, let us 
take 710, which seems to be the largest in the amount of premiums 
paid. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes. 

The Chairman. Take it and analyze it from beginning to end and 
let us see what that presents as a picture for that one union. Then we 
can come along with some of the other accounts to the extent of fully 
satisfying us if we have a record here f i-om which we can make proper 
and informative comparisons, even if it takes all of them. It may or 
may not. But let us start with 710 and give us a breakdown on it. 

Senator Mundt. If we are going to follow that program — and I cer- 
tainly do not object to it- — so that it may have some meaning and sig- 
nificance, however, I suggested that as you come through with these 
rates of commissions and figures that you make a comparison with 
some firm standard at the time so that it can mean something. Just to 
say 10 percent or 20 percent, unless you can compare what Metropoli- 
tan Life or Prudential Life or somebody else would charge, does not 
mean anything. 

The Chairman. The Chair may say what I was trying to do was 
to get one before us so that from that we can ascertain what else we 
may want and need to get a record here that will be informative 
and give us the accurate information upon which we can base judg- 
ment as to whether the procedure or the policies or the actual activities 
were right or wrong and whether they should be corrected. 

I thought we would take one, the largest one, and go completely 
through with it, and then we can ascertain what we need about the 
others to give us a comparison. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIBS IN THE LABOR FIELD 17877 

Mr. Kennedy. I used a fig^ure of 61/4 percent. In view of your ex- 
planation, that figure would really have no significance, the overall 
figure, until vou broke it down into the various entities. 

The overall figure would have no real significance? 

Mr. Uhlmann. No, Mr. Kennedy, it would not. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Also, tliis was commissions plus certain other serv- 
ice fees. I wanted to get that straightened out. 

The standard on which you have based this, of course, is this code 
of ethics ; is that right ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was written after a study of commissions that 
were paid by the major insurance companies in the United States 
over a period of 10 years ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. It was so testified before this committee in late 
January of this year. 

Mr. Ejennedy. And it is the accepted standard now by insurance 
companies ; is it not ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. And the standards on which it was written and based 
are standards that have been accepted by the insurance companies ; is 
that right? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes. First, because most of the State commission- 
ers, as I understand it, adopted the code ; and following that, most of 
the more responsible companies adopted it. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is the procedure that they had been following 
for a period of some 10 years prior to that? 

Mr. Uhlmann. In some States, yes. In some States. 

Mr. Kennedy. But the booklet itself says tliis is the procedure that 
has been followed by most of the major insurance companies ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. By companies? Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just go through it with local 710. 

Mr. Uhlmann. Are you interested in the premium volume or the 
conmiissions alone? 

(At this point Senator McClellan returned to the hearing room.) 

Senator Mundt. I don't think the premium volume is particularly 
important, unless counsel wishes it. I think just the rates of com- 
mission, primarily, and the amount. 

Mr. Uhlmann. I have before me a summary which was furnished 
by the Occidental Life people. It is identified as policy 2773. The 
policyholder is the board of trustees of highway drivers and dockmen's 
health and welfare fund, local 710, with headquarters in Chicago. 

In the first year of this policy, which ran from December 1, 1951, 
through November 30, 1952, the commission scale was 10 percent for 
the entire year; and then they added li/^ percent, which the Dearborn 
Insurance Agency received, during the period of January 15, 1952, or 
a month or so after the policy had been issued, and through the end 
of that policy year, which was November 30, 1952, an additional I14 
percent. 

Senator Mundt. Did you get from the Occidental people any reason 
why their increased in the second year to lli^ percent as against 10 



17878 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES Ds THE LABOR FIELD 

percent? That is a very luinsual procedure in the insurance business. 
Usually the first year is the highest year. 

INIr. Uhlmann. Well, as I undei-stand it, the difference is comprised 
of a so-called special administration service fee. Of coui'se, these 
terms are not uniform among these companies, and that Avhich is 
described, for example, as a service fee in one company, is called an 
administration fee in another, and vice versa. 

Senator Mundt. In other words, this 11/^ percent was not actually 
a commission. This Avas, as I understand it now, a delegation of some 
of the administrative functions from the California home office of 
Occidental to the Chicago agency of Occidental, to wit. Dearborn, 
which was supposed to do certain supervisory and administrative 
chores which might otherwise be done by the home office. For that 
they received a li/^ percent overriding fee rather than a commission; 
is that correct ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Well, that explanation was made. How^ever 

Senator Mundt. I want their explanation, not mine. But that is 
wdiat I thought you were trying to tell me. 

Mr. Uhlmann. That is their explanation. We did not independ- 
ently confirm it. But we do not have reason to question it. 

Senator Mundt. I just never heard of a policy that pays a bigger 
commission the second year. The type of thing that you say which has 
been done before, that is, to delegate certain home office duties to some- 
body in the field, and to pay them a compensatory fee, that would not 
be called a commission. 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes, I see that now. To that extent I should like 
to correct my earlier testimony. It is attributable to this so-called 
special administration fee. I say so called only because they also have 
an administration fee, which is not prefixed by the tag "special." 

To be sure, we are guided entirely by the company's explanation as 
to what the term means. 

Senator Mundt. Let me ask you a collateral question. In your 
thoroughgoing examination of the Occidental records, did this II/2 
percent administrative fee continue the third year and the fourth year 
and the fifth year, or is there something in the records to show that 
they did that just for 1 year and it did not work out very well ? 

Mr. Upilmann. No, sir. As a matter of fact, the amount of money 
involved is small in relation to this total picture, that is, the special 
fee. 

The special administration fee, according to the chart I have before 
me, as I stated before, one payment was made for the period January 
15, 1952, through November 1952, and another one was made for the 
period December 1, 1952, through May 31, 1953. 

Senator Mundt. Then what happened ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Following the, shall we say, off-to-one-side arrange- 
ment of the special administration fee, they come up with this admin- 
istration iec, as it is called, commencing June 1, 1953. The term 
"special" is dropped. From thereon down, from June 1, 1953, through 
November 30, 1956 — I beg your pardon. I must correct this. It is a 
rather confusing statement. 

What appears to be concurrent with the payment of the special 
administration fee is the administrative fee which started December 
1, 1952, so that we have an overlapping of payments. That is to 
say 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17879 

Senator Mundt. Give it to us in percentages. We have an admin- 
istrative fee or a special administrative fee, wliichever it is, of IV^ 
percent riding with us now, and you say for part of this time there is 
another administrative fee. What percentage is that ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Two percent, which later was increased to 31/2 per- 
cent. 

Senator Mundt. It was 3I/2 percent all the time, but the terminology 
was changed, because you had li/^ percent plus 2 percent, and that is 
31/^ percent. 

Air. UiiL^siANN. Yes, through November 1954 and then it was 
changed again. You see, for that reason, aggregate figures, as I 
stated earlier, I think, can prove misleading. 

Senator Mundt. Is this in your 10 percent or are we now up to 131/2 
percent ? 

Mr.UHLMAxx. No. The administration fee is not included as a 
commission figure for purposes of establishing the excess that was 
mentioned earlier. 

Senator Mundt. Very good. So they are getting 10 percent com- 
mission plus a 31/^ percent supervisory charge, sometimer called spe- 
cial administrative fee, sometimes called administrative fee, but ac- 
cording to Occidental's explanantion, a delegation of supervisory 
work to the Chicago office out of the Occidental office in California, 
and for this they paid them a supervisory fee of 3i/^ percent ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes. But I should like to say that the administra- 
tion fee was discontinued at December 31, 1955. 

Senator Mundt. So that that ran for the first 5 years of the policy, 
about ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Approximately ; yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Is there anything in the records of Occidental to 
show why that supervisory fee was discontinued? Did they establish 
a direct branch of the home office in Illinois to look after that? Did 
they send a fieldman out ? Did they handle it by telephone and cor- 
respondence out of the home office ? What do the records of the insur- 
ance company show ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Well, we understand that the administration fee 
in the first place is paid largely for the purpose of processing claims, 
and that when this agency, the Dearborn Insurance Agency, when 
this arrangement was discontinued at the end of 1955, where they 
seemingly — but we have no evidence, of course, that they ever had 
processed claims. But in any case the record shows that beginning 
in January 1956 the}^ at least no longer received the administration 
fee, since the company itself had taken over the responsibility and the 
function, I should say. 

Senator Mundt. That is what I asked you. Wliat is there in the 
records of the insurance company? You cannot run an insurance 
company like some of these labor leaders run a union and say, "We do 
it out of pocket, out of cash." They have to have records, a board of 
directors, they have to have meetings. You can't run an insurance 
company in this country, I hope, without any records. So in looking 
at the records, what do they show transpired with the eliminiated 3i/^ 
percent supervisory fee ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Let me again qualify my testimony of a moment 
ago. At the end of December 1955, or beginning in January of 
1956 



17880 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. Which was at the point that they dropped the 3% 
percent ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Well, it was reduced to 1 percent on December 1, 
1954; increased to 1.7 percent on May 1, 1955. Then on December 31, 
1955, it was discontinued. 

Now, beginning in January 1956, and this is the point which I 
should like 

Senator Mundt. Is there anything which you found in the records, 
in the correspondence records, going through the files or wherever 
you found it, which shows why that was dropped ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes, sir. I stated earlier — and this is the correc- 
tion I wished to make — that it was the company that had taken over 
this function when, as a matter of fact, it was the local itself that had 
taken over that function of writing claims and not the company. 

So you see, beginning with January 1, 1956, local 710 health and 
welfare fund processed its own claims for its members and families 
and dependents. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Senator Capehart. There is nothing unusual about the company 
processing its own claims, is there ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. No. 

Senator Capehart. Most companies do process their own claims? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Well, I am not in a position to say whether it is 
most of them, but, shall we say, a large number of them do. 

The Chairman. The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. 

(Members of the select committee present at the taking of the 
recess were Senators McClellan, Mundt, and Capehart.) 

(Wliereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene 
at 2 p.m., the same day.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

(The select committee reconvened at 2 p.m. in the caucus room of 
the Senate Office Building, Senator John L. McClellan, chairman of 
the select committee, presiding.) 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

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

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we want to go into a little bit more 
detail on some of these situations. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF ALPHONSE F. CALABRESE AND MARTIN S. 

UHLMANN— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Uhlmann, you have given us the figures 
on local 710 and now I would like to go into one of the other locals. 
Do you have local 777 there also? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you give us what the figures show on that, 
the overall figures ? 



IMPROPER ACnVITIIiS IN THE LABOR FIELD 17881 

Mr. Uhlmann. On local 777 the total commissions paid under two 
of their principal policies was $140,000. We have calculated that on 
the basis of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners 
Code, those commissions should have been $42,000, or an excess of 
about $97,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is about the same rate as the previous one ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. No; that is less? 

Mr. Uhlmann. It is slightly less. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is 2 to 1 and the other was 3 to 1 ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have any others ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. I have the downtown hotels, which is another large 
one. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is for the Hotel and Restaurant Workers 
Union? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What is the number of that local ? Do you have it 
there? 

Mr. Calabrese. This is "Trustees of the Chicago Downtown Hotels," 
and it is No. 2113, policy number. 

Mr. Kennedy. What number is the union ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is 593, Hotel and Restaurant Workers. That 
is Mr. Blakely, and he is also international vice president of the union ; 
that is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. "V^H^iat does that show ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. In this case, we find that the total commissions paid 
were $213,000. Under the NAIC Code, the commissions would have 
been $58,000, or an excess of $155,000. 

The Chairman. That is about 3i/^ to 1, is it ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Those are the three biggest cases, are they ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes, they are. I have before me probably the fourth 
largest. That is local 703. The total commissions paid were $73,000, 
and the commissions as computed under the code would have been 
$28,000, or an excess of $45,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are there any others that you have worked out? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Well, this morning after testifying on local 710, 
I discovered that the figures I had recited were confined to only one 
policy, which is by far their largest, but now I have two other policies. 
One of them is identified as 1920, and the other as 1966. 

Under policy 1920, we find the commissions paid were $30,000, and 
under the code those commissions would have been a little under 
$11,000, or a difference of approximately $19,000, which we regard 
as excess under the code. 

Under policy 1966, the total commissions were $21,000, and under 
the code they would have l)een $9,000, showing an excess of $12,000. 

Now these figures added to tliose recited earlier this morning on 
an aggregate basis show that the total commisions for 710 amounted 
to $302,000, whereas under the code the commissions should have been 
$106,000, or an excess of $196,000. 



17882 IMPROPER ACTrV'ITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Capeiiart. May I ask a question there. What was the year 
these commissions were paid, that you are talking about ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. In the main, from 1950 through December of 1958> 

Senator Capehart. When was the so-called code adopted i 

Mr. Uhlmann". It was adopted in 1957. 

Senator Capehart. Are you sure that there is a code of ethics on 
group insurance, and it doesn't only apply to life insurance policies ? 

Mr. Uhlmanx. The code to which I refer, and have been referring 
to in this testimony applies to group insurance policies. 

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

Senator Capehart. You are certain of that ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. I am certain of that. 

Senator Capehart. That there is a code on group insurance policies ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes. 

Senator Capehart. How can you compare this that you have just 
compared with the code of ethics, when these policies were back in 
1951, you say, or 1953, and the code of ethics was not adopted until 
1957? 

Mr. Uhlmann. As I stated earlier this morning, and as has been 
testified here by an expert who personally participated in the drafting 
and developing of the code, the promulgation of the code itself was 
the result of a study of commissions that in fact had been paid over 
a period of approximately 10 years by a number of insurance carriers, 
who were underwriting group insurance policies. 

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

The Chairman. As I understand this code was not adopted until 
1957; is that right? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. It was based on a 10-year study of what the leading 
reputable insurance companies charged ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That is as I recall the testimony, and while they 
didn't have the code, as compared to what was regarded as a fair 
charge by the others this would be about the ratio of excess charges ; 
am I correct about that? As I remember, that is the way the code 
was established. 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How was it adopted ? We speak of the code, and 
I don't recall now, but a group of insurance executives or insurance 
commissioners of the several States agreed on it, what we call the 
code? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I am trying to recall, and I know it is in the record 
already. 

Mr. Uhlmann. If I may, I should like to quote a brief sentence 
here from the testimony. 

The Chairman. All right, quote it or state the substance. 

Mr, Uhlmann. The substance of it was that a study had been made 
over a period of years on a basis of commissions, or range of com- 
missions that had been paid over a period of 10 years preceding its 
promulgation. The code itself was, as I recall, developed in 1956, and 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 17883 

finally adopted by the State Insurance Commissioners in 1957. In 
the procedural arrangements that were made by way of havino; wide 
acceptance of it the insurance commissioners and insurance companies 
who were interested in developinj^ a uniform code called in some of 
the outstanding insurance commissionei'S in the country and some 
of the outstanding officials of various underwriting companies to 
participate in tlie development of that code. 

Senator Cape hart. This company knew nothing about any code 
of ethics rates prior to 1957. 

Mr. UiiLMAXN. Which company is that ? 

Senator Capehart. The Occidental. 

Mr. Uhlmann. I am not prepared to answer that. 

The Chairman. They couldn't know something about something 
that didn't exist. 

Senator Capehart. There was no code prior to 1957. 

Mr. Uhlmaxn. Not as such. 

Senator Capehart. And yet the insurance was written and paid 
for prior to 1957. 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes. 

Senator Capehart. How can you criticize these people, when others 
may have been paying the same high rates they did ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Senator, if I haven't made the point earlier, I 
wish to point out that my purpose here is not to criticize the company, 
but rather to present the facts as they emerge from this investigation. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Senator Mundt. Let me see if I understand this code business now. 
As I understand it, a code was adopted recommending 3 percent for 
group life policies. 

Mr. Uhlmann. I beg your pardon ? 

Senator Mundt. A code was adopted recommending 3 percent com- 
missions on group policies, based on the preceding 10 years of experi- 
ence the companies had had. 

Mr. Uhlmann. No, sir. The code encompasses a wide range of 
commissions based upon the premium volume. The range, for ex- 
ample, extends from zero to $1,000, let us say. It is from there on up 
to various breaking points. 

For example, for the first $1,000, and then $2,000, and then it skips 
to $5,000, and I don't wish to get you involved in that, but it gets away 
on up to premiums on policies which on an annual basis exceed 
$5 million. As the volume of premiums increases, within a year, or 
under a particular policy within a year, then the range of minimum 
and maximum rates of commissions that are considered to be reason- 
able are drastically reduced as the volume increases. 

For example, if I may add this. Senator, it starts with a high of 
about 15 percent on the first $1,000 or thereabouts, and it gets down 
to a low of one-fourth of 1 percent on premiums in excess of roughly 
$1 million. 

Senator Mundt. At what level does it become the 3 percent which 
is involved here ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. I have that, Senator. The 3 percent comes into 
play on premiums up to $50,000. 



17884 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. You must mean beyond $50,000. 

Mr. Uhlmann. Beyond $50,000 it is 2.75 percent, on up to and 
including $250,000 volume of premiums. That is the range. 

Senator Mundt. All right. And we have here an annual premium 
involving how much ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Well, we have to do this on an annual basis, to be 
sure. 

Senator Mundt. Yes. 

Mr, Uhlmann. Which policy are you interested in, Senator? 

Senator Mundt. I thought we were talking about union 710. 

Mr. Uhlmann. All right. They have had a number of policies. 
Here is the largest of the group. I have before me policy No. 2773. 
It is identified as the board of trustees of highway drivers and dock- 
men's health and welfare fund, of local 710. This particular policy 
was written on December 1, 1951, and in the first year the premium 
volume was $678,000. The commissions aggregated 10 percent. 

Senator Mundt. Straight across the board ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes, across the board. 

Senator Mundt. And Occidental followed the practice of charging 
a 10-percent straight across-the-board commission instead of running 
it down as the volume increases, as recommended by this code ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. They did for this first year, yes. That is on this 
policy. It was straight across the board, and there was no gradation. 

Senator Mundt. They did it for the second year, also, because this 
morning you discussed that. 

Mr. Uhlmann. In the second year, it was exactly 10 percent, and, 
as qualified earlier this morning, in addition there was a li/^-percent 
fee which was described as special administration fee. 

I might add I included it as a commission only because it was in- 
cluded in the commission column on their schedule. 

Senator Mundt. In your study of the books of the Occidental, did 
you come across any record of a commission schedule that they have? 
Do they have such a document in their files ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Perhaps Mr. Calabrese could answer this question. 

Mr. Calabrese. We did not go into the Occidental's books. We 
requested this information from them and when I was out there I 
was not qualified to go into the deeper aspects of these commissions, 
and so forth. So, therefore, we requested them to produce the figures 
on the policies. 

Senator Mundt. Did you ask them at the time, when you were in- 
quiring for data, if you didn't look at the books yourself, as to whether 
or not this was a nationwide policy that they maintained of paying a 
10-percent commission as against the 3-percent commission on a recom- 
mended basis ? 

Mr. Calabrese. We did not go into that. Senator. 

Senator Mundt. We will have someone from Occidental here? 

Mr. Calabrese. We have Mr. Dandy, the vice president, here. 

Senator Capehart. Could I ask a question there? You said you 
were here just to give the facts, and I am sure that is true. Now 
isn't the fact likewise that these people prior to 1957 Icnew nothing 
about tlie code, and, tliorefore, it is not a good coni]:>!irison to take 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17885 

the commissions that they were paying from 1951 to 1957 and com- 
pare it with the code that was put into effect after 1957? Isn't the 
only fair thing to this company to do, to get the rates that comparable 
companies were likewise charging for comparable insurance from 1951 
to 1957 ? Wouldn't that be the factual way to do it ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. I would say "Yes." 

Mr. IvEXNEDT. That is what we have done, Mr. Uhlmann. Isn't 
it from that report ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes. 

The Chairman. The thing is that the code was based upon that. 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is a far more extensive study than we could make. 

Senator Capehart. Let us get back to the facts. The facts are you 
have taken the code adopted in 1957 and you figured the commissions 
as they would have been on the amount of premium paid in, on the 
code adopted in 1957, whereas these people, of course, knew nothing 
about a code prior to 1957. 

The only fair way to do it, and the only factual way would be to 
compare what they charged in commissions, paid in commissions, to 
what comparable companies charged for comparable insurance. Isn't 
that a fact ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Senator, I certainly, and I am sure you will agree, 
am not in a position to establish whether the Occidental people were 
aware of this code. 

Senator Capehart. The code didn't take effect until 1957 and they 
couldn't have been aware of it in 1951 and 1952 and 1953 and 1954 
and 1956? 

Mr. Uhliniann. There were some rumblings going on in the industry 
for several years that there was going to be something done about it, 
but I don't think that that is a matter for discussion on my part. It 
does seem to me, however, that the facts we have indicated here in 
relation to the commissions that were actually paid over a period of 
time, starting in 1950 and 1951 and 1952, are seemingly greatly in 
excess of the code and the rates paid by the companies. 

Senator Capehart. The point I am making is that there is no ques- 
tion but what your figures are correct, based upon the code. I do not 
know what the code is, but you do. There is no question but Avhat — 
take this amount. You say they paid $140,000. You say the code 
would have been $42,000. 

My point is that this policy was back in 1951 and the code was not 
adopted until 1957. Let me ask you this : Did you ascertain whether 
or not today, 1959, they are charging commissions based upon the 
code? 

Mr. Uhlmann. I did not do that, but I do have before me on that 
very policy I referred to earlier, the commissions that they have paid 
during the year 1957. 

Senator Capehart. I am talking about 1958 or 1959. 

Mr. Uhlmann. Sir? 

Senator Capehart. I mean after the code took effect. 

Mr. Uhlmann. I do not have that information. You see, Sena- 
tor 

Senator Capehart. "Would that not be a good fact, too ? 

36751— 59— pt. 49 13 



17886 IMPROPER ACTWITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Uhi.mann. It may be, but it occurs to me that the pui-pose in 
testifying here is to present information to the committee for its evalu- 
ation with a view to, well, determining whether in fact this company 
or any other company, for that matter, has performed an act which 
is contrary to what the objectives of this committee are. 

Senator Capehart. I think in order to be fair, and I hope we can 
get the facts, what we ought to do here is to compare the commissions 
which this company paid to other companies selling comparable insur- 
ance, during the period in which there was no code of ethics. 

That is really what I would like to see. Then I would like to know 
whether or not this company has been complying with the code of ethics 
in respect to commissions since it was adopted. 

Mr. Uhlmann. But, Senator, would you not — well, let me say it this 
way : It seems to us that our guide for purposes of this study was to 
use a set of procedures and figures which have been developed and 
accepted universally in 48 States by responsible people among whom 
are insurance commissioners. 

We felt justified in going to that source in determining whether or 
not it would provide a proper basis for comparison. 

Senator Capehart. I have no quarrel with that, except that there 
was no company complying with the code of ethics prior to 1957, 
because there was no code of ethics. 

Mr. Uhlmann. I think I stated earlier that there were any number 
of companies that did that, and that that was the very reason that 
the code was established on a universal basis. 

Senator Capehart. Did what? 

Mr. Uhlmann. There were any number of companies that were, in 
fact, paying the commissions provided for by the code. That is the 
very reason that it was established that way. The rates contained 
in that code were rates that were promulgated on the basis of this very 
extensive study. 

Of course, the figures came from the source data of these other com- 
panies w^ho, in fact, managed to survive pretty well by paying those 
rates, those commission rates. 

Senator Capehart. Why do you not get the committee the rates paid 
by other comparable companies to this one on comparable insurance 
policies during the period from 1951 to 1957 ? Would that not be very 
factual and would that not really tell the story ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is what this report is. Senator. 

Senator Capehart. It is not. I disagree witli you very much. 

Mr. Kennedy. Doesn't the report say it is a study based on what 
insurance companies are paying for this kind of insurance as far as 
commissions are concerned over a 10-year period ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Precisely that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wasn't it a study that went on for several years? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And by experts in the field? Isn't that correct? 

Mr. Uhlmann. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then, based on this study and based on what 
insurance companies were paying and should pay for brokerage fees^ 
they came up with this standard? 

Mr. Uhlmann. That is correct. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17887 

Mr. Kennedy. And over a 10-year period. So this study has already 
been done by experts; is that ri^ht? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes, indeed ; tar more qualified than I am. 

Mr. Kennedy. And it is compiled in a publication; is that right? 

Mr. Uhlmann. That is correct. 

Senator Capehart. Do you mean to tell me that this is the only 
company that was paying 10 percent? 

Mr. UiiLMANN. I didn't know tliat was a matter for discussion 
here. I cannot say that this was the only company. It was stated 
earlier, and if you will permit me, I can only reemphasize what 1 
stated earlier, and that is that I have before me a set of facts which 
clearly state, which clearly show, based on evidence furnished by the 
company itself, as to what it paid by way of commissions. 

Senator Capehart. Is not the code of ethics the average that they 
arrived at, which was paid by many companies or all the companies 
over a period of years? 

Mr. Uhlmann. I would say that very likely it is just that. 

Senator Capehart. And some were paying more than that and 
maybe others were paying less. These State insurance commissioners 
decided that this would be a fair and equitable commission to pay, 
and they adopted it in 1957 ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Well, they said it would be fair for purposes of 
future contracts. However, it was also recognized at the time on the 
basis of the evidence that had been made available to these people, 
there was an awareness that these facts had prevailed in the industry 
for a period of roughly 10 years. 

Senator Capehart. Well, I do not care to go further. 

The Chairman. All right; let us move along. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have gone through four of the insurance pol- 
icies, Mr. Uhlmann. Have you broken down to the same degree the 
other insurance policies? Those are the four major ones you have 
given to the committee. 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Do you have others broken down to that extent? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes, I have. They are smaller. 

Mr. Kennedy. And, Mr. Calabrese, I would like to get the names 
into the record of the 21 groups, if you have those. 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes. 

Mr. Uhlmann. I have here another policy. It is identified as No. 
2445, for the Chicago Downtown Hotels. It is a relatively small 
policy. In this insance, the total commissions paid were $8,700, as 
opposed to $7,500 under the code, or an excess of approximately $1,200. 

The Chairman. Percentagewise, that is a far smaller excess pay- 
ment than was made on these bigger ones? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What percentage is that? I just happened to 
detect that. On the big ones they paid possibly three times what the 
premiums should have been, I mean if we are going to consider this 
code as a guide or a standard. 

Here you have a percentage of what — that they paid more or in 
excess of what it would be according to the standards? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Eoughly 15 percent. 



17888 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. In other words, in this instance they only paid 
what you might term to be 15 percent in excess, whereas, on these big 
contracts that you have been talking about, they have been paying up 
as high as three times or nearly three times what the premium should 
have been. 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes. 

The Chairman. That is your testimony ? That is the effect of it the 
way I interpret it. 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes, sir. That is precisely what I intended to say. 

The Chairman. But this small one, though, is only about 15 percent. 

Senator Capehart. Wliat is the date of the small one ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. It runs from the period of February 8, 1951, through 
January 16, 1959. 

Senator Capehart. Why was the rate so low on that one? 

Mr. Uhlmann. I have no explanation for it. Perhaps the company 
lias. 

Senator Capehart. Do you have an explanation as to why the rates 
were higher on the others ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. I have no explanation for it; no, sir. It seems to 
me, and you will probably agree, it is a matter for the company, that 
they may have some explanation for it. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, do you want to go through each one 
of these, or can we put in the four major ones? 

The Chairman. Why can't we do this to expedite it : Mr. Uhlmann, 
can you make a table of the remaining contracts that are involved 
here, together with the names of the principals to the contract, and 
insert that in the record at this point under your oath showing these 
comparisons ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. No, sir ; I do not have 

The Chairman. Can you do it ? I did not ask if you had it right 
now. Can you prepare it and submit it to the record at this point ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. I can prepare it and will submit it. I misunder- 
stood the question, Senator. I am sorry. 

The Chairman. Well, instead of going through with all of this for 
the remainder of the companies this afternoon, can you prepare a 
simple statement to go into the record covering this aspect of it, how 
much in excess, the name of the company, the date of it? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes ; I can do that within a 15-minute period. 

The Chairman. If you can do it in 15 minutes, we will get it in this 
afternoon, then. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the overall figure, Mr. Ulilmann, of excess 
of commissions that were paid in connection with these 21 cases? Can 
you give us a conservative figure on that, based on your study and 
based on the standards set up by the insurance people themselves? 

Mr. Uhlmann. My study of these cases was confined to the larger 
cases, to the larger policies, because of the very great impact which the 
premium volume has in relation to the entire picture, because some of 
these policies are quite small. 

So for that reason, I do not have an aggregate figure of the 21 poli- 
cies, but I do have for those that were discussed here earlier in this 
testimony. 



IMPROPER ACTrVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 



17889 



The Chairman. Can you prepare it so you will have the aggregate on 
21 and submit it for the record ? 
Mr. Uhlmann. Yes, sir. 
(The information to be furnished follows:) 

Group insurance written through Dearborn Insurance Agency, Chicago. 
Underwriter, Occidental Life Insurance Co. 



Policy 
No. 



Policyholder 



Com- 
mis- 
sion 
pay- 
ments 
made 



Commis- 
sion per 
rates of 
N.A.I.C. 
Code 



Exces- 
sive 
com- 
mis- 
sions 



Over- 
write 
com- 
mis- 
sions 
(al- 
lowed) 



Net 
excess 
after 
over- 
write 



Pre- 
miums 



2773 
1920 
1966 
3571 



2113 
2445 
2410 



2306 

2217 
3753 
3754 
2015 

3592L 

3455 
2383 
3415 
3416 
4748 
2421 
2328H: 
3970 



Board of trustees of highway drivers 
health and welfare fund, local 710 

Board of trustees of the doclimen's 
health and welfare fund, local 710 

Board of trustees of the highway 
drivers, local 710 

Board of trustees of highway drivers 
and dockmen's health and welfare 
fund, local 710 

Trustees downtowTi hotels 

Chicago residential hotels 

Local joint executive board of Hotel and 
Restaurant Employees and Bar- 
tenders Lntemational Union 

Trustees of the Chicago residential 
hotels.. _ 

Bismarck Hotel Co 

iDistiUery and rectifying workers 

Board of trustees of Teamsters health 
and welfare fund, local 513 

Chicago Waiters Alliance Union Local 
25 .-.. 



Standard Freight Lines, Inc 

iTaxicab drivers, maintenance, etc., 
f local 777 



Taxicab drivers, local 777 

Trustees of comm. drivers, local 703. 

McQarry Nut Products, Ltd 

Charles Tabor Oldsmobile, Inc 



Total, 21 policies 813, 134 



$244,059 
30, 180 
20,991 



10, 726 
224, 19 
8,739 



4,771 

33, 063 

4,568 

4,438 

1,154 

6,898 
600 

144, 140 

839 

73, 013 

143 

616 



$86, 356 
10, 820 
8,961 



11,419 

58, 426 

7,556 



5,026 

16, 971 
3, 781 

6,966 

1,115 

5,492 
703 

44,672 

818 

28, 049 

173 

729 



$157, 703 
19, 360 
12,030 



(693) 

165, 771 

1,183 



(255) 

16,092 

787 

(2, 528) 



38 

1,406 
(103) 

99. 468 

21 

44,964 

(30) 

(113) 



$28, 512 
3,772 
2,501 



$129, 161 
15,588 
9,529 



1,103 (1,796) 
29,996 135,775 
1,115 



670 

4,266 
627 

140 



94 
1,002 



298,033 515,101 



16,604 

134 
9,546 



100,112 



(925) 

11,826 
160 

(2, 668) 

(56) 

404 
(103) 

82, 864 

(113) 

35, 418 

(30) 

(113) 



414,989 



6, 791, 374 
296, 111 
205, 240 



161,975 

4, 277, 128 

159, 476 



93,340 

596, 540 
61, 112 

123, 347 

7,944 

100, 192 

6,274 

308, 416 

84,781 

1,869,894 

21,212 

983,884 

1,088 

5,116 



16, 154, 444 



Source material from which the above was compiled may be foimd in the files of the select committee. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Will you give it for the four companies? 

The Chairman. Give it for the four now, and then I want it sub- 
mitted for the record at this point on all 21. 

Mr. Uhuviann. For the four companies, it is $493,000 excess. 

IMr. Kennedy. Is that including the amount of money that was paid 
to Mr. Wraith? 

Mr. Uhlmann. That includes the amount of money paid to Mr. 
Wraith by way of override commissions. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that all commissions ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Well, it is called commissions here; yes, sir; on the 
tables, on the table furnished by the company. 

Mr. Kennedy. So based on the figures that were furnished by the 
company as to what were commissions in connection with these mat- 
ters, these four cases, which are 710, 703, 777, and 593 of the Hotel 
and Restaurant Workers, the first three being Teamsters, based ou 
these four cases, the excessive commissions were paid in excess of some 
$490,000; is that right? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes, sir. 



17890 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Church. For what period of time ? 

Mr. Uht.man. From about March 1950 on some of the cases — they 
came in at different times — though, in the main, through the end of 
December 1958. 

Senator Church. For a period, then, roughly of 8 years you com- 
pute slightly less than a half million dollars in excessive commissions 
on the four contracts ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes, sir. 

Well, I have made a projection with respect to the remaining poli- 
cies, and it appears as though the figure will approximate roughly 
$500,000 on all of them. You see, the relationship I am trying to bring 
out here is that on four policies alone the excess was $493,000, and the 
excess on the remaining 17 policies was only about $6,000 or $7,000. 
That is the point of my testimony. 

The Chairman. One other point to get the record clear is this: 
This does not include the 3 percent or 31/^ percent that was paid for 
administrative fees? 

Mr. Uhlmann. No, sir. This is outright commissions. 

The Chairman. I do not know whether we have had any testimony 
as to whether that 3 or 31/^ percent is excessive or not. Have we? 

Mr. Uhlmann. No, sir. 

The Chairman. In other words, there is no contention that that 
was an excessive fee? 

Mr. Uhlmann. No, sir. 

The Chairman. But that was paid in addition to these commis- 
sions ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes. 

The Chairman. The commissions were excessive, in your opinion ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes, sir. 

Senator Capehart. Wliat was the total amount of premiums paid 
during this 8-year period ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. $16,150,000, to round it out. 

Senator Capehart. The total premiums ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes, sir. 

Senator Capehart. That is on which the commissions we are talk- 
ing about were paid ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. This is on the 21 policies that I have given you 
the figure on. 

Senator Capehart. Wliat was it on the four ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. I would prefer to calculate that, if I may ? 

Senator Capehart. Approximately, if you know. 

Well, never mind . 

Mr. Kennedy. Can't you just add them up roughly and then you 
can put the exact figure in ? 

Mr. Uhlmann. A little over $17 million. 

Senator Capehart. It can't be over $17 million if all 21 of them are 
$16 million. 

Mr. Uhlmann. $141/2 million. There was one figure that was du- 
plicated. 

Senator Capehart. Then the $400,000 of what you call excess is on 
$14 million of premiums? 

Mr. Uhlmann. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17891 

Senator Capehart. When j^ou talk about it being excess, you mean 
being excess over the so-called code of ethics that was adopted in 
1957? 

Mr. Uhlmaxn. Yes, sir. 

The C^iTAiRMAN. Is there anything furtlier? 

Mr. Kenxedy. Mr. Chairman, that is just for background. Now I 
would like to put some documents into the record with Mr. Calabrese 
and then call some witnesses. The documents are in connection with 
the ownership of this company, of the Dearborn Insurance Agency, 
the individuals who received the insurance, and how the Dearborn 
Insurance Agency and Mr. Maris were able to obtain insurance from 
these various entities. 

The CiiAiRiviAx. Mr. Uhlmann, you prepare a statement of all of 
those companies, as I directed a while ago, for the record. It will 
be a part of your sworn testimony. 

I will instruct that it be placed in the record at that point. 

Mr. Uhlmaxx. Yes, sir. I will start immediately. 

Mr. Kexxedy. Mr. Calabrese, it would appear from the correspond- 
ence that we have been able to obtain that there was an attempt by 
Mr. Maris and those with whom he worked first to contact certain 
political figures in Chicago and then to contact certain union officials 
in order to obtain this insurance ; is that right ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

Mr. K!exxedt. Our main interest, and the one that is of some sig- 
nificance as we go along, was their contact wdth the individual union 
officials, and the representations that were made to these union offi- 
cials, and the arrangements that were made with them ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

Mr. Kexxedy. But just going through some of the correspondence, 
starting back in 1949, could we put maybe a half dozen or so of these 
letters into the record which are of some significance? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes, sir. 

]Mr. Kexxedy. The first one is January 7, 1949, that we will place 
in the record. 

Mr. Calabrese. I would like to state that these records were ob- 
tained from the office of Mr. Harland Maris, pursuant to a subpena 
served on him for his personal records, which he turned over to us. 

Mr. Kexxedy. This is a letter which indicates the attempt to con- 
tact somebody in politics in connection with obtaining this insurance ; 
is that right ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

The Chairmax. Do you have a letter there before you ? 

Mr. Calabrese. I have a photostatic copy of a January 18, 1949, 
letter. 

The Chairman. January what ? 

Mr. Calabrese. January 18, 1949. Is that the one you are re- 
ferring to ? 

Mr. Kexxedy. January 7, 1949. 

The CiiAiRMAX. I have the January 7 letter. 

Mr. Calabrese. I have a copy of that, sir. 

The Chairmax. The letter is dated January 7, 1949, addressed to 
•whom ? 



17892 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Calabrese. It is addressed to Mr. Allen L. Creitz, regional 
group supervisor, Occidental Life Insurance Co., in Chicago. It is 
from Harland R. Maris. 

The Chairman. You obtained this letter from the files of whom ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Mr. Maris. 

The Chairman. It may be made exhibit No. 22. 

(Letter referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 22" for reference and 
may be fomid in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Could we also have the letter of January 18, Mr. 
Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Do you have a letter of January 18, dated Janu- 
ary 18 ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Who is it from and to whom is it addressed ? 

Mr. Calabrese. I have a photostatic copy of a letter from Mr. Allen 
Creitz to Mr. Harland E.. Maris, in Oakland, Calif. 

The Chairman. That letter may be made exhibit No. 22-A. 

(Letter referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 22-A" for reference 
and maye be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Calabrese, both the letter of Januaiy 7, 1949, and 
the letter of January 18, 1949, indicate that an attempt was macle by 
the representative of the Occidental Insurance Co. to contact Mr. 
Frank Keenan, who was at that time an alderman ; is that right ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And to have him make the necessaiy arrangements 
to bring these entities into the insurance group, to have these groups 
make contracts with the Occidental Insurance Co.; is that right? 

Mr. Calabrese. It shows the contacts with Mr. Frank Keenan ; yes. 

Mr, Kennedy. Mr. Frank Keenan ultimately was made a partner in 
the Dearborn Insurance Agency ? 

Mr. Calabrese. With 26 shares of the corporation; that is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. You can see at the bottom of the letter of January 18, 
it says : 

It seems to me the only solution to this problem wonld be to have one of your 
political friends put enough heat on someone so that your name would be brought 
into the deal. This is an excellent piece of business with an approximate $600,000 
annual premium. Whatever steps you feel necessary, please take, because I am 
stymied from this end. 

This is the difficulty they were having in making their contacts. 

The Chairman. The letters have been made exhibits. Parts of them 
may be referred to. They are subject to interpretation and whatever 
implication they may cast, if any. 

Do we know what was meant in the letter of January 7, the last 
sentence in the first paragraph : 

I cannot emphasize too strongly the point that Mr. Burger made with me. that 
if the employers would agree to pay for this coverage, the deal could be made. 

Do we know what deal we are talking about ? 

Mr. Calabrese. kSenator, earlier Mr. Maris had been endeavoring to 
obtain pension business from the unions. As I stated earlier this 
morning, he was unsuccessful in that endeavor. These were contacts 
with union officials. Mr. Burger, whom he mentions, was the interna- 
tional vice president of the Teamsters Union. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 17893 

He had been making contacts with the various union oflGlcials in an 
attempt to obtain the pension business which, as I say, he was misuc- 
cessf ul in obtaining. 

Mr. Kennedy. The next letter that you have, Mr. Calabrese, is 
dated what? 

INIr. Calabrese. April 4, 1949. It is a letter from Mr. Harland R. 
Maris to Mr. Elmer Crane at his office at 105 West Madison Street. 

Mr. Kennedy. TSHiat is the heart of that letter? 

jMr. Calabrese. In it there is a discussion about his endeavors to 
obtain the pension plans. He then asks and states — 

As I told you this morning — 

referring to paragraph 2 — 

I asked Mr. Ray Schoessling to speak to Haggerty, and I think it would be helpful 
if, before you leave, you could get one good chance to have Mr. Blakely speak to 
him. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is jSIr. Blakely of the Hotel and Eestaurant 
Workers ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Apparently referring to Mr. James Blakely of the 
Restaurant Union. He then goes on to state what he hopes to do, and 
so forth. 

I refer to the last paragraph, in which he states — 

One more thing before you go to Florida. There are some union deals cooking 
out here. Will you be kind enough to ask Mr. Blakely if he could put me in touch 
with some of the big wheels, preferably not the Teamsters as I don't want to 
fool with Beck, nor do I want him to fool with me in Chicago. 

Then he goes on to speak about personal matters. 

The Chairman. Make that exhibit Xo. 22-B. 

(Letter referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 22-B" for reference and 
may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Let us go on to the next one. 

Mr. Calabrese. It is dated April 8, 1949. It is signed "Allen," to 
"Dear Harland." Allen would be Mr. Creitz, to Harland — Harland 
Maris. 

Mr. Kennedy. Go ahead. 

Mr. Calabrese. There are a couple of paragraphs devoted to some 
of the activities that he had been in, and then it states in the third 
paragraph : 

Youngblood and I had lunch today. They have a meeting next Thursday and 
will then have a full report. This other agent, Begley, is still in the picture, but 
Youngblood indicated Elmer's friend, Blakely, told him we were the right party. 
I told Youngblood to have it set up so no one could open investigations at a later 
date, and to be careful of Whiskers. 

The Chairman. Who is "Whiskers" ? 

Mr. Calabrese. I don't know. I would say the U.S. Government. 

Mr. Kennedy. Anyway, they say it should be set up so that no one 
could open investigations at a later date, and to be careful of Whiskers ? 

Mr. Cal.\brese. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who is Mr. Youngblood ? 

]Mr. Calabrese, ]Mr. Yomigblood was an official in the Paintei's 
Union. 

The Chairman. Make that exhibit No. 22-C. 

(Letter referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 22-C" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 



17894 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IK THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Calabrese. The next letter I have is a letter dated November 4, 
1949, from Mr. Maris to Mr. Creitz. I refer you to the middle of the 
last paragraph, page 1, where it states : 

Yesterday I talked to Elmer, and he said he would call you. Apparently 
Vacey and Blakely are calling a meeting of the executive committee for Monday, 
November 10, and he told me he would let me know the result of it. The pur- 
pose of the meeting is to decide which plan they will accept, which should be 
fairly simple. From what he said, I believe they are going to make an all-out 
effort for the plan we submitted because of the certainty that if the Loop 
hotels go for it, the rest will fall in line. 

The Mr. Vacey whom he refers to is deceased. He was an official 
in the Hotel and Restaurant Union. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 22-D. 

(Letter referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 22-D" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

JSIr. Kennedy. Then there is a letter written on the stationery of 
Mr. L. W. Wrixon, attorney at law, San Francisco, a letter written 
to Mr. Maris, in which he encloses or states : 

Enclosed is a draft of a proposed employment contract which you might wish 
to consider. 

is that right ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that contract indicates, in paragraph 2 : 

The contractor agrees to furnish agency with contacts among local union 
officers and employees located in the State of Illinois who are affiliated with 
the Hotel and Restaurant Employees International Union, and contractor fur- 
ther agrees that he will provide agency and its officers and employees with 
such assistance as he is legitimately able to furnish, directed toward the sale 
and installation by agency of welfare plans involving the issuance of insurance 
contract as required by said plans. 

is that right ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And is there a further paragraph in that agreement 
that this arrangement shall remain secret ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes ; confidential and personal in character, that is 
the arrangement. It says : 

From and after the dates hereof each party hereto agrees that he or it, as 
the case may be, will not directly or indirectly disclose to any other person, 
firm, corporation, or organization (a) the names of any persons or officers 
contacted by either party hereto in connection with the selling and/or instal- 
lation of welfare plans; or (ft) any of the methods or procedure employed in 
devising, selling, and/or installing welfare plans. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is not enclosed in the mimeographed part. We 
only have the first page of the contract in there, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Do you have the full contract there? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

The Chairman. A photostatic copy of the contract in full may be 
made exhibit No. 23, and you read an excerpt from the contract, at 
that time? 

Mr. Calabrese. I did. 

(Contract referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 23'' for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. I didn't cat<jh the full significance of it. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17895 

Mr. Kennedy. It states in substance that all arrangements shall 
remain secret and confidential ; is that correct ? 

Senator Capeiiakt. Whom is the contract made with? 

Mr. Kennedy. It is a blank contract but for the procurement of 
the Hotel and Restaurant Workers business; is that right? 

Mr. Calabrese. Tliat is correct. 

Mr. Ivennedy. We will go on to develop what occurred. 

But up to this time there had been contacts, as we have seen from 
the other correspondence, which gained some significance as we go 
along, but the contacts as far as the Hotel and Restaurant Workers 
business had all been with Mr. Blakely ; is that right? 

Mr. Calabkese. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was the one going to make the contacts with the 
Hotel and Restaurant Workers, and they were going to contact him 
to make contacts with other union officials? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Ivennedy. He was their man as far as making the contacts and 
trying to get them the business. 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Here we come in early January of 1950, when they 
make up an employment contract which is to remain secret and confi- 
dential, where somebody is to receive certain compensation for obtain- 
ing the business from the Hotel and Restaurant Workers? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. At the same time, they were attempting to get the 
Teamsters' business ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, you have a letter there of October 6, 1950? 

Mr. Calabrese. I do. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that the next letter ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. The significance of that letter is what ? 

Mr. Calabrese. It is from Mr. Creitz to Mr. Maris, and it is — 

Re : Commission Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehouse Helpers Union, Local 703. 

He states : 

Dear Harland : Today when you called I was in Frank Brown's oflBce, which 
you found out, and then you had some discussion with Frank relative to the 
above deal. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who is Frank Brown ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Frank Brown was the president of local 710, and 
was also president of Joint Council No. 25 of the International 
Brotherhood of Teamsters in Chicago. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now he is president emeritus of that union ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes ; and since June of 1953, 1 believe. 

Mr. Kj:nnedy. July of 1953 ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes, sir. The next paragraph says : 

After our conversation we went through this whole plan and discussed it 
thoroughly with John Mahoney and Mike Raimondi. 

Now, Mr. Mahoney and Mr. Raimondi were officials of local 703. 
The Chairman. This letter may be made exhibit No. 24. 
(Letter referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 24" for reference and 
will be found in the appendix on p. 18085.) 



17896 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. And the next letter ? 

Mr. Calabrese. It is December 7, 1950, from Mr. Creitz to Mr. 
Maris. 

Mr. I&iNNEDY. Now, around this period of time, there would seem 
to have been some major step that had been taken, would there not? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Now, would you read us on the letter of December 7, 
1950, the last paragraph of that letter ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes. 

I wish that you would some time in the next 2 or 3 days drop Jim Blakely a line 
and tell him that you are very sorry but you misunderstood there was to be a 
meeting. Also explain that it is your intention, together with Frank Brown and 
Sandy O'Brien to have a meeting in February which is the end of the first year. 
At that time accounting details will be given and etc. I think this will be a 
salvation to the last misunderstanding. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was Sandy O'Brien? 

Mr. Calabrese. Mr. O'Brien is the international vice president of 
the Teamsters in Chicago, and he is secretary-treasurer of local 710. 

Mr. Kennedy. Here they talk about the fact that they had to get 
together with Jim Blakely, and there was going to have to be a meet- 
ing of Jim Blakely, Frank Brown, and Sandy O'Brien. 

Now, this is a letter from Creitz, regional group supervisor of the 
Occidental Life Insurance Co. to Harland Maris, the meeting of Frank 
Brown, Sandy O'Brien, and Jim Blakely; is that correct? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now all of them had had different insurance en- 
tities, did they not? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And in this period of time, or this juncture, had 
there been some awarding of the insurance ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes, as a matter of fact Mr. O'Brien, in 710, had 
awarded the contracts to Dearborn on March 1 of 1950, for the dock- 
men side of the contract, and on April 1, 1959, the over-the-road 
drivers part of the contract. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was that date? 

Mr. Calabrese. March 1 and April 1. 

Mr. Kennedy. So the insurance had already been granted? 

Mr. Calabrese. The insurance had already been granted; that is 
correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they were having a meeting then during this 
period of time? 

Mr. Calabrese. This would have been a year after the contracts 
were obtained, and he speaks of that year. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he says there — 

At that time aceomiting details will be given and etc. I think this wiU be a 
salvation to the last misunderstanding. 

They evidently had some arrangement between themselves in which 
accounting details were going to be furnished to these three men; 
is that right? 

Mr. CaLxVbrese. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, January 8, 1951. 

Senator Capehart. You say "Yes," and do vou know it to be a 
fact? 

Mr. Kennedy. We will go on with these. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17897 

Senator Capehart. Do you know it to be a fact, that there was 
some arrangement between these two gentlemen ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes, I think Senator, that we have additional 
information. 

Senator Capehakt. Yon Imow it to be a fact yourself? 

Mr. Cai^vbrese. From the records that we have, it would indicate 
it, Senator. 

Senator Capehart. The records later? 

Mr. Calabrese. The records I am prepared to introduce at this 
point. 

Senator Capehart. The records indicate that it is a fact; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Calabrese. The records indicate that there was a deal between 
them; that is correct. 

Mr. Kexnedt. Now proceed to January 8, 1951. 

The Chairman. This previous one will be made exhibit 25. 

(Letter referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 25" for reference and 
will be found in the appendix on p. 18086.) 

Mr. Calabrese. This is a letter from Miss Aileen Tipton, to Mr. 
Allen Creitz, from which they said : 

Mr. Maris ha.s just made arraniiemeiits to meet with .Terry Seliultz at 2:30 
Monday afteruoon, so would like to see Mr. O'Brien aud the others on Tuesday 
morning. 

Mr. Kennedy. AVho is Jerry Schultz ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Mr. Schultz was the accoimtant that handled the 
tax matters when the corporation was originally set up. 

Mr. Ivennedt. What corporation ? . 

Mr. Calabrese. Dearborn Insurance Agency, Inc. 

Mr. Kennedy. Here we have Mr. Maris saying he had made ar- 
rangements to meet with the tax accountant for the Dearborn Insur- 
ance Agency, and then he would like to see O'Brien and the others 
on Tuesday morning ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then the letter of January 10, 1951. 

The Chairman. This may be made exhibit No. 2G, this letter of 
January 8. 

(Letter referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 26" for reference and 
will be fomid in the appendix on p. 18087.) 

Mr. Kennedy. These letters up to this point, Mr. Chairman, are 
just leading up to the situation as it is going to be developed during 
the next few letters. 

Mr. Calabrese. This is a letter from Mr. Maris, to Mr. John W. 
Murray, at his residence or place of business, 6469 N. Sheridan Road, 
Chicago. Mr. Murray was a stockholder in the corporation. 

The Chairman. I don't have a copy of that. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is a very important letter, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Let us have a copy before it is read. 

Now we are referring to the letter of January 10, 1951, from Mr. 
Maris to John W. Murray ; is that correct? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

The Chairman. That letter may be made exhibit No. 27 

(^The letter referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 27" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the Select Committee.) 



17898 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman". You may proceed. 
Mr. Cal.\brese (reading) : 

Deab John : Enclosed is a check for $93.99 for some additional commissions. 

Mr. Kennedy. Murray was the representative, was he, of the 
corporation ? 

Mr. Calabrese. He was the secretary of the Dearborn Insurance 
Agency, Inc., and a stockholder in the corporation. Senator. 

Mr. Kennedy. Go ahead. 

Mr. Calabrese. The first paragraph, if I might just go over this 
quickly, there was a discussion of 

Mr. Kennedy. The first one is a discussion of the paid outs that 
he had made during the particular period of time? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. How he was going to be reimbursed for that? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Insofar as the payouts were concerned ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. We will ask him about that when Mr. Maris is a 
witness, as to how this paid-out money was being used during that 
period. 

Mr. Calabrese. We don't know what he means by expenses and 
payouts, in that first paragraph. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then he goes on, in the second paragraph about 
having lunch, and third paragraph the same sort of situation; is 
that right ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes, that is correct. 

Now, he starts with : 

After you and Allen and I have lunch and see the tax man, I propose that we 
call Frank Keenan in Florida, review it with him and get his proxy by telephone. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all in connection with the insurance agency's 
own business, is that right, as to how they are going to reimburse Maris 
for the money that he paid out ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is what it appears to be ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is what it is, and it is insurance agency business, 
is it not ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes ; it is. 

On Tuesday morning I have an appointment with O'Brien and Brown to close 
the taxicab deal — 

the taxicab company is local 777, which was mentioned earlier — 

and will go over the entire statement as outlined above with them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, he is saying there that he is going over the 
statement in connection with the insurance agency, the brokerage, with 
both O'Brien and Brown ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes, sir. 

Then I think we should have a meeting on Wednesday with the entire group 
in Chicago, go over the first 9-months operations, and review the established 
income for 1951 and the three cases that are on the fire and which will produce 
income in 1951. 

Now the next paragraph deals with his discussion with the tax man, 
and what he will get out of it. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17899 

Mr. Kennedy. He says : 

I believe it will be possible for all of us to have salaries or bonuses for 1950 
and establish salaries and expense for 1951 and vpith the payouts deducted 
which are already committed from our already set up 1951 income, we can really 
start to get a monthly income off of this business. 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, on the next page, what does he say? 

Mr. Calabrese (reading) : 

I appreciate your staying over for this matter and only wish that Frank were 
there too, but we can take plenty of time on the phone so he understands it and 
I know that Brown and O'Brien will. 

Mr. Kennedy. Brown and O'Brien at tliat time were the union 
officials who were responsible for awarding these contracts, for the 
Teamsters Union ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Local 710. 

Mr. Kennedy. And also for local 777 of the Teamsters, at least they 
played a major role. 

Mr. Calabrese. And also 703. 

Mr. Kennedy. For the three major Teamster Unions. 

Mr. Cai^\brese. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Local 710 was the largest contract of all? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes ; that is correct, Senator. 

The Chairman. They are union people who make the decision? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Brown and O'Brien were the union officials who 
made the decision, where the insurance should go, and the kind of con- 
tract it should be ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes, Senator ; and I will explain a little later as to 
what actually happened in line with giving Dearborn the insurance 
as against Mr. Dorfman's Union Casualty Co., which also was solicit- 
ing insurance at this time. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Senator Capehart. Brown and O'Brien, the two men representing 
the union, don't they sit with two employer men, and don't the four 
of them handle it? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes, there are trustees ; that is correct. 

Senator Capehart. There were two employer representatives and 
two union men ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes, sir. 

Senator Capehart. And the two union men you are talking about 
here are Brown and O'Brien ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Mr. Brown was the president; that is right. 

Senator Capehart. Do Brown and O'Brien have more to say than 
the two employer representatives ? 

Mr. Calabrese. I would say yes, definitely. 

Senator Capehart. For what reason ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Because they are the union officials themselves. 

Senator Capehart. This fund set up for this group insurance is ad- 
ministered by four men; two from the union and two from the em- 
ployers ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes, sir. 

Senator Capehart. And they get together and award the contract 
for the insurance ? 



17900 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Calabrese. That is right. 
Senator Capehakt. That is a correct statement? 
Mr. Calabrese. That is correct ? 

Senator Capehart. And Brown and O'Brien in this letter are the 
two union men ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes. That is right. 
Mr. Kennedy. Go ahead. 
Mr. Calabrese (reading) : 

I then propose to have the open meeting, present the statement, answer ques- 
tions, and once and for all, even if I have to have help from the Teamsters and 
you, put Brother Crane in his place forever. Let us pray. 

Mr. Kennedy. Brother Crane had what position at that time? 

Mr. Calabrese. He was secretary when the corporation was first 
formed. 

Mr. Kennedy. And there was some pressure against him by these 
other people at that tii.ie? 

Mr. Calabrese. Th^it is right, from Mr. Maris; that is right. 

As you know, it was no simple job to get the insurance company up from 
4 percent first year commission and 2 percent renewal commission to 10 percent 
first year commission and 4 percent perpetual renewal. 

Mr. Kennedy. At that very time, Mr. Maris was indicating that he 
knew that he got a very special deal by getting this very high com- 
mission rate? 

Mr. Calabrese. Exactly. 

Mr. Kennedy. This was something that he was well aware of, and 
what they were trying to incorporate in the deal ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is right. 

The Chairman. What does the next sentence mean ? 

Mr. Calabrese (reading) : 

I can tell you simply that there is not a contract like it in America. Since the 
recent shakeup of officers in Occidental as of January 1, we are sitting in the 
most prime position of any broker with any company in America. At the meet- 
ing I want to develop this point at some length because it has taken a lot of 
work out here to get this done and I don't believe some of the stockholders 
realize just how much work. I may add, without too much humility, that it was 
largely due to two facts, one being that for years I had been no worse than No. 4 
man and the other reason being continuous production without any complica- 
tions for 11 years ; and may I say that during that 11 years I never sent Mrs. 
Tookey any flowers as one of our stockholders did. 

The Chairman. Who is Mrs. Tookey ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Apparently the wife of one of the officials in 
Occidental. 

For your information, and I will reveal it to the entire group, every dollar's 
worth of Dave Beck's Teamsters business for the 11 Western States is written 
in Occidentiil and the commission scale is 4 percent first year and 2 percent 
renewal. 

The Chairman. That would be a much bigger contract than this. 
I would think so. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was developed to a very excessive commission, 
even that 4 percent and the 2 percent. 

The Chairman. We have already established that in previous 
hearings? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 17901 

Mr. Calabrese (reading) : 

Therefore, we must impress upon our stockholders that in order to keep the 
contracts runninj; as they are, they must work closely with their trustees in 
order to justify the additional expense items at the end of the year when the 
accounting is done on each of these several deals. In other words, John, if 
the hotel assfx'iation or the Teamsters' employer group should even intimate 
that other companies can do this joh for a lower retention figure, they have 
got to go to bat for us. Once again, in this type of business, when you are 
working as a conioration, there is only one profitable method of doing business, 
and that is to write deals that are controlled without bids; then it is possible 
for the company to get enough premium to do the job and, inasmuch as com- 
missions are built upon percentage of premium, obviously the higher premium 
we get, the higher commission we get, even though we return a higher dividend. 

Mr. Kennedy, That sets the whole situation out, doesn't it? 
Mr. Calabrese. Yes. iVnd in the next paragraph he speaks about 
projection of 1951. 

This is a rambling letter, John, but mull it over and when you, Allen, and I 
get together on Monday we will kick it around good. When we get the approval 
of Keenan, Brown, and O'Brien, we will have the formal meeting and get it out 
of the way. I am sure that with what I have in mind everyone should be sat- 
isfied, but I do expect to get back the tax credit I have used in order to provide 
the payouts, if not the entire amount of money I have spent. However, this is 
all subject to the advice of the tax consultant. See you on Monday. 
Very sincerely, 

Hakland R. Maris. 

P.S. — Did Crane ever pay for the 200 shares of stock for the hotel people? If 
not, don't mention it to him as I want to bring it out in the meeting that that 
is the only stock not paid for. I believe that Allen knows that Vacey paid him 
for it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Vacey was the head of the Hotel and Restaurant 
Union at that time ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is right. He was president. 

Mr. Kennedy. The question was raised as to whether Crane, who 
was the official of the insurance agency, had as yet paid for the stock 
that was going to be given, or which belonged to the hotel people. 

Mr. Calabrese. The hotel people. That is as I read it, Mr. 
Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then specifically he mentioned Mr. Vacey, who was 
a union official at that time? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. You have a letter of January 22, 1951, which is also 
of some importance? 

Mr. Calabrese. I do. It is a letter from Mr. Maris to Mr. Frank 
Brown, 4217 South Halsted Street, Chicago, 111., wliich is the address 
of local 710. He states : 

When I came to my office this morning, I took up the problem that you and Jim 
have with my attorney and tax consultant here, and whose name is L. W. Wrixon. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who is Jim ? 

]\Ir. Calabrese. It could be James Blakely or Jim Keenan, which 
would be Frank Keenan's brother. 

Mr. Kennedy. Either one? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is right. I will skip down to the next para- 
graph. 

It appears to me that your particular problem 

36751— 59— pt. 49 14 



17902 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. This is a letter to Frank Brown, who is head of the 
Teamsters Union there ; is that right ? 
Mr. Calabrese. Yes. 
Mr. Kennedy. Local 710? 
Mr. Calabress. 710 

Mr. Kennedy. And he is now president emeritus of local 710 ? 
Mr. Calabrese. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And is still receiving his salary from local 710 ? 
Mr. Calabrese. That is true. 

(At this point Senator McClellan entered the hearing room.) 
Mr. KJENNEDY. Go ahead. 
Mr. Calabrese (reading) : 

It appears to me that your particular problem is to keep your name off 
■of the certificate and, if possible, in my opinion, out of the city of Chicago. 
Mr. Wrixon makes this suggestion and says that he has done it many times 
in operating for estates and minors in the matter of dividends paid by stock 
brokerage houses and the cases are identical. Dearborn Insurance Agency 
would cancel out the two certificates which were issued to a trust number, for the 
reason that the trust was never completed. Two certificates would be issued 
to the California attorney, who in turn would endorse them and mail them to 
you and Jim in Chicago, and the stock would be in the same category as street 
stock or free stock. The dividends would be paid to the attorney, who in turn 
would endorse the checks and send them to you and the tax on the dividends 
would be paid by you. Mr. Wrixon tells me that the only jwint that would even 
enter the deal, and one which comes frequently to attorneys, particularly at- 
torneys for stock brokers, is to explain very simply that the stock was issued 
in his name because of some estate matter which he was handling and that he 
had forwarded the dividends to the rightful owner to be included in his income 
tax return. 

My thought in the matter, Frank, is that because the attorney is in Cali- 
fornia and connected with me, rather than in Chicago and connected with yoq, 
it might better serve our purpose and, to make it look even better, I certainly 
would not object to having my own stock made to Mr. Wrixon in the same 
category, which would improve the window dressing. 

Mr. Kennedy. It shows clearly, this letter, the subterfuge involved. 
Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

My suggestion is that you ask your attorney about it, write me your thoughts, 
and if he concurs with Mr. Wrixon, we will have the old certificates canceled 
by John Murray, the new ones issued, sent out here, and endorsed back to 
you and Jim and me. As you know, I don't want any worries about this matter 
and neither do you and Jim, so if you will give it your attention we can have 
it done in 5 days so you can have your certificates in your own safe deposit box 
before you go to Arkansas. 

If the shares are to be split between you and John, let me know the details 
and we will arrange it any way you wish. 

By John he may be referring to Jolin "Sandy" O'Brien. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the only John that is involved that we 
know of ? 

The Chairman. He says somebody is going to Arkansas to see 
John ? What John are they talking about ? 

Mr. Calabrese. The only one I know, Senator, is John "Sandy" 
O'Brien. 

Mr. Kennedy. The last two paragi-aphs indicate an attempted con- 
tact with Mr. Haggerty ; is that right ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. So that the record is completely clear, we have 
found that Mr. Ilaggeity was not involved in this in any way? 

Mr. Calabrese. No. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17903 

Mr. Kennedy. There was just correspondence back and forth about 
attempting to contact him ? 

Mr. Calabrese. About attempting to obtain the contacts; that is 
riglit. 

The Chairman. That letter may be made exhibit No. 28. 

(Letter referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 28" for reference and 
may be found in tlie files of the select conunittee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Next is the letter of February 2, 1951. 

Mr. Calabrese. This is a letter from Mr. Wrixon, the tax attorney 
in San Francisco, to Mr. Maris : 

Dear Haiiland : I reviewed the corporate minute book and find that there Is 
a printed form of resolution already signed relating to the bank account and, 
accordingly, it seems to me that the copy of the printed resolutions, after being 
conformed with the original, should be attached to the minutes. I note that 
none of the pages of the minute appears to be signed by the directors, oflScers, 
or shareholders. 

In ray opinion, the corporate minutes should be completed by an attorney 
familiar with Illinois law. This should also be done in order to make the 
proper presentation of the corporate status to any inquiring revenue agent. 
I enclose a suggested form of minutes which your counsel in Chicago may 
-<*onsider and adopt to his purposes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have the wrong letter. What letter is that? 

Mr. Calabrese. February 2, 1951. There are two, Mr. Kennedy. 

The Chairman. The letter you just read from is one dated Feb- 
ruary 2, 1951, address to Mr. Maris ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. It is apparently from L. W. Wrixon, the attorney ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. That letter may be made exhibit No. 29. 

(Letter referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 29" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee. ) 

Mr. Kennedy. We reviewed the minute book at one time, did we 
not? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then when we returned to examine it again, 
we could not locate it? 

Mr. Calabrese. No. It was not located. We could not locate it 
after we returned. 

Mr. Kennedy. They furnished what they stated was a photostatic 
copy of the minute book ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. But nobody seems to know what happened to the 
minute book ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Not after we looked at it ; no. 

Mr. Kennedy. The most important piece of records in connection 
with this whole operation would be the stock certificate book ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes ; that is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you able to obtain the stock certificate book? 

Mr. Calabrese. No, we were not. No one seemed to know any- 
thing about this stock certificate book. None of the officers nor the 
partners. 

The Chairman. Let the Chair make this, the minutes of the special 
meeting of the board that were attached to the letter of February 2, 
1951, to Mr. Maris, exhibit No. 29A. 



17904 DVIPROPEE. ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

(Minutes referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 29 A" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Calabrese. In connection with the proposed minutes, Senator, 
you will note that it was dated the 9th day of June 1950, that it 
was a meeting of all directors, to wit, Harland R. Maris, Frank 
Brown, and Elmer Crane. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. So that shows right in the minutes that had been 
drawn up, minutes of the special meeting of the board of directors 
of the Dearborn Insurance Agency, Frank Brown as being one of the 
directors; is that right? 

Mr. Calabrese. One of the directors of the Dearborn Insurance 
Agency, Inc. 

In there, there is reference to the resignation of Elmer Crane as 
secretary and director of the corporation. And a final provision on 
page 3 of that proposed minutes there is a resolution that states : 

Resolved, That this corporation hereby ratifies, approves, and adopts as the 
act and deed of this corporation, the agreement by this corporation, the agree- 
ment by this corporation to pay to the Maris-Scully Co. the sum of $30,000 
during the calendar year 1950, and the further sum of $15,000 payable during 
the period March 1, 1951, to May 31, 1951. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is of some interest., Mr. Calabrese, that this letter 
is dated February 2, 1951 ; is that right? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. But the minutes that are being forwarded are min- 
utes for the 9th of June 1950? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was some 6 months before, the meeting took 
place some 6 months before ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. This other letter of February 2, 1951 

The Chairman. That is the letter from Mr. Maris to Jerome 
Schultz? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes, Senator. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 30. 

(letter referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 30" for reference and 
may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. There is some effort now to liide the ownership of 
the Dearborn Insurance Agency ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes. This is in line with the letter to Mr. Brown. 

Mr. Kennedy. As to how it is going to be handled so that people 
would not be aware of the fact that they had an interest in the Dear- 
born Insurance ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. These are the union officials that are trying to con- 
ceal their identity and their interest in this company ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes. This is the effort to conceal their identity. 
Senator. 

The Chairman. All right. That is to prevent anyone knowing they 
have an interest in the company ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Or that they are sharing in its profits? 

Mr. Calat?resk. That would be correct. That is correct, Senator.. 
This is a letter to Mr. Schultz, at the company office at 22 West Madi- 
son Street, Chicago, 111. It states: 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17905 

Enclosed is a copy of a letter from Mr. Wrixon to me in response to several 
questions I ask him concerning Dearborn. I am forwarding it to you so that if 
you concur it will be a basis for our 1951 plans. There is one more point which 
Mr. Wrixon did not deal with in this letter, but I am sure you will be relieved 
to know of our decision. 

There are 40 shares of stock issued to two trust numbers at the LaSalle National 
Bank, which were never completed. Each certificate is for 20 shares, but I am 
quite certain that the 20 shares in each instance would concern more than one 
individual, so I have asked the holders to do the following things : 

1. Send the two 20-share certificates to me and we will cancel them. Then we 
will issue, say, four 10-share certificates to L. W. Wrixon, who in turn will 
endorse them, making them free stock as you suggested and immediately mail 
them to the proper individuals. 

2. W^hen dividends are paid, they will, of course, be made to L. W. Wrixon. 
He in turn will endorse the checks, forward them to the proper people, and 
notify the Treasury Department that he has acted as attorney for the individuals 
and give the Treasury Department the amount of the dividends upon which tax 
should be paid by the actual owners of the stock. 

In the portion of Mr. W'rixon's letter dealing with the Personal Service Corp., it 
would be necessary for us to issue 20 more shares of stock in order that 70 
of the outstanding shares be in the hands of Murray, Creitz, and myself, who are 
the active shareholders and all licensed to do insurance business necessary in 
Illinois. 

If we can so qualify and convince our stockholders that it is a good move, the 
30 percent savings should be very substantial, and if you have a moment, will 
you please run a calculation on the basis of $7.5,000, taxable income on a 77-per- 
cent basis with our present 115 shai'es of stock, with 40 shares held silently, as 
against a 47-percent tax ratio with an additional 20 shares of stock going to the 
active shareholders? It is my belief without running a calculation that even 
though we increase the shares by 20, the benefits to the 40 silent shares wil be 
increased ; also, there is another large benefit which will be helpful. 

In any extracurricular commitments, if we have to run them straight through 
the books, 47 percent is more advantageous than 77 percent. IMr. Wrixon is 
preparing the minutes for Dearborn in a rather rough manner as he doesn't pre- 
tend to practice Illinois law, but I suggested to him what we wanted and he is 
preparing it. We will have it checked for legality in Illinois. I expect to be in 
Chicago on the 5th or 6th of March and we can close our books and get started 
for that year." 

The Chaikmax. As I get the picture of this up to now, Brown 
and O'Brien are union members or union officers, and they are also 
trustees of this fund. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Well, Senator, we don't know that as such. We 
have never seen these stock certificates. 

The Chaieman". No. Trustees of the fund. 

Mr. CaLx'ibrese. Trustees of the fund ; yes. 

The CnAiR3iAX. To make a decision as to how they sliall be invested 
or insurance they buy, and so forth, and the amomit of premiums 
they pay ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes. That is right. 

The Chairman. They became associated with others in a business; 
insurance agents? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

The) Chairman. And they give the insurance to this Occidental Co., 
who in turn agrees to pay what appears to be an excessive premium 
to this insurance agency, a brokerage fee paid to this insurance agency 
by the Occidental Co., these two union officials profit because they own 
stock in it? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is what the 

The Chairman. Of course, the larger commission paid, the larger 
would be their percentage of profits. 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct, sir. 



17906 EVIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The CiiAiRMAisr. That is the \yay it is as I see it. Am I in error 
about it? 

Mr. Calabrese. No. That is correct. 

Senator Capeiiart. Do you know whether the two employer mem- 
bers of this trustee knew that these gentlemen had an interest in this 
agency ? 

Mr. Calabrese. We talked to one of the employers who is going 
to be a witness tomorrow, Senator. He advised that he knew nothing. 

Senator Capeiiart. That he did not know ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That he did not know ; that is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you have the letter of April 11, 1951? 

Mr. Calabrese. Mr. Kennedy, in explanation of the 40 shares that 
he speaks about, we obtained from the records of the LaSalle National 
Bank trust numbers, documents pertaining to trust numbers, 12117 and 
trust numbers 12158. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, they said they were going to handle 
this through the LaSalle National Bank, as far as the distribution 
of the stock, that it would be held in trust so that the ownership could 
not be traced. We went to the bank and obtained the trust agree- 
ments. 

Mr. Calabrese. It is in the February 2, 1951, letter to Mr. Schultz, 
in the first paragraph. There is a reference that — 

There are 40 shares of stock issued to 2 trust members at the LaSalle National 
Bank. 

The Chairman. All right. I know what you are talking about. 
What about it? ' 

Mr. Calabrese. We went to the LaSalle National Bank. 

The Chairman. You went to the bank ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes, and we subpenaed the records pertaining to 
these two trust numbers, trust numbers 12117 and 12158. 

Their records indicated that — 

Sometime in January 1950, a Mr. Elmer J. Crane called in and secured the trust 
number, and this is true for both trust numbers assigned to this trust. We 
were not able to secure a trust agreement from Mr. Crane, and the trust number 
was subsequently canceled. 

On August 30, 1951, Mr. Harland R. Maris called at the office with the shares 
of stock of Dearborn Insurance Agency, Inc., which are the subject matter of 
this trust, which were issued in the name of LaSalle National Bank as trustee 
under trust number 12117, and stated that he wanted a trust agreement drawn 
immediately. 

He also stated that he did not want Mr. Elmer J. Crane to know anything about 
the agreement. He suggested that we employ an attorney to draft an agreement 
for him. 

The pertinency of this all, of course, is our effort to ascertain who 
had been the recipient of the stock certificates from the Dearborn 
Insurance Agency, Inc. 

The Chairman. Actually, there is nothing in writing about the 
stock ? The stock was held by the bank and there was no trust agree- 
ment in writing as to who was the owner of the stock, or for whom 
it was holding the stock or anything? 

Mr. Calabrese. At that point, 1950, no. It was never completed. 
Senator. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then in 1951 ? 

Mr. Calabrese. In 1951 Mr. Maris came in. He got these same two 
numbers, trust numbers, and issued 40 shares of stock, making the La- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17907 

Salle National Bank trustee. This was held in trust for him until 
May of 1952 when, of course, Dearborn Insurance Agency, Inc., 
dissolved. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the only way that we can find out exactly about 
how the stock was then handled and what happened in 1952, for the 
period 1951 to 1952, and then 1952 on when Dearborn was dissolved, 
would be from either Mr. Maris or these other individuals, or to ob- 
tain the stock certificate book ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes ; that is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the stock certificate book is missing, and Mr. 
Maris, of course, will be a witness, as well as these other individuals. 

Mr. Calabrese. The point is that they had in mind in January 1950 
to place 40 shares in trust. 

The Chairman. How much was the total stock, the total number of 
shares of the company ? 

jNIr. Calabrese. Of the corporation? It was 195 shares that were 
issued, Senator. 

The Chairman. Including this 40? 

Mr. Calabrese. Well, the minute book reflects 195 shares were issued. 
We don't know whether 40 shares were from the 195 or whether 40 
shares additionally were to be issued, because we have never seen the 
stock certificate book. Senator. 

The Chairman. You have not seen the book, and therefore, do not 
know? 

Mr. Calabrese. No ; except for what their records show. 

The Chairman. Their records show" that a total of 195 shares were 
issued ; is that right ? 

Mr. Calabrese. According to their minute book ; yes. 

The Chairman. According to their minute book. Now, whether 
the 40 shares that were put in trust were included in that 195 you do 
not know. They may have been over and above the 195 ? 

Mr. Calabrese. They could have been. Senator. 

The Chairman. You have no way of determining from the records 
available to you ? 

Mr. Calabrese. No, Senator. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can we have the trust agreements made an exhibit, 
Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No, 31. 

(Documents referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 31" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Next is a letter of April 11, 1951, which I do not 
think it is necessary to read into the record, but we might make it an 
exhibit. 

The Chairman. You have a letter there of April 11, 1951, from 
Allen Creitz to Mr. Maris? 

Mr, Calabrese, To. Mr. Harland Maris; yes, sir. 

The Chairman, That may be made exhibit No, 32, 

Letter referred to was marked "Exhibit No, 32" for reference and 
will be found in the appendix on p. 18088.) 

Mr. Kennedy, For the present moment, Mr, Chairman, the next 
letter is the most important letter, the one of April 12, 1951. 

The Chairman. Do you have a letter of April 12, 1951 ? 

Mr. Calabrese. I do. Senator. 



17908 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. From whom to whom ? 

Mr. Calabrese. It is a letter from Mr. Allen Creitz to Mr. Harland 
Maris at the Thunderbird Kanch and Country Club, Palm Springs, 
Calif. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 33. 

(Letter referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 33" for reference and 
will be found in the appendix on p. 18089.) 

JSIr. Calabrese. It reads: 

Dear Harland : This morning I have had several conversations with Harry 
Chaddick — 

and Mr. Chaddick is the employer trustee, one of the employer trustees 
of local 710— 

in reference to the over-the-road group experience. Harry Chaddick finally 
contacted Roy Pride, who is secretary of the association, and here are some 
figures that may flabbergast you as they did me. 

13 months' experience : 

Premiums $1, 5.52, 372 

Claims paid, 26.15 percent 406,000 

Reserve, 4.83 percent 75, 000 

Cash refund, 16.1 percent 2.50, 000 

You will see by the above figures that the total amount paid in claims, refunds, 
and reserves equals $731,000. Therefore, the amount retained by the insurance 
company is $821,372, or an actual percentage of 52.91 percent. Harry Chaddick 
was quite put out that he had not received the correct figures to begin with. 
However, it is pretty hard to understand just what he is driving for in the form 
of refund or reduced premium. 

I called Frank Brown and relayed all this information to him. Frank told 
me he wanted to see you before you talked to Chaddick and the employers' 
trustees. Frank indicated that he did not give a damn what Chaddick thought, 
he was still the one to make the decisions. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you read that sentence again ? 
Mr. Calabrese. It reads : 

Frank indicated that he did not give a damn what Chaddick thought, he was 
still the one to make the decisions. 

From this you can certainly see that our position is gradually getting more 
favorable. Harry Chaddick told me he was going to Washington, D.C., the week 
of April 23, and, therefore, he would like to get this settled once and for all on 
Friday, April 20, that is providing you can make it. Frank Brown wants you 
to see him before you give Chaddick any information. Therefore, I feel that 
it would be well to clear up this trustee problem on Friday, April 20. Frank 
Brown is definitely not interested in a reduced premium, even though Harry 
Chaddick is. 

The Chairman. Brown is trustee for the union and Chaddick is 
trustee for the employers ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Brown is the president of the union. 

The Chairman. But he is trustee of this fund for the union. 

Mr. Calabrese. Either Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Healy, M. A. Healy. 
Brown is not the trustee. He is the president. That should be cor- 
rected, Senator. He is the president of the local and president of the 
joint council. 

The Chairman. Well, Brown had an interest in this company, 
didn't he? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. But he was president of the union whose members 
were involved. 

The Chairman. I understand. 



I 



lAIPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 17909 

It says here — 

Brown is definitely not interested in a reduced premium. 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

The Chairman. If he is president of the union, concerned about 
the welfare of the employee, and as the figures show here they were 
paying more than twice as much as necessary to support the contract, 
he should have been interested in a reduced premium. 

Mr. Calabrese. Of course. 

The Chairman. But apparently the reason for not being interested 
in a reduced premium is because the commission is based on the 
amount of premium paid. 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

The Chairman. It is out of the commission that the Dearborn Co., 
of which he had an interest in, made the profits? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

The Chairman. We do not see anything here in refund of commis- 
sions anywhere, do we? That is, where any part of the commission 
was refunded ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Not at all. 

The Chairman. So if they can keep the premium up like this, to 
more than twice what is necessary to carry the whole load and collect 
a commission on it, that is to his advantage individually ; whereas, it 
would be to the advantage of the imion members and of the union 
treasury or the welfare fund treasury to get the premium reduced in 
proportion to what the normal and proper charge would be for the 
service. 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. Senator. 

Senator Mundt. Did this contract call for the union paying part of 
the premium? 

The Chairman. No. 

Senator Mundt. I tliought the premium was paid by the employers. 

Mr. Calabrese. The employers : that is correct. 

Senator ^NIuxdt. So I think, j\Ir. Chairman, what was happening 
here is that the employers were being hijacked. 

The Chairman. But if you are going to charge them that much 
premium, you can spend that much premium to buy them that much 
more benefits. You just spend double and get double the benefits. 
It is just like buying insurance. If you have $100 to buy a policy, 
you can buy so much insurance. If you have $200, you can buy twice 
that much insurance. 

Senator Capeiiart. T^lio got the cash refund of $250,000? The 
employers ? 

Mr. Calabrese. I am sorry ? 

Senator Capehart. AVlio got the cash ; the refund ? 

Mr. Calabrese. I would say it would have gone to the health and 
welfare fund. Senator. That was the experience rating refund that 
would go back to the health and welfare fund, which, of course, would 
inure to the benefits of the union members. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you read the rest of this ? The letter is very 
significant. 

Mr. Calabrese. It reads: 

I think we could possibly gain a little prestige if we would be in a position 
to make some sort of an offer on an increased benefit or, in other words, give 



17910 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

them a little ballyhoo that they can pass on to the employers. I feel quite 
sure that you will want to hide these figures and how authentic they are, I 
have no way of verifying the actual computations. I checked with the Illinois 
Insurance Department and the Union Casualty statement — 

that is Allen Dorf man — 

has not been received. However, they felt it would be in this week. I will 
again check with them this afternoon and if the figures are here, I will enclose 
them with this letter. 

Mr. Kennedy. And — 

Otherwise, I will mail a copy to your Oakland oflice, a copy to Jack Dandy 
but marked personal for you — 

Mr. Calabrese (reading) : 

and one to the Palm Springs address. In that way, you should be assured of 
being able to pick up at least one copy in any one of the three places. 

Mr. Kennedy. This was written by Allen L. Creitz, regional group 
supervisor for the Occidental Insurance Co. ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is the one that points out about keeping the 
figures quiet, giving a little ballyhoo to pass on to the employers, to 
hide the figures, and how authentic they are ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. That all comes out of the Occidental Insurance Co., 
an employee of the Occidental Insurance Co. ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes ; that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have other letters, Mr. Chairman, that we will 
probably put in at a later time. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further with this witness at 
present ? 

Are there any questions of the witness ? 

If not, thank you very much. 

The committee will stand in recess until 10 :30 in the morning. 

(Members of the select committee present at the taking of the 
recess were Senators McClellan, Mundt, and Capehart.) 

(Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m., the select committee recessed, to re- 
■iconvene at 10 :30 a.m., on Wednesday, March 18, 1959.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18, 1959 

U.S. Senate, 
Select Committee on Improper Actiyities 

IN THE Labor or Management Field, 

Washington^ D.G. 

The select committee met at 10 :30 a.m., pursuant to Senate Resolu- 
tion 44, agreed to February 2, 1959, in the caucus room. Senate Office 
Building, Senator Jolin L. McClellan (chairman of the select com- 
mittee) presiding. 

Present : Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas ; Senator 
Karl E. Mundt, Kepublican, South Dakota ; Senator Homer E. Cape- 
hart, Republican, Indiana. 

Also present : Robert F. Kennedy, cliief comisel ; Alphonse F. Cala- 
brese, investigator; Martin S. Uhlmann, investigator; Jack S. Bala- 
ban, investigator; James F. Mundie, investigator; John D. Williams, 
investigator ; Ruth Y. Watt, chief clerk. 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

(Members of the select committee present at time of convening: 
Senatoi-s McClellan and Capehart.) 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Wrixon. 

The Chairman. Be sworn, please. 

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

Mr. Wrixon. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF L. W. WRIXON 

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

Mr. Wrixon. My name is L. W. Wrixon, W-r-i-x-o-n. I am an at- 
torney, admitted to practice in the State of California. My office is 
at 120 Montgomery Street, San Francisco. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Wrixon is the first of some five 
or six witnesses that we expect to hear this morning in connection with 
attempting to obtain more information regarding the involvement 
of any of these union officials in the Dearborn Insurance Agency. 

Mr. Wrixon, you did some work, did you not, for the Dearborn 
Insurance Agency ? 

17911 



17912 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Wrixon. I did some work for Mr. Maris and the Dearborn 
Insurance Agency ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. "\'\nien did you start performing services for them? 

Mr. Wrixon. May I state something for the record, Mr. Kennedy, 
first? 

The Chairman. All right ; go ahead. 

Mr. Wrixon. Thank you. — 

I would like to say that as an attorney, I originally invoked the 
privilege of not furnishing my file or any evidence concerning this 
matter. But I was released from the privilege by Mr. Maris, and he 
has indicated tliat he wanted me to testify here. 

I would like to have it made clear in the record that I am doing 
it on the basis of a release by him of the privilege. 

The Chairman. As I understand it, the information the committee 
may want from you, part of it at least, would come within the privilege 
status of information between client and counsel ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Wrixon. I would think that all of it would come within that 
privilege, sir. 

The Chairman. At least some of it would. 

Mr. Wrixon. Yes, sir. 

The Chair]man. And until you did secure from your client the au- 
thority to testify with respect to the confidential or what might be 
confidential communications between you, you declined to give the 
information to the committee, as I understand it. But now you have 
been released by your client; in other words, you have been advised 
that the client waives the privilege ? 

Mr. Wrixon. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. Now the record is clear. Proceed. 

Mr, Kennedy. When did you begin to do some work for Mr. Maris 
and the Dearborn Insurance Agency ? 

Mr. Wrixon. I would say it was in about 1949. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. I would like to ask you about some of these docu- 
ments. 

First, I present to you a document dated January 5, 1950. I be- 
lieve this has already been made an exhibit. 

The Chairman. iVliat you are presenting now, I believe, is exhibit 
No. 23. 

The Chair presents to you exhibit No. 23 for your inspection, sir. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Wrixon. I have reviewed it. 

The Chairman. Do you recognize exhibit 23 as being a letter from 
you to Mr. Maris, dated January 5, 1950, together with an enclosed 
draft of a proposed contract? 

Mr. Wrixon. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. First let me ask you the general question, Mr. 
Wrixon, did you liave any information that there were any union offi- 
cials involved in the Dearborn Insurance Agency? 

Mr. Wrixon. I have no recollection of any conversation relating to 
union officials ; no. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any information of any kind that 
there were union officials involved in the Dearborn Insurance Agency ? 

Mr. Wrixon. I can recall nothing that was brought to my attention 
along that line. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17913 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Maris ever speak to you about Mr. Brown, 
Mr. O'Brien, or Mr. Blakely, in connection with the Dearborn In- 
surance Agency ? 

Mr. Wrixon. I won't say that the names might not liave been men- 
tioned. My recollection at this time is just totally indistinct on that 
point. They might have been mentioned, but I have no recollection 
at this time of them being mentioned. 

]Mr. Kennedy. On this letter dated January 5, 1950, it states there is 
a contract attached. I read from paragraph 2, page 1 : 

Contractor agrees to furnish agency with contracts among local union officers 
and employees located in the State of Illinois who are affiliated with the Hotel 
and Restauraunt Employes' International Union and contractor further agrees 
that he will provide agency and its officers and employes with such assistance 
as he is ligitimately able to furnish, directed toward the sale and installation 
by agency of welfare plans involving the issuance of insurance contracts as re- 
quired by said plans. 

Do you know for whom this employment contract was written? 

Mr. Wrixon. I have no idea. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it ever mentioned that Mr. Vacey or Mr. 
Blakely were to be placed on the payroll of the Dearborn Insurance 
Agency ? 

Mr. Wrixon. I have no recollection of those names being mentioned. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliy was this clause No. 8, on page 3 : 

The parties hereto hereby agree that the services to be performed by con- 
tractor, the officers, or employees of agencies ai-e confidential or personal in 
character and from and after the date hereof, each party hereby agrees that 
he, as the case may be, will not directly or indirectly disclose to any other firm, 
person, corporation or organization the names of any firms or officers contacted 
hereto in connection with the installation or selling of welfare plans any of 
the methods or procedures employed in devising or installing welfare plans. 

Mr. Wrixon. I have no recollection at this time. I can only spec- 
ulate on what might have been the reason for the inclusion of that 
clause. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you instructed to put that clause in there ? 

Mr. Wrixon. I would assume that something was said that caused 
me to include that clause in there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then we have on page 4, as part of paragraph 9 : 

Agency is primarily interested in the end to be accomplished through con- 
tractor's efforts and not as to the means used by contractor in the attainment 
of those ends. 

Were you instructed to place that in there ? 

Mr, Wrixon. No. I think that that would be language that would 
be put in the contract exclusively on my own volition because the pur- 
pose of that clause would be to establish the fact that the contracting 
])arties were independent contracts, and that one was not the agent 
of the other, under the theory, at least, as I understand the law, that 
the end to be r coomplished is indicative of the independent contractor 
relationship rather than the agency relationship. 

The Chairman. I have practiced a little law, but I have never 
heard of an independent contractor provision described or defined 
in that manner before. 

]\Ir. Wrixon. Well, that is a matter of opinion, sir. 

The Chairman. It is a matter of opinion. I just stated that fact. 
I Icnow you can declare in your contract some provision clearly setting 



17914 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

forth the fact tliat it is intended to create an independent contractor 
relationship, but I have never heard that term used, that you are not 
concerned about tlie means to the end. 

Mr. Wrixon. My understanding, sir, and the purpose that I am 
sure that I had in mind in inserting the clause is that if the means by 
which the work is to be done is under the control of the other con- 
tracting party, the party is considered to be the agent of the other 
party ; whereas, if the contracting party, in this case Dearborn, was 
interested in the end result, there would be less basis for regarding 
the other contracting party as the agent. 

The Chairman. I know the issue as to the question of law involved 
and what you say you were undertaking to establish in the contract. 
But I just had never heard that expression used in doing so before. 
That is a novel one for me, in my limited experience. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to call to his attention now, Mr. Chairman, 
the letter dated February 2, 1951. 

The Chairman. Is that exhibit No. 29 ? 

Mr. Wrixon. May I make a statement, sir ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Wrixon. I don't know whether there are any further questions 
to be asked concerning the exhibit that has been handed me. No. 23, 
but I would like to state for the record that so far as I am aware the 
instrument was exclusively a draft of a proposed contract, and I have 
no knowledge that the instrument either in the form submitted or in 
any other form was ever executed. 

The Chairman. That is what it says, what the letter says. Now 
you are stating under oath you have no knowledge as to what became 
of it from there on, v/hether it was used, whether it was adopted, 
whether your suggestions to your client were carried out or not. 

You do not know ? Is that what you are saying ? 

Mr. Wrixon. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. You do not know whether a contract was ever 
entered into or not ? 

Mr. Wrixon. That is correct. 

The Chairman. And if so, you don't know whether this form or 
the suggested draft that you submitted was used ? 

Mr. Wrixon. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now we will discuss the February 2, 1951, letter. 

The Chairman. Very well. 

Tlie Chair presents to you exhibit No. 29 for your examination, Mr. 
Wrixon. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Kennedy. I just have two questions I want to ask you in con- 
nection with that letter. Have you examined it ? 

Mr. Wrixon. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy, It states in the minutes of special meeting of the 
board of directors of Dearborn Insurance Agency, Inc., the draft of 
which was evidently draAvn up by you according to the covering 
letter : 

All of the directors were present and acting, to wit, Harland R. Maris, Frank 
Brown and Elmer Crane. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 17915 

Were you aware that Frank Brown was a imion official ? 

Mr. Wrixon. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. From whom did you receive his name as being a 
member of the board of directors of the Dearborn Insurance Agency? 

Mr. Wkixon. I received it from Mr. Maris, I assume. My recol- 
lection at this time I cannot say for certain, but I assumed that I 
received it from IMr. IMaris. 

The Chairman. Was Mr. Maris the man that you really had th& 
contact with in your professional relations with the company ? 

]SIr. Wrixon. Exclusively. 

The Chairman. With him exclusively ? 

]\Ir. Wrixon. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He did not inform you that Mr. Brown was a union 
official? 

]\Ir. VrRixox. I can't say positively whether he mentioned it or not. 
He may have. At this moment I have no recollection of it being 
mentioned. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the reason that the covering letter is dated 
February 2, 1951, and the minutes are for June 1950? 

]\Ir. Wrixon. ^Ij recollection on that point is that I was asked to 
prepare the minutes of a meeting of June 9, 1950, and very likely was 
furnished with a memorandum or a statement as to what transpired at 
the meeting, and was asked to draft a proposed set of minutes for the 
meeting, which I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. ^Vliy would it be that much later, some 6 or 7 months 
later? 

Mr. Wrixon. Well, I can't answer that. If I may volunteer some- 
tliing, I didn't consider it significant and don't consider it significant 
noAv. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't have any explanation as to why it was 
handled in that fashion? 

jNIr. Wrixon. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is , why the delay of some 6 or 7 months ? 

Mr. Wrixon. No, sir. 

]\Ir. Kennedy. Now I want to ask you about another document 
dated February 2, 1951. 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to the witness exhibit No. 30 
for his examination. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

iSIr. Kennedy. Mr. Wrixon, have you seen the letter? 

Mr. Wrixon. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is a letter written to Mr. Jerome Schultz, in 
Chicago, 111. Who is Mr. Schultz ? 

j\Ir. Wrixon. Well, lie had some connection with Mr. Maris, and, I 
presume, the Dearborn Insurance Agency, but I don't know his rela- 
tionship. 

Mr. Kennedy. In this letter, Mr. Maris states : 

Encloserl is a copy of a letter from ISlr. Wrixon to me in response to several 
questions I asked him concerning Dearborn. I am forwarding it to you so that 
if yon concur it will be a basis for our 1951 plans. There is one more i)oint which 
Mr. Wrixon did not deal with in his letter, but I am sure you will be relieved 
to know of our decision. There are 40 shares of stock issued to two trust num- 
bers at the T<a Salle National Bank, which were never completed. Each certifi- 
cate is for 20 shares, but I am quite certain that the 20 shares in each instance 



17916 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

would concern more than one individual, so I have asked the holders to do the 
following things : 

1. Send the two 20-share certificates to me and we will cancel them. Then we 
will issue, say, four 10-share certificates to L. W. Wrixon, who in turn will en- 
dorse them, making them free stock as you suggested and immediately mail them 
to the proper individuals. 

First, who were the "proper individuals" ? 

Mr. Wrixon. I have no knowledge. The comments that are made 
in the letter were never carried out. I never saw any stock certificates 
of the Dearborn Insurance Agency, and none of the matters which are 
referred to in the letter of February 2 were ever carried out insofar as 
the comments relate to stock certificates and to me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had Mr. Maris had these conversations with you as 
to the procedure that was to be followed in connection with this stock ? 

Mr, Wrixon. Again, I will have to say that I personally at this time 
do not recall the conversation that is alluded to by Mr. Maris in his 
letter to Mr. Schultz. But as I told you previously, since Mr. Maris 
has referred to it in a letter, I will accept his statement of it and 
assume that my memory is deficient in that respect. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlio did he state to you would be the proper indi- 
viduals who were to receive the stock ? 

Mr. Wrixon. I have no recollection of the mention of any indi- 
viduals in connection with the shares of stock referred to in the letter 
of February 2. 

Mr. Kennedy. He states, of course: 

Then we will issue, say, four 10-share certificates to L. W. Wrixon, who in turn 
will endorse them, making them free stock as you suggested and immediately 
mail them to the proper individuals. 

2. When dividends are paid, they will, of course, be made to L. W. Wrixon. 
He in turn will endorse the checks, forward them to the proper people and 
notify the Treasury Department that he has acted as attorney for the indi- 
viduals and give the Treasury Department the amount of the dividends upon 
which tax should be paid by the actual owners of the stock. 

Did he mention this procedure to you that he was intending to 
follow ? 

Mr. Wrixon. Well, as I say, at this moment I have no independent 
recollection of discussing it, but I rather think that it must have been 
discussed because the letter was written at a date that approximates 
the assumed discussion, and I will accept that rather than my own 
recollection. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Blakely, and Mr. Brown 
three of the individuals who were to receive the stock ? 

Mr. Wrixon. I have no recollection of any names of any individuals 
who were to be the owners, the beneficial owners, of the shares. 

Mr. Kennedy. You can't remember anything about any conversa- 
tions you had along these lines with Mr. Maris ? 

Mr. Wrixon. I can't remember any reference to any names; no, 
sir. 

The Chairman. The three you mentioned are labor officials ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

This, Mr. Chairman, sets out the procedure that was to be followed, 
and the earlier letter, the one immediately preceding this, also in- 
volves Mr. Wrixon, and sets out the fact that Mr. Brown was on the 
Board of Directors and, of course, Mr. Brown was a union official at 
that time. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIBS IN THE LABOR FIELD 17917 

The Chairman. Did you know that Mr. Brown, mentioned in the 
letter, was a union official at the time ? 

Mr. Wrixox. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You did not have such information ? 

Mr. Wrixon. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Wlien did you first learn that he was an official of 
the union ? 

Mr. Wrixon. I would be inclined to say that the first time I recall 
that would be when Mr. Calabrese came to my office some months ago 
and interrogated me concerning this matter. 

The Chairman. What happened to this arrangement or this plan 
that is set forth in exhibit No. 30, the letter of February 2, 1951, to 
Schultz? 

Mr. Wrixon. Nothing. 

The Chairman. It did not just evaporate, did it? Something 
must have happened. Did they decide not to go through with it or 
did they go through with it, or what happened to it. Do you 
know ? 

Mr. Wrixon. Nothing happened to it, as far as the execution of 
that program is concerned, or as far as I am concerned, nothing. 

The Chairman. In other words, you have no knowledge of what 
happened ? 

Mr. Wrixon. I have no knowledge of anything that happened. 

The Chairman. Did you have knowledge of this letter at the time 
it was written ? 

Mr. Wrixon. No, sir. 

The Chairman. When did you first know of such a letter? 

Mr. Wrixon. My recollection is the first time I heard of such a 
letter was when Mr. Calabrese came to my office some few months 
back. 

The Chairman. You say nothing happened. Tell us wluit did 
happen to the 40 shares of stock, if you know. 

Mr. Wrixon. I don't know anything about the 40 shares of stock. 

The Chair:man. You don't know whether it finally got to the proper 
parties or not ? 

Mr. Wrixon. I don't even know whether it was issued, sir. 

The Chairman. That is what I say. I am just trying to get what 
you know about it. T ou don't laiow what happened to the 40 shares 
of stock referred to here ? 

Mr. Wrixon. That is correct. I don't even know whether 40 shares 
were issued. 

Senator Capehart. They were never turned over to }■ ou ? 

Mr. Wrixon. No, sir. 

Senator Capehart. No dividends were ever paid to you ? 

Mr. Wrixon, No, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

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

Mr. Wrixon. Am I excused ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chez and Mr. Schultz, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Be sworn, please. 

36751— 59— pt. 49 15 



17918 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

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

Mr. ScHULTz. I do. 

Mr. Chez. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JEROME SCHULTZ AND LAWRENCE CHEZ 

The Chairman. Beginning on my left, the witness on my left, will 
you identify yourself oy stating your name, your place of residence, 
and your business or occupation, please ? 

Mr. ScHULTz. My name is Jerome Schultz. My residence is in 
Chicago. My business is a certified public accountant. 

The Chairman. A certified public accountant ? 

Mr. Schultz. Correct. 

The Chairman. And you, sir? 

Mr. Chez. My name is Lawrence Chez, of 22 West Madison Street, 
Chicago. I am a certified public accountant also. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. You did some work with the Dearborn Insurance 
Agency ? 

Mr. Schultz. I did, sir. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. What work were you doing with them ? 

Mr. Schultz. One thing in this connection, to set the record 
straight, I noted that Mr. Calabrese mentioned that I was involved 
with the Dearborn Insurance Agency since its formation in 1949. 
Actually, I was called into this picture in the latter part of 1950 in 
the capacity of advising on tax matters. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you were in from 1950 ? 

Mr. Schultz. The latter part of 1950 ; yes, sir. 

Mr. ICennedy. I would like to show you this last exhibit. 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to witness Schultz exhibit 
No. 30. 

(The document was handed to the witness Schultz.) 

The Chairman. Please examine the exhibit and state if you identify 
it. 

Mr. Schultz. I identify the letter as being one addressed to me, 
dated February 2, 1951. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive this letter ? 

Mr. Schultz. I have no recollection at this point of receiving the 
letter, but I would presume inasmuch as it was addressed to me that it 
was received. 

Mr. Kennedy. We will read part of that letter into the record. 

Enclosed is a copy of a letter from Mr. Wrixon to me in response to several 
questions I asked him concerning Dearborn. I am forwarding;: it to you so that 
if you concur it will be a basis for our 1951 plans. There is one more point which 
Mr. Wrixon did not deal with in his letter, but I am sure you will be relieved 
to know of our decision. There are 40 shares of stock issued to two trust num- 
bers at the LaSalle National Bank, which were never completed. Each certificate 
is for 20 shares, but I am quite certain that the 20 shares in each instance would 
concern more than one individual, so I have asked the holders to do the following 
things : 

1. Send the two 20-share certificates to me and we will cancel them. Then we 
will issue, say, four 10-share certificates to L. W. Wrixon, who in turn will 
endorse them, making them free stock as you suggested and immediately mail 
them to the proper individuals. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 17919 

2. When dividends are paid, they will of course be made to L. W. Wrixon. 
He in turn will endorse the checks, forward them to the proper people and notify 
the Treasury Department that he has acted as attorney for the individuals and 
give the Treasury Department the amount of the dividends upon which tax 
should be paid by the actual owners of the stock. 

First, Mr. Schiiltz, did you know of the participation of any union 
officials in the Dearborn Insurance Agency ? 

Mr. SciiuLTz. I certainly did not. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Was it ever discussed with you that there would be 
au}^ union officials involved in it? 

Mr. SnuLTz. Absolutely not. 

Mr. Kennedy. To whom were these stock certificates that were 
going to be held in the name of Mr. Wrixon going to be issued? 

Mr. SciiULTZ. I never knew of their existence. 

Mr. Kennedy. In this letter, why is it stated, "but I am sure you 
will be relieved to know of our decision" and then he goes into the 
explanation as to the procedure they are going to follow. Why 
would you be relieved to know of that decision ? 

Mr. ScHULTz. "Wliat he thought I would be relieved of in 1951 I 
have no recollection of at this point. 

May I make this statement : This letter which purports to enclose a 
copy of a letter from Mr. Wrixon, this is stated as merely an excerpt. 
Actually the copy of the letter from Mr. Wrixon was more significant, 
I would think, to me, in that there were tax considerations which were 
my only concern. In that copy of the letter attached, which is not 
made a part of the exhibit, that I would be in a position to at that time, 
as I recall, to have considered. 

Mr. Kennedy. I don't think as far as our interests are concerned 
here. This letter states : 

There is one more point which Mr. Wrixon did not deal with in his letter, but 
I am sure you will be relieved to know of our decision, 

and then he goes on to explain what the point is. 

There are 40 shares of stock issued to two trust members of the La Salle 
National Bank, which were never completed, 

and, of course, which we verified yesterday. 

Each certificate is for 20 shares, but I am quite certain that the 20 shares in 
each instance would concern more than one individual, so I have asked the 
holders to do the following things: 

Who were the holders of those shares ? 

Mr. ScHULTz. I do not know anything about the holders of those 
shares. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you inquire when Mr. Maris sent you this let- 
ter, Mr. Schultz, as to who they were and what this referred to? 

Mr. Schultz. Absolutely not. The only shares in existence that I 
knew anything about were 195 shares as per our statements per 
books, 

INIr, Kennedy. But where he saj's : 

I am sure you will be relieved to know of our decision — 

didn't you inquire of him as to what was involved in this matter, 
if this was all a mystery to you ? 



17920 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. ScHULTz. At this point, I never did inquire from Mr. Maris 
as to statements that evidently he has made. I do not at this point, 
and did not at that point, know of any existence of a trust. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then this vrhole letter was a complete mystery to you 
and you never inquired of Mr. Maris what it meant ? 

Mr. ScHULTZ. My recollection at this point is that it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. A complete mystery to you ? 

Mr. ScHULTz. As to this statement of facts, if they be facts. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is what the whole letter is about. 

Mr. ScHULTz. No, it isn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, the first half of the letter, the point that he is 
specifically trying to make with you as to the procedure that will be 
follo\yed. This was all a mystery and you never inquired of him as to 
what it meant ? 

Mr. ScHULTz. No. In the first part of the letter, where he forwards 
to me the copy of Mr. Wrixon's letter, which sets forth tax matters 
and considerations, that happens to be a three-page letter, which raises 
many tax considerations which I would be involved with. 

Mr. Kennedy, But he emphasizes one point : 

There is one more point which Mr. Wrixon did not deal with in his letter, 
but I am sure you will be relieved to know of our decision. 

Then he goes on that the certificates were going to be held in the 
names of more than one individual — 

so I have asked the holders to do the following things : 

You were doing some of this work for the Dearborn Insurance 
Agency. Did you ever inquire who the holders were going to be ? 

Mr. ScHULTz. Absolutely not. I do not recall, and did not at that 
time know of any trust that was holding stock certificates. 

Mr, Kennedy. When he stated : 

When dividends are paid, they will, of course, be made to Mr. Wrixon. He, in 
turn, will endorse the checks and forward them to the proper people. 

Did you inquire who the people were ? 

Mr. ScHULTz. Absolutely not. 

Mr. Kennedy, You keep saying absolutely not. 

Mr. SciiULTz. In that this is a mystery to me as to this reference 
to stock certificates which, to my recollection, were never issued. 

Mr. Kennedy. When the point was raised with you regarding the 
procedure that was going to be used and the stock certificates that 
were going to be issued in the names of certain individuals you did 
not inquire as to any of this ? 

Mr. ScTiULTz. My files don't even indicate a reply to this letter. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you this, Mr. Schultz : Would the in- 
formation stated in this letter be essential and necessary for you to 
have if you correctly performed your duties as auditor for the firm, 
or as accountant? 

Mr. SnruLTz. In connection with one of the tax matters discussed 
in the letter of Mr. Wrixon, yes, it would have been pertinent. 

The Chairman, It would have been pertinent? 

Mr. Schultz. Yes. 

The CurTTtMAN. In other words, the information being referred to 
here was pertinent in connection with proper tax returns? 

Mr. Schultz, That is right. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17921 

The Chairman. And as the accountant for the firm, it would be 
essential or important for you to have that information so that you 
could correctly perform your services ? 

Mr. ScHXJLTZ. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Then since it is called to your attention here, and 
you said it is all a strange matter to you, it seems curiosity would say, 

"Wliy didn't you inquire into it?" If this is all new to you, if it does 
pertain to the tax matters that you look after, which are part of your 
duties ; if you don't understand it, wouldn't you naturally inquire into 
it? 

Mr. ScHTTLTZ. I would have considered it. At this point, 8 years 
later, my recollection is that it never became a problem. 

The CiiAiRaiAN. You don't know what happened ? 

Mr. ScHULTZ. I don't know what happened. 

The Chairman. You do not know whether the stock was issued ? 

Mr. ScHULTZ. That I do not know. 

The Chairman. You do not know who got it ? 

Mr. ScHULTZ. The stockholders, to my information, were the 195 
shares. 

The Chairman. What do your records show about other stock 
being issued ? 

Mr. ScHULTZ. Our records just show the issuance of 195 shares. 

The Chairman. Do they show anything pertaining to these 40 
shares that the letter refers to ? 

Mr. ScHULTZ. Absolutely not. 

The Chairman. Do you have this original letter in your file ? 

Mr. ScHULTz. Yes ; I had this letter in my files. 

The Chairman. What do your files show as to the disposition you 
made of the letter ? Where is your reply to it ? 

Mr. ScHULTZ. There was no reply to it in my files. The original 
of this letter was in my files, however, and made available to the 
Senate investigators. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Mundt. 

Senator Mundt. You say you never replied to this letter ? 

Mr. ScHULTZ. No ; I did not, sir. 

Senator Mundt. The letter asks you specifically for some infor- 
mation, which I assume you would not just ignore. The letter says: 

Will you please run a calculation on the basis of $75,000 taxable Income on a 
77-percent basis with our present 115 shares of stoclf, with 40 shares held silently, 
as against a 47-percent tax ratio, with an additional 20 shares of stock going 
to the active shareholders. 

He asks you specifically for a service to be rendered. Did you just 
ignore that, then ? 

Mr. ScHULTz. No. In reviewing the letter. Senator, I notice that 
he states that he expected to be in Chicago on the 5th or 6th of 
March, which year was in 1951. So I assume I did see him. 

Senator Mundt. Then you did answer the letter, but you answered 
it verbally instead of direct ? 

Mr. Schultz. I would assume so, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Can you recapture for the committee what you told 
him when you answered the letter verbally ? 

Mr. Schultz. I would have no recollection. 



17922 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. You should be able to refresh your memory by 
reading the copy of the letter he wrote you, which you have before you. 

Mr. SciiuLTz. I have read it and reread it, sir. 

Senator Mundt. It is a little different type of letter, I presume, from 
what you ordinarily get from your reputable business concerns; is 
that right? 

Mr. hcHULTZ. It is a different letter. 

Senator Mundt. It is a little different type. It has undertones and 
overtones which an accountant, who is used to looking for these things, 
would naturally catch when he reads it, I am sure. 

Mr. ScHULTZ. Well, the tones were taken on in later developments, 
I would assume. 

Senator Mundt. Well, I don't know. I am trying to find out what 
the developments were on March 5 and 6, when you say you answered 
the letter verbally. 

Mr. Schultz. I would have answered the tax problems as set forth 
in Mr. Wrixon's letter, which were normal 

Senator Mundt. You have a pretty good address there in Chicago 
where you work. I imagine you have had considerable experience in 
the field in which you have specialized. I was not here when your 
biography was read into the record, but I am pretty sure that is the 
case. 

I would like to ask you about another sentence in the letter. 

In any extracurricular commitments, if we have to run them straight through 
the books, 47 percent is more advantageous than 77 percent. 

What did that letter mean to you as an experienced accountant? 

Mr. Schultz. I have no comment on what he meant by extracur- 
ricular commitments. 

Senator Mundt. Nobody knows what he meant. I asked, "What 
did it mean to you ?" You are able to read and interpret those things. 
It had some impression upon you. What did it mean to you ? 

Mr. Schultz. I have no recollection of what it meant to me. Sen- 
ator. 

Senator Mundt. When you read a letter, don't you try to interpret 
what the letter means ? That is a pretty good customer of yours. It 
must have meant something. 

Mr. Schultz. Well, I am reading it in 1959. 

Senator Mundt. That wouldn't make a difference. This is a client 
of yours, a pretty good sized client, with a lot of business. He writes 
you a letter and certainly you do not casually discard the letter with- 
out trying to figure out what he was trying to tell you. Wliat did 
you figure out he was trying to tell you? 

Mr. Schultz. Well, on that client, a pretty good client, my fee was 
$50 a month, and not too much time would I have spent on any con- 
siderations which would have been complicated or more out of the 
ordinary realm of tax matters. This would not have excited my in- 
terest, as I look at it now. 

Senator Mundt. Well, even for $50 a month, if a client of yours is a 
fellow doing a substantial business, a young man like you interested 
in advancing the success of his firm, I presume would give the best 
service he can, because you might get a bigger piece of this man's ac- 
counting business. It is kind of hard to figure out that you would dis- 
card the letter in one place, say : "I am not going to answer that, I am 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17923 

going to see him someplace on the 5th or 6th, he doesn't say where or 
when, except he is going to be in Chicago," and then in the next sen- 
tence you say "Here is something I don't understand, I will not ask 
him for a dilation of it, an explanation of it. It doesn't mean any- 
tliing to me, so I will just ignore it." 

You have no explanation ? 

Mr. ScHTTLTz. None, sir. 

Senator ]Mundt. What do you suppose he meant in the next para- 
graph, that — 

Mr. Wrixon is preparing the minutes for Dearborn in rather a rough manner 
as he doesn't pretend to practice Illinois law, but I suggested to him what we 
wanted. 

What do you suppose he meant by that first person pronoun "we" ? 
Schultz and Maris ? 

Mr. Schultz. It wasn't Schultz. 

Senator Mundt. How would you know ? Wliat does it mean ? He 
writes to you and he says "we." Unless he means himself and his 
tapeworn, he is only one. What would he mean ? 

Mr. Schultz. I wouldn't know what he meant. 

Senator Mundt. Well you must have some idea about this letter. 
I am sure you knew when he gave the salutation "Dear Jerry," he 
meant you, didn't he ? 

Mr. Schultz. That is fair enough. 

Senator Mundt. That far in the letter you knew what he was talk- 
ing about ? 

Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. But the rest of the letter is all blank to you ? 

Mr. Schultz. I cannot recall at this moment. 

Senator Mundt. At this point he slipped into Chinese or some for- 
eign language and you understood nothing ? 

Mr. Schultz. Well, we are back to the collective pronoun "we," he 
mentions Mr. Wrixon is preparing the minutes for Dearborn, "but I 
suggested to him what we" — and I don't know grammatically. How- 
ever, it could have well been to the two individuals mentioned. 

Senator Mundt. To me it means Schultz and Maris. I don't know 
what it means to you. 

Mr. Schultz. To me it doesn't mean Schultz. 

Senator Mundt. He is writing to you and he says "we." 

Mr. Schultz. Well, I didn't want anything that I can recall. 

Senator Mundt. If I write you a letter and say, "Dear Jerry, why 
don't we go fishing tomorrow ?" who do I mean ? Myself and someone 
else? 

Mr. Schultz. In that regard, I probably would go fishing. 

Senator Mundt. It w ould seem that way to me. If he writes to you 
and says "we," I think he means you. I don't know. I am trying to 
find out. I guess you spent more time in studying arithmetic tlian 
you did grammar, so you are a better authority on accounting. 

Senator Capehart. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Capehart. 

Senator Capehart. This letter of February 2 which we have been 
discussing was written from California? 

Mr. Schultz. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Capehart. Have you ever been an employee of the Dear- 
bom Insurance Co. ? 



17924 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. ScHULTZ. I have never been employed by the Dearborn Insur- 
ance Co. 

Senator Capehart. Have you ever been an officer of "the De^,^bom^ 
Insurance Co. ? 

Mr. ScHULTZ. I never have. 

Senator Capehart. You were purely an independent operator in 
that you did work for them from time to time for which they paid you 
a fixed fee ? 

Mr. SciiULTZ. That is correct. 

Senator Capehart. Did you ever have an office inside of their 
offices? 

Mr. ScHULTz. Absolutely not. 

Senator Capehart. And this letter that is under discussion was 
mailed to you from California ? 

Mr. ScHULTZ. I would presume so, yes. I don't have the original. 

Senator Capehart. Did you own any stock in the Dearborn Co. ? 

Mr. ScHULTZ. No ; I did not. 

Senator Capehart. Did you have any commission arrangement with 
the Dearborn Co. ? 

Mr. Schtjltz. I did not. 

Senator Capehart. You were simply a certified public accountant 
who did work for them from time to time ? 

Mr. Schultz. That is correct. 

Senator Capehart. You did not make any of the policies of the 
business ? 

Mr. ScHULTz. I did not. 

Senator Capehart. You did whatever they asked you to do ? 

Mr. Schultz. In my capacity ; yes. 

Senator Capehart. As a CPA ? 

Mr. Schultz. As an accountant. 

Senator Capehart. And they paid you for it ? 

Mr. Schultz. That is correct. 

Senator Capehart. You have no recollection of having answered 
this letter? 

Mr. Schultz, Absolutely not. 

Senator Capehart, Do you have any i-ecollection of having dis- 
cussed the matter with Mr, Maris when he came to Chicago ? 

Mr, Schultz, I do not have any recollection along those lines. 

Senator Capehart. That is all. 

Mr, Kennedy. You are a certified public accountant? 

Mr. Schultz, Yes, sir, 

Mr. Kennedy, Licensed to practice in Illinois ? 

Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Hoav long have you been licensed to practice? 

Mr. Schultz. Approximately 15 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have there been any payments from the Dearborn 
Insurance Agency to any of the employees of any of these imions? 
Do you know about that, Mr. Chez? 

Mr. Chez, Yes ; on several occasions, spanning a period of 2 or 3 
years, as I recall it, there were some payments made to the women 
employees of various locals around Christmastime in appreciation of 
services they had rendered during the year. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17925 

Mr. Kennkdy. Mr. Cliez, you are associated with Mr. Schultz in 
the accounting business ? 

Mr. Chez. We are partners ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have handled some of the books of the Dear- 
born Insurance ? 

Mr. Chez. Yes, sir; I have. 

Mr. Kennedy. Specifically, most of these payments have ranged 
around $25 ; is that right ? 

Mr. Chez. Well, they would vary in amount, depending on the indi- 
vidual involved. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have most of them been in the range of some $25 
at Christmastime ? 

Mr. Chez. Well, I can recall some that have gone to $10, $150, regu- 
larly. In some cases they were in excess of that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you make any checks out to Miss Laveme 
Murray ? 

Mr. Chez. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I present to you three photostatic copies of checks. 
The first is dated December 21, 1955, in the amount of $100, made 
payable to Laverne Murray and given by Dearborn Insurance Agency. 
The second is dated December 13, 1956, to the same payee, in the 
amount of $250, drawn on the account of Dearborn Insurance Agency. 
The third is dated December 13, 1957, made to the same payee, drawn 
on the Dearborn Insurance Agency, in the amount of $500. 

I ask you to examine the three photostatic copies and see if you 
identify them as the checks, as copies of the checks, that you issued 
or drew for the company. 

( The documents were handed to the witness Chez. ) 

Mr. Chez. Yes; I can identify them as checks drawn on the Dear- 
lx)m Agency account. The check issued in 1955 was not issued by 
me, however. The two in 1956 and 1957 were issued by me. 

The Chairman. Issued by you as accountant for the company ? 

Mr. Chez. That is right. 

The Chairman. The checks may be made exhibits 34A, B, and C. 

(Checks referred to were marked "Exhibits Nos. 34A, 34B, and 
34C," for reference and will be found in the appendix on pp. 1809O- 
18092.) 

Senator Capehart, AVlien you say "issued by you," what do you 
mean by "issued by you" ? 

Mr. Chez. The checks would be prepared in my office. 

Senator Capehart. In other words, you physically made out the 
checks ? 

Mr. Chez. That is right. 

Senator Capehart. You handled it and wrote it on the typewriter? 

Mr. Chez. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. On whose instructions did you issue those checks? 

Mr. Chez. All of these checks were issued on the instructions of 
the partners of Dearborn. 

The Chairman. By whom? 

Mr. Chez. The partners of Dearborn Insurance Agency. 

The Chairman. Who were the partners of Dearborn at the time 
the checks were issued ? 

Mr. Chez. Mr. Maris, Mr. Creitz, Mr. Crane, and Mr. Murray. 



17926 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Maris, Creitz, Crane, and Murray, four partners ? 

Mr. Chez. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Were there any others ? 

Mr. Chez. No, sir, not that I know of. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who specifically instructed you to make out this 
check to Laverne Murray for $500, in December 1957 ? 

Mr. Chez. As I recall, it was prepared on the instructions of Mr. 
Creitz. The authority for issuing it was obtained after conferring 
with the other partners, making sure that I had the authority to 
issue it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there any discussion as to the fact that it was 
a considerable amount of money, $500 ? 

Mr. Chez. I didn't question it at all. 

Senator Mundt. Is Laverne Murray a woman's name? 

Mr. Chez. I imagine so. I don't know. 

Senator Mundt. Are Laverne Murray and Mrs. John W. Murray 
one and the same person ? 

Mr. Chez. No, sir. There is no relationship. There is no connec- 
tion at all. 

Senator Mundt. No relationship? 

Mr. Chez. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. No nepotism ? 

Mr. Chez. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. This was Mr. Glimco's secretary; is that right? 

Mr. Chez. I understand that. 

Mr. Kennedy. On occasion you also had issued checks to Laverne 
Murray's two sisters? 

Mr. Chez. They were employed by the DearboiTi Agency. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were employed by the Dearborn Agency ? 

Mr. Chez. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. For how long a period of time? 

Mr. Chez. I don't recall offhand. 

Mr. Kennedy. In what capacity ? 

Mr. Chez. As I recall, they were in the claim-adjusting section of 
the office that Dearborn maintained. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had that also been at the suggestion of Mr. Glimco? 

Mr. Chez. I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know how they happened to be hired by the 
Dearborn Insurance Agency ? 

Mr. Chez. No, sir ; I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know how many years they worked there! 

Mr. Chez. I don't know for sure. I would guess in excess of 1 
year. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are they still employed there ? 

Mr. Chez. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. When was their employment terminated ? 

Mr, Chez, I really don't recall, I would guess in the area of 1954. 

The Chairman, What services were perionned for the payment 
of these sums? 

Mr, Chez. I have no knowledge of that, sir. 

The Chairman. As accountant for the firm, what did you charge it 
to? 

Mr. Chez. It was charged to Christmas gift expense. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17927 

The Chairsian. All this is a Christmas gift fund ? 

Mr. Chez. As far as I know they were. 

The Chairbian. I see all of them were in the month of December : 
December 1955, $100 ; December 1958, $250 ; December 1957, $500. 

Who is Laverne Murray ? 

Mr. Chez. I have no knowledge of that. I have not met the person. 

The Chairman. Do you know the person personally ? 

Mr. Chez. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you know where they work, what they do ? 

Mr. Chez. I understand she was working for Mr. Glimco. 

The Chairman. Who is Mr. Glimco ? 

Mr. Chez. He is president of one of the unions in Chicago. 

The Chairman. President of a union in Chicago ? 

Mr. Chez. Yes. 

The Chairman. And this is the insurance company that handles 
the insurance for that union ; is that correct, the insurance agency ? 

Mr. Chez. Yes ; that is right. 

The Chairman. And these checks are Christmas presents out of 
that agency back to Glimco's secretary ; is that right? 

Mr. Chez. That is right. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And this was deducted, was it, as an expense ? 

Mr. Chez. Yes, sir ; it was. 

Mr. Ivennedt. Tell me, do you have the stock certificate book for 
the Dearborn Insurance Agency ? 

Mr. Chez. No, sir ; I have never seen it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have the stock certificate book for the Dear- 
born Insurance Agency ? 

Mr. Schultz. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you ever seen the stock certificate book ? 

Mr. Schultz. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Have j^ou ? 

Mr. Chez. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you know anything about them, what became 
of them ? We have not been able to find them. 

Mr. Chez. I have never seen them. 

The Chairman. As auditors, did you ever have occasion to check 
stock certificates that were outstanding ? 

Mr. Chez. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Why wouldn't you ? 

Mr. Chez. We didn't make a certified audit of the Dearborn Insur- 
ance Agency. Our activities were limited to the preparation of finan- 
cial statements on occasion when they required them. 

The Chairman. In order to get your proper tax base, don't you 
have to have some records of the stock ? 

Mr. Chez. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You would not have to have that ? 

Mr. Chez. No, sir. 

The Chairman. I thought Mr. Schultz testified a while ago that the 
letter pertaining to the issuing of stock would have some meaning and 
would be of some necessity to him in connection with tax matters. I 
understood him to so state. 

Am I correct ? 



17928 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. ScHULTz. That is correct. That was in connection with the tax 
consideration of qualifying as a personal service corporation under the 
Excess Profits Tax Act of 1950. 

The Chairman. Would it be necessary for you to have access to the 
stock records to show what stock was outstanding, and base your re- 
ports accordingly ? 

. Mr. ScHULTz. No. I would accept 

The Chairman. You just take their word for it ? 

Mr. ScHULTz. In posing a hypothetical tax question, yes. 

Mr. Chez. Actually, we did not prepare the tax returns for this 
company for the years that would be affected by this matter. 

The Chairman. You did not prepare the tax returns ? 

Mr. Chez. That is right. 

The Chairman. What service did you render ? 

Mr. Chez. We were just doing some accounting work in the prepara- 
tion of financial statements. 

The Chairman. In preparing the financial statements, would it be 
necessary for you to have correct information regarding the outstand- 
ing certificates of stock ? 

Mr. Chez. Not necessarily. 

The Chairman. I am not just sure just what you accountants do. 
I never had enough to have to make an accounting on. But I would 
think when you go in to audit the books of a company, a firm, that 
you would get pretty thorough information about the setup of it, the 
structure of it, in order to know how to disburse your figures when 
you went to make a report ; an accounting report. 

Mr. ScHULTZ. We rendered only statements per books as we found 
them, the accounting records. 

The Chairman. You submitted a statement per what ? 

Mr. ScHULTz. Per books, per books of records, books of account. 

The Chairman. From the books as you found them ? 

Mr. ScHULTZ. That is right. 

The Chairman. But we are trying to locate the stock certificate 
record. 

Mr. ScHULTz. We saw no stock certificate records. 

The Chairman. You don't know whether any such thing was in 
existence or not ? 

Mr. ScHULTz. That is correct. 

The Chairman. All you know is they reported to you they had 195 
shares outstanding ? 

Mr. ScHFLTZ. That is correct. 

The Chairman. And then they write you about 40 shares that they 
want to manipulate and you didn't answer that one; is that right? 

Mr. ScHULTz. I didn't answer that letter, according to my files. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever request to see the stock certificate book ? 

Mr. ScHULTz. Not that I recall. 

Mr. Kennedy. Never during this period of time did you ask to 
see it? 

Mr. ScHULTz. Not that I recall, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't remember that ? 

Mr. ScHULTz. No, I don't. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17929 

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

Senator Mundt. Do you happen to know whether some other public 
accountants in (liicajro made a certified annual report of the activi- 
ties of the Dearborn Agency ^ You say you did not make out the an- 
nual report. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Chez. Tliat is correct. 

Senator Mundt. Do you know whether any other firm of account- 
ants did ? 

Mr. CiLEZ. To m}' knowledge there was no other firm of accountants. 

Senator Mundt. Did they have an annual report for their stock- 
holders certified to by public accountants ? 

Mr. SciiULTZ. No, they did not, sir. 

Senator Mundt. They did not. 

Is it customary in Illinois for a concern handling the amount of 
business handled b}- the Dearborn Agency to have an annual report 
for the stockholders certified to by public accountants 'i 

Mr. ScHULTZ. That would be subject to the discretion of manage- 
ment. 

Senator Mundt. This was a pretty closely held corporation, I take it. 

Mr. SciiuLTz. It was closely held, yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you prepare the income tax returns ? I under- 
stood you to say that you did not prepare the income tax returns. 

Mr. Chez. I said we did not prepare them for the years 1950 and 
1951 in which excess profits tax was a consideration. 

Mr, Kennedy. You have prepared them since then ? 

Mr. Chez. That is right. 

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

Senator Mundt (presiding) . That is all. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Allen Creitz. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Allen Creitz. 

Be sworn, please. 

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give be- 
fore this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Creitz. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF ALLEN L. CREITZ, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 

JESSE LARSON 

Senator Mundt. State your name, please, for the record, and your 
place of business, your address in Chicago, and the nature of your 
business. 

Mr. Creitz. My name is Allen Creitz. I live in Evanston, 111. I was 
employed by Occidental Life Insurance Co. up to 1 week ago, and I 
am now self-employed. 

Senator Mundt. Do you have anything to tell the committee about 
your retirement from Occidental Life? Was that a voluntary retire- 
ment ? 

Mr. Creitz. It was not a voluntary retirement. It was a forced 
retirement because of my connections with Dearborn Insurance 
Agency. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you. 

Your attorney is Mr. Jesse Larson. 



17930 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

You might tell us your address, Mr. Larson. 

Mr. Larson. I am Jesse Larson, attorney at law, 1000 Connecticut 
Avenue, AVashington, D.C. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Creitz, we had testimony from the previous 
witness in connection with these checks which were made payable 
to Laverne Murray. Could you tell us why, for instance, in De- 
cember 1957, such a large amount of money was given to Miss 
Murray ? 

Mr. Creitz. That was requested by Mr. Glimco. I would like to 
state that Miss Murray handled the complete operation of the health 
and welfare plan. It was stated that she had done a remarkable 
job, and I must say that she has done a remarkable job; that is, 
from the claim administration standpoint. That is the reason. 

I talked to the rest of the partners that were in Dearborn. Not 
being a partner at that time, I requested that they approve it, which 
they did. 

Mr. Kennedy. She is getting paid, is she not, by the welfare 
fund? 

Mr. Creitz. She at present is being paid by the welfare fund. 
Previously, Miss Murray — an allowance was made by Occidental Life 
Insurance Co. which was supposed to reimburse the claim oiEfice for 
the clerical help. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was many, many years ago, however. 

Mr. Creitz. No, the payments were still being made by Occidental 
Life Insurance Co. up to about 6 months ago, or the first of the 
year. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was she being reimbursed by Dearborn, then ? 

Mr. Creitz. No. She was being paid by the health and welfare 
office. 

Mr. ICennedy. Who was receiving the money from Occidental? 

Mr. Creitz. The money was made out to the health and welfare 
fund of 777. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Glimco suggested that you give her this amount 
of money ? 

Mr. Creitz. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he suggest a specific figure of $500 ? 

Mr. Creitz. I would like to see if we could not get the approval 
to give her $500, so I asked the partners for their approval. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you think that that was a considerable 
amount of money ? 

Mr. Creitz. Well, it is larger than the rest of the girls got, but 

Mr. Kennedy. She wasn't working for you people. She was work- 
ing for the health and welfare fund and getting paid by them? 

Mr. Creitz. I know. But we still considered that Dearborn more 
or less had the supeiwision over it. 

Mr. Kennedy, That would be highly improper, as it is supposed 
to be an independent agency. The health and welfare fund is not 
supposed to be supervised by the Dearborn Insurance Agency. 

Mr. Creitz. Mr. Kennedy, the insurance agency who liandles the 
fund can do a good job by keeping a close tab on the claims, and 
that is what we figured that she was doing. We thought she did a 
fine job on it. As long as you can keep any health and welfare 



IIvIPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 17931 

plan on an equitable basis, where the claims do not exceed the pre- 
miums, we feel that they have done a good job. That was primarily 
our purpose. 

Mr. Kennedy. Her purpose and her capacity is something dif- 
ferent. She has a different interest. She is in there to make sure 
that the members of local 777 receive a service. She is not in there 
to insure that the Dearborn Insurance Agency or Occidental Life 
Insurance Co. are making money from this program. 

Her services are quite different. The Dearborn Insurance Agency 
was forwarding this $500 to her under those circumstances. 

Mr. Creitz. As I stated previously, it was the concensus of the 
partners tliat she was showing good experience, and they felt that she 
should be i-ewarded and that was the reason. 

Senator Capehart. How many employees were there in 777, the 
ladies who handled the claims ? 

Mr. Creitz. There were three employees. 

Senator Capehart. No; the total number of employees participa- 
ing. 

Mr. Creitz. In 777? If I were to recall a figure, I would say 
about 3,300. 

Senator Capehart. About 3,300 people were insured under this one 
policy, and this lady, she handled all the claims ? 

Mr. Creitz. No. There are three girls that handle all the claims. 

Senator Capehart. She was one of the three ? 

Mr. Creitz. That is correct. 

Senator Capehart. What were they paid each? "What were their 
salaries? 

Mr. Creitz. I have no idea, sir, as to what their salaries were. 

Senator Capehart. They handled the claims for the Occidental 
Insurance Co. ? 

Mr. Creitz. That is correct, and for the health and welfare. 

Senator Capehart. In other words, if one of the 3,300 members 
of a union participating in this policy became ill or injured, they 
would file a claim with these three girls ; is that right ? 

Mr. Creitz, That is correct. They Avould bring the claim to that 
office. 

Senator Capehart. Were the three girls authorized to write checks 
and pay the claims ? 

Mr. Creitz. They were authorized to write the checks, but I think 
Miss Murray, Laverne Murray, was the only one authorized to sign 
the checks. 

Senator Capehart. And the checks were written on the Occidental 
Life Insurance Co. ? 

Mr. Creitz. That is correct. 

Senator Capehart. There were three girls who handled the 3,300 ? 

Mr. Creitz. That is correct. 

Senator Capehart. But it was the Dearborn Insurance Agency that 
issued the $500 Christmas check? 

Mr. Creitz. That is correct. 

Senator Capehart. Did tliey give a Christmas check to the other 
two girls ? 

Mr. Creitz. No. Mr. Glimco thought Laverne Murray had run the 
office and he requested that it be handled that way. I made no further 
investigation as to why. 



17932 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Capehart. Who is handling the claims now for this par- 
ticular union? 

Mr. Creitz. Well, there is Miss Murray and two other girls. 

Senator Capehart. Does Occidental Insurance Co. ^till have the 
policy with this union ? 

Mr. Creitz. Occidental Life still has the policy with the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. The $500 acutally was paid in order to keep the 
friendship of Mr, Glimco ; is that right? 

Mr. Creitz. It was in order to keep the policyholder satisfied. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the same thing. 

Here are two claims I would like to ask you about briefly. One is a 
claim for Lucille Markov, and a claim for Ruth Pritikin. Do you 
know anything about those ? 

Mr. Creitz. I couldn't recall those. They could have talked to me 
about them, but I do not recall anything now about either one of them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if they were eligible under the health 
and welfare ? 

Mr. Creitz. Mr. Kennedy, I would have no way of knowing who 
was eligible, unless the claim was directly brought to my attention. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, they are wives of union officials. Are they 
eligible under the plan ? 

Mr. Creitz. I believe the union officials are covered under the plan. 

Mr. Kennedy. Their wives — are they eli^ble ? 

Mr. Creitz. All the eligible dependents are covered. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss this prior to this with any of the 
staff members? 

Mr. Creitz. I don't recall those two claims, but if I can see them 

Mr. Kennedy. All right. 

The Chairman. I present to you photostatic copies of what appear 
to be two claims, as group policyholders of Taxicab Drivers Union 
Local 777. One is for the dependent Lucille Markov, wife of Robert 
S. Markov, and the other is for Ruth Pritikin, wife of William Priti- 
kin. 

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

(The documents were handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Creitz. These are certainly claims. 

The Chairman. They may be made exhibit No. 35-A and 35-B. 

(Documents referred to were marked "Exhibits 35-A and 35-B" 
for reference and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Are those individuals covered ? 

Mr. Creitz. Mr. Kennedy, I couldn't tell you whether the individual 
is covered, because the health and welfare office checks that out of 
their records. These claims are not paid out of our office. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have discussed both of these claims with mem- 
bers of the staff of this committee, have you not? 

Mr. Creitz. Well, I do not recall. But if they brought them up, 
I probably discussed them. They are claims as far as I know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you tell them at that time that the wives of 
tlie union officers are not covered by this ? 

Mr. Creitz. Pardon me. I could have made — what date is that? 
What date is that on the claims? 

I can't toll you when the dependent coverage was put in. If I knew 
the dates of dependent coverage, I could tell you. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17933 

Mr. Kennedy. Are the union officers covered ? 

Mr. Ckeitz. They are under the plan. 

Senator Capeiiart. February 15, 1953. 

Mr. Ckeitz. I have no dates available with me when the dependent 
rates went into effect. 

Senator Capehart. They are both February 15, 1953. 

Mr. Creitz. When the dependent coverage was added, they would 
be covered, but the date would have the whole thing to do with it. 

The Chairman. In other words, are all of the employees, all the 
union members, are their dependents covered ? 

Mr. Creitz. All the eligible members, their dependents were covered 
when the dependent coverage was added. 

Senator Capehart. Originally, when the policy was first issued, the 
dependents were not covered ? 

Mr. Creitz. No, sir. That was for the individuals only. 

Senator Capehart. Then later you covered the employees and their 
families? 

Mr. Creitz. Covered the families later. When the employees went 
in 

Senator Capehart. You covered employees first and then at a later 
date — was it 2, 3, or 4 years later ? 

Mr. Creitz. I don't recall the exact date. 

Senator Capehart. In any event, you covered the employees first, 
and then lated you covered the employees' families ? 

Mr. Creitz. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were the officers of the union covered ? 

Mr. Creitz. I believe they were. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was paying their insurance premiums ? 

Mr. Creitz. Their premium was paid by the 777. 

Mr. Kennedy. By the union itself ? 

Mr. Creitz. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Has that been true all along ? 

Mr. Creitz. It is my recollection that I believe they have been 
covered, because there is a separate billing in for them. 

Mr. Kennedy. We will check the dates and come back on that. 

I want to ask you in connection with the DearboiTi Insurance 
Agency how long you were connected with it ? 

Mr. Creitz. I was connected with the Dearborn Insurance Agency 
up until 1956, at which time I resigned, and according to the partner- 
ship agreement, you would receive 1 more year of partnership percen- 
tage, and officially I was out of there then in 1957. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did you get out then ? 

Mr. Creitz. For a conflict. Because I thought there would be a 
conflict of interest, and because the partners had found out from 
the surveys that we were making that Mr. Maris was receiving an 
override, and they were not at all happy about it. 

Mr. Kennedy. What do you mean Mr. Maris was receiving an over- 
ride? 

Mr. Creitz. Over and above wliat the commission was to Dearborn. 

Mr. Kennedy. VTho was he receiving that from ? 

Mr. Creitz. Occidental. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were paying him extra money ? 

Mr. Creitz. That is correct. 

36751— 59— pt. 49 -16 



17934 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. And the Dearborn Insurance Agency partners were 
not aware ? 

Mr. Creitz. They were not aware. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Wlien did they become aware of it ? 

Mr. Creitz. About 2 years ago. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were upset and concerned about it ? 

Mr. Creitz. Very much upset. 

Mr. Kennedy. What developed? They paid a visit to the Occi- 
dental Insurance Co. to protest ? 

Mr. Creitz. The partners did pay a visit to the Occidental Life 
Insurance Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you go with them ? 

Mr. Creitz. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What brought about your withdrawal, then; your 
resignation ? 

Mr. Creitz. Well, it was the conflict, and I didn't want anything 
to happen that would upset my relations with the company or with 
any of the clients that the company had. 

Mr. Kennedy. With the Dearborn or with Occidental ? 

Mr. Creitz. With both. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you got out of Dearborn ; is that right ? 

Mr. Creitz. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had Occidental ever known that you were in Dear- 
born? 

Mr. Creitz. Occidental did not know I was in Dearborn until about 
a year go, and I told one of the assistant vice presidents that I was 
in Dearborn. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who did you tell ? 

Mr. Creitz. Mr. Halverson. 

Mr. Kennedy. Halverson ? 

Mr. Creitz. Halverson. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was not, however, until the last week that they 
terminated your services with Occidental ? 

Mr. Creitz. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was because of your association with the Dear- 
born Insurance Agency ? 

Mr. Creitz. That is right. They referred back that I had broken 
a rule that was published in 1953, and again published in 1955. 

I recall seeing the rule in 1953. If you will refer to the file, you 
will find out that I endeavored to get out of the agency in 1954. Mr. 
Maris wanted me to stay. I was influenced to say. Then in 1956 
I became determined that I had to get out of the agency. 

Mr. Kennedy. While you were in the agency, was there any dis- 
cussion or talk with Mr. Maris about bringing certain union officials 
into the agency ? 

Mr. Creitz. In the original start of the Dearborn agency, Mr. IVIaris 
felt it desirable that if he could bring in some well-known retired union 
officer it might help to get him more leads and that we could get more 
business from that particular part, if we could get some influential 
union retired official. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you able to find an influential retired imion 
official in 1949 to 1950? 

Mr. Creitz. No. There was nothing ever done about that at that 
time. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17935 

Mr. Kennedy. Whom did you discuss as being a retired, influential 
union official ? 

Mr. Creitz. "Well, he thought one time that he would like to have 
Mr. Brown, if he retired, come in and help and get leads for us. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Brown was an influential union official but he 
was not retired. • 

Mr. Creitz. That is correct, and that is probably the reason that 
he didn't come in. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know that he did not come in ? 

Mr. Creitz. I know of no one who ever come in. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, you know of no one? Do you know whether 
Mr. Maris brought any union official into the company? 

Mr. Creitz. I know of no one. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you state under oath that no union official was 
brought into the company ? 

Mr. Creitz. I can state under oath that no union official was brought 
into the company. That is my best recollection. 

Mr. Kennedy. Your best recollection ? Would you be in a position 
to know as to whether any union official had any secret ownership in 
this company ? 

Mr. Creitz. I am only in a position to know as far as Dearborn is 
concerned. I know nothing of Mr. Maris' activities over and above 
tlie Dearborn. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if Mr. Maris had made any arrange- 
ments with any union official to have any secret ownership of any of 
the stock? 

Mr. Creitz. None that I know of. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you be in a position to know if that arrange- 
ment had been made by Mr. Maris ? 

Mr. Creitz. Not necessarily. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there any discussion with you that certain union 
officials would hold some stock of the Dearborn Insurance Agency in 
secret ? 

Mr. Creitz. I had no idea of that. 

Mr. Ivennedy. But was there any discussion along those lines ? 

Mr. Creitz. Mr. Maris, when he first come back — well, he had so 
many ideas that I lost him. He used to lose me in his business dealings. 
He talked about so many things, Mr. Kennedy, that I actually couldn't 
tell you. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not asking you about everything he discussed. 
I am just asking you about this one matter, whether there was discus- 
sion that certain union officials would hold a secret ownership or have 
a secret confidential ownership in the Dearborn Insurance Agency. 

Mr. Creitz. Well, if I recollect, he had that idea, that he probably 
could bring somebody in. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wasn't Mr. Brown one of the people that were going 
to be brought in ? 

Mr. Creitz. No. That was under discussion, and I knew nothing 
about Mr. Brown ever having accepted any 

Mr. Kennedy. I am asking you now — we will come to whether they 
accepted in a moment — wasn't there a discussion that Mr. Brown 
would be one of those who would be brought in ? 

Mr. Creitz. Yes. Mr. Maris discussed that. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. O'Brien? 



17936 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Creitz. Mr. O'Brien was never discussed with me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never had any discussion ? 

Mr. CnEiTZ. Never. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there any discussion about Mr. Blakely ? 

Mr. Creitz. There was never any discussion about Mr. Blakely 
with ftie. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if the stock was actually issued to Mr. 
Blakely? 

Mr. Creitz. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you be in a position to know whether the 
stock was actually issued to Mr. Blakely ? 

Mr. Creitz. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where is the stock certificate book ? 

Mr. Creitz. I have never seen the stock certificate book. 

The Chairman. Who had it ? 

Mr. Creitz. That question has been asked a lot, Senator. I had 
no 

The Chairman. How many stockholders were there in the com- 
pany? 

Mr. Creitz. There were five, originally. 

The Chairman. Who were they ? 

Mr. Creitz. Mr. Maris, Mr. Keenan, Mr. Murray, Mr. Crane, and 
myself. 

The Chairman. What was your position in the company? 

Mr. Creitz. My position was just as a stockholder. 

The Chairman. You had no official position ? 

Mr. Creitz. I had no official capacity. 

The Chairman. Did you get some stock ? Was a certificate actually 
issued to you ? 

Mr. Creitz. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You did actually get a stock certificate as a stock 
holder ? 

Mr. Creitz. I had two certificates. 

The Chairman. So you do know that stock certificates were issued? 

Mr. Creitz. Yes, sir. 

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

Senator Capehart. You were an employee of the Occidental Life 
Insurance Co. ? 

Mr. Creitz. That is right. 

Senator Capehart. You were what was known as their group 
manager in Chicago ? 

Mr. Creitz. Correct. 

Senator Capehart. Which meant that you had to do exclusively 
with the sale of group insurance ? 

Mr. Creitz. That is correct. 

Senator Capehart. Did you have an office of your own ? 

Mr. Creitz, I had an office of my own. 

Senator Capehart. Did you have a lot of salesmen or a number of 
salesmen working for you ? 

Mr. Creitz. I did have quite a staff. 

Senator Capehart. Selling group insurance to businesses within and 
around Chicago? 

Mr. Creitz. Correct. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17937 

Senator Capehart. How much territory did you have ? 

Mr. Creitz. I had Chicago and the southern tip of Wisconsin and a 
little part of Indiana, 

Senator Capehart. The group insurance sold to these labor organi- 
zations, particularly 710 and 777, were sold through the Dearborn 
Agency ? 

Mr. Creitz. That is right. 

Senator Capehart. These two locals, did they each year — well, 
what I mean is was the insurance policy or contract issued from year 
to year ? 

Mr. Creitz. All contracts are renegotiated each year wren you come 
to the end of a policy year. 

Senator Capehart. In other words, they were sold just for 1 year? 

Mr. Creitz. All group insurance policies. Senator, are on a year-to- 
year basis. 

Senator Capehart. Were negotiations held, then, to your knowledge, 
with these two locals at the end of every year in respect to renewing 
these policies ? 

Mr. Creitz. Not only on those two. On all our health and welfare 
plans. 

Senator Capehart. Did other insurance companies try to get the 
business away from Occidental? 

Mr. Creitz. They are after the business every day. 

Senator Capehart. And Occidental was able to maintain the busi- 
ness? 

Mr. Creitz. That is correct. 

Senator Capehart. Was that because they had a lower premium 
rate or gave better service ? 

Mr. Creitz. Well, I think it is a combination of all. We had a good 
premium rate. Just because you have a low premium rate does not 
mean that you are the best company. It is what the company retains. 
I do not have the opportunity to see every bid that comes in on each 
case we have, but it is awarded by the trustees, and the trustees are 
composed of both employers and union trustees. 

Senator Capehart. Did you personally sit down originally and 
make the contract or sell these locals ? 

Mr. Creitz. I originally was introduced to these locals by Mr. Maris. 
Mr. Maris was recommended to me by the home office, and I was told 
to work with him. 

Senator Capehart. Did you personally sit down and talk to the four 
trustees of each of these unions ? 

Mr. Creitz. I pei*sonally attended the trustee meetings and all of 
the trustees were present when they purchased the plan. 

Senator Capehart. Two representing the union and two represent- 
ing the business? 

Mr. Creitz. It could either be two or three, but equal representa- 
tion. 

Senator Capehart. You would go there, and you sold them. They 
had a right, if they wanted to, to buy anybody's insurance ? 

Mr. Creitz. That is right. I always did my best whenever I went 
in to sell it, regardless of who I was for, what broker. 

Senator Capehart. And the home office directed you to place the 
insurance with these unions through the Dearborn Agency ? 



17938 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Creitz. No, The home office sent Mr. Maris back to me and I 
worked with Mr. Maris on whatever contacts he had. 

Senator Capehart. Mr. Maris — was he coimected with the home 
office in California ? 

Mr. Creitz. I do not believe so. 

Senator Capehart. Was he what was called a general a^ent there ? 

Mr. Creitz. Not to my knowledge. I think Mr. Mans was just 
an agent or a special agent for Occidental Life. 

Senator Capehart. Did Mr. Maris specialize in selling unions or 
welfare funds? 

Mr. Creitz. No. Mr. Maris, I believe, originally specialized in 
pension business. 

Senator Capehart. In pension business ? 

Mr. Creitz. Correct. 

Senator Capehart. And he came into Chicago and made the first 
contacts with respect to these unions, the 21 unions we had on the chart 
yesterday ? 

Mr. Creitz. That is correct. 

Senator Capehart. And you had many other accounts in Chicago ? 

Mr. Creitz. I probably got 200. Never did I let Mr. Maris' influ- 
ence ever bother me with any other broker that came in the office. I 
don't think the home office has ever had a complaint about my activity, 
about my ability, and I have lead the home office group production in 
probably 5 out of the last 7 years. 

Senator Capehart. Whose idea was it to organize the Dearborn 
Agency ? 

Mr. Creitz. Mr. Maris. 

Senator Capehart. And he invited you to participate in it ? 

Mr. Creitz. That is correct. 

Senator Capehart. Then others came in, Mr. Murray, Mr. Keenan ? 

Mr. Creitz. That is right. I believe the others were in before I 
actually was in. 

Senator Capehart. Mr. Keenan was a councilman in the city of 
Chicago ? 

Mr. Creitz. I believe he was at that time. He was an official of 
some type. 

Senator Capehart. As far as you know, there never was any official, 
a union official, as a stockholder or an officer or a director of the Dear- 
born Agency ? 

Mr. Creitz. That is right. 

Senator Capehart. To your knowledge, you never knew of any ? 

Mr. Creitz. No, sir. 

Senator Capehart. Do you have any reason to l)elieve that they 
were holding an interest in this company under somebody else's name ? 

Mr. Creitz. No, I do not. 

Senator Capehart. You were paid dividends by this corporation ? 

Mr. Creitz. That is right. In the 7 years that I was connected with 
Dearborn Insurance, or 8 years, I was remunerated and I counted it 
up to the amount of $58,000. 

Senator Capehart. How many shares of stock did you have ? 

Mr. Creitz. I had 39 originally and then I had 42. 

Senator Capehart. Do you know how many were outstanding ? 

Mr. Creitz. There were supposed to be 195 shares outstanding. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17939 

Senator Capehart, 195 shares. Did you pay any money for these 
shares ? 

Mr. Creitz. Originally I paid, I believe, $200, but I am not too 
sure on the exact amount. 

Senator Capehakt. In other words, it was not necessary to have 
any capital ? 

Mr. Creitz. Not to start. I believe we started with somewhere 
around $1,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say there were some discussions about bringing 
these people in, and the question of whether they were actually in or 
not. I would like to ask you if you have any explanation for the 
minutes of the special meeting of the board of directors of the Dear- 
born Insurance Agency. It states : 

All of the directors were present, Harland Maris, Frank Brown, and Elmer 
Crane. 

This is a letter dated February 2, 1951. 

Mr. Creitz. Is that to Mr. Schultz ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No, to Harland Maris from Mr. Wrixon. 

Mr. Creitz. My first knowledge of this minute book was last Friday 
in the auditors office. That was the first time I had seen this. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, evidently, if your statement is true and I am 
not questioning it, there was an actual movement, an actual step 
taken toward bringing these individuals into the insurance agency, 
unbeknownst to you, maybe? 

Mr. Creitz. It was not known to me. 

Mr. Kennedy. But this would indicate that this step had actually 
taken place toward bringing Mr. Brown into the insurance agency? 

Mr. Creitz. It certainly would, but I had no recollection of this 
until last Friday. 

The Chairman. Brown was a union official? 

Mr. Creitz. Mr. Brown is a union official. 

The Chairman. Is Crane a union official ? 

Mr. Creitz. Mr. Crane is an attorney. 

The Chairman. Is Murray a union official ? 

Mr. Creitz. Mr. Murray is a real estate broker and builder. I 
don't know how else to describe it. 

The Chairman. Did you regard your participation in this Dear- 
born company as improper in view of your employment by Oc- 
cidental ? 

Mr. Creitz. Well, technically. Senator, I could see no conflict when 
I first went into it so long as I did not do anything that would jeopar- 
dize the company's position, because we are allowed, as group men, 
to write individual life business at any time we want. Furthermore, 
other group life companies allow their group regional men to be 
agents or brokers or participate in cases. 

The Chairman. I just asked you did you regard it as improper. 

Mr. Creitz. Not necessarily. 

The Chairiman. Did you at any time so regard it after you had 
gotten into it? 

Mr. Creitz. Well, we can say I had a feeling that it wasn't probably 
the right thing to do. 

The Chairman. That feeling kind of creeped up on you as time 
went on ? 



17940 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Creitz. It snuck up. 

Tlie Chairman. Sir ? 

Mr. Creitz. It snuck up. 

The Chairman. Now it turns out that there was you, representing 
the insurance company, Occidental, as its employee, and I guess Maris 
is the bio; promoter. Is that correct? Then we get some lahor union 
officials m on it, they have a percentage in it. Did you realize that 
was going on ? 

Mr. Creitz. I did not, sir. 

The Chairman. You would not regard that as a proper arrange- 
ment, would you ? 

Mr. Creitz. For any union official to be connected with the agency, 
no. And I am certain I wouldn't have gone into it if I had thought 
so. 

Senator Capehart. Is there any other Mr. Brown connected with 
the company in any respect? 

Mr. Creitz. Not that I know of . 

Senator Capehart. There was never any Brown around that you 
knew of other than this Brown that was with the union ? 

Mr. Creitz. That is the only one I can recollect right now. 

Mr. Kennedy. In this same situation, the same context, as to 
whether they actually became interested, I draw your attention to 
the letter of January 10, 1951, which is written to Mr. John Murray, 
and signed Harland Maris, which is exhibit No. 27. 

In the first three paragraphs it is pointed out as to what should 
be done with the Dearborn Insurance Agency, and the procedure to 
be followed. Then it states : 

After you and Allen and I have lunch to see the taxmen, I propose we call 
Frank Keenan in Florida, review it with him and get his proxy by telephone. 
On Tuesday morning I have an appointment with O'Brien and Brown to close 
out the taxicab deal, and we will go over the entire statement as outlined above 
with them. 

That would certainly seem to indicate, would it not, that O'Brien 
and Brown had an interest, that O'Brien as well as Brown had an 
interest? 

Then I think we should have a meeting on Wednesday with the entire group 
in Chicago, and go over the first 9 months' operation and review the estab- 
lished income for 1951. 

Mr. Creitz. Mr. Kennedy, I have no recollection of this meeting 
or the letter. The first time it come to my attention was yesterday, 
Mr. Kennedy. Then on page 2 : 

I appreciate your staying over for this matter and only wish that Frank 
were there, too. But we can take plenty of time on the phone so that he under- 
stands it. I know that Brown and O'Brien will. 

What does that mean ? 

Mr. Creitz. I have no idea, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. It means very clearly, does it not, that they had 
an interest in the Dearborn Insurance Agency at the time? 

Mr. Creitz. Well, it might look like that, but I don't think so. I 
absolutely have no idea of this, or I don't know what he is referring 
to when he says that Mr. Brown and Mr. O'Brien will. 

Mr. Kennedy. All these letters which are written back and forth 
all seem to involve each individual with knowledge about the situa- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17941 

tion and they all say, ''Well, if this happened, only Mr. Maris knew 
about it." Eyerybody seems to be putting it on Mr. Maris. 

Mr. Creitz. Mr. Maris runs the agency. 

Mr. Kennedy. But these lettei-s are back and forth. He seems 
to be informing everybody as to exactly what is going on. Mr. 
Brown's name appears on the board of directors. He sets this forth 
quite clearly. Then he says : 

P.S. Did Crane ever pay for the 200 shares of stock to the hotel people? 
If not, don't mention it to him as I want to bring it out at the meeting as the 
only stock not paid for. I believe that Allen knows that Vacey paid him for it. 

Allen refers to you, does it not? 

Mr. Creitz. He must be referring to me, and I absolutely have no 
recollection of what he is talking about Vacey paid him for. 

Mr. Kennedy. Vacey was a union official in the Hotel and Res- 
taurant Workers Union ? 

Mr. Creitz. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it correct that the four individuals mentioned 
as being the secret owners in the letter written to the previous wit- 
ness, Mr. Schultz — the four people that were going to get the stock- 
were Mr. Vacey, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Blakely, and you 
knew about the situation ? 

Mr. Creitz. I had no idea about that at all. 

Mr. Kennedy. Here is a letter of December 7, 1950, written by you, 
exhibit No. 25. It states : 

I wish that you would sometime in the next 2 or 3 days drop Jim Blakely a 
line and tell him that you are very sorry but you misunderstood that there was 
to be a meeting. Also, explain that it was your intention, together with Frank 
Brown and Sandy O'Brien, to have a meeting in February, whicli is the tnd of 
the first year. At that time, accounting details will be given and etc. 

This is a letter written by you. 

Mr. Creitz. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have an explanation as to why the account- 
ing details should be given to Frank — that you sliould be hiforming 
Jim Blakely of the Hotel and Restaurant Workers regarding account- 
ing details to be given Frank Brown and Sandy O'Brien ? 

Mr. Creitz. I will take the fii-st one. Mr. Blakely, at the time the 
hotels have their Christmas party, at which they have their trustee 
meetings, which was attended by all the trustees, by the attorneys, and 
Mr. Maris was there. 

I don't mean the partners, but Mr. Maris. They wanted Mr. ]\Iaris 
there because this was the time we were having a little difficulty in 
getting the office on Wells Street cleared up the way they wanted it. 
Mr. Blakely did not like the way the administration was running in 
the office and he brought it up at the trustee meeting. 

Mr. Kennedy. The trustee meeting or the Christmas party ? 

Mr. Creitz. The trustee meeting, too. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you mean you had a joint trustee meeting and 
Christmas party ? 

Mr. Creitz. That is correct. They have that every year. The 
minutes of their meeting, I am sure, will reflect what he had in inind 
as far as the otters and to get it straightened out. We had trouble 
with our claims clerks. I know that. I remember that. 



17942 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't mention that, of course, at all. You go 
through the first four or five paragraphs of that letter and say : 

Everybody felt wonderful, and everybody was in a good liiood, including 
Blakely and the other members. 

You don't say that he was very mad at this meeting, cross and 
angry, you say he was in a good mood — had a lot to drink. 

Mr. Creitz. You are taking two parts of the letter. The first part 
is where we had the luncheon. But the second part is when tlie meet- 
ing was. 

Mr. Kjinnedy (reading). 

We had squab, baked individually in casserole, and all you could drink. In 
fact, everything was superb. 

That doesn't sound like Mr. Blakely is very mad. 

Mr. Creitz. Well, not there. I am referring to the dinner as a 
whole. But the meeting was afterwards. Their minutes will reflect 
all of the meeting. 

Mr. Kennedy. What does it mean — 

Also explain that it is your intention together with Frank Brown and Sandy 
O'Brien to have a meeting in February, which is the end of the first year. 

Mr. Creitz. What I wanted was Mr. Maris to write Mr. Brown and 
O'Brien that he would attend the meeting at the end of the year. The 
end of the year in that case is in February. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why were you telling Jim Blakely ? 

Mr. Creffz. I wasn't telling Jim Blakely. That is probably 
grammatically a little wrong, but that is what I was trying to get over. 

Mr. Kjsnnedy. You put right in here, Mr. Creitz, 

Also, explain to Jim Blakely 

in this letter that you are going to write to Jim Blakely, 

that it is your intention to get together with Frank Brown and Sandy O'Brien. 

This fits in perfectly with all the other letters that were written in 
connection with this, but this one shows that you knew about it your- 
self, that this arrangement had been made. 

Mr. Creitz. No, no arrangement the way you are putting it. If you 
have any trouble with one group you will have trouble with the second 
group, and I didn't want any friction coming, because most of your 
union officials, and most of your trustees know if you are all in the 
same case, if one has trouble, the word will get around to the other 
one. 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't have to tell Mr. Maris to inform Mr. 
Blakely of the Hotel and Restaurant Workers that he was going to 
meet with Sandy O'Brien and Frank Brown, unless it was something 
that directly involved Frank Brown and Blakely. 

Mr. Creitz. Well, they all know each other. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was this meeting which you referred to later in 
the letter of January 10, 1951, that you were all involved in this busi- 
ness together. 

Mr. Creitz. That is not right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Doesn't it say so at the top of page 2 of the letter 
of January 10, 1951? 

To take plenty of time on the phone so he understands it, and I know that 
Brown and O'Brien will. I then propose to have the open meeting, present a 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17943 

statement, answer questions, and once and for all, even if I have to have the 
help of the Teamsters and you, put Brother Crane in his place forever. 

That is in connection with tlie Dearborn Insurance Agency. That 
is not in connection with union business, except as it involves the Dear- 
born Insurance Agency. 

Mr. Creitz. I have no recollection of this Januai*y 10 letter. My 
letter I do not think refers to this January 10 letter. It could, but I 
don't think so. 

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

The Chairman. You may stand aside for the present. Thank you 
very much. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Creitz might want to stand by now because of 
the $500 he gave Laverne Murray for tlie good services she performed. 
We are having two witnesses in connection with that. 

The Chairman. Call the next witnesses. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Linzer and Mr. McDowell. 

The Chairman. Do you and each of you solemnly swear that the 
evidence you shall give before this Senate Select Committee shall be 
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you 
God? 

Mr. McDowell. I do. 

Mr. Linzer. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF LOUIS LINZER AND ROY McDOWELL 

The Chairman. The witness on my left — will you please identify 
yourself, state your name, your place of residence, and your business 
or occupation? 

Mr. McDowell. Roy McDowell, 4943 Sheridan Road, Chicago. 

The Chairman. "V\^iat is your business or occupat ion ? 

Mr. McDowell. I am in the cab business. 

Mr. Kennedy. A cabdriver ? 

Mr. McDowell. Yes. 

The Chairman. The gentleman on my right ? 

Mr. Linzer. Louis Linzer. I live at 5923 North Magnolia, in Chi- 
cago. I am a Checker Cab driver. 

The Chairman. You gentlemen waive counsel, do you ? You waive 
a lawyer ? 

Mr. Linzer. I don't need no lawyer. 

The Chairman. How about you ? 

Mr. McDowell. I don't need one. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, Miss Laverne Murray, as was tes- 
tified to, received this $500 in December from the Dearborn Insurance 
Agency, and these are two individual cases in connection with the serv- 
icing from local 777 in connection with the insurance. 

I would like to ask Mr. Linzer first this question : You had a com- 
plaint in connection with a payment by the Health and Welfare of 
local 777 of the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Linzer. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you relate what occurred — to the committee ? 

Mr. Linzer. I was sick for 9 weeks, and I made out two different 
forms — one they call the white form and one is a pink form — and I 
mailed that in in proper form. They sent me a check of $257 — one 



17944 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

check for $90, one check for $10 — but there was still a balance of $180 
for 6 weeks. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you had been working as a cabdriver as of this 
time? 

Mr. LiNZER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. What date was this, approximately ? What was the 
date? 

Mr. LiNZER. This I couldn't tell you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it 1958 ? 

Mr. LiNZER. Yes. 

The Chairman. Last year ? 

Mr. LiNZER. Last year. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you had been working for the cab company for 
a couple of years ? 

Mr. LiNZER. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you had been paying into the health and welfare 
fund? 

Mr. LiNZER. Yes. I paid $5 evei-y month, and the company pays the 
health and welfare $9 a month, for each man. 

Mr. Kennedy. You pay your dues in each month ? 

Mr. LiNZER. No, they deduct it from the check. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you make a complaint then — the fact that you 
had not been paid your $180 ? 

Mr. LiNZER. I asked them to pay me the balance, and they told me 
to come down in the office. When I come down to the office, they tell 
me, "Why should we pay you so much money ? You are not so long 
in the union." I says, "According to my record, I am a longer union 
man than you are, but I still got that money coming and I want to 
get it." 

So what they done was threw me out of the organization and they 
called up the cab company to fire me from the job. 

Mr. Kjjnnedy. Were you working for the Checker Cab Co. at the 
time? 

Mr. LiNZER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you talk to Mr. Glimco himself ? 

Mr. LiNZER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did he tell you ? 

Mr. LiNZER. Well, he says, I am through. I am thrown out of the 
organization. 

Mr. Kennedy. So did he call ? 

Mr. LiNZER. Mr. Coca, his assistant, called the cab company. 

Mr. Kennedy. Called Mr. McDonough, who is a vice president of 
the Checker Cab Co.? 

Mr. LiNZER. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And told them to fire you ? 

Mr. LiNZER. They throw me out of the organization, and according 
to what he answered to Mr. McDonough, he said, "I don't care how 
you feel about that man, we are throwing him out." I told them, I 
says, "If there is one man who knows exactly where to go to com- 
plain about this, I know. You will be sorry that you are doing that." 

That was right in his office. 

The first thing I done after they fired me I went up to Mr. Mc- 
Donough and asked him the situation, and he said to me, "Linzer, 



IMPROPER ACTTVITIEiS IN THE LABOR FIELD 17945 

what can I do about this? If they don't want to carry you, I can't." 
I said, ''I know it," and I went up to the Labor Board and made my 
comphiint about tills. 

Just as soon as tliey recei\'ed the registered letter, they kept on 
calling me to come back to the organization. 

j\fr. Kennedy. The union, after they heard from the National 
Labor Relations Board ? 

Mr. LiNZER. The union called me. And I said, "No, I will not go 
to your union unless the Labor Board or the racket squad, whoever 
it is, will give me notice to go down to you." 

It took 3 weeks until I went down to see them. They wanted to 
give me my check and the job back, and I said, "No, you got to go up 
to the Labor Board and straighten this matter out." And that is 
what they had to do — go up there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they pay you the $180 then ? 

Mr. LiNZER. Yes. But I demanded a week more, just purposely, 
because being Frank Keenan is in this matter here. I worked for 
Frank Keenan in his office. So I demanded a week more, but the 
young lady, the name you just mentioned here, she brought in the 
books to show me that it is only 6 weeks coming to me. I said, "If 
you got it in the books, why don't you pay me in a nice, decent, re- 
spectful way — not to go around through all this trouble? If you 
got it in the books, which you got paid from the insurance company, 
you got paid for paying me." 

Mr. Kennedy. She had it in the books that you were entitled to 
this? 

Mr. LiNZER. Yes, that is right. 

Mr. I^JENNEDY. And showed it to you? 

Mr. LiNZER. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yet they did not pay pay you until you made 
the complaint? 

Mr. LiNZER. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then the recording secretary of local 777, Mr. Rob- 
ert Markov, came down and gave you the check ? 

Mr. LiNZEF. He didn't give it to me. I asked him to go up to the 
Labor Board and give them the check and they should give it to me. 

j\Ir. Kennedy. And they gave it to you ? 

Mr. LiNZER. That is right, 

Mr. Kennedy. So you withdrew your suit? 

Mr. LiNZER. Yes. I withdrew my suit, but the situation is that 
there is a lot of people which complain about this. 

Mr. I\j:nnedy. There is a great number of complaints regarding the 
servicing there? 

Mr. LiNZER. Well, I did have a lot of calls from people. 

Mr. Kennedy. You said they had the same problem? Well, you 
received notification from other people that had had problems? 

Mr. LiNZER. Yes, a lot of people told me about this. They con- 
gratulated me that I had nerve enough to do those things. They 
were proud of me. They even were trying to make an officer out 
of me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. McDowell, you had the same kind of a problem 
some years ago ; is that right ? 

Mr. McDowell. That 'is right. In 1952— in July of 1952. 



17946 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. And you had been working for the cab company 
since 1941 ? 

Mr. McDowell. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had been operated on for the removal of your 
appendix ? 

Mr. McDowell. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you had some 3 weeks' sick benefit due you ? 

Mr. McDowell. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they refused to pay you ? 

Mr. McDowell. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you go down and talk to Mr. Glimco? 

Mr. McDowell. Well, you see, I had sent in several forms, filled 
out, and they didn't send the check. So I called them up and asked 
them why they wouldn't send the checks, and they said that the forms 
were filled out wrong, which I knew was wrong, and I got pretty 
tough on the phone, and they had me fired from the cab until I went 
down to see them. 

Mr. Kennedy. You went down to see them. What happened then ? 
They had gotten you already fired after you made the complaint? 

Mr. McDowell. Yes. So I had to go see them before I got back, 
and they sent me into Glimco's office, and Glimco asked me what I 
wanted, and I said I wanted to get that $60 that is coming to me. He 
said, "You are going to get a hole in your head if you don't get out of 
here and stay away from here and behave yourself. You are not 
going to get it." 

Mr. Kennedy. He said you were not going to get it ? 

Mr. McDowell. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you repeat what he said again, please? 

Mr. McDowell. He said if I didn't stay away from there and behave 
myself and quit shooting my mouth off, I was going to be found in an 
alley with a hole in my head. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is Mr. Glimco ? 

Mr. McDowell. Joey Glimco said that. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened after that? Did you ever get the 
$60? 

Mr. McDowell. Yes; I got the $60 through the Yellow Cab Co. 
They paid it to keep from losing my wife and myself. My wife was 
radio dispatcher for them at the time. 

Mr. Kennedy. And she was going to quit as long as you got fired ? 

Mr. McDowell. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. So they paid you the $60 themselves ? 

Mr. McDowell. Mr. Stauffer, of the Yellow Cab Co., general man- 
ager, he paid the $60 to keep us from leaving. 

Mr. Kennedy. It didn't come out of the insurance ? 

Mr. McDowell. No. The insurance never paid it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you find there are many, many complaints about 
the operation of the insurance for Local 777 ? 

Mr, McDowell. Very much so, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is administered by Miss Laverne Murray ? She 
is the chief one who processes the claims ? 

Mr. McDowell. Well, at that time Glimco was in charge of it 

Mr. Kennedy. G1 imco runs it ? 

Mr. McDowell. Yes. 



DMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17947 

Mr. Kennedy. She is his secretary ? 

Mr. McDo\\TELL. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. She carries out his orders ? 

The Chairman. She is the one that did such a good job in keeping 
the money from you folks who are entitled to it that she gets the 
Christmas bonus of $500. Is that the whole implication of it? 

Mr. McDowell. That is right, sir. 

Senator Capehart. It is not quite clear to me. This check you were 
entitled to was to come from the Occidental Insurance Co. ? 

Mr. McDowell. Yes, sir. 

Senator Capehart. In other words, it would not come from the 
union ? 

Mr. McDo's\^Li.. No. It was to come from the insurance company. 

Senator Capehart. It would not come from Mr. Glimco ? 

Mr. McDow^ELL. Xo. 

Senator Capehart. It would not come from the Dearborn Insurance 
Agency ? 

Mr. McDowTELL. No, sir. 

Senator Capehart. Therefore, whether the money was paid or 
whether it was not, it would mean nothing to those three financially? 

Mr. McDowell. It was supposed to come through the Occidental 
Life Insurance Co. of California. 

Senator Capehart. And this lady was handling the claims? 

Mr. McDoAVELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator Capehart. You said at the time, I believe, that Mr. Glimco 
was handling them. 

Mr. ]\IcDow^ELL. Well, he was in charge of them. 

Senator Capehart. Is there any reason why he would not want to 
pay out somebody else's money ? 

Mr. McDowell. Well, I don't know whether he kept the money or 
what it was. Anyway, I didn't ever get it, not from Occidental 
Insurance. It was paid to me through the Yellow Cab Co. 

Senator Capehart. When you did get a check on your insurance, 
was it a check made out on the Occidental Insurance Co. ? 

Mr. McDowell. The first three checks I got ; yes, sir. 

Senator Capehart. From the Occidental Insurance? 

JNIr. McDowell. Yes, sir. 

Senator Capehart. That is all. 

The Chairman. You two witnesses will remain under your present 
subpena, subject to being recalled at any time that the committee may 
desire to hear further testimony from you. 

You will be given reasonable notice of the time and place, but you 
will not be resubpenaed. 

Do you accept that recognizance? 

Mr. McDowt:ll. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LiNZER. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. If you have any threats or any intimidation, any 
coercion, if anyone undertakes to coerce you by reason of your testi- 
mony here, report it to the committee promptly. 

Mr. Kennedy. I might say we have had a number of complaints 
along these lines, and we have brought in these witnesses to show it 
has gone over an extended period of time. 

The Chairman. The committee will stand in recess mitil 2 :30. 



17948 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

(Members of the select committee present at the taking of the recess 
were Senators McClellan and Capehart.) 

(Whereupon, at 12 :30 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene 
at 2 :30 p.m., the same day.) 

AFTERNOOlSr SESSION 

(The select committee reconvened at 2:30 p.m. in the caucus room 
of the Senate Office Building, Senator John L. McClellan presiding.) 

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 Mundt.) 

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Glimco. 

The Chairman. Mr. Glimco, you have been previously sworn ? 

Mr. Glimco. Yes, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH P. GLIMCO, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
H. CLIFFORD ALLDER— Resumed 

The Chairman. You will remain under the same oath. 

All right, Mr. Kennedy, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Glimco, can you tell us how you came to select 
the Dearborn Insurance Agency and the Occidental Insurance Co. to 
carry the insurance for local 777 ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Wliile they are conferring, let the record show 
that the same counsel appears for the witness as appeared for him on 
his previous appearance. 

Mr. Glimco. "VVliat was the question ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I asked you how it was that you came to select the 
Dearborn Insurance Agency and the Occidental Insurance Co. to 
handle the insurance for local 777. 

Mr, Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer the question, because 
my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive any moneys of any kind from Mr. 
Maris ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any arrangement whereby you would 
not process the claims of the members of local 777 ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Testimony was given to the committee this morning 
by Mr. McDowell, that he had his appendix out and he went to try to 
collect money after he had been paying his dues, and he had been 
made a member of tlie health and welfare fund, and that he was told 
by you tl\at if he didn't get out of the office he would be found in an 
alley witli a hole in Ins head? Would you tell us about that? 

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

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell that to Mr. McDowell, who had been 
driving a cab since 1041, except for a period of time in which he was 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17949 

in the service ? Did you tell him to get out of the office or he would 
be found with a hole in his head ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then did you arrange for him to be fired by the cab 
company ? 

Mr. (jLiMCo. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. All of this because he was attempting to obtain the 
insurance to which he was entitled ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about Mr. Linzer in 1958 ? Did you arrange 
for him to be tired when he attempted to collect on his insurance, Mr. 
Glimco ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kjennedy. After he had also been paying his dues, and he came 
to try to collect $180 that was due to him, did you take steps to have 
him tired from his job ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tena to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. I notice that you are smiling, Mr. Glimco. Is it 
pretty funny to you ? Is it funny to you ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. These people are just members of the union and you 
are an important union official and it doesn't make any difference ; is 
that right? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't really care about their benefits; is that 
right, Mr. Glimco ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you telephone Mr. George McDonough, a vice 
president of the Checker Cab Co., and arrange to have Mr. Linzer 
fired from his job ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, these claims were being handled in the office 
by Miss Laverne Murray ; isn't that right ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Before we go to that phase of it, let me ask you : 
We only brought two witnesses here this morning to tell of recent 
happenmgs late last year, with respect to being fired simply because 
they made a claim that they were entitled to make for illness benefits. 
How many others, or how many other union members who have paid 
their dues and are in good standing have you caused to be tired or 
undertook to cause them to be tired, simply because they tiled a claim ? 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

36751— 59— pt. 49 17 



17950 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. We have presented two, and how many more are 
there ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You think then it is wrong to treat people that way, 
do you ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly be- 
lieve my answer miglit tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Those people, as I understand it, pay their welfare 
funds ; is that right ? 

Mr. Kennedy. The employer does. 

The Chairman. That is a part of their wages, and they pay it. It 
may come out of the employer, but that is a negotiated consideration 
in the contract. 

INIr. Kennedy. That is correct. 

The Chairman. And do you know how much the employer paid 
in these cases ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is $8.39 a month. 

The Chairman. That goes into that fund to take care of these peo- 
ple when misfortune overtakes them. 

Now, do you think it is right for you, whenever they make a claim, 
to take a position because you are some great big shot that everj'body 
you think ought to be afraid of, to cause them to be fired ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You decline to tell how many of them you have 
tried to get fired ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. All right. Now you can talk about Miss Murray. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tell us about her. Everything is so funny ; tell us 
about her. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Glimco. What was your question? 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't understand? 

Mr. Glimco. No, I didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy-. I am trying to find out about Miss Murray. Will 
you tell us about her? 

Mr. Glimco. I didn't understand your question. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tell us about Miss Murray. 

Did you hear it that time ? 

Mr. Glimco. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tell us. 

The Chairman. What is her position? "What did she do? 

Mr. (tLimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Did she work under your directions ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The (hiAHtMAN. Is she tlie one that turned down the claim upon 
your orders and instructions? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17951 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is this why you ordered her paid $500 at Christmas- 
time, because of the good job she had done in turning down claims 
for people who wore entitled to the money ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to ansAver because I honestly 
believe my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Is this the same Miss Murray we talked about here 
the other day? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I think the record will show that. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have here a letter that is dated 
October 24, 1951, addressed to Mr. Dandy, and it is from Allen 
Creitz. 

Could Mr. Calal)rese introduce it and then I wanted to ask a ques- 
tion of the witness. 

The Chairman. Will you sit right where you are. I present to 
you a photostatic copy of a letter dated October 24, 1951, to Mr. 
J. P. Dandy, vice president, home office, Chicago group department, 
Taxicab Drivers, Maintenance & Garage Helpers Union Local 777, 
aiid it purports to be from Allen L. Creitz, regional group supervisor. 

Do you recognize that photostatic copy of the letter? 

TESTIMONY OF ALPHONSE F. CALABRESE— Resumed 

Mr. Calabrese. I do. 

The Chairman. Where did you procure it? 

Mr. Calabrese. This was obtained from the files of Mr. Maris. 

The Chairman. From the files of Mr. Maris ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. This letter may be made exhibit No. 36. 

(Letter referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 36" for reference 
and will be found in the appendix on p. 18093.) 

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

Mr. Kennedy. This is dated October 24, 1951, and it is addressed 
to— 

Dear Jack : I have just discussed the eligibility provision as contained in 
the above master policy with Mr. Joe Glimco as it pertains to the full-time 
employees. Maybe yon can give Mr. Glimco a copy. 

Mr. Glimco has just informed me that they are making the cab companies 
pay on part-time workers. For example, a driver who drives 2 days a week 
must be paid on the same as the full-time member. I can see where it is 
possible to insui'e these part-time workers for all benefits other than accident 
and sickness. One problem that came up is that a lot of these part-time 
workers are full-time employees of other concerns and drive for the cab 
compauies on weekends. 

What I would like you to do is to inform me whether or not Mr. Glimco 
was within hi.s riglits by collecting the premium and then not offering benefits, 
or whether we should woi'k this out on a modified basis. 

I would like to have your suggestions before making any definite statement 
as to what we will do. 



Will you explain that paragraph, wliich states, 

hat I would like you to do is tc 
thin his rights by collecting the 
lether we should work this out on 

Will you explain that to us? 



What I would like you to do is to inform me whether or not Mr. Glimco was 
within his rights by collecting the premium and then not offering benefits, or 
whether we should work this out on a modified basis. 



17952 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH P. GLIMCO, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
H. CLIITORD ALLDER— Eesumed 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. This indicates that you were demanding payment 
for them if they worked 2 days a week, that you got the pay from 
the employer on the basis as if they worked full time, and then that 
you were not providing any benefits for them, although you collected 
for them. 

Is that correct ? 

Mr. Glimco. 1 respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. If you were doing that, you were committing a 
fraud on someone, were you not ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Well, you were extorting money for which you 
were giving nothing in return, if that is what you were doing; isn't 
that correct ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have gone through these two 
cases, which are examples of other cases we have. We have ^one 
through this situation, tliis letter. Now I would like to ask him about 
this memorandum that we have, which will have to be introduced by 
Mr. Calabrese again, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Mr. Calabrese, I hand you a photostatic copy of 
a document; the title of it is ''Endorsement to Policy No. 3416 
IDAH." The policyholder is Taxicab Drivers, Maintenance and 
Garage Helpers Union, Local 777. It appears to be dated May 7, 
1957. 

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

Mr. Calabrese. I do, Senator. 

The Chairman. What is it ? 

Mr. Calabrese. This is a photostatic copy of certain correspondence 
that we reviewed and obtained copies of from Occidental Life In- 
surance Co. of California. 

The Chairman. That was obtained from the Occidental Life In- 
surance Co. of California ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes, Senator. 

The Chairman. Was it a part of their files, the original ? 

Mr. Calabrese. It is. 

The Chairman. It may be made exhibit No. 37. 
(Documents referred to were marked ''Exhibit No. 37" for ref- 
erence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. This states the j^olicyholder of Taxicab Drivers, 
Maintenance and Garage Helpers Union, Local 777, and the provi- 
sions to apply as of May 1, 1957. 

Then, Mr. Chairman, under paragraph 2, it is entitled "The Per- 
sons Eligible." 

Persons eligible. Any person not excluded below, who is in full-time active 
employment as a taxicab driver for the Checker Cab Co. or the Yellow Cab 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIBS EST THE LABOR FIELD 17953 

Co. of Chicago, 111., or a.s an oflBee worker for the Taxicab Drivers, Maintenance 
and Garage Helpers Union, Local No. 777, or as an employee of the Best Sanita- 
tion Deodorizing and Exterminating Co., and who is a member in good standing 
with the policyholder, shall become eligible for insurance under the policy, 
subject to the eligibility provision below on the applicable eligibility date 
shown below. 

Mr. Glimco, could you explain to the committee why you were 
bringing into tliis insurance coverage the members of local 777, the 
taxicab drivers, plus all the employees of the Best Sanitation Deo- 
dorizin<j^ and Exterminating Co. 'i 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly be- 
lieve my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. This was the deodorizing company for which your 
son worked and for whom you secured business? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because my answer 
might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do we have any records showing whether any ben- 
efits were to be received by the employees of the deodorant company ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, they were to be covered by this. 

The Chairman. They were to be covered. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. As I understand it, this was never completed. 

But it was at your suggestion that the deodorizing company's em- 
ployees should be covered, Mr. Glimco ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us why you would be concerned about 
them and you were not concerned about members of Local 777 of the 
Teamsters ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is the company in which one of the union offi- 
cials had an interest and for which your son worked; is that right? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. George Marcie had an interest in that company, 
did he not? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Are there any questions, Senators ? 

If not, you may stand aside for the present. 

Do you think you will want to recall him ? 

Just a moment. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. All right. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Murra}'^ and Mr. Crane. 

The Chairman. Mr. Murray and Mr. Crane. 

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

Mr. Murray. I do. 

Mr. Crane. I do. 



17954 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN W. MURRAY AND ELMER CRANE 

The Chairman. The witness on my left, will you give us your name 
and address; also your business or occupation, please? 

Mr. Crane. My name is Elmer M. Crane. I am from Chicago. I 
am a practicing lawyer in Chicago. I reside at 6181 Lemont Avenue, 
in Chicago. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

On my right, will you give your name, please, sir? 

Mr. Murray. My name is John W. Murray. I am in the building 
business in Chicago, and I reside at 4637 Peters. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

All right, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Murray, you were in this Dearborn Insurance 
Agency ? 

Mr. Murray. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had an interest in it ? 

Mr. Murray. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you at the present time ? 

Mr. Murray. I do, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You still do ? 

Mr. Murray. I do. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you aware of the fact that there were any 
union officials involved in this insurance agency? 

Mr. Murray. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. I refer you to a letter dated January 10, 1951, that 
was written to you and signed by Mr. Harland Maris. 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you exhibit No. 27, and asks 
you to examine it and state if you recognize it, Mr. Murray. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Murray. Yes, sir, Senator; I recognize it. It has brought 
to more of my attention since I saw this. 

The Chairman. I beg your pardon ? 

Mr. Murray. It refreshes my mind further since I saw this. But 
I do remember receiving it. 

The Chairman. You do remember the letter? You did receive 
it? 

Mr. Murray. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Murray, in connection with the participation of 
any of these union officials in this company, I call your attention to 
the paragraph, the fourth paragraph on the first page : 

After you and Allen and I have lunch and see the tax man, I propose we call 
Frank Keenan in Florida, review it with him and get his proxy by telephone. 
On Tuesday morning I have an appointment with O'Brien and Brown to close 
the taxicab deal. We will go over the entire statement as outlined above with 
them. 

What did that refer to? 

Mr. Murray. I don't know, Mr. Kennedy. I don't believe we ever — 
■we did not have the lunch. I did not call Frank Keenan in Florida. 

Mr. Kennedy. That sentence would indicate, the one I talked about 
with — 

on Tuesday morning I have an appointment with O'Brien and Brown, 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 17955 

and that he is going to go over the situation outlined, it would indicate 
that they had an active interest in this company, would it not ? 

Mr. Murray. According to this. 

Mr. Kennedy. If they did not have an active interest in the com- 
pany, didn't that raise some question in your mind? 

Mr. Murray. No, sir. I didn't pay too much attention to the letter. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now I refer you over to page 2. 

I appreciate your staying over for this matter and only wish that Frank 
were there, too. But we can take plenty of time on the phone so that he under- 
stands it, and I know that Brown and O'Brien will. 

Mr. Murray. I don't understand that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't this raise some question in your mind? 

Mr. Murray. I didn't pay too much attention to the letter, Mr. 
Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. With so much correspondence back and forth, and 
again all these facts being set out, nobody seems to understand any 
of tlie letters that they wrote or received. 

Mr. Murray. I believe this is the only letter I ever received from ■ 

Mr, Kennedy. I am saying as a general matter we had the testi- 
mony this morning, Mr. Murray, and nobody seemed to understand 
those letters, either. 

Mr. Murray. I don't understand the letter. 

The Chairman. Do you recall now having received the letter? 

Mr. Murray. I do. Senator. 

The Chairman. After receiving a letter like this, you say you didn't 
understand or don't understand it now. Did you understand it then ? 

Mr. Murray. Senator, at this time I was out of the hospital about 
3 weeks after a major operation. I wasn't paying a bit of attention to 
Dearborn. 

The Chairman. Your alibi is that you had just gotten out of the 
hospital about 3 weeks before and you weren't paying attention to 
anything? 

Mr. Murray. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Is that correct? 

Mr. Murray. That is correct. 

The Chairman. You had an interest in this company, did you not ? 

Mr. Murray. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How much of an interest ? What percentage of the 
whole ? 

Mr. Murray. I had 26 shares. 

The Chairman. Out of what was supposed to be 195? 

Mr. Murray. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You do not know whether there were any more 
shares than that or not? 

Mr. ]\Iurray. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Were you an officer in this company ? 

Mr. Murray. I think I was treasurer at this time. 

The Chairman. You were treasurer of it at that time. And a letter 
like this, in as much detail as this is, would not make any impression 
on you? 

Mr. Murray. It didn't at that time, sir. 

The Chairman. Did it impress you afterwards ? 

Mr. Murray. No, sir. I didn't think of it afterwards. 



17956 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. In the last paragraph: 

This is a rambling letter, John, but mull it over and when you and Allen and I 
get together on Monday we will kick it around good. When we get the approval 
of Keenan, O'Brien, and Brown, we will have the formal meeting and get it 
out of the way. 

Did that strike you at all at that time ? 

Mr. Murray. I didn't pay any attention to the letter at all. 

The Chairman. How much annual business was this company doing 
at that time? 

INIr. Murray. Very little. 

The Chairman. Was this right at the start of it? 

Mr. Murray. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had local 710 and 777? 

Mr. Murray. I believe so. 

The Chairman. In other words, you had two locals already 
signed up? 

Mr. Kennedy. They had most of the business that they had acquired. 
It was just started, however, about a year prior to that. 

Mr. Murray. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. Senator Mundt? 

Senator Mundt. Near the top of the second page of the letter, Mr. 
Murray, it says: 

Even if I have to have help from the Teamsters and you, I will put Brother 
Crane in his place forever. 

Were you pretty close to the Teamsters? 

Mr. Murray. No, sir. I don't know a soul in the Teamsters Union. 

Senator Mundt. Why would he write and suggest that he might 
have to have help from the Teamsters and you ? 

Mr. Murray. I don't know. 

Senator Mundt. One thing you do know. What were you supposed 
to be doing with Brother Crane ? You were going to put him in his 
place. What did that mean? 

Mr. Murray. I think Mr. Maris and Mr. Crane were having an 
argument at that time. 

Senator Mundt. You are pretty sure of that? 

Mr. Murray. I am pretty sure of that ; yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. He wanted you to vote with him against Crane, 
evidently. 

Mr. Murray. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. What is the meaning of the postscript there — 

Did Crane ever pay you for the 200 shares of stock for the hotel people? 

Did he pay you? 

Mr. Murray. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Did you have 200 shares of stock? 

Mr. Murray. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. What did you do with that stock? 

Mr. Murray. I kept the stock for a while. I don't know where 
the stock is now. 

Senator Mundt. Well, you have a pretty good idea of whether 
you sold it, whether you gave it to Crane, whether Crane paid you, 
or whether you gave it to somebody else. Do you still have it ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17957 

Mr. Murray. I don't know. I don't know where it is if I do have 
it. That stock was turned in when we formed the partnei'ship. 

Senator Mundt. What stock was it? Stock in this company? 
Stock in the Dearborn agency ? 

Mr. Murray. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. You had 200 shares of stock in the Dearborn 
agency which had only 195 shares issued. Can you explain that? 

Mr. Murray. No, sir. I never had it. It says — 

Did Crane ever pay for the 200 shares? 

I don't know what he is talking about. 

The Chairihan. It is 200 shares. 

Mr. Murray. I don't know what he is talking about, Senator. 

Senator Mundt. You said you had the stock ? 

Mr. Murray. I have my own stock. 

Senator Mundt. I asked you a while earlier if you had the 200 
shares and you said yes. 

Mr. Murray. I misunderstood you, Senator. There was no 200 
shares of stock. 

Senator Mundt. Anyhow, you are sure Crane never paid you for it? 

Mr. Murray. No; he wouldn't pay me for the stock anyway. I 
don't know whether he paid 

Senator Mundt. You were treasurer. I suppose by "you" you mean 
the company for which you w^ere treasurer. I presume that is what 
he is talking about. 

Mr. Murray. I don't know whether he ever paid for the stock. 

Senator Mundt. Now, you don't know whether he ever paid for it 
or not? 

Mr. Murray. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is Mr. Crane sitting next to him. Senator. 

Senator Mundt. Are you Mr. Crane? 

Mr. Crane. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. I better ask you. Will you explain what that is 
all about, that postscript ? 

Will you let him see the copy of it, Mr. Murray, so he can read 
the postscript? Maybe he can throw some light on it. 

Mr. Crane. I haven't the slightest idea what he is referring to 
here. He is talking about 200 shares of stock. The most we ever 
issued was 195. I had a 20-percent interest, represented by 39 shares 
of stock. 

The Chairman. Suppose that is a typographical error and it should 
be 20 shares instead of 200. What would 3'ou know about it then? 

Mr. Crane. I still don't know anything about it. 

The Chairman. Well, we foimd two blocks of stock, 20 shares each, 
kind of laying around loosely somewhere, that they were going to 
cut up into four pieces, making it four blocks of stock, 10 shares each, 
and disperse it aroimd. I thought maybe it could have meant 20 of 
those shares. 

Mr. Crane. Who was going to do that, Senator? 

The Chairman. I don't know just who was going to do it. That is 
according to some of these letters. 

Mr. Crane. I don't know, either. 

The Chairman. I thought this might have been a typographical 
error, that it might have been 20 shares instead of 200. 



17958 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Crane. Even if it was two, I wouldn't know how to interpret 

this. 

The Chairman. You wouldn't know what it is all about ? 

Mr. Crane. No. 

The Chairman. Where can we find somebody who knows what this 
is all about ? Is there anybody living that knows what it is all about 
that you know of ? 

Mr. Crane. Probably Mr. Maris. 

The Chairman. Probably Mr. Maris. No one else? If they keep 
referring to you people and writing to you, and we have had you on 
the witness stand, but nobody knows anything. 

Mr. Crane. I don't think I am involved in any of this correspond- 
ence so far that I know of. 

The Chairman. It looks to me like your name is here about 200 
shares of stock. I don't know if you are involved or not, but your 
name is there. They are talking about 200 shares of stock. 

Mr. Crane. In the same letter, it looks like he is going to eliminate 
me, too. I still can't understand it. 

Senator Mundt. Have you been eliminated ? 

Mr. Crane. No, I wasn't. 

Senator Mundt. You didn't get eliminated ? 

Mr. Crane. No. It was not discussed with me. I don't know what 
he means here when he says — 

put Brother Crane in his place forever. 

Senator Mundt. Are you still a member of the firm ? 

Mr. Crane. Yes, I am. It is a partnership. This was dissolved in 
May of 1952. 

Senator Capehart. The corporation was ? 

Mr. Crane. Yes. Then it became a partnership. 

Senator Mundt. It looks like they were going to do something 
to you, 

put Brother Crane in his place forever. 

Mr. Crane. The first I knew of it was yesterday. 

Senator Mundt. Your partner, Mr. Murray, says that you and Mr. 
Maris were having a little trouble. Is that right? 

Mr. Murray. That is right. 

Mr. Crane. I didn't get along too well with Mr. Maris. 

Senator Mundt. What was the difficulty ? 

Mr. Crane. He never kept me too much advised of what was going 
on. He made several trips into Chicago and I wouldn't even know 
he had been in Chicago until after he left. 

Senator Mundt. He was not very communicative? 

Mr. Crane. Not with me. 

Senator Mundt. How about you, Mr. Murray? Was he communi- 
cative with you? 

Mr. Murray. I believe he would call me more than he would Elmer, 
but he wouldn't call me all the time he was in Chicago. 

Senator Mundt. Do you know who these hotel people might be 
that he is talking about in that postscript, Mr. Murray? 

Mr. Murray. No, sir ; I do not. 

Senator Mundt. Have you any idea ? 

Mr. Murray. Yes, I have an idea, but I never met those gentlemen. 
Mr. Vacey, I think I met on the street one time. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17959 

Senator Mundt. Wlio is Mr. Vacey ? 

Mr. Murray. I understand he is connected with the Hotel and 
Restaurant people. I don't know. 

Senator Mundt. In the union or in management ? 

Mr. Murray. No, in the management of them. 

Senator Mundt. He owns a hotel ? 

Mr. Murray. No. He is part of the union of the Hotel and Res- 
taurant. 

Senator Mundt. You mean he is a manager of the union ? 

Mr. Murray. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. He represents the union ? 

Mr. MuRR^^Y. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Do you suppose that is right, Mr. Crane? 

Mr. Crane. Mr. Vacey has been deceased for several years. 

Senator Mundt. We can't learn anything from him, then. 

Mr. Crane. I don't want to. 

Senator Mundt. Do you think the Hotel people involved here, Mr. 
Vacey and his union, are the people he meant in the postcript ? 

Mr. Murray. I don't know, Senator. 

Senator Mundt. "Wliat do you think, Mr. Crane ? 

Mr. Crane. Well, he mentions the name Vacey. Vacey was with — 
I don't know if it was a local or a joint council. He had some kind 
of a position with the Hotel and Restaurant Union, Employees Union. 

Senator Mundt. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Crane, you never took any steps to purchase 
some stock for either Mr. Vacey, or transfer stock or purchase stock 
for either Mr. Vacey or Mr. Blakely ? 

Mr. Crane. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if Mr. Vacey ever owned any stock ? 

Mr. Crane. I do not know. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Do 3'ou have any information that he did hold and 
own some stock? 

Mr. Crane. None at all. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Maris or anyone else suggest to you that you 
purchase some stock for Mr. Vacey or Mr. Blakely ? 

Mr. Crane. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever purchase some stock for Mr. Vacey. 
or Mr. Blakely ? 

Mr. Crane. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know Mr. Frank Brown's interest in the 
Dearborn Insurance Agency ? 

Mr. Crane. I think I met Mr. Brown one time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know of Mr. Frank Brown's interest in the 
Dearborn Insurance Agency ? 

Mr. Crane. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you familiar with this letter of February 2, 
1951, which encloses a copy of the minutes of the 9th of June of 1950, 
which lists as the board of directors of the Dearborn Insurance 
Agency, Harland Maris, Frank Brown, and Elmer Crane? 

Mr. Crane. The first I ever heard of that was yesterday. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you are learning things here; is that right? 

Mr. Crane, Quite a bit. 

Mr. Kennedy. About the Dearborn Insurance Agency in wliich you 
had an interest. 



17960 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Crane. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. How could all these things be going on without 
anybody in the insurance agency knowing anything about them ? 

Mr. Crane. Well, Mr. Maris didn't spend much time with me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know where the stock certificate book is ? 

Mr. Crane. I never saw it. I had two certificates. I turned those 
over to the committee. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know where the stock certificate book is ? 

Mr. Crane. No, I haven't the slightest idea. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know where the stock certificate book is, Mr. 
Murray ? 

Mr. Murray. I do not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever see the stock certificate book ? 

Mr. Murray. Well, I must have seen it, because there was stock 
in it. Or whether the stock was in a book or not, I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever see it ? 

Mr. Murray. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't know where it is now ? 

Mr. Murray. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could I call a member of the staff ? 

Senator Capehart. How long has the corporation been dissolved? 

Mr. Crane. It was dissolved on May 31, 1952. 

Senator Capehart. Is that the corporation whose stock certificate 
book you are talking about ? 

Mr. Crane. Apparently, if that is what they are referring to. 

Senator Capehart. Since May 1952 this company has been a 
partnership ? 

Mr. Crane. That is right, sir. 

Senator Capehart. And the same partnei^s are the ones who were 
formerly stockholders ? 

Mr. Crane. No. The original stockholders were Maris, Keenan, 
Creitz, Murray, and Crane. 

Senator Capehart. Who are the partners at the moment ? 

Mr. Crane. Before we dissolved the corporation, Keenan got out of 
the corporation. Then when we formed a partnership it was Maris, 
Murray, Creitz, and Crane. 

Senator Capehart. What percentage did each own of the partner- 
ship ? The same as their stock holdings ? 

Mr. Crane. No. It was then 22 percent each for IMurray, Creitz, 
and Crane ; 34 percent for Maris. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Crane, from the correspondence that was intro- 
duced yesterday, it would indicate that Mr. Maris at least considered 
you as the contact with Mr. Blakely. Did you know Mr. Blakely 
well? 

Mr. Crane. I know Mr. Blakely. I don't know what you mean by 
"well." 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, did you see him frequently in connection with 
obtaining this insurance business? 

Mr. Crane. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you talk to him about it ? 

Mr. Crane. No, Vacey is the one I knew. I knew Frank Vacey. 

Mr. Kennedy. Also Mr. Blakely ? 

Mr. Crane. I knew him, but not very well. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17961 

Mr. Kennedy. I refer to the letter of April 4, 1949, which has been 
introduced in the record and then April 8, 1949 : 

Youngblood and I had lunch today. They have a meeting next Thursday and 
will then have a full reiwrt. This other agent Begley is still in the picture but 
Youngblood indicated Elmer's friend Blakely told him we were the right party. 

Mr. Crane. May I see that ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

( The document was handed to the witness. ) 

Mr. Kennedy. That is exhibit Xo. 22-C. Did you see that ? It 
speaks of "Elmer's friend Bhikely," and I presmne he is referring 
to you when he says "Elmer." 

Mr. Crane. That is true, and I was a friend of Mr. Blakely. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you the contact to try to get the insurance 
from the Hotel and Restaurant Workers Union ? 

Mr. Crane. Originally with Mr. Vacey. 

Mr. Kennedy. And later with Mr. Blakely ? 

Mr. Crane. It had to clear through Mr. Blakely, I think. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never knew that Mr. Blakely had any interest 
in this company ? 

Mr. Crane. What is that ? 

Mr. Kennedy. You never knew that Mr. Blakely had any interest 
in this company ? 

Mr. Crane. I don't even know now that he has, as far as I know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever know that Mr. Blakely had any 
interest in this company ? 

Mr. Crane, No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He never mentioned that to you ? 

Mr. Crane. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were his friend, and contacted him, and you 
stated that, that you were his friend, and he never mentioned that to 
you at all ? 

Mr. Crane. Now, I don't know how you qualify friendship in this 
particular instance here. I think I may have had a drink with him 
once or twice, but never had a lunch or dinner and never been to 
his home. 

Mr. Kennedy. He never mentioned the fact that he had some 20 
shares in this company, Dearborn Insurance Agency ? 

Mr. Crane. Never. 

Mr. Kennedy. May I call Mr. Balaban ? 

Senator Mundt. Before you leave, do you know Mr. Glimco ? 

Mr. Crane. The first time I saw Mr. Glimco in my life was at 25 
minutes to 3 when he came up here to testify. 

Senator Mundt. Do you know Laverne Murray ? 

Mr. Crane. No. 

Senator Mundt. Did vou vote to give her a Christmas bonus of 
$500? 

Mr. Crane. I didn't give anybody a Christmas bonus. I under- 
stand Dearborn gave her a $500 Christmas check. 

Senator Mundt. Who is that ? 

Mr. Crane. Dearborn Insurance Agency gave her a $500 Christmas 
check. 

Senator Mundt. Were you interested in Dearborn Insurance 
Agency ? 



17962 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Crane. I still am. I have been since its inception. 

Senator Mundt. You still are ? 

Mr. Crane. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. You were a director, were you not ? 

Mr. Crane. I don't remember, and I don't know if I was a director 
or not. 

Senator Mundt. You were a director at one time, and at one time 
secretary. 

Mr. Crane. I was secretary for 30 or 60 days, the first 30 or 60 
days we were organizing. 

Senator Mundt. You resigned that job, then, as secretary? 

Mr. Crane. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. Why? 

Mr. Crane. I think at that time Maris wanted Mr. Murray to be 
the secretary. They were on the bank account and I was never on 
the bank account. 

Senator Mundt. Is that what they were going to do, put you in 
your place, and get you out of that secretary's job? 

Mr. Crane. Let me see the date on that. 

Senator Mundt. They backdated the minutes quite a bit. 

Mr. Crane. This January 10, 1951, letter, where he was going to 
^'put Brother Crane in his place," I think it is your exhibit No. 27, 
is dated January 10, 1951. 

Senator Mundt. That is right. 

Mr. Crane. And I think we incorporated in about March of 1949, 
and I was no longer secretary in June of 1949, someplace between 
March and June. 

Senator Mundt. You resigned in June of 1949 ? 

Mr. Crane. I beg your pardon ? 

Senator Mundt. You resigned in June of 1949 ? 

Mr. Crane. It could have been April or May. 

Senator Mundt. But you are sure you resigned in 1949? 

Mr. Crane. Yes, and I don't know. I think that I did. Mr. Mur- 
ray signed tlie stock certificates in June of 1949 as secretary. 

Senator Mundt. I have before me a copy of minutes of the special 
meeting of the board of directors of Dearborn Insurance Agency, Inc., 
and it says the written resignation of Elmer Crane as secretary and a 
director of the corporation was presented and on motion duly made 
John W. Murray was nominated for the office of director to take your 
place. 

Mr. Crane. Wliat is the date of that. Senator ? 

Senator Mundt. This is held on the 9th day of June 1950, about a 
year after you had resigned. 

Mr. Crane. I don't recall that. 

The Chairman. You are just confused about the year. It was 1950 
you resigned instead of 1949; isn't that correct? 

Mr. Crane. I don't know. I can tell better if I saw the stock 
certificate. 

Senator Mundt. You said you resigned in 1949. 

Mr. Crane. Well, it may have been 1950. You are going back 10 
years, and I don't remember what year it was. If I saw the stock cer- 
<^ificates, it would help. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17963 

Senator Mundt. The minutes seem to be backdated a little bit, but 
even so they didn't backdate them to 1949. 

Mr. Crane. I didn't prepare the minutes. 

Senator Mundt. You think now you resigned in 1950 ? 

Mr. Crane. I would have to look at the stock certificates. Do you 
have both of them there ? 

(The documents Avere handed to tlie witness.) 

Mr. Crane. Yes, it was 1950 rather than 1949. 

Senator IMundt. Mr. Murray, did you vote for the Christmas 
bonus for Laveme Murray ? 

Mr. ]\Iurray. Senator, I had a telephone call from Mr. Creitz and he 
seemed to think that this lady was doing a good service and he wanted 
to give her $500, and I think that was the figure that he had. He 
seemed to think that she was giving such tremendous service to the 
bookkeeping that he thought siie should get $500, and I guess we all 
of us agreed that he knew them and he was running that. 

Senator Mundt. Did he also tell you that Mr. Glimco had talked 
to him about her? 

Mr. Murray. I don't believe so, but I don't remember. 

Senator Mundt. Did Mr. Glimco ever talk to you about it ? 

Mr. INIuRRAY. I don't know Mr. Glimco, no, sir, and I have never 
talked to Mr. Glimco. 

Senator Mundt. It is entirely possible that Mr. Creitz might have 
said that Mr. Glimco had talked to him about it ? 

Mr. Murray. That could have been. 

Senator Mundt. So you voted for it on the basis of the recom- 
mendation you got from Mr. Creitz ? 

Mr. Murray. I did, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Balaban. 

The Chairman. You have been previously sworn in this hearing? 

Mr. Balaban. Yes, sir ; I have. 

TESTIMONY OF JACK S. BALABAN— Resumed 

Mr. ICennedy. Do the records indicate, Mr. Balaban, that Mr. 
Blakely, at least for some period of time, owned some stock in the 
Dearborn Insurance Agency ? 

Mr. Balaban. They do indicate so. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now they indicate so by the fact that he sold the 
stock and we have some documentation on the fact that he sold the 
stock at one period of time. 

Mr. Balaban. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you relate to the committee what happened ? 

Mr. Balaban. We have a photostatic copy of a check, dated July 
24, 1951, drawn on the Central Bank on the account of Mr. Ilarland 
R. Maris in the amount of $200, and it is made payable to James 
Blakely. 

Now on the stub for this check there is the following notation. It 
is dated January 24, 1951, payable to James Blakely, $200, No. 10 
North Wells Street, Chicago, Dearborn Insurance Agency stock. 

Mr. Kennedy. It would indicate that at least he sold the stock in 
1951 back to the Dearborn Insurance Agency at its par value. 

Mr. Balaban. That is correct; either that or to Mr. Harland R. 
Maris. 



17964 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN W. MURRAY AND ELMER CRANE— Resumed 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Did you know anything about that, Mr. Crane ? 

Mr. Crane. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't make those arrangements ? 

Mr. Crane. No. This is the first I heard of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. It would indicate from the correspondence that 
those arrangements had been made with you, that you were handling 
the hotel and restaurant workers. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 38" for reference 
and will be found in the appendix on p. 18094.) 

Mr. Crane. I don't know what you are referring to. 

Mr. Ivennedy. The postscript on the letter of January 10. 

Mr. Crane. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy (reading) : 

Did Crane ever pay for the 200 shares of stock for the hotel people? If not, 
don't mention it to him as I want to bring it out in the meeting that that is the 
only stock not paid for. I believe that Allen knows that Vacey paid him for it. 

Mr. Blakely was part of the hotel people. 

Mr. Crane. That is right. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. It would indicate from that correspondence that you 
were aware of the fact that they were obtaining some stock. 

Mr. Crane. I wasn't. I wasn't until just now. I never knew of the 
existence of this check. 

Mr. Kennedy. All right. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Senator Capehart. I will just say this check was drawn on a Cali- 
fornia bank, Harland R. Maris, for $200, and there is a notation which 
says on the stub "Dearborn Insurance Agency," but I find no indica- 
tion that this is in payment of stock. I think the Dearborn Insurance 
Agency is mentioned here, it is going to be charged to the Dearborn 
Insurance Agency for some sort, of expense item. The check is made 
out by Harland R. Maris. 

Mr. Crane. Was it a Dearborn Insurance iVgency check ? 

Senator Capehart, It is a Maris check for $200. 

Mr. Crane. Issued to Blakely. 

Senator Capehart. And it says : "Paid to James Blakely, 10 North 
Wells, Dearborn Insurance Agency, stock." It looks like "Dearborn 
Insurance Agency stock." It says, "Deposited 7-26-57." You have 
never seen this and you know nothing about it ? 

Mr. Crane. It is the fii"st I ever heard of it. 

Senator Capehart. I presume Mr. Maris ought to be able to 
straighten this out. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Murray, can you explain and then I will ask Mr. 
Crane. When the details of this arrangement were so specifically set 
out in all of this correspondence, how is it that nobody seems to be 
able to explain it, those who were involved ? 

Mr. Murray. I don't know, 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you explain that, Mr. Crane ? 

Mr. Crank. I can't make any conjecture. All I know is that there 
were five original stoc-khoklers and there became four and then it was 
dissolved in 1952. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17965 

Mr. Kennedy. There is discussion about secret owners, how to hide 
the ownership of the stock. 

Mr. CRi\.NE. It was never discussed with me. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. It is specificiillv mentioned here about the fact that 
you knew about the Hotel and Restaurant people stock. Why would 
he be putting all of this in coiTespondence and writing to you all 
letters setting forth the details of it, and then you all appear before 
the committee and nobody can explain it ? It doesn't make much sense. 

Mr. Crane. I was never supposed to see that. 

Mr. Kennedy. But it says you were to handle this aspect of it, and 
we find that Mr. Blakel}^ did in fact receive some of the stock. 

Mr. Crane. This is the first I have heard of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Maris. 

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 i 

Mr. Maris. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF HAKLAND E. MARIS, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
F. JOSEPH DONOHUE 

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

Mr. Maris. My name is Harland R. Maris, M-a-r-i-s. I live in 
Piedmont., Calif. 

The Chairman. All right. What is your business or occupation, 
Mr. Maris ? 

Mr. IMaris. I am in the insurance business. 

The Chairman. The insurance business ? 

Mr. Maris. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Maris, you have counsel. Counsel, will you 
identify yourself for the record, please ? 

Mr. DoNOHUE. My name is F. Joseph Donohue. I am an attorney 
at law, my office is at 503 D Street NW., in Washington, D.C., and I 
appear as counsel for the witness, Mr. Harland Maris. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

All right, pixx^eed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, before I start asking this witness 
some questions, we had subpenaed Mr. Frank Keenan to appear before 
the committee. He wrote a letter to the committee about the fact that 
he is in some tax difficulty. He wrote that he has been convicted of 
income tax evasion and that it is now being considered by a higher 
court. He felt it would be unfair to have him appear at this very 
time. 

The Chairman. Would these matters be involved in it ? 

Mr. Kennedy. It is possible that some of these matters would be 
involved in it ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. In other words, he was subpenaed ? 

Mr. Kennedy. He was subpenaed. 

36751.— 59 — pt. 49 18 



17966 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Have you checked his statement with respect to his 
tax difficulties? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes ; we have. It is on appeal to a higher court and 
being considered at the present time. So he has been excused at least 
for the present time from appearing; his appearance was postponed. 

Then we have Mr. James Blakely, who is an international vice presi- 
dent of the Hotel and Restaurant Workers Union, whom we have been 
trying to get to appear before the committee for almost a year now. 
He is still ill, so he cannot appear. 

The Chairman. Have we satisfactory evidence of his illness ? 

Mr. Kennedy. We do. 

The Chairman. Or of his inability to appear on that accoimt? 

Mr. Kennedy. We do. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then we have Mr. Frank Brown, who is the presi- 
dent of the union and one of the four individuals who we believe 
obtained an interest in the Dearborn Insurance Agency, in which the 
letters and the correspondence indicated he had an interest. He has 
presented a doctor's certificate to the committee that he is also too 
ill to testify. 

The Chairman. We have a doctor's certificate, which appears to be 
signed by Dr. Samuel Klein, with respect to Mr. Brown. This cer- 
tificate may be printed in the record at this point. 

If that is correct, I do not know whether he will ever feel either 
disposed or be able to appear before the committee. We may have to 
finally close the record without him. 

(The certificate referred to follows :) 

JoLiET, III. 
To Whom It May Concern: 

Attention : Robert Kennedy, Chief Counsel, I have been asked to write to 
you regarding a patient, Mr. Franli Brown, of New Lenox, 111. 

Mr. Brown has been under my care since August 2, 1958. 

He is suffering from arteriosclerotic heart disease and diabetes mellitus. Mr. 
Brown also suffered a cerebral hemorrhage in 1956, which is still manifested 
by weakness of the left arm and hand. 

In 1951 Mr. Brown suffered a coronary heart attack. 

I deem it a risk to Mr. Brown's health to be subjected to the stress accom- 
panying the trip, and the subsequent questioning before your committee. 
Very truly yours, 

Samuel Klein. M.D. 

The Chairman. The other document with respect to Mr. Keenan, 
with respect to his tax problems, when do you anticipate they will be 
settled ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Within the near future, Mr. Chairman. I do not 
know what the result of the court case will be or whether he will then 
appeal it if he loses it. It is difficult to tell. 

The Chairman. Who is the other one who is ill ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Blakely. 

The Chairman. Do we have a certificate regarding liim ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is already in the record. 

The Chairman. Very well. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Maris, what we have here is this correspondence 
and these memorandums written by you and by others in connection 
with the Dearborn Insurance Agency, which would indicate that 
four individuals — Mr. Blakely, Mr. Vacey, Mr. O'Brien, and ]Mr. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 17967 

Brown — had an interest in the Dearborn Insurance Agency, and that 
jou were explaining how the Dearborn Insurance Agency was operat- 
ing. It would appear that these individuals had an interest with 
your fellow officers and fellow stockholders in keeping them closely 
advised. 

But they have appeared before the committee and say that they 
have no explanation for the letters. It is not that tliey refute them, 
but they say they have no explanation. They keep referring us to 
them, saying, ''Mr. Maris will have to explain it," that it is a complete 
mystery. 

They say even when they received the letters, although it was a 
mystery at the time, they did not raise any question about the secret 
ownership and other things. So it all comes down to you. 

I would like if you would explain to the committee the situation 
involving the Dearborn Insurance Agency and whether, in fact, any 
union officials were brought in and given an interest. 

Would you tell the committee about that ? 

Mr. M^vRis. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. The correspondence and the memoranda indicate, 
Mr. Maris, that this was to be a silent ownership, that it was to be 
handled quietly so that nobody would be aware of it. 

Could you explain why it was to be handled in that fashion ? 

Mr. Maris. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have to make these arrangements in order 
to obtain the insurance from Local 703, Local 710, Local 593 of the 
Hotel and Restaurant Workers Union, Local 777 of the Teamsters? 

Mr. Maris. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that why you were able to obtain such an un- 
usually high brokerage rate, because of the fact that you had to take 
care of these union officials ? 

Mr. Maris. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. Are you now or have you ever been an under- 
writer or broker for the Occidental Life Insurance Co.? You can- 
not incriminate yourself with that unless your dealings with Occi- 
dental were criminal or unless the Occidental Life Insurance Co. 
itself is involved in criminal activities. 

, Mr. Maris. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. Can you give us any explanation of how your 
association with the Occidental Life Co. can be self-incriminatory? 

Mr. Maris. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. May I ask, for the information of all of us, this 
question: As I understand it, this Dearborn Co. still handles the 
insurance, does it ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. 

The Chairman. And Mr. Maris is still a part of this Dearborn Co., 
in the partnership ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 



17968 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. Do they still have their connections with Occi- 
dental ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Sometimes we get these crooks in here, these hood- 
lums and racketeers, that element that we call the underworld char- 
acters, taking the fifth amendment when they get involved with some 
labor union. I just want to see what the business interests of this 
country will do, how they will handle their business with these folks 
who have to come in here and take the fifth amendment and cannot 
talk about their business affairs. 

I just want to emphasize it and call it to the attention of the Occi- 
dental Life Insurance Co., that they are doing business with some- 
body who cannot come in here and open up and tell what he knows 
about transactions that may have involved a conspiracy with union 
leaders to help operate to the detriment of people who work and pay 
union dues. 

I just want to see what this company's attitude will be about it. 

Senator Mundt. It would be rather interesting in that connection, 
Mr. Chairman. If it does develop in testimonj^ from the officials of 
the Occidental Life that they are doing business with this outfit, 
whether or not they are going to continue to engage in the life insur- 
ance business through representatives who take the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. That is what I was trying to emphasize. 

Senator Mundt. It is about time responsible citizens, it seems to 
me, get rid of characters who take the fifth amendment concerning 
their activities. 

The Chairman. I expressed my views a little about it when these, 
I repeat, underworld characters come in and take the fifth amend- 
ment. I just cannot feel any differently toward business interests. 
If they feel they have to do it, I feel their actions are just as repre- 
hensible as the fellow we call a racketeer or a gangster. 

Senator Mundt. Are you able to state under oath, Mr. Maris, that 
you have been conducting a respectable and responsible insurance 
business, or have you been in a racket ? 

This gives you a chance to get yourself on the record fairly and 
honestly and openly. We don't want to misjudge you. I ask you 
that question directly under oath. 

( The witness conferred with, his counsel. ) 

Mr. IVIaris. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. You realize the implication of that must be, to the 
press, to the good people of Piedmont, and in Chicago, that you are 
in a racket, if you can't answer a question like that. I am giving 
you a chance to purge yourself of false implications. 

I don't know what you are involved in, but if you ai"e a legitimate 
businessman, you can say yes to that, even though you take the fifth 
amendment on the details of your business. 

I will ask you that again: Have you been engaged in a legitimate 
business or have you been engaged in a racket disguised as an insurance 
business? 

Mr. Maris. T respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. O.K. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17969 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to refer to the letter of January 10, 1951, 
whicli rather summarizes the situation, or would appear to. It is a 
letter written by you. 

I appreciate your staying over for this matter and only wish that Frank 
were there, too, but we can take plenty of time on the phone so he understands 
it and I know that Brown and O'Brien will. I then propose to have the open 
meeting, present the statement, answer questions, and once and for all, even 
if I have to have help from the Teamsters and you, put Brother Crane in his 
place forever. Let us pray. As you know, it was no simple job to get the in- 
.surance compjiny up from 4 percent first year commission and 2 percent renewal 
commission to 10 percent first year commission and 4 percent peri>etual renewal. 
I can tell you simply that there is not a contract like it in America. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. Maris. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground my answer might tend to incriminate me. 
Mr. Kennedy. Then you go on to say : 

I never sent Mrs. Tookey any flowers as one of our stockholders did. 

Who is Mrs. Tookey? 

Mr. Maris. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground my answer might tend to incriminate me. 
Mr. Kennedy (reading) : 

For your information, and I will reveal it to the entire group, every dollar's 
worth of Dave Beck's Teamsters business for the 11 Western States is written 
in Occidental and the commission scale is 4 percent first year and 2 percent 
renewal. Therefore, we must impress uix)n our stockholders that in order 
to keep the contracts running as they are, they must work closely with their 
trustees in order to justify the additional expense items at the end of the year 
when the accounting is done on each of these several deals. In other words, 
John, if the hotel association or the Teamsters' employer group should even 
intimate that other companies can do this job for a lower retention figure, 
they have got to go to bat for us. Once again, in this type of business, when 
you are working as a corporation, there is only one profitable method of doing 
business and that is to write deals that are controlled without bids. 

Is that correct, Mr. Maris? 

Mr. Maris. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground my answer might tend to incriminate me. 
Mr. Kennedy (reading) : 

Then it is possible for the company to get enough premimn to do the job and, 
inasmuch as commissions are built upon percentage of premium, obviously 
the higher premium we get, the higher commission we get, even though we 
return a higher dividend. 

Can you explain that? 

Mr. Maris. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then we have the letter of February 2, 1951, written 
by you, on the procedure that you are going to use : 

There are 40 shares of stock issued to two trust numbers in the La Salle Na- 
tional Bank never completed. 

Then you set out : 

Send the two 20-share certificates to me and we will cancel them. Then we will 
issue, say, four 10-share certificates to L. W. Wrixon, who in turn will endorse 
them, making them free stock as you, suggested and immediately mail them to 
the proper individuals. 

Who were they to go to ? Who were the "proper individuals" ? 



17970 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Maris. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that Mr. Blakely, Mr. Vacey, Mr. O'Brien, and 
Mr. Brown? 

Mr. Maris. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy (reading) : 

When dividends are paid, they will, of course, be paid to L. W. Wrixon. He in 
turn will endorse the checks, forward them to the proper people and notify the 
Treasury Department that he has acted as attorney for the individuals and give 
the Treasury Department the amount of the dividends upon which tax should 
be paid by the actual owners of the stock. 

Who were the actual owners of the stocks ? 

Mr. Maris. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the- 
ground my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. There were also in this correspondence a considerable 
number of letters indicating that you were making some payouts dur- 
ing this period of 1950-51. Did any of this money go to any union 
officials ? 

Mr, Maris. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, could I call Mr. Mundie in connec- 
tion with that matter ? 

The Chairman. Come forward, Mr. Mundie. 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES F. MUNDIE— Resumed 

The Chairman. You have been sworn, have you ? 

Mr. Mundie. I have. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do we find, Mr. Mundie, from a review of the bank 
records, that Mr. Maris cashed a considerable number of checks during 
the period 1950-51 ? 

Mr. Mundie. Yes. I examined the cash receipts book of the Dear- 
born Insurance Agency, Inc., for the years 1950 to 1952. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell the committee what checks were 
turned to cash, just to cash ? There were some checks you could trace 
through. But name the checks that were turned into cash during this 
period of time. 

The Chairman. As I understand, these are checks drawn on the 
Dearborn account? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

The Chairman. And drawn by Maris? 

Mr. Mundie. And Murray. 

Tlie Chairman. Maris and Murray. And they were drawn to cash. 
In other words, the money came out of the Dearborn funds? 

Mr. Mundie. Payable to Harland R. Maris, these checks were. 

The Chairman. Payable to him and he cashed them? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed. 

Mr. Mundie. From June 12, 1950, to November 27, there were six 
checks drawn to Harland R. Maris, in tlie total amount of $20,500, 
These checks were cashed at the La Salle National Bank, Chicago, 111. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17971 

The Chairman. How much ? 

Mr. MuNDiE. $20,500. 

The Chairman. Is there anything in the records to show what this 
money went for other than for cash to him ? 

Mr. MuxDEE. They are sii])posed to be commissions to the Maris- 
Scully Corp. 

The Chairman. That is a corporation tliat he set up on his own? 

Mr. MuNDiE. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. But the money never went to Maris-Scully ? 

Mr. MuNDiE. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. You traced some money to Maris-Scully which is not 
included in that ? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is money which was supposed to go for that 
purpose, which in fact never went for that purpose ? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. What sort of checks ? 

Mr. jNIundie. On June 12 there was a check drawn in the amount 
of $2,500. On September 9 there was a check drawn in the amount 
of $4,000. On September 10 a check in the amount of $1,345. On 
September 19 there was a check drawn in the amount of $3,655. On 
October 20 there was a check in the amount of $5,000, and on Novem- 
ber 27 there was a check in the amount of $4,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. Above and beyond this, of course, he had the checks 
that he used for expenses and all the rest of them ? 

Mr. IMuNDiE. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. Did you give any of that money to Mr. Glimco ? 

TESTIMONY OF HARLAND R. MARIS, ACCOMPAITIED BY COUNSEL, 
F. JOSEPH DONOHUE— Resumed 

Mr. Maris. I beg your pardon ? 

Senator Mundt. Did you give any of that money to Mr. Glimco? 

Mr. Maris. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. How about Mr. Brown ? 

Mr. Maris. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. How about Mr. Blakely ? 

INIr. Maris. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about 1951 ? 

Mr. Mundie. In the year 1951 there was a total of seven checks, 
pavable to Harland R. Maris, in the amount of $27,800. 

the Chairman. $27,800? 

Mr. IVIuNDiE. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. This would be after the insurance had already been 
granted ? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat sort of checks were they ? 

Mr. Mundie. On March 12, 1951, a check in the amount of $11,000; 
on April 20 a check in the amount of $1,300; June 4 a check in the 
amount of $5,000; June 11, a check in the amount of $3,000; August 
28 a check in the amount of $3,000 ; August 29 a check in the amount 



17972 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

of $2,000 ; October 17 a check in the amount of $2,500. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Mimdie, did you examine Mr. Maris' personal 
income tax returns for those years ? 

Mr. MuNDiE. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. Does he show this as revenue on his income tax 
return ? 

Mr. MuNDiE. In the year 1951 ; yes. 

Senator Mundt. How about the year 1952 ? 

Mr. MuNDiE. They were reported on the Maris-Scully Corp. 

Senator Mundt. Did the money go to the Maris-Scully Corp. ? 

Mr. Mundie. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. It did not go ? 

Mr. Mundie. Unless he paid it in cash. He cashed them in Chicago. 
If he did, he took the money to California with him. 

The Chairman. Do the books show it as income to that corporation ? 

Mr. Mundie. Maris-Scully reported on their tax return in the 
amount of $30,000. On January 18, 1951, there was a deposit in the 
amount of $9,500 to the Maris-Scully Corp. 

Mr. Kennedy. But the rest of the amount never appeared ? 

Mr. Mundie. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You gave us what? The last one was 1951? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he report the amount in 1950 on his income tax ? 

Mr. Mundie. No, he did not. The Maris-Scully reported that. 

Mr. Kennedy. But the money that he took and cashed in 1950, 
which was some $20,000, did he report that as income ? 

Mr. Mundie. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have not yet put in the figures for 1952 ? 

Mr. Mundie. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why not proceed with that. 

Mr. Mundie. In the year 1952 checks were made payable to him in 
the amount of $36,140. 

The Chairman. How much ? 

Mr. Mundie. $36,140. 

The Chairman. $36,140 ? 

Mr. Mundie. Yes, sir. Of which $9,400 was cashed ; $26,740 went 
into his personal bank account in Oakland — the Bank of Commerce, 
Oakland, Calif. 

Mr. Kennedy. So the only part we are interested in in that money 
would just be the $9,000 ? 

Mr. Mundhs. $9,400. 

Mr. Kennedy. The rest you were able to trace through? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. So we are dealing with $20,00 in 1950 and $27,800 
in 1951 and $9,400 in 1952. These are checks that were cashed which 
we cannot trace. 

Mr. Mundie. That amount is $57,700. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was a great deal of other money that was 
handled by the witness during this period of time, but which we have 
been able to trace to his own bank account; is that right? 

Mr. Mundie. The grand total is $93,940, of which $57,700 was 
cashed at the La Salle National Bank in Chicago, $9,500 to the Maris- 
Scully Corp., and $26,740 deposited in his personal bank account in 
Oakland, Calif. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17973 

Senator Capehart. Was income tax paid on all of this? 

Mr. MuNDiE. Well, the income tax for the year 1950 was reported 
on the Maris-Scully Corp. 

Senator Capehart. That was the partnership, was it not? 

Mr. MuNDiE. No, sir ; that was a corporation. 

Senator Capehart. But the taxes were paid by them? 

Mr. MuNDiE. Yes, sir. 

Senator Capehart. So then the taxes were paid on all the money? 

Mr. MuNDiE. It appears that it was on the return ; yes. 

Senator Capehart. Do you have any proof as to whether anybody 
got any of the cash besides this gentleman ? 

Mr. MuNDiE. No, sir. When you cash a check, that is the end of it. 

Senator Capehart. In other words, you have no proof of what he 
got ? 

Mr. Kennedy. The only proof we have is that he got it. 

Senator Capehart. You have no proof that he gave it to anybody 
else? 

Mr. MuNDiE. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us what you did with it ? 

Mr. Maris. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
groimd my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to ask about these checks, Mr. Chair- 
man. Can we have those documents made exhibits from which Mr. 
Mundie has testified ? 

The Chairman. That group of checks may be made exhibit No. 39 
in bulk. They may be lettered according to their date. 

(Documents referred to were marked "Exliibit No. 39" for ref- 
erence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. I present to you, Mr. Maris, exhibit No. 38, a 
photostatic copy of a check, and ask you to examine it and state if you 
identify it. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Have you examined the exhibit ? 

Mr. Maris. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you identify it ? 

Mr. Maris. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Sir ? 

Mr. JVIaris. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy, the exhibit has been iden- 
tified. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you give us an explanation of that check, Mr. 
Maris? 

jVir. Maris. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. That is all. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Do you want to be of any help at all in helping to clear up this 
matter if there is anything about it that can be told witliout self- 
incrimination ? I want to give you an opportunity to do it if there is. 

Is there anything you can tell about it, about what you have been 
asked, without the possibility of self-incrimination ? 

Mr. Maris. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground my answer might tend to incriminate me. 



17974 EVIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Tlie Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

If not, stand aside. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chaddick. 

The Chairman. Mr. Chaddick. 

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. Chaddick. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF HAERY T. CHADDICK 

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

Mr. Chaddick. My name is Harry F. Chaddick. I live in Chicago, 
III. I am a consultant, and also chairman of the local 710 health 
and welfare fund. My office is at 33 North La Salle Street. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Do you waive counsel ? 

Mr. Chaddick. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chaddick, you have been on the labor negotiat- 
ing committee of the Central Motor Freight Association ? 

Mr. Chaddick. Yes, I have. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you have had an interest in a number of differ- 
ent trucking companies, have you ? 

Mr. Chaddick. Yes, I have. 

Mr. Kennedy. You formerly owned the Standard Freight Lines, 
Inc. ; is that right ? 

Mr. Chaddick. Yes. I was president of that company. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are a trustee of local 710 health and welfare 
plan? 

Mr. Chaddick. I am still a trustee. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you have been since its inception ? 

Mr. Chaddick. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chaddick, the contract that was made with the 
Occidental Insurance Co. through the Dearborn Insurance Agency — is 
that right ? 

Mr. Chaddick. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you aware of the fact that the Dearborn In- 
surance Agency and Mr. Maris were receiving the commissions at the 
rate of some 10 percent initially ? 

Mr. Chaddick. No, I was not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the Occidental Insurance Co. ever tell you of 
the fact that they had paid these high commissions to the Dearborn 
Insurance Agency, or to Mr. Maris individually ? 

Mr. Chaddick. No, sir, they did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know that a Mr. Wraith, W-r-a-i-t-h, has 
received some $100,000 in connection with this insurance? 

Mr. Chaddick. No, sir, I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did you first learn that these payments had 
been made ? 

Mr. Chaddick. I first learned of the Wraith payments in 1957, 
when there was a breakup in the Dearborn Insurance partnership. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIBS IN THE LABOR FIELD 17975 

Mr. Kennedy. Prior to that you knew nothing about it ? 

Mr. CiiADDiCK. No, sir, we did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you exercised at that time, concerned at that 
time ? 

Mr. Chaddick. Yes, I was, very much so. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you pay a visit to Occidental ? 

Mr. Chaddick. Yes. We wrote Occidental Insurance at that time 
and we asked them to give us a complete analysis of the retentions, 
taxes, administrative expense and all other items pertaining to our 
policies. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they give you that information ? 

Mr. Chaddick. No, they did not. They did not give us the Wraith 
information. 

The Chairman. You are one of the trustees, and the Occidental 
refused to give you the rates and commissions, and so forth ? 

Mr, Chaddick. Mr. Senator, what they did was they gave us a 
breakdown showing the commissions that were paid, the taxes paid in 
the State of Illinois, the Federal taxes and administrative expense. 
But they did not give us any information as to any commissions 
l)eing paid to others than Dearborn Insurance. 

The Chairman. Other than to the Dearborn agency? 

Mr. Chaddick. Yes, sir. 

Mr, Kennedy. They did not inform you that they were paying 
money directly to Maris ? 

Mr. Chaddick. No, they did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. In view of the fact that you made a trip out there — • 
you made a trip out there, did you ? 

Mr. Chaddick. No ; I did not make a trip there. 

Mr. Kennedy. In view of the fact that you had correspondence and 
inquired about this, didn't you expect that you would receive all of 
this information ? 

Mr. Chaddick. I did. In fact, we sent our auditors out to Occidental 
Insurance to get all of this information for us and to bring it back to 
the board of trustees. In his report he did not disclose any com- 
missions other than those paid to Dearborn. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did you finally learn of these other com- 
missions being paid ? 

Mr. Chaddick. Officially I learned of it today. 

Mr. Kennedy. I^p until today you hadn't know about it ? 

Mr. Chaddick. No ; I had not known it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yet you had inquired back in 1957 of Occidental to 
try to learn all the payments that had been made in connection with 
this? 

Mr. Cpiaddick. May I explain that ? 

Mr, Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Chaddick. The reason we made the injuiry at that time was 
that the partners had sent the trustees a registered letter informing 
us that there was a disagreement between the partners and Mr. Maris 
was no longer representing the agency. Our inquiry at that time 
disclosed that there was an override being paid by Occidental which 
we knew nothing of. 

And at that time we sent our auditors out to determine what the 
override was and to determine what it was charged to. 



17976 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

It now appears that it was charged to the administrative expense 
and not to the commissions as shown on the analysis. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you feel, when you made this inquii-y and sent 
your auditor out, that you should have been provided with this other 
information ? 

Mr. Chaddick. We weren't too sure, because I felt, and I believe 
the other trustees did, that these partners were squabbling among 
themselves, and we had no way of making any further investigation. 

Occidental, I don't believe, would have permitted us to examine 
their books. 

Mr. Kennedy. When you sent your auditor out, and when you made 
this inquiry, did you feel that you were obtaining the full information 
as to what was being paid by Occidental ? 

Mr. Chaddick. Yes ; we did. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was not up until today that you found out that you 
didn't receive the information ? 

Mr. Chaddick. That is correct. 

The Chairman. In that connection, do you feel that the Occidental 
played fair with you ? 

Mr. Chaddick. No ; I do not. 

The Chairman. In view of the developments, on the basis of de- 
velopments, do you think that they withheld information they should 
have given you, that you were entitled to receive ? 

Mr. Chaddick. Yes, sir ; I do. 

Senator Capehart. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Capehart.. 

Senator Capehart. Wliy did you buy the policies originally from 
Occidental ? 

Mr. Chaddick. Because we felt that Occidental had the best service 
and that they were a good, reputable company. 

Senator Capehart. Did you get the rates of other companies before 
you purchased from Occidental ? 

Mr. Chaddick. Yes, sir ; we did. 

Senator Capehart. Did they have as good a rate or better than other 
companies ? 

Mr. Chaddick. They were equal with two other companies. 

Senator Capehart. Large companies ? 

Mr. Chaddick. One large one, which was Hancock. 

Senator Capehart. Do you mean the premium rate was equal to two 
other companies ? 

Mr. Chaddick. Yes, sir. 

Senator Capehart. Was there anything m your contract with Oc- 
cidental that required them to tell you what commission they paid 
to their agents ? 

Mr. Chaddick. No, sir, there was not. 

Senator Capehart. Was that a requirement ( Did you make that 
a requirement when you bought the insurance from them? 

Mr. Chaddick. No, sir, we did not. 

Senator Capehart. As a businessman, did you feel that you were 
entitled to know how much they were paying their salesmen and their 
agents and their officers ? 

Mr. Chaddick. Senator, if I knew then what I know now, I most 
certainly would have insisted that it be written into the contract. 

Senator Capehart. \ see. But you didn't at the time know ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17977 

Mr. Chaddick. No, we did not. 

Senator Capehart. Was there any particular reason why they 
should give you this information ? 

Mr. Chaddick. At that time ? 

Senator Capehart. Yes. 

Mr. Ch.vddick. I think in view of the fact that we were all novices 
at this type of business, I think we should have been fully informed 
as to the application of rates and the breakdown of expenses to be 
applied to our accounts. Of course 

Senator Capehart. You feel, then, that the insurance company 
should tell their policyholders exactly how much commission they pay 
to their salesmen and their agents, and how much profit they make, 
and all their expenses? I am talking to you now as a businessman. 

Mr. Chaddick. Well Senator, I certainly can't say that about all 
policyholders of an insurance company. But in this instance, we at 
the present time pay premiums of approximately $1 million a year. 

Senator Capehart. How many employees does that cover? 

Mr. Ch^vddick. That covers about 11,000. 

Senator Capehart. About 11,000? 

Mr. Chaddick. Yes, sir. 

Senator Capehart. But you do have the right at the end of every 
year, if you wish to do so, to place the business with some other com- 
pany ? 

Mr. Chaddick. Yes, sir, we do. We have just a 1-year contract, 
from year to year. 

Senator Capehart. Who is the other employer representative on 
the board ? Are there four trustees ? 

Mr. Chaddick. No, sir, six; three employers and three from the 
union. 

Senator Capehart. Who are the other two employers ? 

Mr. Chaddick. Mr. Barney Kusliman, Kushinan Motor Delivery, 
and Mr. Roy Pride, secretary of the labor division of Central Motor 
Freight Association. 

Senator Capehart. And yourself ? 

Mr. Chaddick. And myself. 

Senator Capehart. Who are the union representatives? 

Mr. Chaddick. Mr. Frank Keegan, Mr. Jolm C. O'Brien, and Mr. 
Frank Smith. 

Senator Capehart. Who is Keegan ? 

Mr. Chaddick. He is the business agent of local 710. 

Senator Capehart. You six gentlemen bought this Occidental In- 
surance ? 

Mr. Chaddick. We were not the trustees. Originally — there have 
been substitutions in the past 10 years. 

Senator Capehart. But the six trustees do buy the insurance? 

Mr. Chaddick. Yes, sir ; that is correct. 

Senator Capehart. That is for the 11,000 employees ? 

Mr. Chaddick. That is correct. 

Senator Capehart. And the Occidental Co. has had it from the 
very beginning? 

Mr. Chaddick. That is correct. 

Senator Capehart. And these commissions that we are talking about 
were back in 1950 and 1951 ? 

Mr. Chaddick. Well, they started back in 1950. 



17978 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Capehart. Were you a trustee then ? 

Mr. CiiADDicK, Yes, sir ; I was. 

Senator Capehart. You have been a trustee right straight through? 

Mr. Chaddick. Yes, sir. 

Senator Capehart. And you feel as a businessman that you are en- 
titled to know the rate of commissions of the concern that sells you 
something, that it pays its salesmen ? 

Mr. Chaddick. Senator, Occidental has been giving us this informa- 
tion now for the past 6 or 7 years. 

Senator Capehart. Voluntarily giving it to you ? 

Mr. Chaddick. Yes, sir; with the exception that they did not 

Senator Capehart. In all fairness, this commission that was paid 
in California was charged to administration. Is that your under- 
standing? 

Mr. Chaddick. No. It is my understanding. Senator, they do give 
us a breakdown each year. We negotiate for each of the specific items, 
commission, taxes, administration, and so forth. 

Senator Capehart. You do that in order to get a reduced premium? 

Mr. Chaddick. Yes, sir; we do. 

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

Senator Capehart. Have you had reduced premiums from time to 
time? 

Mr. Chaddick. No; we have had no reduced premiums. We have 
been very lucky in keeping the premium the same for the past 10 years. 

Senator Capehart. In other words, Occidental's rate has been low ; 
is that it? 

Mr. Chaddick. Yes, sir. 

Senator Capehart. You consider the rate they have been charging 
you has been low in comparison to what other insurance companies 
would have charged you ? 

Mr. Chaddick. Yes, sir ; I am very satisfied with the rate. 

Senator Capehart, What is the complaint against Occidental, then? 

Mr. Chaddick. Senator, I have no complaint against Occidental 
other than in the analysis that is presented to us each year they show 
one-half of 1 percent commissions. If there were any commissions 
paid to this man Wraith, it was paid from some other item, other than 
the commissions shown on the statement. 

(At this point Senator Mundt returned to the hearing room.) 

Senator Capehart. And the company maintains it as administrative 
expense ? 

Mr. Chaddick. I believe so. I am not sure. 

Senator Capehart. But you are satisfied with the premium rate that 
Occidental gives you ? 

Mr. Chaddick. Yes, sir. 

Senator Capehart. And the service they give you ? 

Mr. Chaddick. Yes, sir. 

Senator Capehart. And you continue to do business with them 
regularly? 

Mr. Chaddick. Yes, sir, we do. Our experience has been fine with 
them. 

Senator Capehart. Were you ever conscious that union ofiit-ials were 
part owners, if they were — I am not saying they were, because I don't 
know — of this insurance company in Chicago ? 



IMPROPER ACTniTIE.S IN THE LABOR FIELD 17979 

Mr. CiiADDiCK. No, sir, I never was conscious of it. 

Senator Capehart. Do you tliink they are or ever were owners, 
you beino^ one of the trustees associatin"; with them ? 

Mr. CiiADDicK. Senator, the best I can say is I would very much 
not like to believe that that is true. 

Senator Capehart. But you have no way of knowing whether it 
is or is not ? 

Mr. Chaddick. Xo, sir, I do not. 

Senator Mundt. In view of what you just told Senator Capehart, 
Mr. Chaddick, I want to ask you a couple of questions about a letter 
that Mr. Allen Creitz wrote to Mr. Maris on April 12, 1->'^1, in which 
he rather freely interprets your point of view and position. Among 
other things, he said : 

Harry Chaddick was quite put out that he had not received the correct 
figures to begin with. 

That was after you had contacted Roy Pride, secretary of the 
association, to get some experience figures on this policy; is that 
correct ? 

At that time, were vou quite put out about something? This is 
1951. 

Mr. Chaddick. At that time — I saw that letter. That is, I just 
saw it today. I am not able to reconcile those figures. They seem 
awfully high to me. However, at that particular time I was dis- 
turbed because it was the first time that he had had an opportunity 
of analyzing our experience. Actually, knowing what had been paid 
out and what the premiums were that had been paid into Occidental. 
As I said before, they never did give us an analysis of the account. 
They had reserves set up and we didn't loiow what the commissions 
were, and I was quite disturbed when I found out that they had paid 
out only approximatel}^ 53 percent of the premiums that had been 
paid in for the year 1950. 

Senator Mundt. Of course, I think I would agree with Senator 
Capehart, that once you make a contract with an insurance company, 
as a policyholder the insurance company does not necessarily have 
to tell you about the interworkings of the company, how much com- 
missions they paid, and to whom. 

You presumably exercised due diligence before you made the con- 
tract. You found the rate was competitive at that time. 

Certainly they are not compelled to report to every policyholder 
how they handle their agency operations. 

It does say here that Frank Brown wants you, Mr. Maris, to see 
him before you, Mr. Maris, give Chaddick any information. Then 
it says — 

Frank Brown is definitely not interested in a reduced premium even though 
Harry Chaddick is. 

At that time, apparently, you wanted a reduced premium. 

Mr. Chaddick. Yes, sir, I did. 

Senator Mundt. Was there anything in your contract with Occi- 
dental which provided a deescalator clause in the event they made 
more profit than they thought they were going to ? 

Mr. Chaddick. Senator, all I say is that as a trustee I felt it was 
my responsibility to get the very lowest cost for the administration of 



17980 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

the funds. If we could not get a reduction in the rate from Occiden- 
tal at that time we, of course, had the right of cancellation at the end 
of the year. 

Senator Mundt. Did you get a reduction in the premium ? 

Mr. Chaddick. No, we did not, but we did finally get an agreement 
with them that was on a retrospective basis, where there is no ques- 
tion about it now. We have a fair and equitable distribution of the 
premiums in relationship to the claims. 

Senator Mundt. In other words, you have a contract now that 
takes into consideration the experience they have with your particu- 
lar people? 

Mr. Chaddiok. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. So if you have a good experience rating, you get 
a lower rate and with a bad experience rating you would get a higher 
rate? 

Mr. Chaddick. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. When did you get that revision of the contract ? 

Mr. Chaddick. I am not sure. Senator, but I believe it was in 1954. 

Senator Mundt. 1954? 

Mr. Chaddick. 1953 or 1954. 

Senator Mundt. Did that provision grow out of these protests or 
this manifestation of curiosity which you evidenced back there in 
1951 ? 

Mr. Chaddick. I believe they did. 

Senator Capehart. I have one question. 

This letter of April 12, 1951, from Creitz to Maris, has premiums 
of $1,552,372, and claims paid. Was that the letter you are referring 
to? 

Mr. Chaddick. Yes, sir ; I believe it is. 

Senator Capehart. Does that have to do with Occidental or is that 
some other company ? 

Mr. Chaddick. No, that is Occidental. 

Senator Capehart. Does that have to do with your policy ? 

Mr. Chaddick. As I said a moment ago. Senator, I am not in agree- 
ment with those figures. The figures I cannot reconcile. 

Senator Capehart. In other words, the premiums for 13 months 
were $1,552,000. You said a minute ago the premiums were about a 
million a year. 

Mr. Chaddick. They are a million a year now. Senator. At that 
time we only covered the employees. Now we cover the dependents. 

Senator Capehart. What is it you don't quite understand about 
this? 

Mr. Chaddick. I don't agree with the million and a half. We 
could not have paid that much in premiums. That is exaggerating. 

Senator Capehart. So these figures then, are of very little value? 

Mr. Chaddick. They are of vei-y little value ; yes, sir. 

Senator Capehart. But it was Occidental Insurance Co. they are 
talking about? 

Mr. Chaddick. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. The percentage is approximately the same, that 
Occidental was keeping the 52 percent ? 

Mr. Chaddick. Yes, sir. The percentages in the letter are sub- 
stantially correct in relationship to the premium. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIBS IN THE LABOR FIELD 17981 

Mr. Kennedy. But the figures are not correct. 

Senator Capehart. Why would the percentage be right if the 
amounts are wrong ? 

Mr. Chaddick. Senator, after I had been permitted to see that 
letter, I decided to call Chicago and check on the premiums that 
had been paid and the losses that occurred in those years. The per- 
centages come to just about the same. 

Senator Capeiiart. In other words, you verified them ? 

Mr. Chaddick. Yes, sir. 

Senator Capeiiart. But in spite of this, you say that the Occiden- 
tal's rates were competitive and lower than a couple of other com- 
panies ? 

Mr. Chaddick. Yes, they were. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Creitz told me, and Mr. Dandy, I think, will 
also state, that it was their understanding that these figures applied 
to Allen Dorfman's company, the Union Insurance Co. 

What would you say about that ? 

Mr. Chaddick. I would say it was impossible. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Is that because Mr. Creitz had approached you 
about getting some figures ? Is that correct ? 

Mr. Chaddick. No, Mr. Creitz did not talk to me about getting the 
figures. I had called Creitz in and attempted to get the figures from 
Occidental. And not being able to get them, I told him I would get 
my own figures, wliich I did, and I submitted figures to Creitz. But 
those figures certainly don't tie in with the ones that I had submitted 
to him. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you say that the letter in general refers to Occi- 
dental rather than Union Casualty ? 

Mr. Chaddick. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. The Occidental Insurance Co. has the feeling that 
it refers to the Union Casualty Co. 

Mr. Chaddick. No, sir. I had nothing to do with Union Casualty 
whatsoever. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Creitz said it was in connection with a conver- 
sation that he had with you that he obtained these figures. 

Mr. Chaddick. No. I am sorry, he is wrong. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. The problem, as far as the Occidental Insurance 
Co., is that you started to make a study back in, what, 1951? And 
then again in 1955, or 1957, did you say ? 

Mr. Chaddick. We started in 1951 and then we made them con- 
tinuously each year from then on. 

Mr. Kennedy. You tried to find out what they were paying as far 
as conmiissions were concerned ? 

Mr. Chaddick. Yes, we did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you had not, up imtil today, obtained the cor- 
rect figures ? Is that right ? 

Mr. Chaddick. That is correct. I did not know there was any 
commission paid to anybody other than Dearborn until today. 

Mr. Ivennedy. So the complaint on the Occidental Insurance Co. 
is not so much the fact that they did not provide proper service, and 
that it is not generally a good insurance policy, but rather that they 
were deceitful in their providing of information to you ? 

36751— 59— pt. 49 19 



17982 IMPROPER ACTIVITTES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Chaddick. Well, of course, I don't know how they rim their 
business, or whether these expenses are administrative expenses or 
should have been included in the commission expenses. But they 
didn't give them to us in the proper column where they rightfully 
belong, 

Mr. Kennedy. Certainly up to 1955 or 1956 they had not informed 
you that they were making these other payments to Mr. Maris at all ? 

Mr. Chaddick. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. In connection with that, I would like to call Mr. 
Murray once more, if I may, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Murray. Come forward, Mr. 
Murray. 

You spoke about you didn't know the commission was paid to Mr. 
Wraith. 

Mr. Chaddick. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you know there was an overriding commis- 
sion being paid to Mr. Maris ? 

Mr. Chaddick. No, we did not know that until 1957. 

The Chairman. You didn't know that until 1957 ? 

Mr. Chaddick. When the partnership got into the squabble and 
sent registered letters to the trustees that they were breaking up the 
company. 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to ask you if you had known of these other 
commissions, Mr. Murray. Had you known the Occidental Insurance 
Co. was paying these other commissions ? 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN W. MUREAY— Resumed 
Mr. Murray. Wlien I found it out 



Mr. Kennedy. When did you find it out ? 

Mr. Murray. In 1957, Oc'ober or November of 1957. 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't learn until 1957, yourself ? 

Mr. Murray. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you shocked at that ? 

Mr. Murray. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you shocked to find that out ? 

TESTIMONY OF HARRY F. CHADDICK— Resumed 

Mr. Chaddick. I sure was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you feel also that you had been deceived by the 
company ? 

Mr. Murray. That is right, and I went to California. 

Mr. Kennedy. And complahied or protested? 

Mr. Murk ay. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the result of 1 hat ? 

Mr. Murray. Mr. Dandy told me at that time that he was going 
to take aAvay the override of Mr. Maris, and that was all. That is 
the only thing that came out of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know then that they were also making this 
payment to Mr. Wraith ? 

Mr. MuRR.\Y. I found it out then. 

Mr. Kennedy. You found it out then ? 

Mr. Murray. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTrV'ITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17983 

Mr. Kennedy. That payment, however, continued; is that right? 

Mr. Murray. Yes, sir. lie said that was the policy of the com- 
pany, to keep the general agent in. 

Senator Capehart. Did you try to get the commissions that went 
to these gentlemen for the Dearborn Co. ? 

Mr. Murray. No, sir. AVe were told at that time that there has 
to be a general agent in it anyway. 

Senator Capehart. Why were you so excited about something, the 
Occidental Life Insurance Co. giving away their own money and 
paying someone else something, if you were getting an honest, fair, 
deal, and being paid a good commission? 

Mr. MuRR-4Y. We were objecting to the override that went to Mr. 
Maris. 

Senator Capehart. Why? On what basis? What business was 
it of yours ? 

Mr. Murray. We felt that that should come back into Dearborn. 

Senator Capehart. You mean you felt that you should receive it? 

Mr. Murray. We felt that Dearborn should receive any commis- 
sions that a partner was getting. 

Senator Capehart. In other words, you felt that it was all right 
for Occidental to pay it but they ought to pay it to you instead of 
these other gentlemen; is that correct? 

Mr. Murray. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Let me ask Mr. Chaddick: What difference did 
it make to you whether the commission was split up between Deai'born 
and Maris or whether Dearborn got it all or Maris got it all? 

Mr. Chaddick. The difference it makes to me, Senator, is that in 
our contract with Occidental Insurance Co., they spell out the cost. 
For example, one-half of 1 percent commissions, 3.9 percent Illinois 
tax, 2.7 Federal tax, and 2.7 administration. 

This is the way we negotiate our contract each year. 

This commission item we have been cutting down continuously for 
the past 5 or G years, and we have finally cut it down to one-half of 1 
percent. If they are part of the administrative expenses. I think we 
should have known that the commissions were not one-half of 1 per- 
cent, but probably 1 percent or whatever the amount should be. That 
is the difference it makes to me. 

Senator Mundt. You think that might have gotten you a lower 
premium payment ? 

Mr. Chaddick. Yes, I do 

Senator Capehart. That would be your case, but that wouldn't be 
the case of the Dearborn. 

Mr. Chaddick. That is correct. 

The Chairman. The Dearborn case is the case where one partner, 
unbeknownst to the other, was getting a higher percentage or share 
of the business, the profits, than he was supposed to get ; is that cor- 
rect ? 

Mr. Murray. That is right. 

The Chairman. He was not playing fair with his partners. 

Mr. Murray. That is right. 

The Chairman. Each of you was supposed to have a certain per- 
centage in the profits of the business? 

Mr. Murray. That is right. 



17984 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. And, of course, your profits, presumably, were to 
be divided accordingly. 

Mr. Murray. That is right. 

The Chairman. But you found one partner on the side getting an 
override, something in addition and beyond anything that was known 
to the other partners. 

Mr. Murray. That is right. 

The Chairman. That is why you objected ? 

Mr. Murray. That is right. 

The Chairman. You felt that if that extra money was being paid, 
it ought to come into the company or to the partnership and be divided 
according to the respective interests of the partners ? 

Mr. Murray. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. If you had had this additional information, it would 
have been more of a bargaining point for you in trying to get a better 
deal for the truckdrivers that were under the contract ? 

Mr. Chaddick. Yes, I believe it would. 

Mr. Kennedy. I just have one other matter I wanted to discuss. 

I am finished with Mr. Murray. 

Mr. Chaddick, you had gone into business with Mr. O'Brien in one 
period of time ? 

Mr. Chaddick. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was in connection with a building, was it? 

Mr. Chaddick. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was owned by the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Chaddick. Yes, sir. It was owned by 721, 1 believe. 

Mr. Kennedy. Local 721 of the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Chaddick. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. O'Brien came to you and told you that the 
building was for sale ? 

Mr. Chaddick. Yes, sir, he did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you then made arrangements to put a bid in, 
did you ? 

Mr. Chaddick. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the buildings were sold to you ? 

Mr. Chaddick. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you went to Mr. O'Brien and you went into a 
partnership with him? 

Mr. Chaddick. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. He put up how much money ? 

Mr. Chaddick. $7,500. 

Mr. Kennedy. And ultimately you disposed of some of the prop- 
erty ? 

Mr. Chaddick. Yes, sir, we did. 

Mr. Kj5nnedy. And you own the rest of the property at the present 
time? 

Mr. Chaddick. Tliat is correct. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy. You paid how much for the building? 

Mr. Chaddick. $65,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. $65,000? 

Mr. Chaddick. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17985 

Mr. Kennedy. What \\'as the building assessed at at that time? 

Mr. Chaddick. I don't know. 

Mr. Ivennedy. About $85,000 ? 

Mr. Chaddick. No. That was not the assessment. There was an 
appraisal. The appraisals, Mr. Kennedy, were about $80,000, some- 
where in that vicinity. I don't know what the assessments were. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. I meant appraisal. 

Mr. Chaddick. Yes. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Is there anything else in connection with that? 

Mr. Chaddick. No, sir, I have nothing else. 

The CiiAiKMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Dandy. 

The Chairman. Mr. Dandy, come forward. Be sworn. 

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

Mr. Dandy. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN P. DANDY 

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

Mr. Dandy. My name is John P. Dandy. I live in Los Angeles 
County, Calif, I am vice president of the Occidental Life Insurance 
Co. of California, in charge of the group underwriting, and I am an 
actuary. I am a fellow of the Society of Actuaries. 

The Chairman. You waive counsel, Mr. Dandy ? 

Mr. Dandy. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Dandy, we have had the testimony before this 
committee that a brokerage commission was paid to both the Dearborn 
Insurance Agency and to Mr. Maris, personally, and also that the fee 
was paid to Mr. "\Vraith. 

First, I would like to ask you if you were aware of the fact that there 
were anj' union officials involved in the Dearborn Insurance Agency? 

Mr. Dandy. No, sir ; I was not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Maris ever indicate to you that he was go- 
ing to go into business with Mr. Brown or Mr. Vacey, Mr. Blakely 
or Mr. O'Brien ? 

Mr. Dandy. No, sir. 

]Mr. Kennedy. He did not ? 

Mr. Dandy. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never were aware of that fact at all ? 

Mr. Dandy. I was not aware of it. I only knew of — as a matter 
of fact, three shareliolders at tliat time was all I knew of. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it on the request or suggestion of Mr. Maris 
that you paid the commission rate that you paid to the Dearborn 
Insurance Agency ? 

Mr. Dandy. Yes. My memory is Mr. Maris came into my office. 
He explained at length what he had in mind, that he hoped to write 
this business. He explained that he had already spent a lot of money 
traveling back to try to write the business ; that he would have to go 



17986 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

back in the future to attend trustee meetings and so on ; and that this 
was the amount of the commission that he needed. It was 11 percent 
total. 

He asked on account of these personal expenses that he had been 
through himself, that we allow him 1 percent and then the other 10 
percent to the Dearborn Agency. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you agreed to that, 10 percent to Dearborn and 
1 percent extra to him ? 

Mr. Dandy. We agreed. We thought it was within reason. We 
didn't think it was excessive. We agreed to it. That was the first 
year commission. It was to be reduced in renewal years. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you ever paid a brokerage rate as high as that 
on any insurance similar to this ? 

Mr! Dandy. We have paid rates that would average higher than 
that on insurance that I consider similar to this ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What do you consider similar to this? Let's talk 
so I will get down to specifics. Have you ever paid as high a rate as 
you did in this case on any insurance dealing with union group insur- 
ance such as this, where a contract has been negotiated and it is a ques- 
tion of making a contract, making an arrangement with some insur- 
ance company ? 

Have you ever paid a rate as great as this ? 

Mr. Dandy. There is none that comes to mind at the moment. But 
I don't think we have had any where the agent lived in Oakland and 
had to travel back and forth and had heavy expenses. 

Mr. Kennedy. I could see that you would reimburse him for his ex- 
penses. That would certainly be understandable, if he lived in Oak- 
land and had to travel to Chicago. 

But can you give the committee any instance where the Occidental 
Insurance Co. has ever paid a brokerage commission as high as this on 
this kind of insurance ? I am speaking of union group insurance. 

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

Mr. Dandy. Sir, I have not searched our records for that. I say 
that I at the moment cannot think of any particular case. But then 
I do not have all the cases we have, and we have thousands of group 
policies in force. 

Mr. Kennedy. But I have raised this question with you before. 
You have had an opportunitj' to talk to Occidental. I am sure you 
have talked to them to try to determine whether there is a higher 
rate. 

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

Mr. Dandy. No, I have said that we have paid a somewhat higher 
rate on wliat I think is quite similar insurance to it. It is insuranoe 
covering employees of employers who are members of an employer 
association. 

Mr. Kennedy. But isn't that a voluntary plan ? 

Mr. Dandy. Yes, but I don't see that that makes any particular 
difference. 

Mr. Kennedy. I will tell you one very major difference. After the 
contract was negotiated, you then have to attempt to bring in these 
various groups into the insurance plan. That is when the further 
negotiations are necessary. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17987 

In this case, that decision has already been made, that these people 
will be covered. All that is necessary is to make the contract. That 
is a very major difference. We had before our committee, and the 
committee criticized it quite strongly, the insurance in connection with 
the Western Conference of Teamsters, where Mr. George Newell was 
the insurance broker, and that was less than this. The committee 
went into it on page 40 of our first year report, the fact that this 
arrangement liad been made with Occidental Insurance Co. with 
George Newell at a vei-y high rate of commission, and that was even 
much lower than this one. 

Do you have any comment on that ? 

Mr. Dandy. Yes, sir; I do. I am very surprised that no answer 
was given at that time on that matter. I don't know why Mr. 
Newell didn't answer it. We were not represented at that hearing 
on the matter of the group insurance. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had a witness before the committee. 

Mr. Dandy. Only on that mortgage. 

Mr. Kennedy. In connection with the loan of $350,000 to Mr. 
Dave Beck that you made at the lowest rate of interest of any loan 
of that kind? 

Mr. Dandy. I don't recall whether it was the lowest. In fact, I 
had understood that there were other loans at the same rate. But 
it was a mortgage loan ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. The witness that appeared from the Occidental 
Insurance Co. was unable to give any example of any kind that they 
had made a loan of a similar kind at such a low rate of interest, 
but that was the witness we had from the Occidental Insurance Co. 

Mr. Dandy. On the matter of the group insurance, I don't know 
why Mr. Newell did not bring out, in fact, as I read what was said, 
somebody said that one-tenth of 1 percent on a premium of about 
$20 million, I think, was all that should have been allowed, entirely 
overlooking that this was not one group policy ; it was 200 and some- 
thing; I think around 250 separate, distmct group policies on which 
his commissions averaged about 2 percent or just a little bit over, 
over the period, and had been reduced then down to 1 percent. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. The fact that there was an excess insurance com- 
mission paid was shown by the fact that it was reduced at the time 
the investigation was started. 

Mr. Dandy. Not necessarily. I don't think that necessarily fol- 
lows. I would like to say that I believe the point there was not that 
we were paying too much, but that it was all going to one man ; that 
if there had been 250 separate agents on this, each one getting about 
$2,000 a year on it, I don't think it would have been called excessive 
at all. It was the point that it went to one person ; not the amount. 

Mr. Kennedy. Anyway, the committee reached the conclusion at 
that time, and the rate was lowered after the committee began its 
investigation. This rate in Chicago that we have been discussing 
here is a good deal larger, even, than that rate of commission. 

Mr. Dandy. Let me add one thing to that. The rate that Mr. 
Newell lowered it to was actually lower than the code of ethics that 
was referred to yesterday. He went down below that. 



17988 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Maris indicated his pleasure at the situation. 
He says : 

As you know, it was no simple job to get the insurance company up from 
4 percent first year commission and 2 percent renewal commission to 10 percent 
first year commission and 4 percent perpeutal renewal. I can tell you simply 
there is not a contract like it in America. 

So he was extremely pleased. 

Mr. Dandy. Whether Mr. Maris was right about there being no 
contract like it in America I have no idea. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know of any contract like it in America ? 

Mr. Dandy. I am not familiar with many contracts 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you answer whether there is anybody that got 
such a good deal on insurance, union group insurance, as Mr. Maris 
did in this case ? 

Mr. Dandy. Yes ; I know of cases that have been before you where 
they got a better deal. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Saperstein, do you mean ? 

Mr. Dandy. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. He ended up with five bullets in his head. 

Mr. Dandy. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Other than Mr. Saperstein? Do you know of any 
other than Mr. Saperstein ? 

Mr. Dandy. I am quite positive that there must be some. I don't 
think of them offhand. 

Might I add that we were approached by Mr. Saperstein with an 
offer to take over that case ? As I remember it, he asked for a total 
of 15 percent commission on something way over $1 million premium. 
We felt it was excessive, and we refused to even consider it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me ask you this in connection with this : Would 
you make a contract with a broker now, today, as you made with Mr. 
Maris at that time, for the same rate of commission ? 

Mr. Dandy. We would not today. May I explain it a little further ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Answer it, and then explain it. 

Mr. Dandy. Yes. Tliis was in the very early days of the welfare 
plans. We started to write them in 1949. This came along in 1950. 
We had no set scale that we paid for welfare plans. We discussed 
each case with tlie agent. We tried to determine what work he had 
to do with it, how much time he would have to spend, what expense 
he would have to go to in travel, and then agree with him on the 
amount of the commission. 

Now, back in 1957, you referred to the code of ethics, and I would 
like to say that one of our top officers also worked on that with the 
insurance commissioners and helped set that scale. We are adhering 
to that scale 100 percent. The only thing is that back in 1950 there 
wasn't any such scale. 

Mr. Kennedy. You would say that you paid a considerably higher 
brokerage rate than you would pay at the present time? 

Mr. Dandy. Yes. And we also kept higher retentions in those days 
than we would now, too. Conditions liave changed. Competition is 
getting more fierce every year in this business; not only commissions 
have gone down, but so have the companies' profits. So has every 
part of the retention except taxes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have lowered the brokerage rate lately, have 
you not, over the period of the past couple of years ? 



IMPROPER ACTI\'ITIE,S IN THE LABOR FIELD 17989 

Mr, Dandy. Well, yve are acllierino- to that scale now. Prior to 
tliat we negotiated, you might call it, with the broker, with the one 
proviso that we would not allow anything that we considered excessive 
and beyond what was needed for the servicing and the sale of the 
busine^««. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just in answer to the question, you have lowered it, 
have you not? That is, over the period of the past few years? 

Mr. Dandy. It could be that that NAIC scale might be higher than 
some of the ones we had in the past. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just answer the question, Mr. Dandy. 

Mr. Dandy. It is impossible, sir, to answer it exactly; we had no 
fixed scale before. 

Mr. Kennedy. But haven't you lowered it in the period of the 
last 2 years, the brokerage commission ? 

Mr. Dandy. Do you mean on existing policies ? 

Mr. Kennedy. On that policy. I am talking about the specific one 
as far a^ Mr. Maris. 

Mr. Dandy. I am sorry; I misunderstood you. On Mr. Maris' 
policies, back in 1954 the commissions started to reduce. It should be 
remembered that these cases started at very, very much lower premium 
than they are now. Local 710 started at roughly a quarter of the 
size it is now. Local 777 started about a third. 

As these cases grew, we kept urging Mr. Maris that he ought to 
reduce it. Mind you, we had no power to force it because he had a 
contract providing for this. But we urged it. Quite possibly some 
of the policyholders urged it. 

In the case of local 710, the rate was reduced in 1954, and it has been 
reduced at least four times since then. So it is not just in the last 2 
years. 

Mr. Kennedy. All I asked you, Mr. Dandy, is whether the commis- 
sion rate had been lowered in the period of the past 2 years. The 
answer to that question is "Yes"? 

Mr. Dandy. Yes. And prior to 2 years. 

Mr: Kennedy. If we can keep our answers simple, we can get along. 
Now, the saving on that has led to your lowering, also, your retention 
rate ; is that right ? 

Mr. Dandy. Yes, we have lowered our retention. 

Mr. Kennedy. So j^ou have passed the saving on to the trustees ? 

Mr, Dandy. We have passed more than just the reduction and 

Mr. Kennedy. Just answer the question, please. 

Mr. Dandy. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, sir ; you have passed the savings on ? 

Mr. Dandy. And more. 

Mr. Kennedy. And more. So the higher the commission rate, the 
less savings, obviously, to the trustees; is that correct? 

Mr. Dandy. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you inform the trustees as to what the commis- 
sion rate was in these cases? 

Mr. Dandy. This is 710 you are referring to only, or in general ? 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Refer first to 710. 

Mr. Dandy. I was trying to recall, after I heard what was said this 
afternoon, what was said. We certainly have never tried to hide any- 
thing from the trustees. In the early days of welfare plans, it was a 
pretty general feeling that if the 



17990 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. I wish you would answer my question and then you 
can give any explanation. Just answer the question 

Mr. Dandy. I think the explanation is needed to answer. I think 
we did. And then may I explain ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me ask you : Did you inform the trustees of the 
brokerage rate that you were paying, the amount of brokerage that 
you were paying, on local 710, starting back in 1950 and going through 
up until 1957 ? Had you informed them ? 

Mr. Dandy. No, sir ; I don't think we had back that far. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you informed them by 1957 ? 

Mr. Dandy. It was either late 1957 or early 1958, as I gathered from 
what was said. Mind you, I have not seen this particular letter Mr. 
Chaddick referred to. I have had no opportunity to check with the 
home office as to what is in it or what we said. 

Mr. Kennedy. Up to at least 1957 you had not informed them ? 

Mr. Dandy. I could not say that. We may have informed them. 
I don't remember. 

Mr. Kennedy, Well, to your knowledge, at least up to 1957 you 
had not informed them? 

Mr. Dandy. No, I simply don't know whether or not we did inform 
them. We can find out. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know that you did inform them up until 
1957? 

Mr. Dandy. No, I don't know that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you ever informed them of the fact that Mr. 
Wraith was receiving this money ? 

Mr. Dandy. Again, I can't say for certain. I think it unlikely, and 
I would like to explain that, if I may. 

The Chairman. You ma3\ 

Mr. Dandy. Tlie override that we pay to the general agents has 
always been considered as an agency overhead expense, as a part of 
our expense. It is an expense that we must go to to keep our agency 
organization. 

The general agent gets his remuneration from an override on all 
the business produced by his agents. It is very similar in form to a 
branch office, where we have the same expense, but we pay it in the 
form of a salary. Therefore, until fairly recently, and I would think 
it would be in 1958, likely, we included the amount of the override at 
any time we were asked to break down our retention in our own home 
office expenses. And I think properly so. 

Mr. Kennedy. The previous witness testified, Mr. Chadwick,_ a 
trustee, that he did not know all the commissions that were being paid, 
payments that were being made, in connection with this trust agree- 
ment, until today. 

Can you refute that ? Do you want to refute that ? 
Mr. iDANDY. I would have to examine our file and see what letters 
have been sent. I cannot speak from memory on it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You cannot refute his testimony on this point? 
Mr. Dandy. I can furnish later information to the committee on it. 
The Chairman. You can't refute it at the moment? 
Mr. Dandy. At the moment, I can't. 

The Chairman. Can you ascertain what the facts are, submit them 
by letter, and let that letter be under oath ? 
Mr. Dandy. Yes. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN" THE LABOR FIELD 17991 

The Chairman. All right. 

(The information has been furnished to the committee and may be 
found in the appendix on pp. 18063-18079.) 

Senator Capeiiart. The amount of money you paid to Mr. Wraith, 
did you say you considered that as a commission or as an adminis- 
trative expense? 

Mr. Dandy. As an agency overliead, administration expense. It 
was always considered by the company in that form. 

Senator Capehart. Is that the common practice with all life insur- 
ance companies ? 

Mr, Dandy. I believe it was until very recently. Now, with the 
Federal Disclosure Act, Avliere they have specified that general agents' 
override is to be shown as a commission, there is no choice about it. 
Now it has to be shown as a commission. 

We have never thought of it as a commission. Previously it was 
an override. 

Senator Capeiiart. In the contract you entered into with this union, 
710 or the other one, did you agree when you made the contract that 
you would disclose to them the commissions you paid to respective 
people ? 

Mr. Dandy. No, sir. No, sir; we did not. 

Senator Capehart. You did it of your own free will and accord ? 

Mr. Dandy. It has always been our practice to answer any request 
made to us by a policyholder about what happens. In the early years 
of welfare plans, or of any plan, welfare or other, we were very re- 
luctant to break down that retention. 

We thought if they were satisfied with the total retention, what 
we paid for this, that or the other thing was our business. 

Senator Capehart. WHiat I am trying to get at is by contractual 
relation or agreement, either written, verbal or otherwise, you did not 
agree, when you sold them the policy, and Mr. Chaddick testified that 
the rates were lower than two other companies, and that he was satis- 
fied with it, and the premium rate was satisfactory, and he had been 
buying it from year to year. 

My point is : When you entered into a contract, did you, in writing 
or verbally, agree to tell them how much commission you were paying 
the diff'erent respective people who had something to do with it? 

Mr. Dandy. No, sir ; we did not. 

Senator Capehart. Therefore, any information you did give them 
was of your own free will and accord ? 

Mr. Dandy. Completely voluntary. 

Senator Capehart. They would ask you for it and you would give 
it to them ? 

Mr. Dandy. Yes. Sometimes people ask. 

Senator Capehart. Mr. Chaddick testified, I believe, that you gave 
them everything except this overriding or commisison that went to the 
general agent. I understand your testimony is that the reason that 
was not included was because it was an administrative expense, or so 
carried on your books. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Dandy. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Except up to 1957, according to Mr. Chaddick's 
testimony, they hadn't even got the fact that Mr. Maris was receiving 
money directly. They didn't know about that. 



17992 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Capeiiart. Did Mr. Maris receive money directly? 

Mr. Dandy. Mr. Maris, or his firm, Wheeler-Maris, was receiving 
what Mr, Maris always called an override, although technically it was 
not an override. I do not recall that they ever asked us as to the 
amount of commissions broken down. I think if they had asked we 
would have quoted the entire amount, without breaking it down as to 
who got it. 

Mr. Kennedy. It wasn't until 1957 that they were aware of that, 
and it wasn't until today that they were aware that Mr. Wraith was 
receiving money. 

Senator Capehart. Is is not quite clear to me. If they were satis- 
fied with the policy and the premium, and they had a right to buy 
from anybody they wanted to, and they got rates from other com- 
panies, as Mr. Chaddick testified, what is all the argument about ? 

Mr. Kennedy. As a general proposition. Senator, I will say in the 
2 years the committee has been in existence, we have found this to be 
one of the major problems, and certainly the Ives and Douglas com- 
mittees found the same situation. That is why the law was passed 
last year and signed by the President, because of the fact that com- 
missions have been paid like this. 

It is in this manner that Jimmy James, an official of the Laundry 
Workers International Union, with the help of Mr. Saperstein, who 
was working for Long}' Zwillman, who hanged himself, took over 
$990,000 of the pension funds of the union. He has argued that he 
should not have to pay any taxes on that because he embezzled the 
money. 

This is the way that money is channeled off from the employees. 
This is where hundreds of thousands of dollars — this is the method 
that has been used. We found the situation as far as the Dorfmans 
are concerned, where they got paid excessive commissions of $1,600,000. 

Senator Capehart. I was under the impression that the employers 
paid the premium and that the employees paid nothing. Therefore, 
if there is excess money here, it comes out of the employers and not the 
employees. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is a fact. Senator, but it comes out of a bar- 
gaining relationship arrangement that is made between union officials 
and employers ; that instead of paying 26 cents more per hour to the 
employee, that they will contribute $5 a week to the pension and 
welfare fund, and the employees agree to give this up. So it is the 
employees' money. That is according to the testimony of Mr, Chad- 
dick. 

Senator Capehart. I am thinking of it from the standpoint or 
principle of whether we in this committee are going to start regu- 
lating commissions that life insurance companies pay and to whom. 
Maybe I don't understand the welfare fund. I have had a lot of 
experience witli group insurance, having paid a lot of premiums. 
It is not quite clear to me why we want to set the rate of connnissions 
that these life insurance companies pay, particularly if the employers 
are paying the fund. 

It is not quite clear to me. If you are trying to prove that these 
people got an extra big commission and part of it went to the union 
officials, that is something else again. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Dandy, when did you become vice president of 
Occidental Life Insurance? 



IMPROPER ACTrvITIBS IN THE LABOR FIELD 17993 

Mr. Daxdy. T believe 1947, Senator. 

Senator Mi'xdt. Could yon throw some light on what Mr. Maris 
was talking about when he wrote this letter that you heard discussed 
several times today, a letter written by him on January 10 to a Mr. 
John W. Murray, of Cliicago, in which he says : 

Since the recent shakeup of oflSeers in Occidental, as of .January 1, we are 
sitting in the most prime position of any brolier of any company in America. 

What was he talking about? 

Mr. Dandy. I was wondering about that. Senator, last night. In 
January 1951 our former president retired and a new president was 
appointed. I don't believe Mr. Maris had one bit more influence 
with the new president than with the old one. At about the same 
time our agency vice president was going to retire, I believe, in 
March 1951, and the new agency vice president was sort of taking over 
his duties. 

There was no shakeup of officers of any kind. As far as I know, Mr. 
jNIaris has had just the same treatment from the new agency vice presi- 
dent as he got from the old one. I could figure nothing else. 

Senator INIundt. Shakeup would be used loosely in a personal letter. 
I was trjdng to find out if perhaps it was a higher echelon of the 
officials of Occidental, some special friend of his. 

Mr. Dandy. There were just those two changes, Senator, and neither 
of the new people were a bit more friendly than the old, to the best 
of my knowledge. 

Senator Mundt. Is Mr. Maris presently an underwriter for Occi- 
dental ? 

Mr. Dandy. He is today, sir. 

Senator jNIundt. He has been right along, all through the years? 

Mr. Dandy. He was first licensed with us in 1939, I believe. 

Senator Mundt. Can you think of any reason from the standpoint 
of Occidental why his relationships with Occidental would be such 
that he would take the fifth amendment concerning his business rela- 
tions with your organization? 

Mr. Dandy. There could be no relations with our organization that 
I could possibly think of that would cause him to take the fifth 
amendment. 

Senator Mundt. Can you think of any other reason why one of 
your underwriters would answer a question to an official committee 
of the U.S. Congress saying, "Are you an underwriter with Occi- 
dental Life ?" and he says, "I take the fifth amendment" ? 

Mr. Dandy. Senator, he was taking it to every question. 

Senator Mundt. Some of the questions I can well understand why 
he took it, but this one is a little bit curious to me. 

Mr. Dandy. There is absolutely nothing in his relationship with us 
where there would be any reason for taking it that I have any knowl- 
edge of whatsoever. 

Senator Mundt. Would you agree with the present speaker that 
this cannot help but cast bad reflections on Occidental if one of your 
underwriters, and a very prominent one, tells a congressional commit- 
tee, "I dare not reveal the fact that I am connected with Occidental 
because to do so might incriminate me" ? 

Mr. Dandy. I was greatly shocked to hear it. Senator. This will 
be reported immediately to our top officers in full. My own opinion, 



17994 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

and I feel we will certainly be glad to report it back, is that I believe 
Mr. Maris will not be an underwriter for Occidental as soon as it 
can be 

Senator Mundt. It would be helpful to us if you would report what 
happens as a consequence of this disclosure. 

Mr. Dandy. We will certainly report, Senator, just as soon as we 
can refer it and act. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you. 

The Chairman. I present to you a copy of a letter, a photostatic 
copy of a letter, dated November 14, 1957, addressed to you, Mr. 
Dandy, as vice president of Occidental. It is from Mr. P. C. Rogan, 
chairman, Chicago Downtown Hotels Local Joint Executive Board 
of the H. & R. and BIU Health and Welfare Trust. 

I ask you to examine it and state if you identify it. You have a 
mimeographed copy before you now, but I wanted to find the photo- 
static copy. Examine the photostatic copy and see if you identify 
it, please. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Dandy. Yes, Senator ; I do. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 40. 

(Letter referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 40" for reference and 
may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. Who is Mr. Rogan ? 

Mr. Dandy. Mr. Rogan is a trustee of the Chicago Downtown 
Hotels Union, a union trustee. 

The Chairman. This is another one of the accounts you have ? 

Mr. Dandy. That is one of the Dearborn accounts. 

The Chairman. One of the Dearborn accounts ? 

Mr. Dandy. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. This is another one handled by this fellow Maris? 

Mr. Dandy. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you pay him an overriding commission on this, 
too? 

Mr. Dandy. We had, up until 1957, yes. 

The Chairman. Up until this time, up until about the time of this 
letter? 

Mr. Dandy. Just about the time of that letter ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You did receive this letter, then ? 

Mr. Dandy. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. This is the union that the man named Blakely 
headed ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Dandy. I am not sure, Senator. 

The Chairman. I will ask a member of the staff. 

Mr. Calabrese, is that correct? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. The man Blakely we have been talking about was 
at the head of this union ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

The Cilmrman. Was he also one of the trustees of this fund? Do 
you know? 

Mr. Calabrese. T believe so, yes. 

The Chairman. Check our information about that. 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 



IMPROPEK ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17995 

Mr, Kennedy. He was one of the trustees. That is the union for- 
merly headed by Mr. Vacey, and ISIr. Vacey died. 

The Chairman. This is the same Mr. Blakely that had an interest 
in this Dearborn Co. ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Now, you may interrogate him about the letter. 

I notice the complaint here is that you concealed the true com- 
mission that you were paying from this trustees board and, there- 
fore, it entitled you to set up a bigger retention and they are com- 
plaining about it. 

Do you wish to make any explanation ? 

Mr, Dandy. Yes, sir ; I do. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was written November 14, 1957. 

On behalf of the trustees, I acknowledge receipt of your letter of October 18, 
1957, which has been carefully considered by the trustees and their legal counsel 
and auditors. 

Your letter was the first information we received from you that the com- 
missions paid by the Occidental with respect to the policies issued to us aggregate 
3.5 percent instead of 2 percent. 

Then they spend the next five paragraphs explaining how they feel 
they were also deceived, as the previous witness testified he felt he 
was deceived, as far as local 710 is concerned, of the Teamsters. 

The Chairman, Do you wish to comment about it? 

Mr. Dandy, Yes, Senator. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Dandy. I remember quite well — I was back in Chicago — I 
think he said it was late in September — late in September in 1957, 
and I attended a trustee meeting where they were considering booklet 
wording they were putting out to all the people covered by the plan, 
giving the details of the plan. They asked me to break down the 
retention. I didn't have the exact breakdown in front of me. I 
thought I knew it and I quoted the figures, I imagine as tliey have 
given at the bottom of the first page of this letter, showing a brokerage 
commission of 2 percent. 

I got home, back to Los Angeles some little time after that Sep- 
tember meeting, I started to check on the file. I started to think 
about it. I have already said that we have never considered the over- 
ride to the general agent as a commission and have not been reporting 
it to anybody who inquired about commissions. As a commission, it 
certainly was not a brokerage commission. It was an agency over- 
head expense. 

Then the matter of the 1 percent, I guess it was, that Wheeler- 
Maris was getting, which Mr. Maris had talked to me time and time 
again of as an override, I began to think about that. It did not 
seem to me right that we should call that an override because tech- 
nically it was not an override as we consider. 

The Chairiman. What can it be called if it is not an override ? It 
is a commission ; is it not? 

Mr. Dandy. Do you mean to Mr. Wraith ? 

The Chairman, To Mr, Maris, 

Mr, Dandy, Maris is commission. 

The Chairman, Maris is commission ? 

Mr. Dandy. Commission, 



17996 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. What is the difference between that which is paid 
him and that which is paid Wraith ? The only reason Wraith gets 
anything is because he is a general agent ; is that true ? 

Mr. Dandy. He shares in the commissions. 

The Chairman, He shares in the commission. So in sharing in the 
commission, how can you call it administrative expense ? 

Mr. Dandy. Senator, we also have branch offices run by branch 
managers where we pay all the expense. There is just as much 
expense involved. There, definitely, while it is charged in our reten- 
tions as the administration expense in the case of a branch office, it 
is not commission because it isn't paid as a commission. It is paid 
in a different way. Therefore, if you get in an exactly similar situa- 
tion, where a general agent who pays his own expenses, hires his own 
help, runs his own office, and so on, but does the same work as a 
branch manager, recruits agents and trains them, we did not feel that 
that override was anything else other than an agency overhead expense. 

The Chairman. Isn't a general agent the one who is supposed to 
recruit the local agents to do the selling ? 

Mr. Dandy. That is correct. 

The Chairman. And actually you pay a commission to set aside 
so much out of any premium as a commission for procuring the 
business. 

Mr. Dandy. It is called an override, what it is called. It is not 
called a commission. 

The Chairman. It is based on a percentage. 

Mr. Dandy. The branch manager gets a bonus that is based on 
a percentage of the business, but that is not a commission. 

The Chairman. Well, it is based on the amount of business secured, 
is it not ? 

Mr. Dandy. It is based partly on volume, partly on the premiimi, 
and it is a dollar bonus. It is not related to a policy. 

The Chairman. How do you charge that on your books ? 

Mr. Dandy. Do you mean the expenses of the branch office ? 

The Chairman. How do you charge it? You call some things 
override, you call some things administrative expense and some things 
commission. 

Mr. Dandy. That is part of our home office administration expense. 
That is why up until about the beginning of 1958 we considered the 
general agent's override as being exactly similar to our branch office 
expense, and we included it in our own expenses. 

Senator Capehart. May I ask this question : Does a general agent 
perform exactly the same duties as your own branches do ? 

Mr. Dandy. Yes, Senator. 

Senator Capehart, In one case you pay all the expenses by writing 
out checks to everybody for all kinds of expenses, all expenses, and 
in the other you give the man an override and he, in turn, from that 
override pays all the expenses that you pay in a branch ? 

Mr. Dandy. That is correct. 

Senator Capehart. Is that the way you operate ? 

Mr. Dandy. Yes, sir. 

Senator Capehart. And in both instances you call them adminis- 
trative expenses ? 

Mr. Dandy. Yes, sir. In any reports to policyholders we call them 
a part of our administration expenses. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 17997 

Senator Capehart. Those are the facts ? 

Mr. Dandy. Those are the facts. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was Wraitli paying the expenses of the branch? Is 
that what you are saying ? 

Mr. Dandy. Wraith was paying his own agency expenses in Oak- 
land. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was Oakland, Calif. 

Mr. Dandy. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. But this is in Chicago. 

Mr. Dandy. But this was written by an agent of ]Mr. Wraith, Mr. 
Maris. 

Mr. Kennedy. But Mr. Wraith doesn't have an office in Chicago. 

Mr. Dandy. But the general agent gets an override on all the 
business produced by his agents. 

Mr. Kennedy. In answer to Senator Capehart, you indicated that 
he was paying the office expense. He was not paying the 

Senator Capehart. I didn't mean the office expense of Dearborn, 
but the general office expense of the general agent. 

Mr. Dandy. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. In Oakland, Calif. ? 

Mr. Dandy. Yes. 

Senator Capehart. Do you permit your general agents to sell any- 
place in the United States ? 

Mr. Dandy. We have a rule that if an agent of a general agent sells 
outside the territory of the general agent that the home office will 
decide whether that general agent or the genei'al agent m whose terri- 
tory it is sold will get it. 

Senator Capehart. You permit him to do it, but you decide ? 

Mr. Dandy. Decide which general agent will get it. 

Then, as I started to say here, when I got home and started to think 
about the commissions, which I do not believe an override to Mr. 
Maris was a straight commission, or I believe to "\'\Tieeler-Maris, I 
immediately sat down and wrote to the trustees, and said, "I am sorry, 
I gave you wrong information when I talked to you in Chicago." 

The Chairman. Is this your letter ? 

I present to you what purports to be a photostatic copy of it dated 
November 22, 1957. I ask you to examine it and state if you identify 
it as such. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

Senator Mundt. There must be an earlier letter, Mr. Chairman. It 
says here, 

I acknowledge receipt of j^our letter of October 18. 

Mr. Kennedy. We don't have the first letter. 

Senator Mundt. Can you supply us wntli a copy of your letter of 
October 18 ? 

Mr. Dandy. Yes, sir. That was the one I was referring to. I sat 
down and wrote them and told them that I had given them wrong in- 
formation when I saw them in Chicago, and I wanted to give them the 
correct information. I told them at that time that there was a 1 
percent, which Mr. Maris had always considered override, but we did 
not consider it, and at the same time, seeing I was going into override, 
I also told them about Mr. Wraith's override. That would make up 
the 31/^ percent instead of the 2. 

36751— 59— pt. 49 20 



17998 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the witness supply us 
with a copy of his letter of October 18, 1957, and that it be made a part 
of the record at this point. 

The Chairman. This photostatic copy which I have just presented 
the witness will be made exhibit 40A. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 40A" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the Select Committee. ) 

The Chairman. IVlien the other copy is supplied, it will be made 
exhibit 40B. 

(Document referred to was reserved as exhibit No. 40B for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the Select Committee.) 

Senator Mundt. Perhaps you should alphabetize them by chro- 
nology. 

The Chaiman. Well, we have this one, and I am not sure we will 
ever get the other one. I am hopeful we will. If we do, they will 
fit in. 

Senator Mundt. If we do, let us alphabetize them according to 
date. 

There is no question in your mind but what you have a copy of 
that letter of October 18, is there ? 

Mr. Dandy. None whatsoever. It must be in our file. We keep 
all such letters in our file, yes. 

Senator Mundt. As I reconstruct the situation, you are telling us 
that this letter of October 18 originated with you and not in re- 
sponse to another communication; you sat down and reflected on 
what you told them in Chicago and concluded it was subject to mis- 
interpretation, or that you had given them the wrong facts, and that 
your letter of October 18 is going to recapitulate that fact and set 
out this new schedule ? 

Mr. Dandy. That is my exact memory of it. Senator. 

Senator Mundt. Were your totals the same? Do you still come 
out with $13.78 ? That is mentioned on page 2. Did you shift some- 
thing off from your home office expenses and put it on commissions, 
or was the total wrong ? 

Mr. Dandy. I am quite sure it was just a shift in the percentages 
between our retention for expenses and the broker's commission. 

Senator Mundt. To follow your explanation, it would seem that if 
you were going to increase your brokerage commissions from the 2 
percent you reported in Chicago to the 3% percent, which ap- 
parently your letter of October 18 indicated, that you must have 
taken U/^ percent off from the Chicago office, so it must have come 
off of office expense or off of something. 

Mr. Dandy. It would be off of either office expense or profit. It 
was probably off of office expense. My letter of October 18 will 
show that, I am quite sure, Senator. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you have the situation that at least the trustees 
of two different groups felt that they were deceived as to the in- 
formation that the Occidental Insurance Co. was providing to them 
for a period of at least 7 years ; and in addition to that, at least one 
trustee now has testified before the committee that he didn't even 
know all of them up until today. 

Do you think that is the proper way for an insurance company 
to operate? 



IJMPROPER ACTIVITIEiS IN THE LABOR FIELD 17999 

Mr. Dandy. I tliink your question, sir, is pretty broad. I believe 
on the case of the hotels this is the first time they had ever asked 
us for a breakdown of the retention. 

Mr. Kenxedy. He went through that letter in great detail, with 
the fact that you had kept insisting to him and to the trustees as 
to the rate of commission that was being paid. 

It was not until your letter of October 18, 1957, that they ulti- 
mately found that you were paying this extra money to Mr. Maris 
directly and evidently to Mr. Wraith. It was not until then that 
they found that out. All tliis time, he points out in his letter, you 
have been insisting what the commission rate had been, which was 
far lower, and he felt that he was deceived. 

Mr. Dandy. JMr. Kennedy, this was our agent, not us. 

The Chairman'. Mr. Dandy, let me ask you this: Are these figures 
revealed, these percentages of commissions and administrative ex- 
penses and so forth ? Is that all revealed in the course of negotiating 
the contract so as to determine what would be the right premium to 
pay, and the amount you might be entitled to retain as retention 
money ? Is that part of the whole thing ? 

Mr. Dandy. In very recent years. Senator, when brokers asked us 
for a premium quotation, and a retention quotation, they now usually 
ask us to break down retention into how^ much is for taxes, profit, and 
commission, and so on, but that is recently 

The Chairman. In other words, ^ou have to have that information 
in order to evaluate and properly ]udge what is justified as a reten- 
tion ; isn't that correct ? 

Mr. Dandy. I have never been sure what they do with that informa- 
tion. Actually, if they are going to buy on retention, the company 
that quotes the lowest overall retention should be the one, because that 
is the amount of money they keep, regardless of what they do with it. 

The Chairman. I understand. But if you are going to have a re- 
tention and you are going to refund that which you do not need to 
carry out your 2 percent profit or whatever it is, your expenses, your 
commissions that you have to pay, it is necessary to know those things 
in order to be able to negotiate a contract ; is it not ? 

Mr. Dandy. It is necessary for us to know the makeup of our re- 
tention. 

The Chairman. It is also to the advantage of the other fellow to 
know, too, if he is going to negotiate for the best transaction, is it 
not, the best deal ? 

Mr. Dandy. I do not believe so, because if one company quotes him 
14 percent and another company quotes him 13 percent overall total 
retention, whether one company paid higher commission than the 
other or not, the 13 percent would be to his advantage. 

The Chairman. In other words, your position is they don't need 
to know any details; it is just a question of the total percentage? 

Mr. Dandy. That is right, Senator, and up until recent years, com- 
panies weren't giving it. 

The Chairman. I can't understand why these folks would be so 
upset and write you such a letter. 

Mr. Dandy. The reason was that they wanted the breakdown. Wliy 
they asked back in 1954, I didn't know about that. This was 1957 
that they talked to me. They were getting out this booklet. As 7 



18000 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

recall it, the AFL had said in their Code of Ethical Practices that the 
amount of the commission and the breakdown of the retention should 
always be shown in any report to union members. 

So, therefore, they were asking us to put in the report. This was 
the first experience we had had of a policyholder wanting to publish 
the breakdown of the retention. 

Senator Mundt. I think this is the point at issue. 

Let me ask this question : Under the terms of the contract, does any 
part of this retention accrue back to the policyholder ? 

Mr. Dandy. No, Senator. 

Senator Mundt. How does the term retention, then, differ from the 
term premimn ? 

Mr. Dandy. The premium is the total amount of money that we get 
for the case. The retention is the part of it that we retain to cover 
expenses, commissions, taxes, and a little profit. Then there are the 
claims, the claims that are paid out. If the claims are lower than the 
premium after subtracting the retention, then the policyholder gets 
a refund. 

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

Senator Mundt. Then the term retention becomes significant be- 
cause of the factor that you subtract ? 

Mr. Dandy. But only the total retention is significant. 

Senator Mundt. That is correct, only the total retention. 

Mr. Dandy. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. When you bid for business, you bid on a dual basis ? 
You quote them a premium and you quote them a retention ? 

Mr. Dandy. That is the common practice now ; yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. So as far as the policyholder is concerned, liis sole 
concern really is as to whether he gets a good deal, how much is the 
policy and how much is the retention ? 

Mr. Dandy. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. What you do with the money is up to you, assimiing 
you don't dissipate the assets and go broke ? 

Mr. Dandy. We had always thought that until quite recently. 
Now it seems to be changing. Now we are compelled to disclose that. 

Senator Mundt. Well, I can see that, because rackets have gotten 
into this business, and fifth amendment artists have gotten into your 
organization. This is of great concern to you and to everybody who 
wants to do business with reputable business operators. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where a very high commission has been paid, of 
course, it raises a question in the minds of the trustees as to whether 
everything is proper. I think if they had known the high rate of 
commission in this case, it might have raised the question as to whether 
union officials were receiving some of this money. 

Mr. Dandy. They knew the total retention, Mr. Kennedy, and I 
don't think they felt it was too high. 

Mr. Kennedy. You testified a little while ago that when you were 
able to lower tlie rate of commission, you were also able to lower the 
rate of retention. 

Mr. Dandy. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. So there is a direct relationship between the benefits 
to the trustees and to the union members with a lower commission, 
because the retention is lowered when tlie commission is lowered, and 
the benefits accrue back to the trust. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIEiS IN THE LABOR FIELD 18001 

Mr. Dandy. But the trustees still knew what the retention was when 
the commission was higher. 

Mr. Kexxedy. Again on this letter, your letter of October 18, the 
second page — I am reading from the secord page of the letter of 
November 14. It states : 

Your letter of October 18, 1957, was the first intimation that we had that aU 
your previous representations were incorrect, and this advice came as a distinct 
shock to all of us. 

Then he says : 

The trustees feel that they have been imposed upon, and that they have been 
put in a very bad light because of the reliance upon your representations as to the 
amount of brokerage commissions being paid. 

That is pretty strong language. 

Mr. Dandy. To the very best of my recollection, the first time they 
asked me was this time in September 1957. It might have been Mr. 
Creitz or it niav have been Mr. Maris they are referring to on the other 
occasions. 

(At this point Senator McClellan returned to the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions? 

If not, call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Gaglione. 

The Chairman. Please 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. Gagliont:. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL B. GAGLIONE, ACCOMPANIED BY 
COUNSEL, H. CLIFFOBD ALLDER 

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

Mr. Gaglione. Michael B. Gaglione, 531 West 26th Street 

The Chairman. In what city ? 

Mr. Gaglione. Chicago, 111. 

The Chairman. What is your business or occupation ? 

Mr. Gaglione. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might end to incriminate me. 

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

The Chairman. Counsel, identify yourself for the record. 

Mr. AxLDER. H. Clifi'ord Allder, member of the bar of Washington, 
D.C. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Gaglione, you are an official of Local 18-B 
of the Picture Frame Workers Union, Chicago, 111. ? 

Mr. Gaglione. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is a part of the Upholstery Workers Union, is it 
not? 

Mr. Gaglione. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 



18002 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES lis THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. And you are a close personal friend of Mr. Joe 
Glimco, are you not ? 

Mr. Gaglione. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you not placed in that position, or receive a 
considerable amount of support in that position from your friend- 
ship with Mr. Joe Glimco ? 

Mr. Gaglione. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And hasn't Joey Glimco's union paid for your visits 
to the Hotel Statler in Cleveland, Ohio ; your visit together with that 
of your wife ? 

Mr. Gaglione. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are you connected with a union ? 

Mr. Gaglione. I respectfully 

The Chairman. You are connected with the Upholstery Union; is 
that it; local 18-B? 

Mr. Gaglione. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You don't mean to reflect upon these union mem- 
bers in that union, do you, the peoj^le who work, and say it would be 
self -incriminating for you to admit that you represent them ? 

Mr, Gaglione. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Is your name liaymond ? Is that correct ? 

Mr. Gaglione. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I have a hotel bill here, from the Hotel Statler, 
Cleveland, charged to Raymond Gaglione. It is dated February 
1955, and apparently paid, in the amount of $31. It was apparently 
paid by local 777, according to our information. 

I hand you this bill and ask you to examine it and state if you iden- 
tify it. Then I want you to explain why local 777 would be paying 
your bill. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairiman. That is a bill for you and j^our wife at the hotel, I 
believe. That is a dilTerent union than the one you represent. 

Mr. Allder. What is the question. Senator? 

The Chairman. Do you recognize the hotel bill ? 

Mr. Allder. Would you ask him first if he has looked at it, Senator? 

The Chairman. If he wants to be asked. 

Put it up there in front of him. 

Mr. Allder. He has looked at it, and I want the record to show. I 
want him to answer the question. 

The Chairman. You have seen the bill ? 

Mr. Gaglione. Yes. 

The Chairman. I thought he had seen it. 

Do you identify the hotel bill as yours ? 

Mr. Gaglione. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Was that hotel bill paid by local 777, the Glimco 
local? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 18003 

Mr. Gaglione. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. What arrangements did you have with Mr. Glimco 
topay your bill? 

Mr. Gaglione. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Were you on a mission there, doing some work or 
looking after some business for local 777, or for Mr. Glimco person- 
ally, at that time ? 

Mr. Gaglione. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. The bill may be made exhibit No. 41. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 41" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, could I call a member of the staff in 
connection with the bills ? 

The Chairman. All right. 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. Sheridan. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF WALTER J. SHERIDAN 

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

Mr. Sheridan. My name is Walter Sheridan. I reside in Bethesda, 
Md. I am an employee of the staff of this committee. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Sheridan, did we check the bills at the hotel of 
Mr. Gaglione ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes, we did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do we find he was there at the same time as Mr. 
Glimco and other union officials? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that for the wedding of Mr. John Felice? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was a Teamster official and a close associate of 
William Presser? 

Mr. SHERroAN. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Gaglione go to that wedding? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were there other union officials from his local ? 

Mr. Sheridan. From his local there was Raymond Gaglione, a rela- 
tive of his, and other officials. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were Mr. Raymond and Michael Gaglione's bills 
paid by local 777? 

Mr. Sheridan. They were. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have the checks on those ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes, we have. 

The Chairman. The checks may be made exhibits Nos. 41x1 and 
41B. 

(Checks referred to marked exhibits 41A and 41B for reference may 
be found in the files of the Select Committee.) 



18004 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. That is for all of the bills ? 

Mr. Sherman. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. The Teamsters Union paid for everybody's bill ? 

Mr. Sheridan. That is correct. 

The Chairman. What did they total? What are the amounts 
of the checks ? 

Mr. Sheridan. The amounts of the checks are $205.75 and $30. It 
would be a total of approximately $235.74. 

The Chairman. That was paid out of union dues? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes, sir. On the books of the union it is carried 
as Teamster wedding. 

The Chairman. Teamster what? 

Mr. Sheridan. Teamster wedding. 

The Chairman. Do you have those union men up there who work 
and pay the dues pay your expenses down there to go to a wedding? 

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL B. GAGLIONE, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
H. CLUTORD ALLDER— Resumed 

Mr. Gaglione. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Is there anything incriminating about going to a 
wedding ? 

Mr. Gaglione. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have made an investigation, have you, or people 
"under your direction have made a study of Mr. Gaglione ? 

Mr. Sheridan. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. In the operation of 18-B ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do we find Joey Glimco plays an important role 
-in the control of this local ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do we find Mr. Gaglione in 1953 held a license for 
the Melody Pub? 

Mr. Sheridan. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Which was located at 6729 Stony Island Avenue, 
Chicago, and that is 1957, Vincent Gaglione held a license for Ace's 
Spider Web? 

Mr. Sheridan. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who is Vincent Gaglione ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Vincent Gaglione is the son of Michael. 

Mr. Kennedy. Does he have anything to do with local 18-B ? 

Mr, Sheridan. He is a member of the local and we understand at 
one time he was an official of the local. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do we know anything about tliis tavern, Ace's Spider 
Web? . ^ ^ 

Mr. Sheridan. The tavern is reputed to be a hangout for dope ped- 
dlers and narcotics users. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have we found one of Mr. Gaglione's associates is 
Jimmy Catuara? 

Mr. Sheridan. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Alias the Owl ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 18005 

Mr. Sheridan. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Mr. Catuara ? 

Mr, Gaglione. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is known as the Owl ; is he not ? 

Mr. Gaglione. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he is the syndicate man that controls the gam- 
bling in that area ? 

Mr. Sheridan. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that right ? 

Mr. Gaglione. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Were you elected president of local 18-B or were 
you appointed ? 

Mr. Gaglione. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe m}^ answer miglit tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do we find that Mr. Gaglione drove a car that was 
registered to local 18-B of the Picture Frame Workers Union in 1955 ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes, sir, 

Mr. Kennedy. This car was noticed in attendance at the marriage of 
Claude Maddox's daughter in January 1955 ? 

Mr. Sheridan. That is correct, 

Mr, Kennedy. The car that was being driven by Mr. Gaglione ? 

Mr. Sheridan. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell us why you attended this wedding, 
Mr. Gaglione ? 

Mr. Gaglione, I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
belicA'e my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. What is there about j^our association with this union 
that would incriminate you ? 

Mr. Gaglione. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. The incrimination would not be on the part of the 
union. It would be a self-incrimination by reason of conduct on your 
own part, would it not ? 

Mr. Gaglione. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have any interest yourself in the Ace's Spider 
Web, the tavern ? 

Mr. Gaglione. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me, 

Mr. Kennedy, Your son, because of the union constitution, is in 
there just as a front, is he not, Mr, Gaglione ? 

Mr, Gaglione, I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. The committee will stand in recess until 10 :30 to- 
morrow morning. 

(Members of the select committee present at time of recess : Senators 
McClellan and Capehart.) 

(Whereupon, at 5 :35 p.m. the select committee recessed, to recon- 
vene at 10 :30 a.m., Thursday, March 19, 1959.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 1959 

U.S. Senate, 
Select Committee on Improper Activities 

IN the Labor or Management Field, 

Washington^ D.O. 

The select committee met at 10 :30 a.m., pursuant to Senate Resolu- 
tion 44, agreed to February 2, 1959, in the caucus room. Senate Office 
Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select com- 
mittee) presiding. 

Present : Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas ; Senator 
Frank Church, Democrat, Idaho; Senator Homer E. Capehart, Re- 
publican, Indiana. 

Also present : Eobert F. Kennedy, chief counsel ; Alphonse F. Cala- 
brese, investigator; Martin S. Ulilmann, investigator; Jack S. Bala- 
ban, investigator; James F. Mundie, investigator; John D. Williams, 
investigator; Ruth Y. Watt, chief clerk. 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

(JMembers of the select committee present at time of convening: 
Senators McClellan and Church.) 

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. John O'Brien. 

The Chairman. Mr. O'Brien, come forward, please. Be sworn, 
please. 

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

Mr. O'Brien. I do, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN T. O'BEIEN, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
EDWARD J. CAUHAN, JR. 

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

Mr. O'Brien. My name is John Timothy O'Brien. 

The Chairman. Timothy? 

Mr. O'Brien. Yes, sir. I live in Chicago, 111., I am secretary and 
treasurer of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chicago 
Local No. 710, and second vice president of the International Broth- 
erhood of Teamsters. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

All right, INIr. Counsel, would you identify yourself? 

18007 



18008 IMPROPER ACTIVrnES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Calihan. My name is Edward J. Calihan, Jr. I have an office 
at 105 West Adams Street, Chicago, 111. I am a member of the bar 
of the State of Illinois, 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, Mr. O'Brien has a subpena for his 
personal records which was served upon him. 

The Chairman. Mr. O'Brien, I have before me a subpena issued on 
the 17th day of September, last year, directing you to produce certain 
records for the period from January 1, 1949, to date. 

The subpena appears to have been served on the 18th day of Septem- 
ber 1958, the next day after it was issued. Do you acknowledge that 
you received such a subpena ? 

I hand you the original, together with the list of records and docu- 
ments. 

Mr. O'Brien. Yes, I acknowledge that I received the subpena. 

The CHAHtMAN. That subpena may be printed in the record in full 
at this point. 

(The subpena is as follows :) 

United States of America, 
Congress of the United States L-50&4r 

To John T. O'Brien, Chicago, III., Greeting: 

Pursuant to lawful authority, you are hereby commanded to appear before 
the Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Management 
Field of the Senate of the United States, forthwith, 15)58, at their committee 
room, 101 Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C., then and there to testify 
what you may know relative to the subject matters imder consideration by said 
committee, and produce the data set forth in schedule No. 1 attached hereto 
and made a part hereof. 

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

Given under my hand, by order of the committee, this 17th day of September, 
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and fifty-eight. 

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

Schedule No. 1 

To produce for the period January 1, 1948, to date : 

(1) All bank statements, cancelled checks, check stubs, duplicate deiwsit 
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, with any bank, savings and loan association, building 
and loan agency, or any other agency or individual. 

(2) All records reflecting loans by you, or upon your behalf, made to or 
received 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 soui"ce other 
than Local 710, Joint Council No. 2.5, and the International Brotherhood of 
Teamsters, Chauffers, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. 

(4) All records, reflecting assets, such as trusts, stocks. Government or munici- 
pal 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 correspondence or other records reflecting any dealings by you, or upon 
your behalf with Harland Maris, Elmer Crane, James Keenan, Frank Keenan, 
John W. Murray, Allen Creitz, Aileen Tipton, Joseph P. Glimco, Maris-Scully 
Co., Wheeler-Maris Corp., Dearborn Insurance Agency, Inc., Dearborn Insurance 
Agency. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIEiS IN THE LABOR FIELD 18009 

(6) All diaries, calendars reflecting appointments, and appointment books 
maintained by you or upon your behalf, at your home and oflSces. 

(7) All your personal income tax returns, or those filed jointly by you and 
your wife, both Federal and State, from January 1, 1949, to date. 

Septembeb, 19, 1958. 
I made service of the within subpena by personal service, the within-named 
John T. O'Brien, secretary-treasurer, local No. 710, at 4217 South Halsted 
Street, Chicago, 111., at 2 :30 p.m. on the 18th day of September 1958. 

Alphonse F. Calabbese. 

The Chairman. You are familiar, then, are you, with the records 
and documents that the subpena calls for you to produce ? 

Mr. O'Briex. Yes. 

The Chairman. Have you complied with the subpena, and do you 
have those records here presently ? 

Mr. O'Brien. Yes ; I have the records with me today. 

The Chairman. Do you have all of the records called for by the 
subpena ? 

Mr. O'Brien. I have all of the records that the subpena requires, 
Mr. Senator. 

The Chairman. All of them that are identified in the subpena? 

Mr. O'Brien. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Will you now produce those records and turn them over to the 
committee for the committee's inspection and examination of them? 

Mr. O'Brien. I respectfully decline to turn my records over to the 
committee, because I honestly believe that my turning them over may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. The subpena to which the Chair has referred, I 
believe, only calls for personal records of yourself and not for records 
of the union that you represent. 

Mr. O'Brien. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. So what you are declining to comply with is the 
production of your personal records which, you say, if produced, might 
tend to incriminate you ? 

Mr. O'Brien. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. For that reason you are exercising the privilege of 
withholding and not turning them over to the committee. Am I 
correct ? 

Mr. O'Brien. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. All right, ISIr. Kennedy, you may proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. O Brien, how long have you been with the 
Teamsters Union? 

Mr. O'Brien. I have been with the Teamsters Union since 1915. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been an officer of the Teamsters ? 

Mr. O'Brien. From 1922. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. What office did you have then ? 

Mr. O'Brien. The same office I have now, secretary- treasurer of 
local union 710 in Chicago. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you one of those who formed that union? 

Mr. O'Brien. No, sir. I came in shortly after the organization was 
formed. 

Mr. Kennedy. What position did you take in 1922 ? What position 
were you elected to or appointed to ? 

Mr. O'Brien. A minor position, trustee of the local, I believe. 



18010 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. When did you become an officer of the union ? 

Mr. O'Brien. In December 1922. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did you become president of the union ? 

Mr. O'Brien. I never was president. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did you become secretary-treasurer ? 

Mr. O'Brien. In December 1922. 

Mr. Kennedy. You became secretary-treasurer at that time ? 

Mr. O'Brien. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you have held that position since 1922 ? 

Mr. O'Brien. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What compensation do you receive from the union ? 

Mr. O'Brien. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me, 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you receive any other moneys, other than the 
moneys that you receive from the local? Do you have any other 
source of income ? 

Mr. O'Brien. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you this question : Do you receive any 
moneys from the union, either out of dues, union funds, or from wel- 
fare and pension funds, that are not recorded in the book of expendi- 
tures? In other words, do you receive anything in addition to your 
salary that is not recorded as an expenditure to you, or as a disburse- 
ment to you, that is not so recorded in the financial records ? 

Mr. O'Brien. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. What I am trying to determine, Mr. O'Brien, is 
whether your union is keeping accurate records with respect to what 
it pays you, so that the members might know what you are getting 
out of them. Do you understand ? 

Mr. O'Brien. I understand. 

The Chairman. The question is: Are you getting paid something 
that is being entered on the records of the union as an expenditure of 
some other character or nature other than a payment to you ? 

Mr. O'Brien, I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you think or do you not think that the union 
members who pay the dues are entitled to know what compensation 
you get, all of it, and not just a part of it ? 

Mr. O'Brien. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Then you honestly believe that if you told the 
truth about that, that it might tend to incriminate you, that you were 
get'ing something you are not entitled to, or you claim they are not 
entitled to know about; is that it ? 

Mr. O'Brien. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you believe in an honast accounting of your 
stewardship as an official of a labor organization ? 

Mr. O'Brien. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The C^hairman. Are you willing to make an honest accounting and 
give an honest and truthful report of your activities and the actions 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 18011 

you take in the performance of your duties in connection with your 
representation of the labor organization? 

Mr. O'Brikn. I respectfully declnie to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do 3'ou believe that if you gave an honest account- 
ing of the finances that you handle for your union members that an 
honest accounting of their finances might tend to incriminate you? 

Mr. O'Brien. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Well, I am assuming your answer would be yes, that 
you honestly believe that if you told the truth about it, the truth might 
tend to incriminate you. 

Are there any other questions, Mr. Counsel ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to put some figures into the record, 
Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. All right, bring forward the other witness. 

You may retain your seat, because I think you will be interested 
in this. 

Is he vice president of the international ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Second international vice president. 

The Chairman. Who is the first vice president of the interna- 
tional ? 

Mr. O'Brien. Mr. John Conlin, from Hoboken, N.J. 

The Chairman. You are the second vice president ? 

Mr. O'Brien. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Mundie 

The Chairman. Mr. Mundie, you have been previously sworn? 

Mr. Mundie. I have. 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES F. MUNDIE— Eesiimed 

Mr. Kennedy. Under the arrangements that have been made by this 
local union, the officers, in addition to their salary, receive a certain 
percentage of the commissions ; is that right ? 

Mr. Mundie. They receive commissions on dues and initiation fees 
that are collected by local 710. 

IVIr. Kennedy. That is in addition to their salary ? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. That procedure has been going on for some number 
of years ? 

Mr. Mundie. That is right. 

The Chairman. Do you mean they are operating on a commission 
basis, all they can extract and get out of the union then they divide it 
and split it some way ? 

Mr. Mundie. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is brought up in the executive board, discussed 
in the executive board ? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. In 1953, the particular percentage was set; is that 
right ? 

Mr. Mundie. It was changed in 1953. 

Mr. Kennedy. We do not know what the percentage was prior to 
that time ? 



18012 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

jVIr. MuNDiE. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. The percentage was changed in the executive board 
meeting on June 25, 1953 ? 

Mr. MuNDiE. Yes. Secretary O'Brien was to be given 45 per- 
cent 

Mr. Kennedy. Wait a minute. First explain what the dues are; 
how much is collected. 

Mr. Mundie. Well, they have $4 and $5 a month dues. For example, 
a $4 dues paid by a member is 25 percent taken off, which would be 
$1, for the death benefit fund. 

Mr. Kennedy. That leaves $3. 

Mr. Mundie. That leaves $3. Thirty percent of the $3 is taken off, 
which is 90 cents. 

Mr. Kennedy. So after the death benefits are taken, 30 percent 
of what is left is taken to be split amongst the oflficers; is that right? 

Mr. Mundie. That is right, which is 90 cents. 

The Chairman. In other words, the officers get 90 cents out of every 
$4 collected in dues from the union member ? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

The Chairman. They collected $4 a month? 

Mr. Mundie. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. So these officers take 90 cents a month out of each 
union member's dues and divide it up among themselves? 

Mr. Mundie. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Is that what you are saying? 

Mr. Mundie. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And this is one of the officers that does it, this one 
sitting over here ? 

Mr. Mundie. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. This one that takes the fifth amendment and says 
he cannot answer without possible self-incrimination; is that correct? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

The Chairman. This man that sits here now is the one that is 
taking part of this money from these union boys? 

Mr. Mundie. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is contained in the minutes of June 25, 1953 ? 

Mr. Mundie. June 25, 1953. 

Mr. Kennedy. That provides that Mr. O'Brien is to receive 45 per- 
cent. President Schmitt is to receive 35 percent, and Vice President 
Healy to receive the remaining 20 percent? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

The Chairman. In other words, this man sitting here, this witness, 
gets the biggest hunk of it, 45 percent of the 90 cents? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. In a subsequent meeting ofthe membership — they 
had no meetings of the membership during the summer ; each summer 
there are no meetings of the local union membership — is that correct? 

Mr. Mundie. For a 3-month period. 

Mr. Kennedy. In September of 1953 there was a meeting of the 
membership? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 18013 

Mr. Kennedy. It states in that meeting that the executive board 
minutes were read and approved by the membership? 

Mr. MuNDiE. Of previous meetings ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Of the previous meeting ? 

Mr. Mundie. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. The minutes of previous meetings were read and 
approved as given ; is that correct? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. There is not any specific mention of this percentage, 
but it does say tliat the minutes were read to the membei'ship? 

Mr. Mundie, That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the minutes do contain the fact that the monev 
is to be split in this fashion ? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you relate to the committee 

The Chairman. Let us put the minutes in as an exhibit. 

Do you have a copy of the minutes to which you referred ? 

Mr. Mundie. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. A copy of the minutes to which the witness has 
referred may be made exhibit No. 42. 

(Minutes referred to were marked exhibit No. 42 for reference and 
may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. Do you have the original minutes of the member- 
ship meeting ? 

Mr. Mundie. Yes. 

The Chairman. Of what date? 

Mr. Mundie. September 9, 1953. 

The Chapman. September 9, 1953 ? 

Mr. Mundie. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you have, for convenience, a photostatic copy 
of those minutes ? 

Mr. Mundie. We will have it photostated. 

The Chairman. A photostatic copy of the minutes, the original to 
which the witness has just testified, may be made exhibit No. 43. 

(Minutes referred to were marked exhibit No. 43 for reference and 
may be found in the files of the Select Committee.) 

The Chairman. A photostatic copy of exhibit No. 43 will be pre- 
pared. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Mundie, will you tell us how these figures are 
broken down during the years that we have examined them? We 
did not go into the expenses that these various officers receive ; is that 
right ? 

Mr. Mundie. We did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. All we did was go into the salary that they receive, 
commissions and vacation checks and Christmas checks? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have not listed the expenses that they received 
over and above that ? 

Mr. Mundie. We did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. And we know that they did receive expenses during 
this period of time ? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

36751— 59— pt. 49 21 



18014 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you give us first as to Mr. O'Brien, wliat he 
received ? Have you made up a schedule on that ? 

Mr. MuNDiE. I have. 

The Chairman. Over what period ? 

Mr, MuNDiE. From the year 1952 through 1958. 

The Chairman. January 1, 1952, to what date in 1958 ? December 
31, 1958 ? 

Mr. MuNDiE. December 31, 1958. 

The Chairman. That will be for 7 years. 

Mr. MuNDiE. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Am I correct about that, a 7-year period? 

Mr. MuNDiE. You are correct. 

The Chairman. In the year 1952, Mr. O'Brien received $43,614.86. 
Is that the total he received ? 

Mr. MuNDiE. That is the grand total. 

The Chair^ian. Have you a breakdown of it, shoAving what part 
was salary, what part commissions, and what part other expenses? 

Mr. Mundie. Yes, I do. 

The Chairman. Just give the total for the present. 

Mr. Mundie. In 1953, $52,553.79. In 1954, $62,749.66; 1955, $70,- 
376.62 ; 1956, $74,004.44. 

The Chairman. How much was that ? 

Mr. Mundie. $74,004.44. 1957, $77,292.61 ; 1958, $90,694.13. 

The Chairman. If it has this same percentage- wise growth for 1959, 
we can expect it to reach $100,000 this year, can we not ? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. That makes a total for the 7-year period of some 
$471,286.11? 

Mr. Mundie. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have a breakdown here showing the different 
sources from which this income was received, have you ? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Let this breakdown, this chart showing the analysis, 
be made exhibit No. 44. 

(Chart referred to was marked exhibit No. 44 for reference and may 
be found in the files of the Select Committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. There is one matter in this that we will want to dis- 
cuss, and that is the question of accrued commissions which start in 
1956. 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. O'Brien made an arrangement that instead of 
taking all the commissions in one year, that part of the commissions 
would be put aside; is that riglit? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. So the result would be that he would receive no more 
in any specific year than some $30,000 ? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the rest would be put aside in a fund for him? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. So when he retired he could receive the money then 
over a period of some 10 years ? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. He does not pay taxes on the accrued commissions; 
is that right ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES ITs^ THE LABOR FIELD 18015 

Mr. MuNDiE. No. sir ; he does not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Thfit is just set aside. Although it is his money dur- 
ing that period of time, it is set aside for him to use during a later 
period of time? 

Mr. MuNDiE. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then he will, according to the plan, evidently, pay 
the taxes for it over this 10-3^ear period when lie receives the money 
and when he retires from the union ? 

Mr. MuNDiE. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have a copy of that agreement that makes that 
arrangement, do we not ? 

Mr. Mundie. We do. 

The Chairman. Have you. identified the agreement ? 

Mr. Mundie. No, I haven't sir. 

The Chairman. Will you examine it, please ? 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. ]MuNDiE. This is the executive board meeting of October 28, 
195G, whereby they submitted the agreement of Mr. O'Brien dated 
October 1, 1956. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 45. 

(Document referred to was marked exhibit No. 45 for reference and 
may be found in the files of the select committee) 

The Chairman. May I check this, the totals that you show on the 
source of the income? Are these payments to Mr. O'Brien under 
the heading: Commissions from 1952 through 1958? It shows a total 
of $258,756.40. Is that correct? 

Mr. Mundie. Those are the commissions that he actually received. 

The Chairman. For 1957 and 1958, however, part of that com- 
mission has been set aside, and that set aside part oi the commission to 
which you referred is not included in these figures? 

Mr. Mundie. No, sir. 

The Chairman. In other words, in addition to the $258,000-plus, 
he has also had set aside to his credit a total of $118,929 ? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

The Chairman. And 87 cents. 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

The Chairman. In other words, the $258,000 actually lacks $118,000, 
nearly $119,000, reflecting the true, correct amount that he has taken 
in commissions? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. So in some 7 years 

Mr. Mundie. $471,286.11, less the $118,929.87, which is accrued com- 
missions carried on the books for his benefit. 

Mr. Kennedy. But which actually belongs to him in each particular 
year ? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. So that is almost a half million dollars that he has 
received in salary alone in a period of some 7 j^ears ? 

Mr. iMuNDiE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And from just this local union. I do not believe we 
found any local union in any investigation that we have made that 
pays as high a salary, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. IVIuNDiE. Not in any of my investigations. 



18016 EVIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. May I ask you one other thing? In addition to 
what you show on this chart that has been made exhibit No. 44, in 
addition to that, the local did pay certain other expenditures for him 
that are not included here ? 

Mr. MuNDiE. Yes, sir. They gave him vacation checks. 

The Chairman. Did you show that ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No, that is not included here. 

Mr. MuNDiE. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Any other expenses, as regular expenses, that were 
allowed him ? 

Mr. MuNDiE. They had regular expenses. 

The Chairman. Is that included in this ? 

Mr. MuNDiE. No, sir ; they are not. 

The Chairman. That is what I am talking about. He had a regu- 
lar monthly expense or he submitted bills for expenses actually in- 
curred over this period of 7 years, and those expenditures are not 
included in these totals ? 

Mr. MuNDiE. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now let's put in the other figures for the rest of the 
officers. 

Senator Church. Before you do that, I have a question. 

Mr. O'Brien, you heard the witness testify that over a 7-year period, 
1952 to 1958, you received, over and above actual expenses which you 
charged the union, a total in salary of $84,099.84, and in addition, a 
total in commissions of $258,756.40, and in addition, supplemental 
vacation allowances in the sum of $2,500, and in addition, Christmas 
bonuses in the sum of $7,000, for a grand total of $352,356.42. 

In addition, you have set aside accrued commissions in the amount 
of $118,929.87, making a grand total of a little less than half a million 
dollars, specifically, $471,286.11. What I want to know is: Ave these 
accurate figures? Do you admit them to be accurate or do you deny 
them? 

TESTIMONY OP JOHN T. O'BRIEN, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
EDWARD J. CALIHAN, JR.— Resumed 

Mr. O'Brien. Mr. Senator, I respectfully decline to answer because 
I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Church. Mr. Counsel, let us find out what the other 
officers are paid. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, could we have this made an exhibit 
or has it been an exhibit already ? 

The Chairman. The breakdown of the payments to Mr. O'Brien 
has been made exhibit No. 44. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let's go into the other officers. 

The Chairman. Mr. O'Brien, while they are preparing to go to 
the next item, how much do you get from the international union? 
What pay or compensation do you get from it as second vice 
president ? 

Mr. O'Brien. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me, Mr. Senator. 

The Chairman. This other we are talking about just comes from 
one local. Do you get paid — and I am sure, of coui"se, their records 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 18017 

would show that, so I do not see any point in your* trying to evade it 
as we can get from their records whatever their records show — do 
you also receive compensation from the international ? 

You may not. I do not know. But I think you would want the 
record straight on it. You would not want to leave, maybe on the 
basis of this, with some assumption that you also get an exaggerated 
sum from the international. 

Would you want to give us the correct amount so there will be no 
misapprehension about it ? 

Mr. O'Brien. Mr. Senator, I respectfully decline to answer because 
I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chaiioian. Proceed. 

Mr. MuNDiE. Mr. Frank Charles Schmitt, president of local 
710 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I have some figures on the interna- 
tional which are probably not complete, if you wish them. 

The Chairman. Interrogate the witness based on our information 
and see if he wants to correct the information we have. 

Mr. Kennedy. We understand that he receives approximately 
$6,000 each year from the international. 

Is that correct ? 

And plus money that he receives for special assignments, the 
amount of money we do not know. 

Mr. O'Brien. Mr. Kennedy, I respectfully decline to answer be- 
cause I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairjuan. Are you in favor of robbing these working people? 

Mr. O'Brien. I respectfull}^ decline to answer because I honestly 
believe the answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed. 

Mr. Mundie. In the year 1952, Mr. Schmitt received $20,080.57. 

Mr. Kennedy. "WHiat is his position ? 

Mr. Mundie. President of local 710. 

In 1953, $32,858.96; 1954, $48,844.13; 1955, $54,776.22; 1956, 
$57,597.98; 1957, $60,777.49; 1958, $58,989.87; making a grand total 
of $333,925.22. 

The Chairman. Do you have a breakdown of that? 

Mr. Mundie. I do, sir. 

The Chairman. This breakdown, the chart of it, may be made 
exhibit No. 46. 

(Chart referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 46" for reference and 
may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Xow, do you want to put in about Mr. Frank 
Brown ? 

The Chaikman. "Wlio is Frank Brown ? 

Mr. Mundie. He was president during the year 1952 and part of 
the year 1953. In the year 1952, $29,284.23; 1953, $21,640.62. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Then he retired ; is that right ? 

Mr. Mundie. Then he retired. 

Mr. Kennedy. For each succeeding year he received $9,849.96 ? 

Mr. ]^fuNDiE. Tliat is correct, then it went to $9,850 in 1956, 1957, 
1958, making a total of $100,174.77. 

Mr. Kennt:dy. For a period of some 7 yeai*s ? 

INIr. Mundie. That is correct. 



18018 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Do you have a breakdown of that ? 

Mr. MuNDiE. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That breakdown may be made exhibit 47. 

(Chart referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 47" for reference and 
may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Michael Joseph Healy. 

The Chairman. What is his position ? 

Mr. MuNDiE. Vice president of Local 710. 

1952, $21,280.53 ; 1953, $26,206.11; 1954, $31,910.93; 1955, $35,300.68; 
1956, $36,913.12; 1957, $40,270.00; 1958, $39,008.50; and a grand total 
of $230,889.87. 

The Chairman. Do you have a breakdown of it ? 

]\Ir. MuNDiE. I do. 

The Chairman. The breakdown may be made exhibit 48. 

(Chart referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 48" for reference and 
may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Now you have a recap of all of them ? 

Mr. MuNDiE. Yes. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. lYliat does that show, the recap, for the grand total 
that these four men received during the 7-year period? 

Mr. MuNDiE. $1,136,275.97. 

The Chairman. You have a breakdown of it ? 

Mr. MuNDiE. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit 49. 

(Chart referred to was marked "Exliibit No. 49" for reference and 
will be found in the appendix on p. 18095.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you the amount of money that was paid in 
1958? 

Mr. Mundie. I do. 

The Chairman. How much was paid in 1958 ? 

Mr. Mundie. A total in 1958 was $198,542.50. 
^ Mr. Kennedy. And that was to three working officers and one re- 
tired officer? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

Senator Church. Mr. Chairman, these figures are astonishing. 

Here we have four officers of a Teamster local, if you please. What 
is the membership of this local ? 

^Ir. Kennedy. About 14,000. 

Mr. Mundie. It is apj^roximately 14,000. 

Senator Church. A Teamsters local of approximately 14,000 mem- 
bers all told, working people, and over a period running from 1952 to 
1958 these four officers have extracted, apart from what they have 
charged the union in actual expenses, and apart from other considera- 
tions that we have been inquiring into, some of which have involved 
the insurance business as an ancillary occupation, a grand total in 
commissions, accrued commissions, vacation allowances, Cliristmas 
bonuses, and salary, of $1,136,275.97, and for 5 years during tlmt 
period one of these men did not work at all. 

I submit that this kind of revelation simpl}' emphasizes that these 
men are not labor union loaders at all. They are capitalists, and 
they are capitalists and exploiters in the same tradition as the robber 
barons of old. They take the Robin Hood story and turn it right 
aroimd. Instead of robbing the ricli and giving to the poor, they are 
robbing the working people and making themselves rich. 



EMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 18019 

I thiiik it is the most shockiiif^ disclosure. I just wisli that all the 
working people could know of it in the same detail that it has been 
brought to light in these hearings this morning. 

The Chairman. It would certainly justify an absolute rebellion, a 
rebellion of Teamster members, the rank and file members, against the 
corrupt, robbing, cheating, sordid leadership this union has today. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. O'Brien, we have also inquired into the granting 
of the insurance to the Dearborn Insurance Agency and the Occi- 
dental Insurance Agency. Would you tell us anything about that ? 

Mr. O'Brien. Mr. Kennedy, I respectfully decline to answer be- 
cause I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have correspondence and memorandums that 
indicate that you had an active role in the Dearborn Insurance Agency 
during 1950 and 1951 at least. Can you tell us anything about that? 

Mr. O'Brien. Mr. Kennedy, I respectfully decline to answer because 
I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. We find, in addition to that, that extremely high 
commissions were paid to the Dearborn Insurance Agency and to Mr. 
Maris, in view of the fact that they were able to obtain this insurance 
from the various Teamster locals and from the Hotel and Restaurant 
Workers Local. Can you tell us anything about that ? 

Mr. O'Brien. Mr. Kennedy, I believe I will decline to answer it 
because I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was part of the reason that such high commissions 
were paid because of the fact that the insurance would not be turned 
over to the Dearborn Insurance Agency and the Occidental Insurance 
Co. unless such commissions were paid ? 

Mr. O'Brien. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that was based on your interest, the interest of 
Mr. Brown, who is a Teamster official, Mr. Vacey, who was a Hotel and 
Restaurant Worker Union official, and ]Mr. Blakely, who was also in 
that union. Was that based on their interest in the Dearborn Insur- 
ance Agency ? 

Mr. 0'Brie:n. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. O'Brien, when we began our investigation back 
in 1957, and investigations of Mr. Dave Beck, you were hailed at that 
time, and indicated that you were going to lead a cleanup campaign 
in the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. 

Would 3'OU tell us about that, about what stej)s you were going to 
take to clean up the International Brotherhood of Teamsters? 

Mr. O'Brien. Mr. Kennedy, I respectfully decline to answer because 
I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then subsequently, in the middle of 1957, you aban- 
doned your cleanup campaign and joined forces with INIr. Hoffa; 
isn't that correct? 

Mr. O'Brien. I respectfully decline to answer because my answer 
might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. "\^niat does a cleanup campaign mean in the Team- 
sters 'i Clean the members out, get their money ? Is that what you 
mean by a cleanup campaign? It looks like that is what has been 
going on. 



18020 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. O'Brien. I respectfully decline to answer, Mr. Senator, because 
I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I believe so. 

All right. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, you brought up a moment ago about 
the revolt of the membership against this kind of an operation. We 
are going to present some testimony now in connection with an at- 
tempted revolt against Mr. O'Brien's activities, against Mr. Hoffa's 
activities, and the result of it. 

But I would like to have a 5-minute recess prior to that. 

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

(A brief recess was taken. Members of the select committee present 
at the taking of the brief recess were Senators McClellan and Church.) 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

The Chair is advised that the staff has to do further work. The 
recess will be for a longer period than first suggested, of 5 minutes. 

We will recess over until 2 : 15 this afternoon. The committee will 
resume at that time. 

(Senators McClellan and Church present at the taking of the re- 
cess.) 

(Whereupon, at 11 : 25 a.m., the select committee recessed, to recon- 
vene at 2 : 15 p.m., the same day.) 

afteknoon session 

(The select committee reconvened at 2 : 15 p.m., in the caucus room 
of the Senate Office Building, Senator John L. McClellan, presiding.) 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

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

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Barney Matual. 

The Chairman. Be sworn, please, sir. 

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

Mr. Matual. Yes. 

TESTIMONY OF BARNEY MATUAL 

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

Mr. Matual. My name is Barney Matual. I live in La Salle, 111. 
I am a labor representative. 

Tlie Chairman. A labor representative ? Is there some official title 
witli a union? 

JNIr. Matual. I was president and business agent of Teamsters Local 
46 up until December 1, or January 9, 1959. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

You waive counsel, do you ? Do you waive counsel ? 

Mr. Matual. Yes, sir, 

Mr. Kennedy. What position do you hold at the present time ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 18021 

Mr. Matual. I am a field representative for District 50, United 
Mine Workers of America. 
Mr. Kennedy. How lon<>; have you held that position? 
Mr. Matual. The last few months. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long were you a Teamsters official prior to that? 
Mr. Matual, I have been an official of a Teamsters local since 1936. 
Mr. Kennedy. Did you form or help form a union, a Teamsters 
union yourself? 
Mr. MATLrAL. Yes, I did. In 1936 I formed the Service Station 

Operatoi-s Local Union No. 981 at La Salle 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you give me that again ? 
Mr. Matual. I lielped form the Gas Service Station Operators and 
Attendants Local Union 981 at La Salle, Peru, Oglesby, and Utica, 111. 
Mr. Kennedy. That is four cities in Illinois? La Salle, Peru, 
Oglesby, and Utica? 
Mr. Matual. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What positicm did you have then with local 981 ? 
Mr. Matual. I was vice president when we first organized, and 4 
years later, in 1940, 1 became president and business agent, and I was 
reelected to that position up until April 1, 1955. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then after April 1, 1955, what position did you 
hold? 

Mr. ]VL\TUAL. I was just a business agent of local 46. 
Mr. Kennedy. 981 became 46? 
Mr. Matual. It became 46. 

Mr. Kennedy. What salary were you receiving with this union ? 
Mr. Matual. With 981? 
Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Matual. I received $70 a month plus half of the initiation fee. 
Mr. E^nnedy. And what did you receive with 46 ? 
Mr. jMatual. Well, the last 2 years I received $90 a week, plus car 
expense. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive any other money from the local 
union ? 

Mr. IMatual. Unless I was sent somewhere, to a convention or some 
meeting somewhere. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all, you received $90, plus car expense? 
Mr.;\LvTUAL Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did 981 become local 46 ? 
Mr. Matual. April 1, 1955. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many members did 46 have ? 
Mr. Matual. Of the four — there was four locals merged into 46. 
Mr. Kennedy. How many members first did local 981 have? 
Mr. Matual. About 118 or 112. 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to get into when you merged with local 46. 
Could you start in December 1954? Is that the first time you were 
urged to participate in a merger ? 

Mr. Matual. Well, that was the first real time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you relate to the committee what happened ? 

Mr. Matual. Mr. Hoffa came down on December 4, 1954, with a 

man by the name of Paul Dorfman, Roy Williams 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlio is Roy Williams ? 



18022 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr, Matual. An international representative in Kansas, in the 
State of Kansas, or was at that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who is Paul Dorfman? 

Mr. Matual. Paul Dorfman is in Chicago, 111. He used to be 
with the Waste Handlers Local Union there. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Who else? 

Mr. Mattjal. And Virgil Floyd, from Joliet, 111., his brother Tom, 
and his brother Israel, and a fellow named Dick Kavner, from St. 
Louis, 111. 

Mr. Kennedy. All of these people came down to see you ? 

Mr. Matual. They called a special meeting of all the executive 
boards of these four locals. 

Mr. Kennedy. What locals were they ? 

Mr. Matual. Local 981, local 157, local 253, and local 46. 

Mr. Kennedy. Go ahead. 

Mr. Matual. They wanted us to merge into the Joliet local, 179. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was the local that was headed by Virgil Floyd? 

Mr. Matual. By Virgil Floyd. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you people want to merge in with Virgil Floyd ? 

Mr. Matual. No, we didn't. We didn't even want to merge into 
one local. We wanted to stay as we were, separate unions. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why didn't you want to go in with Mr. Floyd ? 

Mr. Matual. Well, his record wasn't any good, for No. 1 ; and his 
dues were high, that is No. 2 ; and the membership of the 4 local unions, 
which amounted to 700 people, voted, and they voted 694 not to merge, 
and only 7 members voted to go to Floyd. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Floyd was in some difficulty himself at the time ? 

Mr. Matual. Yes. He was mixed up with a pipeline affair that 
was going through his territory. 

Mr. Kennedy. He had received some money from them; is that 
right? 

Mr. Matual. Yes, he did. 

Mr. Kennedy. As a matter of fact, it was in December of 1954 
when Mr. Hoffa, Mr. Kavner, Mr. Eoy Williams, Mr. Dorfman, Mr. 
Floyd, and his brothers, came down to see you, it was in that very 
month that Mr. Floyd had been convicted of receiving this money 
from the employers ? 

Mr. IVIatual. That is right ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And, in fact, he went to the penitentiary for that 
crime ? 

Mr. Maitjal. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. It has been in the last month that he came out of 
the penitentiary? 

Mr. Matual. The last few months. 

Mr. Kennedy. Since January of this year? 

Mr. Matual. No, he was out some time 

Mr. Kennedy. Excuse me. He was out on February 15, 1958. He 
was paroled. 

Mr. Matual. That is right. 

Mr. Kennm)Y. It was liis local that they wanted yon to merge with ; 
is tliat right? 

Mr. Matual. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did any of these individuals that came down to see 
you, did any of them carry any weapons? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 18023 

Mr. ]VIatual. Well, I had to go to the desk where Dick Kavner 
was sitting, and he had a revolver in his coat pocket. His coat was 
unbuttoned and I seen it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Kavner did? 

Mr. Matual. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell them at that time that you didn't want 
to merge? 

Mr. Matual. Yes, we did. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Wliat did Mr. Ploff a say to that ? 

Mr. Matual. Mr. Hoffa said that if we didn't merge into one local 
at liome by April 1, 1955, that he would shove us into Joliet local 179. 

Mr. Kennedy. So a vote was taken as to whether you Avanted to 
merge with jNIr. Virgil Floyd's local, 179; is that right? 

Mr. IMatual. Yes, sir. 

IVIr. Kennedy. You said that vote was what ? 

Mr. JMatual. 694 to 7 to stay away from it. 

Senator Church. Was that the vote just in your own local ? 

IVIr. ^Iatual. The entire four locals. 

Senator Church. The vote was 694 against merging, to 7 for merg- 
ing? 

Mr. Matual. Yes, sir. 

Senator Church. Was that a pretty representative vote of the 
whole membership ? 

Mr. Matu \l. That was the whole membership. 

Senator Church. That was the whole membership of the four 
locals 'i 

Mr. ]\Iatual. Of the four locals. 

ISIr. Kennedy. How did they vote in your local? 

Mr. Matual. 100 percent not to go in. 

The Chairman. How was this vote held ? By secret ballot, by bal- 
lot, or how ? 

Mr. Matual. In the meeting hall, a standing, rising vote. 

The Chairman. There was a standing vote in each hall ? 

Mr. Matual. In each hall. 

Mr. Kennedy. After the visit by Mr. Hoffa, Mr. Kavner, and the 
others, to Peru, did you shortly afterwards attend a Teamster meet- 
ing in Springfield, 111. ? 

Mr. Matual. Yes; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would vou relate to the committee what happened 
there? 

Mr. IVLvTUAL. I walked into the meeting as I usually walked in 
before that. I had been going down there for years before that. And 
when I sat down, the doorman tapped me on the shoulder and said 
I was wanted upstairs at the hotel. And when I went up, there was 
Baker and Virgil Floyd in the room. 

Mr. Kennedy. Barney Baker? 

Mr. Matual. Barney Baker. I sat down and Virgil said to me, 
"So you don't want to cooperate? I have a letter in my pocket from 
you stating that you want to rebel from the Teamsters International. 
You know what that means." 

I said, "You will have to show me the letter, because I never made 
any such remarks." 

He never produced the letter. 

Floyd said, "I told you he wouldn't work with me." 



18024 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

And Barney said, "You better work with him." 

I didn't wholly agree to it, but I partly agreed to it because I was 
partly frightened a little bit. 

The Chairman. You didn't want to get beat up ? 

Mr. Mattjal. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you think that would have happened to you ? 

Mr. Matual. I think so. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you ever seen Barney Baker before ? 

Mr. Matual. I had seen him, but I had never met him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know anything about him ? 

Mr. Matual. Well, he used to be with Hoffa all the time. He used 
to work, I guess, up in Detroit with Hoffa. I think he was a guard to 
Hoffa at one time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the four locals, the four locals in this area, all 
decide to merge amongst one another, merge together ? 

Mr. Matual. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Although you wouldn't merge with Mr. Floyd's lo- 
cal, you decided to merge among yourselves ; is that right ? 

Mr. Matual. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did you do that? 

Mr. Matual. April 1, 1955. 

Senator Church. That was the deadline date ? 

Mr. Matual. That was the deadline date. 

Senator Church. That was the deadline date Hoffa had given you ? 

Mr. Matual. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Virgil Floyd, even after you merged 
among yourselves, did Mr. Virgil Floyd come down to put pressure 
on you ? 

Mr. Matual. Yes ; he did. Even came to our meetings. He even 
came down to sign contracts, working with Stein and a fellow by the 
name of Palmer, without the consent of the executive board of local 46. 

Mr. Kennedy. What would he tell you at that time ? 

Mr. Matual. Wlien he came to one of the meetings, Hal Peseto and 
myself told him he had no business in the meeting and had no business 
following Jenko around, a frozen food outfit, and threatening the 
storekeepers that if they bought frozen foods from Jenko he would 
shut off other deliveries. He said, "A couple of wise guys, huh ? I'll 
get you for that and get your jobs." 

So the following day we went to the city hall and we reported the 
threat to the police department, and we asked for a permit to carry a 
gun. We never got the permit. 

Mr. Kennedy. They would not give you a permit ? 

Mr. Matual. No ; they wouldn't. 

]\Ir. Kennedy. They said under these circumstances they were not 
able to; is that right? 

Mr. Matual. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. At that time, you were in local 46, these 4 locals had 
become local 46; is that right? 

Mr. Matual. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Floyd was continuing to put this pressure 
on the employers, following your men around, to try to get you to 
merge in with his local, is that right? 

Mr. IVIatual. That is rijrht. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 18025 

Mr. Kennedy, At this time he had been convicted of extorting 
monej'^ from the employer and was awaiting sentence; is that right? 

Mr. Matual. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did yon also have pressure from the international 
miion about merging with Mr. Floyd's union ? 

Mr. Matual. Yes. Immediately they sent Farrell, the auditor 
down, to audit the books. The books were audited for all the locals 
the year before that. That was 1954. It is customary in the Team- 
sters International to audit the books about every 4 or 5 yeai"s. He 
came down in April 

Mr. Kennedy. April of what year ? 

Mr. Matual. 1956. 

Mr. Kennedy. You went through 1955 and you had been elected 
president of local 46 in January of 1956? 

Mr. Matual. In the last meeting of December, in 1955, I was 
elected to be president of local 46. 

The Chairinlan. That was after the merging ? 

Mr. JMatual. Yes, sir. And I carried the election by a vote of 4 
to 1, and also the rest of the members that went in with me, the board 
members, they all carried the majority by 2 to 1 and 3 to 1. It was 
a landslide all around. We ran on the ticket that we would not see 
our people be forced to go to Joliet or accept trusteeship, which the 
rank and file did not want at any time. 

So then after the election, 4 or 5 months, Farrell came down and 
started auditing the books. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was Mr. Charles Farrell ? 

Mr. Matual. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was an auditor of the international union? 

Mr. IVLvTUAL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You told him there was no need for an audit as 
they had just been audited? 

Mr. JNIatual. I told him that. But he kept on auditing, and would 
stay a week at a time, and he would go out to Stein's home and spend 
the evenings there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlio is Stein ? 

Mr. IVIatual. He was a business agent who was working to force 
these locals into Joliet. In other words, he was not successful. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was Stein's first name ? 

Mr. INLvTUAL. Art. Arthur Stein. 

Mr. Kennedy. Go ahead. 

Mr. Matual. One day wiien he was auditing the books, the finan- 
cial secretary came in, and Farrell put out a piece of blank paper 
and said, ''Sign your name on it." 

Tlie financial secretary said, "You have nothing on there." 

He said, "lAHiat is the difference ? I will fill it out after you sign 
it." And the financial secretary refused. 

Farrell called him a blockhead, and then he tore up the paper and 
threw it in the wastebasket. 

It wasn't long after that when the same fellow, Charlie Farrell and 
Dave Sark, an assistant to Jolm T. O'Brien, came down with a trus- 
teeship letter stating that Dave Beck has put a trusteeship on the 
local and has appointed John T. O'Brien as a trustee. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is David O. Sark? 

Mr. Matual. S-a-r-k; yes. 



18026 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Is that the same John Timothy O'Brien who testi- 
fied here this morning ? 

Mr. Matual. Yes, sir. 

Senator Church. He was made the trustee ? 

Mr. Maitjal. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now he was made the trustee. He comes down 
there ; is that right ? 

Mr. Matual. They came down and they read the letter. We asked 
them what the charges were. He had no charges, Sark said, and Far- 
rell said, "Well, I want to see if j^ou have any money in the bank." 

I said, "As far as money is concerned, I will take you to the bank 
and show you that the money is there, and I will show you that the 
bonds are hi the safety deposit box. But you will never touch it." 

So we took Farrell to the bank. We showed him that the money was 
there, and then they went home. 

A few days later John T. O'Brien, I think it was June 20th, John 
T. O'Brien came down with Sark in the evening and called us in to a 
meeting and said that he was sent by Dave Beck to impose trustee- 
ship, that he had a job to do, and we asked John T. O'Brien what the 
charges was. He had no charges. He said, "Well, then I want the 
charter and seal." 

Our financial secretary. Art Siebert 

Mr. Kennedy. How do you spell his name ? 

Mr. Matual. S-i-e-b-e-r-t. He went over to the wall, took the 
charter off, pulled the seal out of the safe, and said, "Here vou are, 
Mr. O'Brien." 

Then I said to O'Brien, "You are making a mistake, John, because 
these people are dead against the trusteeship. If you take that charter 
and seal out of here, they are going to go independent and you are 
going to lose them. My advice to you is to call Dave Beck and find out 
what this is all about.'' 

So, Mr. O'Brien got on the telephone and he called Seattle, Wash. 
He got Dave Beck on the telephone. He said, "Dave," — in the mean- 
time 

Mr. Kennedy. You listened in on the extension ? 

Mr. M\TUAL. In the meantime I walked around the partition into 
the other room and listened on the extension. 

He said, "Dave, do j'ou know why I was sent here? I don't kiiow 
why. Their books are clean, their contracts is good, they got money 
in the bank." 

He said, "Do you know the reasons?" 

And Dave Beck said over the phone, and I heard i( on the extension, 
he didn't know wli}^, but he would go to Washington, D.C., and find 
out. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did lie say that somebody had urged them to be put 
in trusteeship? 

Mr. ]VL\TUAL. No ; lie didn't at the time. 

IVfr. Kennkdy. He just said he did not know why. 

Mr. Matual. T asked ]\im for a meeting and he set tlie date for 
July 12, for Washinaton, D.C. Later he notified us that he changed 
the meeting to Dallas, Tex., on July 12. 

So the membershii) voted to send myself and a man by the name of 
Moi-risev to meet with INTi". Beck. 



IMPROPER ACTIVmBS IN THE LABOR FIELD 18027 

So the nio;lit before, on July 11, we arrived at tliis hotel, the Statler 
Hilton, in Dallas. While we were walkin<r throufj^h the lobby, Mr. 
Holfa and Mr. Mohn were walking through the lobby, and Hoffa 
spotted me and said, "Hello, Barney," and I said, ''Hello, Jim" and 
"How are you?" and I said "Fine," and he said, "Barney, I get what 
I want." 

The Chairman. That was the great Jimmy that said that ? 

Mr. Matual. Yes. So then I knew that the trusteeship would be 
given to him. 

But anyway, we stayed for the meeting, and the next day we went 
to the meeting and we had an appointment with Mr. Beck for 3 o'clock. 
We had to wait until 4 before he held his meeting with Hoffa. 

Then he opened the door and we went to the meeting. 

There was Mr. Holfa, jMr. O'Brien, Dave Beck, Harold Gibbons, 
Dick Kavner, Einar Mohn, Steinberg, and a few others, and we came 
in with a briefcase, with contracts, financial standing, showing that 
the local was all right. 

Dave Beck didn't even give me a chance to open up the briefcase. 
Ilotfa popped up and said, "I got a letter in my pocket from Stein." 

Mr. Kenxedt. Who is Stein f 

Mr. Matual. The former business agent of local 46. 

He said it was about "that you have a sweetheart agreement." You 
know, I hadn't signed a contract since I was elected up to that time. 

Mr. Kexxedy. Accusing you of making sweetheart contracts? 

Mr. Matual. Yes, sir. So I said to Jimmy, "You are all wet. I 
haven't signed a contract so far. I have only been in office 6 months." 

He said, "Are you calling me a liar V 

And he jumped to his feet and I jumped to mine, and I said, "All 
right, let's have it." 

Dave Beck jmnped in between us. Dave Beck said, "I am going 
to give you a trusteeship if I have to spend $50,000, $100,000. You 
are going to have a trusteeship because mj" boy Jinnny knows what 
lie is doino-." 

I said, "You might give Local Union 46 a trusteeship, but you will 
never give me a trusteeship," I said. "My father came here from 
Lithuania looking for this freedom. I have it and I am going to keep 
it." And I walked out of the room. 

We went back home and reported to the membei-ship. The member- 
ship took a standing vote not to accept a trusteeship, to fight it all the 
way through. 

So things began to happen. 

On Jul}' 20, John T. O'Brien went to the circuit court and got an 
injunction against us without a hearing. 

Mr. Kennedy. An injunction about what? 

Mr. Matual. Not to operate the local union. I think he accused 
us of stealmg money. That is the reason they issued that injunction. 

So we went back into court on August 6, and we had that injunc- 
tion dissolved. 

Mr. Kenn^edy. Did he say that violated the Teamster constitution, 
to steal money? 

]Mr. Matual. I think he did. 

The Chairman^. It does not violate their code of ethics, does it? 



18028 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES LNT THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. JSIatual. Well, on August 6, we went back to the circuit court 
and we had the injunction removed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Prior to that, had Mr. Farrell come in again ? 

Mr. Matual. On the day that the injunction was issued to Mr. 
O'Brien without a hearing, that afternoon Mr. Farrell came in the 
office, changed the locks, took $535 out of the safe and said to the office 
girls, "Give me the keys ; I am taking over," and he did. We didn't 
know a thing about it until that evening. 

I called the girl at home and said, "Wliat happened? I didn't 
hear from you at 5 o'clock." She said, "Didn't you loiow that Mr. 
Farrell took the money out of the safe, took the keys from me and 
said he was taking over?" and I said, ''No, I didn't." 

So we called a board meeting and decided to open the office. We 
hired a locksmith. He went with us. We opened the door and we 
opened the safe and found out there was $535 missing. So we called 
our attorneys in and the attorneys advised us to make out a check for 
the balance that we had in our checking account and deposit it with 
the attorneys, which we did. We changed the locks. 

Mr. Kennedy. You changed the locks back again ? 

Mr, Matual. No, we put a new lock on altogether. 

Mr, Kennedy. The third lock? 

Mr. Mattjal. The third lock. So the next morning, the attorney 
went to the bank, got the money, and then I went over to the bank to 
get the safety — to get the Government bonds out of the safety deposit 
box, with two other officers because three of us had to sign to get in — 
it was made that way — and Farrell spotted me coming in. 

I never seen a man so nervous. He ran out the door because he 
knew that the injimction was not served yet and the money was 
gone. So the sheriff served the injunction on me about — well, when 
he found me. It was 3 hours later. 

Mr. Kennedy. But by that time you had the bonds out and all the 
money and it had been turned over to your attorneys? 

Mr. jVIatual. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was to keep it in trust for the union? 

Mr. INIatual. That is right. Then they opened up another local 
in La Salle, with the same number, local 46, and John T. O'Bnen 
appointed an alderman in La Salle as the office manager and the 
business agent, by the name of Ed Flower. 

Immediately he began to raid the local union, threatening em- 
ployers if they didn't send the check to— the;y called it— tlie right 
local union 46, and we called ourselves the original local union 46. 
It was quite a confusion. That went on until October 17, 

We went back into the circuit court and we liad an injunction issued 
against them that forced them to close the, office and let us operate. 
Well, you know, the office — the curtains were drawn down but the office 
gii-1 and INfr. Flower still worked with the injunction on them. 

So one Saturday morning the executive board and I went over to 
find out for sure if the office was open. We went upstairs and tlie 
dooi- was wide open and there was Mr. Flower talking to some of 
the members. 

"We gave him a paj^er demanding that $535 — and also we sent money 
to tlie international union for our stamps and they sent the stamps 
to ICd Flo\yei-, witli our money — and also demanding the stamps, 
wliicli he did not surrender. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 18029 

So then they started to raid our teriitory. They started to take 
over the territory Ave always had. In other words, they confined us 
within the city limits of La Salle and Peru. AVe used to go clear out 
past Mendota and west as far as the Bureau County line and east 
halfway to Ottawa. 

Senator Church. Up to this point, so that I am clear, twice you had 
hearings before the court, once after an ex parte injunction had been 
issued. When the time came for the hearing on the merits, the 
court dissolved the injunction and put you back in charge of the union. 
That is correct ; is it ? 

Mr. Matual. No. The court served their injunction witlujut a 
hearing, and then we went back into court on October 17, 1050, and 
had an injunction issued against them to stop them from operating. 

Senator Church. As a counterpart union operating under the name 
of local 46 ? 

Mr. Matual. Of local 46. 

Senator Church. The court then issued the injunction against 
them? 

Mr. Matual. Yes, sir. 

Senator Church. "Was that done on the basis of a hearing ? 

Mr. Matual, Yes. All our injunctions were on hearings except 
their injunction. That was without a hearing. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just at this time something else occurred which re- 
lates back to the original meeting that you had had with Hoffa and 
Kavner and those other individuals a year or so before. 

At that time they had tried to prevail upon you to merge these four 
locals with Floyd Webb ? 

Mr. Matual, Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. There were three other local unions in addition to 
your four that they wanted to merge with Floj^d Webb; is that right? 

Mr. Matual, They merged into Floyd, 

Mr, Kennedy, They did, in fact, merge; the other three merged 
with Floyd Webb? 

Mr, IVIatual, Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Without a vote of the membership ? 

Mr. Matual. I believe one of the three had a vote of the member- 
ship, and the membei-'ship turned out very poor, and the other two went 
in there without a membership. 

Mr. Kennedy, Floyd Webb was convicted at that time. He was 
on appeal. He started serving his sentence in December of 1956. In 
December of 1056 those three locals that Mr. Hoffa had urged to be 
merged with ]\Ir, Webb's union were then taken away from the local 
170, Mr, Webb's union? 

Mr, JMatual, Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy, Mr, Floyd's union, 

Mr, Matual, It was taken away and the charter was set up in 
Ottawa, 111., by the name of local 722 and Mr, John T. O'Brien was 
appointed trustee of that local. 

Mr. Kennedy. So once he went to prison, then they took these three 
locals away from that union and set up a separate union, local 722, and 
put that under the trusteeship of Mr. O'Brien ? 

Mr. ]\LvTUAL. And they also put Virgil Floyd's local 179, under the 
trusteeship of Jolm T. O'Brien, when he went to jail. 

3G75T — 59— pt. 49 22 



18030 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. O'Brien seems to be the favorite trustee as long as 
he can stay out of jail ; is that right ? 

Mr. Matual. It looks that way. 

Mr. Kennedy. Of course, Mr. Virgil Floyd has a very bad record, 
Mr. Chairman, and he was the one that Mr. Hoffa was trying to get 
them to merge with. As I say, at that time he had been convicted of 
this crime of extortion, and they were trying to get these locals to 
merge with his locals. 

Now we are up to December 1956, and Mr. Floyd has gone to prison. 
In February of 1957 did you have a conversation with Mr. O'Brien? 

Mr. Matual. Yes ; I did. In February 1957 they sent down a com- 
mittee, to the Peru Hotel, that was on February 19, and they set up a 
meeting for 10 o'clock to meet our executive board. The head of that 
committee was Daniel Tobin, Jr., to give us a hearing on that trustee- 
ship. 

So we walked into the room and Mr. O'Brien was there, and Dave 
Sark was there. We sat down and Mr. Tobin got up and said, "There 
will be no attorneys allowed in this meeting.'' We told him that we 
would not sit in on the hearing unless our attorney was there with us. 

He said, "Your attorney is not allowed," so we walked out with the 
attorney. We did not sit in with the hearing. So while we were out 
in the lobby of the Peru Hotel, Mr. O'Brien sent his attorney, Joe 
Lanutti, to talk to our attorney, Ploward Rhine, and asked for a meet- 
ing that afternoon at the Kaskaskia Hotel at 2 o'clock, one with me in 
one room and in the other room the attorneys would meet, and we 
accepted the invitation. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who were you to meet with ? 

Mr. Matual. John T. O'Brien. 

Mr. Kennedy. And your attorney was to meet with Mr. Lanutti ? 

Mr. Matual. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. How do you spell his name — L-a-n-u-t-t-i ? 

Mr. Matual. Something like that. 

I walked in the room with John T. O'Brien and he said to me, 
"What does it take to get you out?" I said, "John, are you talking 
money?" He said, "Yes." I said, "The only thing that I ask, John, 
is a local union with local autonomy of our own. Is it hard to get 
that?" 

He said he would talk to Dave Beck and find out. He is still talk- 
ing to Beck. We never did hear. 

In that same year, in November, Mr. Flower came into our office, 
the union office in Peru, and offered me a job with local 722. He 
offered me $125 a week, a car and expenses. I asked Mr. Flower if that 
was what he was receiving and he said he was. 

I said to Flower, "If you are worth $125 a week, car and expenses, 
I am worth $150, car and expenses." He said, "We will give it to you." 
I said, "No, thanks ; I will stay where I am at." 

Our oflice girl was sitting there and she heard that one. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know who was behind all these efforts 
against you ? 

Mr. Matual. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was ? 

Mr. Maitjal. Hoff'a. 

Mr. Kennedy. In that connection, Mr. Chairman, and the fact 
that Mr. Hoff'a plays such an impoitant role in this, I would like to 



LMPKOPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 18031 

draw your attention to Mr. Hoffa's testimony in connection with this 
matter when he was questioned back in 1957, when all of this was going 
on. 

I draw your attention to page 5061, on which he was asked by Sena- 
tor Mundt, when he was being questioned about certain trusteeships, 
Mr. Chairman, he was asked about Peru. Then Senator Mundt asked 
at the top of page 5062 : 

Senator ^Iundt. Do you know the circumstances of that trusteeship? 
Mr. HoFFA. Not enough to tallc about it ; no, sir. 

He was the one that w^as behind this, he was the one you had the 
meeting with originally, who told you that you should join up with 
Mr. Floyd's local? 

Mr. Matual. Yes, sir. 

ISIr. Kennedy. And he is the one that met with you down in Dallas, 
Tex. ? 

Mr. Matual. Yes, sir. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. And he is the one that you met in the lobby of the 
hotel and in Mr. Dave Beck's room ? 

Mr. Matual. Yes, sir. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. And he told you that you were going to have to take 
these steps or be placed in trusteeship ? 

Mr. Matual. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. In July of 1957, and this is one of the most important 
phases that we are coming into now, you attempted to renegotiate a 
contract with the Star Union Brewery Co. ; is that it ? 

Mr. Matual. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Star Union Brewery ? 

Mr. Matual. The Star Union Breweiy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you relate to the committee what happened 
in those negotiations ? 

Mr. !^L\TUAL. I went down to Star Union Beer Co. office and I con- 
tacted the general manager, ]\Ir. Frank Kline, and we sat down and 
negotiated a contract, a 2-year contract, with a 10-cent increase the 
first year, plus connnissions on delivery of beer in cases and beer 
in half -barrels, and a 10-cent increase the following year, and also 
an attaclnnent to the contract which the men that worked there in- 
sisted they must have, and Mr. Kline agreed to it, that if tlie Team- 
sters International Union — I won't be able to quote this word for 
word, but I Avill do the best I can, because my memory is not too 
good on that — that if the Teamsters International Union is expelled 
from tlie AFL-CIO, that that contract with the Teamsters Interna- 
rional Union would expire immediately but it would continue in 
full force to the regular expiration date, and the people could choose 
any union they desired. 

Mr. Kline agreed to that contract, but he said he could not sign 
it because ]Mr. Clinch was the boss at that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is Mr. John Clinch ? 

Mr. INIatual. John Clinch, Jr. 

Mr. Kennedy. C-1-i-n-c-h? 

Mr. Matual. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. He will play a very important role and he will be 
a witness this afternoon. He said that he couldn't sign that contract 
unless he had the approval of I\Ir. Clinch? 



18032 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Matual. So the next morning Tve met with 'Mr. Clinch and 
we were out on strike the same morning. We came out on strike. 
Mr. Clinch said that the only way he would sign that contract was if 
the International Union would sit down and negotiate it, that I should 
call the International Union, 

I said to John Clinch, "I have negotiated contracts now for 18 
years and I have never had an International Union sit down and 
negotiate a contract with me in my life, and I don't need one now.'' 
So then he took a recess on the meeting and he went to the telephone 
and he called John T. O'Brien and he called Dave Beck and he called 
the international president of the Brewery Workers, and I don't 
know who else he called, but I giiess they couldn't help him any 
because at that time there was an injimction against the International 
Union in that territory. 

There was nothing that they could do for John Clinch. So that 
evening Mr. Kline called me back in the office. I was home. He 
said, "Barney, I talked to John Clinch and he told me to sign the 
contract." 

Mr. Kennedy. That was the day of the strike ? 

Mr. M.VTUAL. The day of the strike. 

Mr. Kennedy. After Mr. Clinch refused to sign the contract un- 
less you had an International representative present, and the strike 
occurred ? 

Mr. Matual. Yes, sir. 

Mr, Kennedy. The strike occurred and last 1 day ? 

Mr. Matual. A 1-day strike. 

Mr, Kennedy, They capitulated and agreed to sign the contract 
with you? 

Mr. Matual. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EJENNEDY. At this time, of course, you had been ha\ang this 
fight with the International Union. Did it strike you as strange that 
Mr. Clinch wanted some one from the International Union present? 

Mr. Matual, Well, it wasn't news to me, because he represented a 
certain gi'oup of people in court that were members of the Interna- 
tional Union, 

Mr. Kennedy. And who were opposed to you ? 

Mr, Matual. They were opposed to this local union. John T. 
O'Brien told them not to pay any dues, that they wouldn't have to 
pay any, so they followed his instructions. 

Mr. Kennedy. So the contract was signed ; is that right ? 

Mr, Matual, The contract was signed. And the strike was over. 

The Chairman. I hand you what purports to be a photostatic copy 
of the contract to which you have referred. Will you examine it and 
state if you identify it? 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

The Chairman. Do you recognize that as a photostatic copy of the 
original contract? 

Mr. AIatual. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That may be exhibit No. 50, 

(Contract referred to was marked "Exhibit No, 50" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select connnittee.) 

Mr, Kennedy, I would like to read that clause in the contract. The 
contract states that it should be in existence from August 1, 1957, to 
August 1, 1959 ; is that right ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 18033 

Mr. Matual. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that the terms should remain in effect for that 
period of time ? 
Mr. ]\Ls.TUAL. Yes, sir. 
Mr. Kennedy. Then the last paragraph of the contract states : 

If the Teamsters' International Union is expelled from the AFL-CIO Federa- 
tion, then this contract with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, now AFL-CIO, shall termi- 
nate as of same date of expulsion, but this contract shall be in full force and 
effect from August 1, 1957, to August 1, 1958, by any other union our drivers 
may choose for their bargaining agent. 

Mr. iSlATUAL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. It says here "from August 1, 1957, to August 1, 
1 958." Is that a typographical error ? 

Mr. Matual. Made by the office girl. 

Mr. Kennedy. It should be 1959 ? 

Mr. ISIatual. It should be 1959. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was corrected on the face of the contract, where 
you say it should exist to 1959 ? 

jNIr. JMatual. When I went to the brewery, that is the first thing 
that JNIr. Kline noticed. He said, ''I won't sign a 1-year contract, 
because we agreed to a 2-year contract." I said, "Wliat do you mean ?" 
He said, "Well, there is an error on there" ; and I said, "You are right." 

Mr. Kennedy. And it was corrected on the face ? 

Mr. ]\L\TTJAL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the next situation that arose ? You signed 
this contract and you were working there. What happened as far as 
your disputes with the international union ? 

Mr. IVIatual. Well, we went to court, and John Clinch represented 
that certain group that was with John T. O'Brien, and so during one 
of the sessions, during recess, I kidded John, because Jolin and I are 
pretty good friends. 

I said to him, "By God, John, that international must be paying 
you a pretty good piece of change": and he said, "What do you 
mean ? The international is not paying me anything. The rank and 
filers are paying me." 

I looked at him and I laughed, and I kidded him a little and I 
walked away. 

Mr. Kennedy. In July 1957 you had brought action against O'Brien 
and Flower, charging violation of the injunction against the inter- 
national; right? 

Mr. Matual. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And on August 12, 1957, the Illinois Appellate Court 
upheld your injunction against the international. Then later you 
filed charges against O'Brien and Flower ; is that right ? 

Mr. ]\L\tual. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. They asked for a change in venue ; is that right ? 

Mr. MUTUAL. Well,"they always asked for that, any time we went to 
court. We couldn't ever find a judge to suit him. 

Mr. Kennedy. And a judge 

Mr. INLvTUAL. They picked up Judge Pucci somewhere. 

Mr. Kenn-edy. P-u-c-c-i ? 

Mr. ]Matual. P-i-c-c-i. or somethine; like that. 



18034 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. IvENNEDY. And he was brought in from another county ? 

Mr. Matual. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And lie ruled that the trusteeship against your local 
was not valid ? 

Mr. Matual. He ruled that the trusteeship was illegal that they 
applied, but that if certain articles — for example, there was a bill miss- 
ing there for $1,000 in furniture that they bought before my time, 
before I became president of local 46, in fact before I became a member 
of local 46. That bill was lost or mislaid or something. He used that 
as one article. Then the other article he used 

Mr. Kennedy. In substance, he said that although the trusteeship 
was illegal, that they might very well have had reasons to impose a 
trusteeship, the international union? 

Mr. ]V£a.tual. Yes. That was one. And the other one was you can't 
run for office unless you are a member of the international union 
2 years, with dues paid up on the first or before the first. That was 
another charge. 

Mr. O'Brien appointed Flower as a business agent and office manager 
of local 46 that they set up in La Salle, and his dues were never paid 
on the first or before the first 2 years in advance, and he also appointed 
Mr. O'Brien as a financial secretary of local 722 at Ottawa, and still 
Mr. Flower was not eligible to hold office, according to the international 
constitution, because the 2-year period was not up. 

Mr. Kennedy. And on the question of the misuse of union funds. 
$1,000 that was involved, that occurred prior to your coming into the 
local union ? 

Mr. Matual. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. His decision came down in September of 1958; is 
that right? 

Mr. Matual. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the international then again set up another 
alternate local 46 in La Salle, 111. ? 

Mr. Matual. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did they proceed to do then ? 

Mr. Matual. They proceeded to threaten employers, that if their 
people didn't join local 46 they would shut off their deliveries, and 
they stopped one truckdriver from even bringing his truck from Chi- 
cago, working for Tobler Transfer Co. He had to ride home with 
another truckdriver that belonged to John T. O'Brien's local 46. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did truckdrivers try to deliver things in Chicago and 
had to return ? 

Mr. Matual. The employers got frightened and most of them sent 
their people to O'Brien's office and told them to sign up, because they 
wanted to stay in business. 

Mr. Kennedy. So with this pressure on them, a number of them 
signed up ; is that right ? 

Mr. Matual. Quite a few. To cite you one example, we went to 
a bakery by the name o^ Om-.'- one night to apk' the ])eoplo to V;f>long 
to this union, which they did U[) to that day, and Mr. Flower came in 
there with another man by the name of Benning that they sent up from 
southern Illinois to work with them, and the employees demanded 
a deliate to see what union they would belong to. 

After we debated the situation, they took a vote, and the employees 
voted out of 21, 19 to stay with us and 2 voted to go to Flower's 46. 



UMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 18035 

Immediately the international union got hold of the officials in Mil- 
waukee, of the company, and told them that they had a contract with 
them. 

The company got hold of their employees and told them that if they 
belonged to the Aline Workers local they would have to close their 
office in La Salle, they could not operate. So the men were forced to 
join local 40. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they tlien have a meeting or a hearing as to 
whether trusteeship should be imposed on your local? 

Mr. Matual. Then we went into court 

Mr. Kennedy. This is in September of 1958. September and Oc- 
tober, I'ight aftei- Judge Pucci's decision. 

Mr. Matual. Well, we went back to court asking for another tem- 
porary injunction against them, and the judge sat down and said, 
''The best thing to do is to get the two parties together because you 
will be walking back and forth with injunctions all your life and 
not getting anywhere.'' 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me take you back just a little bit. 

There was a hearing by the international union. Mr. Hoffa set 
up a committee of three individuals on whether to impose a trustee- 
ship on your local, to follow the procedure that should be followed 
under the trusteeship? 

Mr. Matual. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was headed bj^ the first vice president of the 
Teamsters, Mr. Conlin, was it? Who was the head of that com- 
mittee? 

]\Ir. ]\Iatual. The people that came down to have that trusteeship 
were Dave Sark and Ed Flower, 

Mr. Kennedy. But they had a meeting, one of the international 
vice presidents and two other individuals, which you did not attend, 
which vou bovcotted, as to whether a trusteeship should be imposed 
on local 46 ? 

Mr. Matual. Yes, I remember that. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not go. 

^Ir. Matual. We did not go. 

^Ir, Kennedy. Anyway, the ultimate decision was that a trustee- 
ship should be imposed? 

Mr. Matual. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. So they came down in October 1958 to impose a 
trusteeship, on or aiound October 10, 1958. 

Mr. Mati'al. They sent Dave Sark and Ed Flower, and they had 
the same letter, that they were imposing a trusteeship. 

jNIr. Kennedy. Then you people still refused to recognize the tnis- 
teeship ; is that right ? 

Mr. ISIatual. The rank and file wouldn't accept it. 

Mr. Ivennedy. So, in October of 1958, they came in to try to im- 
pose a trusteeship, and they had their own local 46 going at the same 
time ? 

Mr. Matual. They started their local immediately. 

^Mr, Kennedy. Then did you go up and meet with Mr. O'Brien 
in Chicago? 

]Mr. Matual. Yes, we did. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was in November of 1958 ? 

Mr. Matual. 1958. 



18036 IMPROPER ACTrV'ITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

INIr. Kennedy. What happened at that meeting; with Mr. O'Brien ? 

Mr. Matdal. Mr. O'Brien — we went in there, five board membei-s; 
myself, the vice president, Moriarity, financial secretary Fred Boos- 
hart, rer'.ording secretary Kobert Stewart and one of the trustees, 
Melvin Siebert, and our attorney, Taylor Whithem. 

We met with Mr. O'Brien, Dave Sark, and their Chicago attorney 
by the name of Segall, and their Ottawa attorney, Lanutti. 

Our attorney said to O'Brien, "What have you got to offer?" and 
O'Brien said, "Well, I have two things to offer you. You can have 
an independent local of your own or you accept the trusteeship." 

The Chairman. The committee will be in recess for about 15 
minutas until the members can go to the Senate chamber and respond 
to this rollcall vote. We will be back in session in about 15 minutes. 

(A short recess was taken, with the following members of the 
select committee present: Senators ]\IcClellan and Church.) 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. So when you had this meeting in Chicago with 
Mr. O'Brien, he gave you several choices, one that you could go 
independent, or the other that you could accept trusteesliip ; is that 
right? 

Mr. Matual. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. The other local 46 had been operating at the same 
time ? 

Mr. Matual. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Going back for a moment to Judge Pucci's deci- 
sion, had you been meeting or had your attorney met Judge Pucci 
at all during this period of time? Had you met him in his own 
chambers? 

Mr. Matual. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had your attorney been meeting him in his 
chambers ? 

Mr. Matual. That I wouldn't know, 

]Mr. Kennedy. The records of the lawyer for the Teamsters indi- 
cate that he was conferring quite frequently in conferences with 
Judge Pucci. On November 1, a conference for an hour in the morn- 
ing; on November 1, another conference in the afternoon for a half- 
hour. 

Then on November 4, for a 15-minute period. But you don't Imow 
about your attorney. Did you know that these conferences were 
taking place? 

Mr. Matual. No. 

INIr. Kennedy. After you got the alternatives from O'Brien, you 
went back to your own local then ? 

Mr. IMatual. We went back home. We put an ad in the paper 
and we called a special meeting of the membership. They took a 
vote on what they wanted, 

Mr. Kennedy, What did they vote to do ? 

Mr, Matual. They voted to go independent. 

Mr. Kennedy. "WHiat was the vote ? 

INIr, Matual. 165 to go independent and 15 to join 722, and 15 to 
accept the trusteeship. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you went independent ? 

Mr. Matual. We went independent. 



EVIPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 18037 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Did you affiliate thereafter with another interna- 
tional union? 

Mr. Matual. We affiliated with District 50, United Mine Workers. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did you do that? 

]\Ir. ISLvTUAL. AYe took a vote that same evening of the members. 
We first called in the representatives of the Mine Workers to talk 
to the members, and then we took a vote and the members voted 
to go into the Mine Workers. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. That was on November 22, is that right, 1958? 

Mr. Matual. Yes, sir. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Then did you have some discussions with the of- 
ficials of the Union Star Brewery ? 

Mr. Matual. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. The Star Union Brewery ? 

Mr. Matual. Yes. I went down to the office of the Star Brewery 
Co. and met with Mr. Kline, the general manager, and I asked him 
to recognize district 50. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Wliat did he say ? 

Mr. Matual. He said that he would have to take it up with John 
Clinch. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. So what happened then ? 

Mr. Matual. John Clinch — well, he didn't seem to want to sign the 
recognition. 

Mr. Kennedy. So a strike commenced on January 9, 1959 ? 

Mr. JVIatual. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was at the bottle works of the company, and 
on January 13, 1959, at the brewery ; is that right? 

Mr. Matual. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did some outside Teamsters then come in to tiy to 
break your picket line ? 

Mr. Matual. Yes. They imported, about 2 days after we went out 
on strike, they imported about 10 cars of outside people, and they 
drove — Mr. Flower led them through the picket line into the brewery. 

Mr. Kennedy'. They were trying to break your picket line ? 

Mr. Matual. The}^ broke the picket line. They drove right into 
the brewery. 

Mr. Kennedy. Your people had voted to go out on strike ; is that 
right? 

Mr. Matual. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. None of the people that worked in the brewery had 
gone over with Mr. Flower's local ? 

Mr. Matual. Not one then or not one since. 

Mr. Kennedy. The United Mine Workers represented the employ- 
ees of the brewery ? 

Mr. jVL\tual. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then the Teamsters sent in these outsiders to try 
to break the picket line ? 

Mr. Matual. Yes, sir. 

ISIr. Kennedy. Was that successful ? 

Mr. JSIatual. No, it wasn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. They came through the picket line, but it was not 
successful in breaking the strike ? 

Mr. Matual. Not a successful break. 

Mr. Kennedy. The strike is going on at the present time ? 



18038 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Matual, They came throiij^h once again. 

Mr. Kennedy. When was that ? 

Mr. Matual. Last month, I think around the 18th. 

Mr. Kennedy. T\Tio were these people who came through your 
picket line? 

Mr. Matual. From all over the State. The police took the license 
nmnbers of the cars and they checked them. One was from St. Louis, 
a couple from Collinsville, 111. ; one from Springfield ; one from Joliet; 
one from Rock Island. 

Mr. Kennedy. So the Teamsters now were acting in the capacity 
of strikebreakers ; is that right? 

Mr. Matual. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were sending in strikebreakers ? 

Mr. Matual. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. So in 1959 the Teamsters have taken on this addi- 
tional burden of acting as a strikebreaker? 

Mr. Matual. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What do they call a strikebreaker? T^Hiat is the 
general term for it ? 

Mr. Matual. Do you want to hear it ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Matual. Scab. 

The Chairman. So some of the Teamsters do a little scabbing on 
their own ? Some of the officers directed it ? 

Mr. Matual. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. So you got scabbed at a bit, your group ; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Matual. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. What position did the authorities in the city take 
toward the scabs ? 

Mr. Matual. The majority of Peru and the police department went 
in and notified John Clinch that if there was any skulls to be broken, 
it wouldn't be the people of this community, it would be the outsiders 
that they liave imported. 

Mr. Kennedy. So it was not successful ? 

Mr. Matual. It was not successful. 

Mr. Kennedy. Thev left? 

Mr. Matual. They 'left. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is, after the strong position taken by the city 
authorities? 

Mr. Matual. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Clinch and the brewer}^ sign a contract with 
the Teamsters? 

Mr. Matual. Not tliat I know of. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, in February of 1959 did they aimouiice that 
they had signed a contract? 

INIr. Matual. I heard about it, but the workers don't know any- 
thing about any contract that he signed. He didn't approach the 
workers. 

Mr. Kennedy. The attorney for the company, for ISIr. Clinch, an- 
nounced he had signed a contract with Mr. O'Brien; is tliat right? 

Mr. Matual. He announced that, but the workers never seen the 
contract nor heard about him signing a contract, or neither did I. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 18039 

Mr. KJENNEDY. And Mr. O'Brien didn't represent any of the em- 
ployees ? 

Mr. Matual. Not one. He didn't represent them then; he don't 
represent them now. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if Mr. Clinch w<as receiving any 
money? Mr. Clinch's wife is one of the owners of the brewery; is 
that right? 

Mr. Matual. Her mother is a stockliolder of the brewery, but I 
don't think his wife has any stock in there. 

Mr. Kennedy. His wife's family? 

Mr. Matual. The family has ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Clinch was the attorney for the brewery? 

Mr. Matu.u.. If he was, he was self-appointed. 

Mr. Kennedy. For the brewery ? 

Mr. Matual. For the brewery. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, he participated in some of the negotiations 
on the contract with you. 

Mr. Matual. In 1957. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

JNIr. Matual. Yes ; that one day. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then he was acting in the capacity, certainly, as one 
of the attorneys for the brewery ? 

Mr. Matual. Yes, he was, and he was also acting in the capacity 
or representative of those few people that O'Brien had down home 
at that time, in court. 

Mr. Kennedy. So he was representing not only the brewery, but he 
was representing some of O'Brien's followere; is that right? 

Mr. Matual. And he was also representing the city of Peru as a 
city attorney. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if he received any money from the 
Teamsters Union ? 

Mr. Matual. No ; I don't. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you go down to the Teamsters' Miami conven- 
tion? 

Mr. Matual. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you try to present your case at that time? 

Mr. Matual. I walked in the credential room at the Eden Roc 
Hotel on Sunday afternoon about 2 :30 with my letter from the local 
union identifying me as an elected delegate to the convention, and 
also with injunction papers showing that the Teamsters International 
Union was under injunction, that this local 46 was proper according 
to law, and I wanted to get before the executive board and present 
my case. 

I walked down the aisle halfway when Charlie Farrell, the inter- 
national auditor, spotted me and he said, "Throw him out." So down 
came the two guards by the door to grab me by the arm, and I told 
them I found my way in and I would find my way out, and I walked 
out. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never had a chance to present your case ? 

Mr. IMatual. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you recognize anv of the other 

Mr. :\L\tual. Then'^I met John T. O'Brien right after that in the 
pressroom and he said to me, "You are not going to get in that con- 



18040 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

veiition. I am going to see to it that you don't get in there. You 
have no business in there." 

And I didn't. 

Senator Church. Was that the convention that elected Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. Matual, Yes. 

Senator Church. He was elected president of the International. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Trevaro is a vice president of local 732 ; is he ? 

Mr. Matual. Yes, sir, 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Clarence Keim is a business agent and 
president of local 722 ? 

Mr. Matual. He was at that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they attend the Miami Convention ? 

Mr, Matual. Yes, they did. 

Mr. Kennedy. As delegates of what local ? 

Mr. Matual. 179, out of Joliet. 

Mr. Kennedy. Even though they were officers of 722 ? 

Mr. Matual. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. From the conversations that you had with Mr. 
O'Brien and with these other individuals, was there any question 
in your mind who was behind this effort ? 

Mr. Matual. James Hoffa. 

Mr. Kennedy. That, of course, is in direct conflict with the testi- 
mony that he gave before the committee during August of 1957 when 
all of this was taking place. 

But you say that the testimony you have given regarding your 
meetings with Mr, Hoffa is correct ? 

Mr. Matual. Yes, Your Honor. 

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

The Chairman. I believe you folks have had a little trouble trying 
to operate your own union ; have you not ? 

Mr. Matual. We had plenty of trouble and still have. 

The Chahiman. We have been talking about democracy, getting 
a little democracy in unions. Is that all you have been fighting for, 
the right for your men, the people who constitute your local there, 
to have tlie right to make their own decisions ? 

Mr. Matual. Yes. I was elected by the people and I thought I 
would serve them just the way they wanted me to serve them. 

The Chairman. Do you still have the support of a majority of 
them ? 

Mr. Matual. Yes, 

The Chairman. Are you still out on strike ? 

Mr. Matual. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. They have not been able, with the help of these 
outsiders, to break your strike yet? 

Mr. Matual. Not yet. 

The Chairman. As I understand it, the company would just as 
soon go on and sisrn up with you, but they are apprehensive about 
the other side; is that correct? 

Mr. Matual. Mr. Kline would sign up with us tomorrow morning, 
if he could. 

The Chairman. Do you mean the company man? 

Mr. Matual. The company, the general manager. 

The Chairman. So the real issue here, the real trouble, is not so 
much between the men and the company they work for, as it is a 



niPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1S041 

tight between the unions, between segments, different elements of the 
union ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Matual. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. That is what is causing the trouble? 

Mr. Matual. It looks that way. 

The Chairman. I was quite interested in this aspect of it. We 
are trying to get democracy in unions, and the Teamsters is possibly 
the largest and most powerful, in many respects. 

From your testimoiiy I believe we have a demonstration or an illus- 
tration of democracy, Hoffa-Teamster style. You and your local up 
there seem to be the victims of it now. 

Mr. Kennedy. You sa}^ that as far as some of the officials of the 
company, they would sign up. Would you also apply that charac- 
terization to Mr. Clinch? 

Mr. Matual. No ; I wouldn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. He represents the company, does he not? 

Mr. Matual. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He would appear to favor Mr. O'Brien and his 
group, would he not ? 

Mr. Matual. Yes, sir ; very much so. 

Senator Church. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me 

The Chairman. Is Mr. Clinch a lawyer? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Senator Church. That this witness's testimony indicates how very 
difficult it is for the rank and file to deal with those in command of 
the Teamsters International. So often we hear it said, ""VNTiy don't 
these working people rise up and throw the rascals out?" Well, 
that is much easier said than it is done. I think this story exemplifies 
that fact very well. 

I want to commend the witness for the way he stood up for his 
rights and for the rights of his people. In the long run, the best 
work will be done by men like the witness, who are determined to 
fight for their rights and the rights of the people they represent, and 
are not going to permit themselves to be shoved around. I think we 
owe this witness a good deal in coming here today and giving us his 
story. 

The Chairman. As I understand, there is no difference between 
you and the company, between your union and the company, with 
respect to wages or terms of employment or working conditions; 
there is no issue there ? 

Mr. Matual. No issue whatsoever. 

The Chairman. It is just a question of who is going to get the 
money from the dues? 

Mr. Matual. That is right. 

The Chairman. And who is going to manage and control the 
union; is that right? 

Mr. Matual. No; who is going to be the representative of those 
people. 

The Chairman. They are the ones who really control it. 

Mr. Matual. That is right. 

The Chairinian. Certainly that would be true if the other side gets 
it; is that correct? 

Mr. Ma'ixtal. Yes. 



18042 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. I just saw here this morning when we heard the 
testimony of this man O'Brien they just take 90 cents out of $4 and 
split it up in great big commissions and got such a big hunk they 
can't take it all out now. They have to leave some of it in the deep 
freeze for retirement. 

Thank you very much. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Clinch. 

The Chairman. Be sworn. 

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

Mr. Clinch. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN J. CLINCH, JR. 

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

Mr. Clinch. I am John J. Clinch, Jr. Among various of my 
endeavors I am a duly licensed attorney-at-law under the laws of the 
State of Illinois, and have been so licensed for more than 17 years. 
Any other endeavors I will leave to the discretion of this honorable 
body rather than to go on into others. 

I will elaborate if you like. You asked about occupation. I will 
continue at the pleasure of the Chair. 

The Chairman. You have some other interests, possibly, and that 
may come out in the course of the interrogation. But primarily you 
are an attorney ? 

Mr. Clinch. That is my principal endeavor. I am not at all try- 
ing anything more than to give the committee its discretion. I am 
otherwise engaged monetarily and financially, but I will develop it 
at the pleasure of the Chair. 

The Chairman. We will proceed, then. 

Mr. Clinch. I reside at 2116 Tenth Street, Peru, 111., and have so 
resided there for more than — well, there and next door since I re- 
turned from World War II, approximately 14 years. Prior to that 
I was a native born of LaSalle, 111., where I resided all my life until 
World War II. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to see if we can keep our answers brief as 
we go through these situations. 

Mr. Clinch. I wanted full identification, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are city attorney for the city of Peru ? 

Mr. Clinch. I am. 

Mr. Kennedy, And you are vice president and corporation counsel 
for the Star Union Brewery ? 

Mr. Clinch. I am. And secretary of the corporation, and mem- 
ber of the board of directors. 

Mr. Kennedy. And your wife's family has a major interest in the 
brewery ? 

Mr. Clinch. Correct, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 18043 

Mr. Kennedy. In 1957, you were approached, were you, to assist 
some members of local 46 in their altercations with Mr. Matual, 
Barney Matual ? 

Mr. Clinch. More than altercations with Mr. Matual. Yes, I was, 
as a private practicing attorney ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. AVho were you approached by ? 

Mr. Clinch. Initially John hliarp. He is a coal dealer and 
member of the Teamster Local Union No, 46. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then did you meet with certain other members? 

Mr. Clinch. That was his call. He made an appointment where 
ho and six others made an evenino- appointment about the latter part 
of February 1956, and at that time I first had any attachment or 
opportunity as to whether I would take their case. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was a truck owner, was he ? 

Mr. Clinch. He is a coal dealer and truck owner, yes, has been for 
many years. He succeeded his father. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is the one that approached you about repre- 
senting some of these members of the union ? 

Mr.^LiNcH. Correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. You then met with some members of the union ? 

Mr. Clinch. His group, who later I then knew were then members 
and as far as I know are still members of local union No. 46. 

Mr. Kennedy. They wanted you to represent them, did they? 

Mr. Clinch. Right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did represent them ? 

Mr. Clinch. I took the matter initially under advisement to find 
out. We had about a 3-hour conference, but ultimately, in substance, 
yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What arrangements did you make as far as com- 
pensation was concerned? 

Mr. Clinch. Skipping the details, I took the group case on the 
predication of group representation, that I would represent them 
individually in their status with respect to their own union affiliation 
and with respect to their job security with their respective employers. 
It was purported some 500 were in need of such, but it never reached 
more than approximately 

Mr. Kennedy. What sort of compensation were you to receive? 

Mr. Clinch. On the group representation theory, I indicated it 
was unknown, but I committed myself to take it with an initial retainer 
of $1 plus further limitations not to exceed a total aggregate of $5 per 
individual on that aspect. 

Mr. Kennedy. $5 a person ? 

Mr. Clinch. Right, having in mind $500, or $2,500 maximum. 

Mr. Kennedy, So you then proceeded to represent them in their 
disagreements with Mr. MatuaH 

Mr. Clinch. Right. 

Mr. Kennedy. At that time, or subsequently, did you also become 
attorney for the brewery ? 

Mr. Clinch. Later, yes, in point of time. 

Mr. Kennedy. In 1957 yon became attorney for tlie brewery? 

Mr. Clinch. Right. In July, I believe. 

Mr. Kennedy. 1957. And this local union represented the em- 
ployees of the brewery, did it not ? 



18044 IMPROPER ACTWITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Clinch. Local 46? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Clinch. The Brotherhood of Teamsters ; right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you continue, after you became attorney for the 
brewery, and in view of the fact that your wife had an interest in the 
brewery, or did you then give up your representation of these em- 
ployees in their disagreements with Mr. JNIatual ? 

Mr. Clinch. None of the employees of the brewery were involved. 

Mr. Kennedy. But they were having an altercation or disagree- 
ment with Mr. Matual ? 

Mr. Clinch. None of the employees of the brewery were among 
my clients. 

Mr. Kennedy. But the people you were representing, supposedly 
representing, were having this disagreement with Mr. Matual, who 
was the bargaining representative for the employees of the brewery. 

Mr. Clinch. Not only with Mr. Matual, but the International 
Brotherhood. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you keep on ? 

Mr. Clinch. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive compensation from these people 
that you were representing ? 

Mr. Clinch. Only — well, immediately the initial $2 retainer, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you received a dollar ? 

Mr. Clinch. Approximately $123 ; right. 

Mr. Kennedy. $123? 

Mr. Clinch. Right. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long did you continue to represent them? 

Mr. Clinch. Eight to date I am representing them, and have not 
billed them for the remaining $4, no. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have only received $123 ? 

Mr. Clinch. Right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Coming up into 1959 and 1958, did you sign a con- 
tract with Mr. John O'Brien of the International Brotherhood of 
Teamsters ? 

Mr. Clinch. On only one occasion I signed with the employer, 
Star Union Products Co., a contract with Mr. O'Brien. 

Mr. Kennedy. With whom ? 

Mr. Clinch. I signed it in behalf of management. John T. O'Brien 
signed it in behalf of labor. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did you sign that ? 

Mr. Clinch. I know it was, in point of time — I cannot now i-ecall, 
but I know it was subsequent to the imposition by the Brotherhood 
of a trusteeship, which I believe was in early October 1958. 

Mr. Kennedy. But your employees had voted to affiliate with the 
United Mine Workers. 

Mr. Clinch. Not at that time, no. 

Mr. Kennedy. In 1958 they did. 

Mr. Clinch. Not at tlie time in 1958 of which I am spealving. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you signed this contract between October 
of 

Mr. Clinch. Sometime after October 6, that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. October 6 ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVn^IES IN THE LABOR FIELD 18045 

Mr. Clinch. That is my recollection, yes. After tlie appointment 
of the trustee. It is of record. I can't recall the date now. He was 
in capacity of trustee. 

Mr. Kexnedy. Is the contract dated ? 

Mr. Clinch. No, it is not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why didn't you date the contract ? 

Mr. Clincil I followed the pattern of the prior contract, immedi- 
ately prior and others, in which, for some reason unknoAvn to me, 
there were no dates of execution. They covered the working period, 
retroactive, beginning and ending. Apparently there was a custom 
established. 

Mr. Kennedy. This contract that you say you signed in 1958 which, 
if it was between the time the trusteeship Avas imposed — which was 
around the 9th or lOth of October 1958 — and the time they affiliated 
with the United Mine Workers, which was November 22, 1958 

Mr. Clinch. I would doubt that information. I don't know when 
they affiliated. 

Mr. Kennedy-. Are you positive and can you state here under oath 
tliat you signed the contract in that time ? 

Mr. Clinch. It is my best recollection that it was between that 
time. I cannot positively say that it was, no, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy'. Were the employees ever consulted ? 

Mr. Clinch. Not by me. 

Mr. Kennedy'. Were the employees ever consulted by anyone that 
you know ? 

Mr. Clinch. Not to mj' knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy'. If you did not sign the contract between those dates, 
Mr. O'Brien without any question, didn't represent your employees. 

Did you attempt to determine whether he represented the employees ? 

]Mr. Clinch. It was my knowledge that our employees were, and 
as far as my knowledge, and as far as I would know anyone within 
management, they were Teamsters. I don't know when they disaffili- 
ated. I wouldn't know. 

Mr. Kennedy'. But Mr. Matual represented the employees in your 
plant. 

Mr. Clinch. He had participated — I get this on information and 
belief, and I don't know as to when ; it is what is called a schism. He 
left the Teamsters. 

Mr. Kennedy'. And the employees left with him. 

Mr. Clinch. They may have. I don't know when they may liave 
or what affiliation they may have. I am Avithout information on that. 

]Mr. Kennedy'. You are without information and yet you go ahead 
and sign a contract Avith Mr. O'Brien, a representative of an inter- 
national that has been expelled from the AFL/-CIO, you go ahead and 
sign a contract Avitli him without determining whether he rej^resentod 
your employees or not ? 

Mr. Clinch. I was of tlie opinion that he did. I had no informa- 
tion to the contrary. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you knoAv one employee that he represented ^ 

Mr. Clinch. I thought all — one classification under one of Iavo 
contracts, the truck driA^ers. I thought he did. 

Mr. Kennedy'. Mr. Matual represented them. 

36751— 59— pt. 49 2.3 



18046 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Clinch. He did at one time. But Mr. Matiial, and I only have 
information from the newspaper, chose not to be a Teamster, and he 
himself, together with, and I have no information, many members, 
but a minority of local 46, there was a 600-plus membership, I don't 
have the information, Mr. Matual might know, perhaps, according to 
press information, which is all I have, 165 members of local union 46 
held an election sometime in, I think, November or December of 1956, 
to disaffiliate and organize a new union. I don't know where our 
particular employees in the Star Union Products Co. voted, how, or 
what, on that issue. 

Mr. Kennedy. Before you sign a contract with somebody, wouldn't 
you want to find that out? 

Mr. Clinch. It was my impression that at the time I signed it that 
they were still Teamsters. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you try to determine from your employees 
whether they were independent, with the United Mine Workers or 
with Mr. O'Brien? 

Mr. Clinch. Management was of the opinion at the time that the 
contracts were signed, to the best of my knowledge and recollection, 
that they were Teamsters. 

Mr. Kennedy. It seems very peculiar to me that way back in 1957 
you were representing people who were opposed to Mr. Matual and 
were pro-Mr. O'Brien ; that you became the attorney for the brewery ; 
that you continued to represent these people, and then suddenly, in 
the end of 1958, you say that you signed a contract, which is undated. 

Did you ever receive any money from the International Brother- 
hood of Teamsters? 

Mr. Clinch. I did, and it is my recollection it was a brotherhood 
check, and it was approximately in the month of November or De- 
cember of 1958, yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much money did you receive from the inter- 
national ? 

Mr. Clinch. The gross was a $4,000 check. 

Mr. Kennedy. You received $4,000 from the International Brother- 
hood of Teamsters at the same time you were representing the brewery ? 

Mr. Clinch. Not as a payment from them. It was their check; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, that is a payment from theuL 

Mr. Clinch. Sir, I have had insurance com])anies pay and the real 
party paying was someone else, in tliat distinction, l^ut I did i\H^*.ive 
such a clieck. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that the only monej^ that you ever received from 
them? 

Mr. Clinch. That is the only money that was ever transmitted to 
me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never received any other monev other than the 
$4,000 check? 

Mr. Clinch. At any time. Nor are there connnitmonts ])ending. 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't receive $;i50 or $400 ^ 

Mr. Clincil Not from the — what was that? 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat otlier money did you receive ? 

Mr. Clinch. I ali-eady talked about the rank and file, and there are 
two separate and distinct classi ficat ions. 



IMPROPER ACTWITTES IX THE LABOR FIELD 18047 

I did receive, which covei'ed in part, money for research work from 
Joseph Lanutti 

Mr. Kennedy. How much did he send you ? 

Mr. Clinch. He sent me a check for $405. 

Mr. Kennedy. What for? 

Mr. Clinch. That was for reimbursement cumulatively, but there 
was other things, of research that I had performed in the pending 
case in LaSalle County, which he had asked for and I, in turn, had 
given to him and told him the houi's involved. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was he representing? 

Mr. Clinch. He had represented the International Brotherhood, 
then, and as far as I know still does, of Teamsters. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you received the check from tlie international of 
$4,000, and then you received money from the international's attorney 
of some $405? 

Mr. Clinch. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't see any conflict in that ? 

Mr. Clinch. I do not, ethically or otherwise. 

Mr. Kennedy. The people that you are representing, even the Team- 
ster members, do they know you received the $4,000 ? 

Mr. Clinch. I believe they do. They apparently are the ones, at 
least to my knowledge, who arranged for it. I don't know how. 

Mr. Kennedy. For your information, we interviewed them, and 
they didn't know you received any money other than the $123. 

Mr. Clinch. I don't know their knowledge, but the arrangements 
were made to my knowledge by and through John Sharp. 

The Chairman. What was this $4,000 for ? 

Mr. Clinch. That was for the payment of my statement of ac- 
count 

The Chairman. Of what? 

Mr. Clinch. A payment of a statement of account of mine. 

The Chairman. A statement of account ? 

Mr. Clinch. Kight, sir, issued by me. 

The Chairman. That is the international union ? 

Mr. Clinch. No. 

The Chairman. The $4,000 check? 

Mr. Clinch. Right. 

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

The Chairman. Tliat was from the international union ? 

Mr. Clinch. To my best recollection it was; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. At the same time you were attorney for the Star 
Union Products Co. ? 

Mr. Clinch. I was. 

The Chairman. You were also attorney for — what was the other 
company ? 

Mr. Clinch. Star Bottling. 

The Chairman. Star Union Beverage Co. ? 

Mr. Clinch. No, that is not correct. The two corporatioii titles 
are, (1) a brewery. Star TTnion Products Co.; and (2) the soda carbo- 
nated beverage is Star Bottling Co. 

The Chairman. You were representing the company interests, were 
you not ? 

Mr. Clinch. I was, sir; yes, sir. 



18048 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Then you get a check for $4,000 from the union, 
the international union interests ? 
Mr. Clinch. I did get that, sir. 

The Chairman. And you see nothing in conflict, no conflict of 
interest ? 

Mr. Clinch. As I understand it, and I believe it is correct, it is no 
different than if another client of mine went to a bank and an-anged 
loans or something and I received a bank check to pay me their 
fee. 

The Chairman. You said a statement of accoimt. Wliy would 
the union be paying the attorney fee for the company ? 

Mr. Clinch. Not the company. The company was not involved 
in that litigation, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Well, you do represent the company, and the 
company has a contract with the miion, does it not ? 

Mr. Clinch. They are distinctly difl'erent. Yes, what you have 
said is true, but they are not connected in any manner. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is just another example of an international 
union financing a fight against those who are opposed to the leader- 
ship. We have had the example of John Cmmingham before the 
committee, people who prostitute themselves to Mr. Hoffa and the 
rest of the international officers. 

You cannot sec a conflict in receiving money from the international 
union while representing an employer? That is just unbelievable to 
me. 

The Chairman. You were takmg money from 123 employees, were 
you not — working people ? 

Mr. Clinch. Rank and file members, none of whom were em- 
ployees of either of two companies in question. Yes, I was repre- 
senting them as a lawyer. 

The Chairman. They were members of this local that is hi con- 
troversy ? 

Mr. Clinch, They were. 

The Chairman. So were the employees of the Star Union Products 
Co., were they not ? 

Mr. Clinch. They also were ; right. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did you receive this $4,000 ? 

Mr. Clinch. I don't have the date, but my recollection is it was 
in the month of November of 1958. I gave the date to JMr. Schultz, 
your investigator. 

Mr. Kennedy. November of 1958 ? 

Mr. Clinch. Right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you sign a contract with Mr. O'Brien in Febru- 
aiyof 1959? 

Mr. Clinch. In the strict sense, yes. It was an extension of other 
existing contracts. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. The United Mine Workers representing your em- 
ployees were out on strike. How is it that you happened to siffn 
a contract with Mr. O'Brien in February of 1959 ? 

Mr. Clinch. It was my belief, because the company then was and 
continues to be caught in a two-union jurisdictional dispute, and I 
now understand that on t]m day tliat I departed my home commu- 
nity it is abont to IxM-onio a tliree-union jurisdictional dispute, over 



IMPROPER ACTIVrnBS IN THE LABOR FIELD 18049 

a claim for the same employee group of five men, I felt that with 
the situation as it was, and had the opportunity — Mr. O'Brien came 
to our community not at my call, but I was at the meeting he at- 
tended — that it was to the advantage of the employer, my client, 
to discuss with Mr. O'Brien for what period of time the then con- 
tracts, the ones that were previously discussed, by ratification, would 
go into effect, depending upon the length and duration of the strike 
and the economic loss to the company. 

So there were executed on February 5th extensions of contracts 
with that in mind. 

Mr. Kexxedy. Isn't it a fact that this was all concocted between 
you and Mr. O'Brien, that the United Mine Workers represented these 
employees, that you figured out with JNIr. O'Brien that you couldn't 
sign a contract in Februaiy of 1959, that the United Mine Workers 
rejiresented the employees, so that you would say that you signed a 
contract earlier, in late 1958, when the local was under trusteeship, 
and that this was just brmging the contract that you signed in Febru- 
ary 1959 up to date and trying to give it some legality ? 

Mr. Clinch. Xo, sir. 

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

Mr. Kenxedy. This was all concocted by you and ^Ir. O'Brien; was 
it not? 

Mr. Clinch. No, sir ; it was not concocted. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you testify before this committee, under oath, 
that that contract that you say was signed at the end of 1958 was, in 
fact, signed in 1958 ? 

Mr. Clinch. It is my best recollection and my present belief that it 
was signed in the calendar year of 1958. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you testify unequivocally that that contract was 
not signed in 1959 ? 

Mr. Clinch. I cannot now. On recollection, I cannot. 

The Chairman. That is only 214 months, a little more than 2i/^ 
months, since 1958. Are you stating here under oath that you can't 
remember whether you signed that contract before the end of 1958 ? 

Mr. Clinch. It is my best recollection that it was before the ex- 
piration of 1958. That is my recollection. 

The Chairman. Have you anything you can refer to, any docu- 
ments, any memorandums, or anything, that will show when you 
actually signed it ? 

Mr. Clinch. No; there was no correspondence, no memorandums. 
I know of none that could refresh my recollection. 

The Chairman. Was it after that that you got the check for $4,000 ? 

Mr. Clinch. I believe, and my best belief is, it was before I got the 
check. 

The Chairman. You did it before you got the check and after you 
got the job done ? Is that when you got the check ? 

Mr. Clinch. It had no connection with my getting the check or not 
getting the che<:k. 

The Chairman. I don't know whether it did or not. That is what 
I am asking you. You can't remember when you signed the contract. 
I am going to see if you can remember when you got the check. 

Mr. Clinch. I do recall approximately, and I gave the dates to Mr. 
Schultz. He may have them. I don't have them. It may have been 



18050 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

October 10, it may have been November 10. There were dates dis- 
cussed. 

The Chairman. Did you get the check last year ? 

Mr. Clinch. Last year in 1958. 

The Chairman. You got the check last year ? 

Mr. Clinch. Yes. I refreshed my recollection on that with Mr. 
Schultz, your investigator, and gave him the full information that I 
had. 

The Chairman. You are sure about that ? 

Mr. Clinch. The date of the receipt of the check ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Clinch. I would have no doubt, fortified by the records made 
by others and myself. 

The Chairman. You got the check, then, before you signed the 
contract ? 

Mr. Clinch. I can't say which preceded the other, but it was about 
the same time, but there was no casual relationship between either. 

The Chairman. I am of the opinion, sir, I think you could remem- 
ber whether you signed a contract of this importance since the first of 
the year, less than 3 months ago. 

Mr. Clinch. My present recollection is that it was during the cal- 
endar year of 1958. That is my best recollection. 

The Chairman. Do you think you can rely on your present recollec- 
tion? 

Mr. Clinch. I believe I can, yes, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed. 

Mr. ICennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have here from the previous wit- 
ness the vigorous attempts by the international officers to stifle 
democracy within the union; the second point to try to prevent the 
union membership from exercising their own prerogatives, both as 
far as financial affairs are concerned and as far as democracy within 
the union is concerned ; and then we have this topped off here in the 
last few months, a situation that we have seen in the past, where a 
collusive arrangement is made with employers, which is an attempt by 
the highest officials of the international union to impose their will 
upon the employees. It is a mixture of all of the elements which has 
made the International Brotherhood of Teamsters the subject of 
investigations for this long period of time. 

Nobody, neither you nor the highest officials of the international 
Mr. Clinch, were interested in tlie will of the employee. 

Mr. Clinch. I am not now, either, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are not now ? 

Mr. Clinch. Excuse me. In influencing them. I do not want to 
dictate to them their local affiliation. I am interested, yes, whatever 
is proper in this realm of labor-management relations prevails. I have 
no desire of dictating to them the union of their choice. Thej' have 
a standing offer to return to their employment, the strikers. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, could I call a committee investigator 
to show how much money was paid to attorneys in efforts by the 
international to crusli Mr. Matual ? 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Schultz. 

The Chairman. Be sworn, please. 



IMPROPER ACTTVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 18051 

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. ScHULTz. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF CARL M. SCHULTZ 

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

Mr. SciiuLTz. My name is Carl M. Shultz. I reside in Chicago, 
111. I am currently assigned as a staff member of the committee oy 
the General Accounting Office. 

The Chairman. How long have you been with the General Account- 
ing Office ? 

Mr. ScHULTz. For a matter of 12 years. 

The Chairman. Are you a certified public accountant ? 

Mr. ScHULTz. No, I am not, sir. 

The Chairman. What is your training and experience ? 

Mr. ScHULTz. My training and experience has been in accounting. 
I have never become a certified accountant. 

The Chairman. You have been with the General Accounting Office, 
then, for some 12 years ? 

Mr. ScHULTz. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been with this committee, Mr. 
Schultz? 

Mr, Schultz. It is almost 3 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you make a study of the international records 
to determine the amount of money that was spent b}^ the international 
in coimection with their fight against Mr. Matual, as far as attorney 
fees are concerned ? 

Mr. ScHTTLTz. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. "WHiat is the total ? 

Mr. Schultz. The total amount paid 

Mr. Kennedy. From what records did you get that ? 

Mr. Schultz. It consisted of records of attorneys, together with 
paid bills or invoices of the international. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Would vou tell us what the total amount is ? 

Mr. Schultz. The total amount was $26,093.66. 

Mr. Kennedy. To whom was that money paid ? 

Mr. Schultz. Perona & Perona, of Spring Valley, 111. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much did they receive ? 

Mr. Schultz. Thev received $8,682.48. 

xVsher, Guffins & Segall of Chicago, they received Sl,599.09. Clinch 
& Weiland of Peru received $4,000. Joseph Lanutti of Ottawa, 111., 
received $11,812.09. 

Mr. Kennedy. Does that make the total ? 

Mr. Schultz. That makes a total of $26,093.66. 

TESTIMONY OF WALTER J. SHERIDAN— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr, Sheridan, we also find that Mr. Harold Gibbons 
made arrangements to advance some $5,000 to jNIr. O'Brien ? 

The Chairman. Mr. Sheridan, you have been previously sworn in 
these proceedings ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes. 



18052 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

There is a memorandum dated February 12, 1958 from Harold 
Gibbons, to John F. English, from the files of the international union, 
re: Loan to local 46, Peru, 111., which authorizes a loan of $5,000 to 
local 46, and recommends that the money be forwarded to Vice Presi- 
dent John T. O'Brien. 

Mr. Kennedy. Read the whole memorandum. 

Mr. Sheridan (reading) : 

This will authorize a loan of $5,000 to local 46, Peru, 111. Please forward this 
money to Vice President John T. O'Brien, who will assume responsibility of the 
proper disbursement on behalf of the local union. 

It is signed by Harold J. Gibbons, 

Mr. Kennedy. That is an additional $5,000 ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes, it is. 

The Chairman. Is that $5,000 in addition to the $26,000 you have 
testified to ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes, it is, Senator. This would be $5,000 going to 
finance the new local 46 that was set up in opposition. 

The Chairman. The $26,000 was paid to four firms of attorneys? 

Mr. Sheridan. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Then in addition to that, this $5,000 was loaned 
from whom ? 

Mr. Sheridan, From the international union. 

The Chairman. From the international, 

Mr. Sheridan. To the new local 46, which was set up in opposition 
to Mr. Matual. 

The Chairman. And disbursed to Mr. O'Brien as the trustee of that 
local ? 

Mr. Sheridan. By Mr. Gibbons ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN J. CLINCH, JE,— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Clinch, did you have many contacts with Mr. 
O'Brien? 

Mr. Clinch. Not many in my whole lifetime. Several; yes. 

The Chairman. Not many, or several ? Which is it ? I don't know 
what is "several" or "many," What is the distinction? You said 
not many ; several. 

Mr. Clinch. If the Chair please, I am not engaging in semantics. 

The Chairman, Neither am I, 

Mr. Clinch, Possibly olfhand, if there were more or less, I would 
estimate all contacts, personal, in any capacity, would be in the broad 
term contacts, it is probably limited to less than, oli'hand, 10 in my 
lifetime, and I don t consider that many, in my opinion. It is a 
matter of opinion. 

The Chairman. I am just trying to get it. You used both terms. 
They might mean different things to different people, I am trying to 
get it so Ave can get a general idea of the number of times. Ten, you 
say, approximately ? 

Mr. Clinch. It may be more. 

Mr. Kennedy. When the strike began, did you speak to Mr. O'Brien 
about making arrangements to have strikebreakers brought in? 

Mr, Clinch. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you speak to him the day that the strike began? 

Mr. Clinch. No, I did not. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 18053 

Mr. KENNEDY. Did you talk to liim at all about the strike? 

Mr. Clinch. I have, since the strike began. 

Mr. Kexxedy. The day that the strike began at the brewery, did 
you speak to him ? 

Mr. Cnxcii. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not? 

Mr. Clinch. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. i)id you speak to Mr. Sark about bringing in any 
strikebreakers? 

Mr. Clinch. No, I have not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you talk to him on the day that the strike 
began, at the brewery ? 

Mr.^ Clinch. I may have. I Avould say, standing to be corrected, 
I don't believe I did. I will say I didn't, unless there is something 
that I don't now recall. 

Mr. Kennedy. But if you did talk to him, it was not a matter of 
importance? 

Mr. Clinch. It might have been nothing more than to say that 
we had a strike. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you talk to him at anv length on the day of the 
strike? ' . ^ J 

Mr. Clinch. I honestly believe I did not talk to him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you talk to him at all about bringing in strike- 
breatvers ? 

Mr. Clinch. No, to my knowledge, not strikebreakers. I am say- 
ing I did not ask, solicit, or talk to him about bringing in strike- 
breakers. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you talk to him at all about bringing in this 
•aravan of cars? 

Mr. Clinch. There were two such incidents, according to testimony 
I »f the last witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Clinch. On the first instance, no, I didn't talk to him at all'. 
That Avas the first time that the group came in. I lost track of the 
date. It was after the strike was in progress. Not the first week, 
but perhaps 2 weeks. 

Mr. Kennedy. The second time, did you talk to him about bringing 

. . 7 J to & 

people in : 

Mr. Clinch. I called him to inquire if he had any knowledge on 
what I had heard as a rumor, that there were applicants coming from 
the St. Louis, I\Io., area, unemployed brewery workers, to make ap- 
plications for jobs. He indicated that he w^iuld check into it. 

I received verification from a local newspaper reporter who had 
heard the same rumor, who called me, that he did verify it w^th a con- 
versation, that is, a news reporter, with a person whom I have never 
met or had any contact with, a Robert Lewis, in St. Ix>uis, 111., that 
there were unemployed brewery workei-s on their way or to get sent 
on their way to Star Union Products Co. to make application for jobs. 

That is the second incident that was talked about, strikebreakers. 
No applications were received. The company did not solicit them 
coming. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you suggest to him to try to obtain people to 
come in ? 



18054 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr, Clinch. I made a demand just before that on all labor miions 
to comply with their contracts. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you suggest to Mr. Sark that he bring in some 
people ? 

Mr. Clinch. I don't recall that I did. I did not, as far as I know. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Can you deny that you did that ? 

Mr. Clinch. From all my recollection; yes. I did not request it; 
no. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is less than 2 months ago. 

Mr. Clinch. Well, it is less than 6 weeks ago. 

Mr, Kennedy. Did you tell him or request of him that he make 
arrangements to have people brought in ? 

Mr. Clinch. No, I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not? 

Mr. Clinch. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any conversations along those lines 
whatsoever ? 

Mr. Clinch. Some, after I had heard, and during the discussions^ 
yes, there were discussions that they were coming m, not as strike- 
breakers, but they were coming in ; yes. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. As what ? 

Mr. Clinch. To make applications for jobs. 

In other words, we had published and made an offer, management, 
after the strike, after negotiations, that we would receive applications. 
We did receive locals. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you discussed with him about the fact of bring- 
ing some people in to be applicants for jobs ? 

Mr, Clinch. I had heard the rumor that they were coming m ; yes, 
I did discuss, and asked him what he knew about it. 

Mr. Ivennedy. And he at that time told you about the fact that 
some arrangements could be made in St, Louis for these brewery 
workers ? 

Mr, Clinch, I liad heard that they were coming from St. Louis 
and I asked him whether he knew about it. 

Mr. IvENNEDY, Where had you heard that from ? 

Mr. Clinch, It was common talk around the street, like many 
rumors that have flown around. He said he would look into it. On 
the same day, the newspaper wanted to know what I knew about it. 
They took Ralph Smarzo and telephoned St. Louis, and the newspa- 
perman confirmed he had tallced with a Eobert F, Lewis, whom I 
had no contract with at all, and purportedly Robert Lewis informed 
the News Tribune reporter, the local daily paper, yes, he was sending 
men in. 

That is about the only confirmation that I would have, except that 
when I talked with Mr. Sark the next time he indicated yes, he heard 
they were coming in to apply for jobs ; yes. 

Mr. Ejinnedy. Was that going to be organized by the Teamsters 
to bring them in ? 

Mr, Clinch. I don't know how they were organized. I didn't ask 
them in. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tliey all came in in cars ? 

Mr. Clinch. They did, sir. I don't know how they got there or 
who organized them. They did arrive ; yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 18055 

Mr. IvEXNEDY. Did you discuss with Mr. Sark or Mr. O'Brien 
means to be taken to break the strike ? 

Mr. Clinch. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. When you talked to Mr. Sark on the telephone, did 
you talk to him for lon^ periods of time about these things? 

Mr. Clinch. I have had long- conversations with him; I have had 
short ones and I have had many of them. 

Mr. Kennedy. "What did you discuss during the strike, if you didn't 
(liscuss breaking the strike? 

Mr. Clinch. The strike itself. There have been no discussions of 
breaking the strike. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say you didn't discuss it with Mr. O'Brien ? 

Mr. Clinch. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would it refresh your recollection, when your testi- 
mony is unequivocally that you did not, to know we have the records 
here that indicate that you talked to him, as a matter of fact, for 12 
minutes on January 1<5, 1959, and that you talked to Mr. Sark on that 
same day for 21 minutes, the day that the strike started at the brewery ? 

Mr. C^LiNCH. It may very' well have been. 

Mr. Kennedy. You just testified that you didn't. 

Mr. Clinch. I have no recollection if I did. I do not recall it. If 
I did, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. That wasn't your testimony. You testified definitely 
tliat you had not talked to ^Ir. O'Brien on January 13, the day the 
strike began at the brewery, and that you said to the best of your 
recollection you had not talked to Mr. Sark. 

According to the records, you talked to Mr. O'Brien for 13 minutes 
and you talked to Mr. Sark for 21 minutes the da}' the strilce began 
at the breweiy. 

Mr. Clinch. Confronted with that, suffice it, if it is the record. If 
I did, then I will stand corrected according to the record. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you call Mr. O'Brien about ? 

Mr. Clinch. Perhaps to inform him that he had a strike and he 
had a contract with us. That we had a strike, I presume. To notify 
him of it ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then on January 29, 1959, another interesting date, 
3'Ou talked to David Sark on the telephone for 58 minutes. Can 30U 
tell us wliat you talked to him about ? 

Mr. Clinch. The date, please ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Januai-y 29, 1959. You talked to him on the phone 
for 58 minutes. 

Mr. Clinch. No; I couldn't recall without some reference or some- 
thing. I have no memorandum of the conversation and that par- 
ticular date does not stand out. I cannot now recall the substance 
of the conversation. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Sark was Mr. John O'Brien's representative? 

Mr. Clinch. I am informed that he is his administrative assistant; 
yes. I have cleared many things, in explanation of why I haven't 
talked with Mr. O'Brien, with Mr. Sark on the information tluit he is 
his administrative assistant, in many convereations. 

Mr. Ivennedy. You were working hand in glove v.ith John O'Brien 
and Sark during this period of time? 

Mr. Clinch. Is that a question ? 



18056 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. IvExxEDY. Yes. 

Mr. Clinch. I would not say so. I was interested in their position 
with this employer, but I have no desire, no interest, as to what they 
do with their internal affairs with the brotherhood and I am not com- 
mitted. 

Mr. Kennedy, In order to keep out Mr. Matual and to crush his 
operations, you came up with the idea of making this contract, even 
though the United Mine Wor]i:ers at that time represented tlie em- 
ployees ? 

Mr. Clinch. That is not a correct conclusion, in my opinion. 

Mr, Kennedy. "Wliat is correct, then ? 

Mr. Clinch. My endeavor with respect to this strike is wliolly un- 
connected with the internal problems of the workings of the union. 
They are far bigger than I. I am definitely concerned, professionally 
and otherwise, with the employer's interest, irrespective of what labor 
union represents any division of our employees. 

]Mr. Kennedy. The contract tliat you had signed in 1957 indicates 
that you were to go on until August 1959, August 1, 1959. 

Mr. Clinch. May I please see it? 

If I may, please, I do not want to volunteer, I am here as a wit- 
ness, but I did not negotiate any part of that contract, although Mr. 
Matual is of the opinion that I did. 

Mr. ICennedy. Were you present at the negotiations ? 

Mr. Clinch, No, I was not. I was there, not as testified, I am not 
quarreling with the other witness on rebuttal ; I had only 30 minutes 
time on that day. I did not speak to Mr. O'Brien on that day. Mr. 
Matual is mistaken. 

I did not negotiate that contract. I walked in at about 30 minutes 
or less time, in the late forenoon, 11 :30 to 12, and they were then in 
strike about four or five hours. I left with Mr. Kline to do the 
negotiating. 

Mr. Ivennedy, That is incredible, that testimony, in view of this 
memorandum, 

Mr. Clinch. What is the date of that ? 

Mr. Kennedy. June 25, 1957. 

Mr. Clinch. The strike in question and the date of the contract 
is November 6, 1957, That, I think, antedates it. I don't know the 
date on it. That was with reference to a prior — to the Star Soda Co. 

I gave that as a memorandum to Mr. Kline at a time he was ne- 
gotiating, I believe, the other company. Star Bottling Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. They are all the same company," Mr, Clinch. 

Mr. Clinch. Two separate corporate entities; the same family, 
right. But I did not handle labor relations. 

Mr. Kennedy. This memorandum would appear to indicate that 
you played a veiy prominent role. 

Mr. Clinch. Advisory, 

The Chairman. I will hand you a photostatic copy of a memoran- 
dum or a document, in handwriting, dated June 25, 1956. It appears 
to be addressed to Star Bottling Co., and it bears the signature of 
John J. Clinch^ Jr. 

It contains six pages. I ask you to examine it and state if you rec- 
ognize it and identify it as a photostatic copy of the original. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 18057 

Mr. Clinch. I do so recognize it, Mr, Chairman. 
The Chairmax. It may be made exliibit No. 51. 
(Ivetter referred to was marked Exhibit Xo. 51 for reference, and 
may bo found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe that that sliould be dated 1057. 

Mr. Clinch. I was of that opinion. But I do not deny that it is 
my composition and I wrote it. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think you can tell clearly that the date at the 
top should be 1957 rather than 1956. 

Mr. Clinch. That was the only thought, together with the text. 
I haven't looked at this, to my knowledge, except to pass it for photo- 
copy and hand it to Mr. Schultz since the date of composition. But 
if you liave an extra copy, if you are going to dwell on it, Tiiay I 
have it? 

I think you are correct, and that is the one question I was going 
to raise, because it doesn't fit in with the facts as I recall them. I 
think it should be 1957. 

Mr. Kennedy. The memorandum indicates you were taking a very 
prominent and interested role in the negotiations that were taking- 
place at that time. 

Mr. Clinch. May I see it again 'i I haven't read it. I don't deny 
that it is my document. I don't recall what it says. I was gi^nng Mr. 
Kline what I thought were the facts of a situation with respect to an 
internal acute problem between the brotherhood and the local which 
this company had. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the only point. It is just on the question of 
your participating in the negotiations. 

Mr. Clinch. For what it speaks, it is my document. I thought 
you were going to interrogate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. No. This contract that was signed in 1957 was to 
be in effect from August 1, 1957, to August 1, 1959. 

Mr. Clinch. On the face of it, purportedly; yes. There is an 
ambiguity. But the intent, as I understand it, and I did not negotiate 
it, was a 2-year contract ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yet vou signed this contract with Mr. O'Brien in 
Februarv' of 1959 ? 

Mr. Clinch. You keep saying February, and there are two sig- 
natories. The contract basic which I refer to as a ratification of the 
working agreement — the contract itself, subsequent to October fi, that 
contract and the testimony of record, and then on February 5, an 
extension of the same thing, I signed both of those ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. How could you sign a contract with Mr. O'Brien 
when you alieady had in existence a contract signed by Mr. Matual? 

Mr. Clinch. I think it is a matter of law. I knoAv we are not here 
to adjudicate. But if I may have the documents, I will try to point 
out briefly what was behind my reasoning and analysis as a matter of 
law. I may have been mistaken. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Cij:nch. For the information of the Chair and the chief coun- 
sel, I am not attempting to adjudicate the merits of the contract, but 
I am willing to go ahead. 

The Chairman. You can state your position on it. 

Mr. Clinch. I Avill be brief. I don't want to elaborate. It was my 
considered opinion as a lawyer that the injunction that issued on 



18058 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

October 17, 1957, was a bar, a legal bar, to any negotiations by any 
member affiliated witli the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 
Warehousemen, Chauffeurs & Helpers of America, and that no one 
was in a position to negotiate any contracts because of the existence, 
that is, without contempt and legally binding, without a dissolution 
of that injunction. 

That document would have to be here, but it was broad. It pro- 
hibited all members of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 
Warehousemen, Chauffeurs & Helpei^ of America from negotiating 
with any emploj^er, among many other prohibitions. 

I was not of record in the case ; I was not interested. But that was 
entered on October 17, 1957. I took the position that it was illegally 
negotiated first, that is one point, on interpretation of it with the 
clause about the expulsion of the Teamsters. 

It is my recollection that Mr. Matual insisted that there had 
■occurred a condition subsequent which rendered this particular con- 
tract void as a contract evidenced in writing, that it was in existence 
but nonoperative as far as the written contract. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can I have the contract back ? 

One, that the contract was ad initio illegal, and second, that the 
provision in the contract made it illegal ? 

Mr. Clinch. Right ; as an opinion of a lawyer. 

Mr. Kennedy. It says: 

If the Teamsters International Union is expelled from the AFL-CIO Fed- 
eration, then this contract with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, now AFL-CIO, shall termi- 
nate as of same date of expulsion — 

but it does not end there — 

but this contract shall be in full force and effect from August 1, 1957, to Augiist 
1, 1958, by any other union our drivers may choose for their bargaining agent. 

Mr. Clinch. Right, so it is in and out and it is a contract con- 
struction. It admits of that ; yes. 

Go ahead, please. 

Mr. Kennedy. The contract was in existence and then to take the 
steps that you did, without consulting with the employees, you signed 
a contract with Mr. O'Brien. That is the question. 

Mr. Clinch. I was of the opinion that we had a working agreement, 
jurisdiction — I am aware of jurisdictional disputes — and tliat the 
Teamsters were the bargaining agent. 

JNIr. Kennedy. Mr. ('liairman, could we place in the record the con- 
tracts made with Mr. O'Brien, the one that was matle some time, which 
date we do not know, and then the other addition to it made on Feb- 
ruary 5, 1959? 

The ('iiAiuMAN. Mr. Sheridan, I hand you here a document, a pho- 
tostati(! (topy of what apepars to be a photostatic copy of a contract. 
Will you examine it and state if you identify it? 

Mr. Sheridan. 1 do, Seiuitor. 

The CiFAHiMAN. What is it? 

Mr. SiiKHiDAN. It is a contract entered into on February 5, 1959, be- 
tween .folin T. O'Brien and John ,1. Clinch, Jr. 

The Chairman. Re])resenting whom? 

Mr. SiiKiai)AN. According to the document, Jolm J. Clinch, Jr., is 
listed only as vice president of the Star Union Products Co. John 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE L.\BOR FIELD 18059 

T. O'Brien is acting on belialf of Local Union No. 46 of the Teamsters. 

The Chairman. That document may he made exhibit No. 52. 

(Contract referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 52" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the contract dated in February ? 

Mr. Sheridan. February 5, 1959. 

Mr. Clinch. May I inquire with which entity ? 

The Chairman. I hand you a phot^stiitie copy of another document 
and ask you to examine it and state if you identify it. 

Mr. Sheridan. I do, Senator. 

The Chairman. What is it? 

Mr. Sheridan. This is an undated agreement entered into between 
Mr. Clinch and Mr. OT^rien, Mr. Clinch acting on behalf of the Star 
Union Products Co., Mr. OTirien acting on behalf of Local 46 of the 
Teamsters Union. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 53. 

(Contract referred to w^as marked "Exhibit No. 53" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

Mr. Clinch. Are both of those with Star Union Products Co. ? 

Mr. Shemdan. Yes. 

Mr. Clinch. Fine. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the actual contract is undated; is that right? 

Mr. Sheridan. That is right. 

The Chairman. You asked the question are they both wdth Star 
Bottling Co.? 

Mr. Clinch. No. It has been answered. With Star Union Prod- 
ucts Co. I was wondering to which you were referring, and I be- 
lieve the answer was to Star Union Products Co. as employer. I now 
know which documents have been referred to. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have a letter dated March 11, 1959, from the 
mayor of La Salle, 111. I would like to read a paragraph and ques- 
tion the witness about it. 

Mr. Clinch. If I have knowledge. 

The Chairman. You maj^ read it for the purpose of being a premise 
to your question. 

Mr. Kennedy. On the first page he outlines the problems that 
existed in connection wnth this dispute. He says : 

Realiziug the impact upon our community, a committee was composetl of 
leading citizens. Six meetings were held with the international, with district 
no and with Attorney Clinch who is also secretary of the Star Union Brewery 
Co. Many things were brought to light and the Citizens Committee, upon their 
investigation, recommended, with the consent of Mr. Davis, president of the 
Brewery Workers Union, that district 50 would immediately remove the picket 
lines, the men would go back to work and that the brewery owners, headed by 
Attorney Clinch, would apply at once to the National Labor Relations Board 
for a vote to designate bargaining agent. The Brewery Workers Union and 
District 50 UMW Union agreed to the recommendation, but the Teamsters 
International refuse. This would not have made any difference, inasmuch as 
Mr. Clinch did agree to such proposal at the meeting but the next day refused 
to go along, proving to the committee that he was either being high-pressured 
or was taking sides with Teamsters International. 

The Chairman. Are you reading from the letter ? 
Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

The Chairman. You have heard that part of the letter read, Mr. 
Clinch. 



18060 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Clinch. I have. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. It goes on to say : 

As a result of this stalemate our men are out of work, losses in sales are tre- 
mendous and the standing of the community is being jeopardized. It is the 
opinion of the committee, of which I was a member, that there is something 
radically wrong in this area with labor and that a thorough investigation is 
warranted. 

The Chairman. Those are excerpts that the counsel has read of a 
letter of March 11, 1959, addressed to him, Hon. Robert F. Kennedy^ 
chief counsel of this committee. 

Do you wish to make any comment about the contents that have 
been read ? 

Mr. Clinch. Briefly. In part it is correct and in part it is mis- 
taken. I do not desire, unless the committee chooses, to go into the 
matter. I will submit willingly to anything. 

I am not here as an aggressor. I am here as a witness. There 
are some — I am wholly in accord that there are some statements of 
fact. But unless the committee is interested to go into my knowledge. 
I have no quarrel with the letter. 

The mayor wrote a letter. But the part to which he ref ei-s to about 
me changing agreement is wrong. If you want to develop it, fine. 

The Chairman. He saj^s there you agreed to it, apparently, at the 
meeting, and then thereafter, the next day, possibly, you reneged. 

Mr. Clinch. He is mistaken. 

The Chairman. That is not true '? 

Mr. Clinch. That is not true. But if you want to develop it and 
examine me, I will submit. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is it true that everyone went along with the idea 
that the employees would go back to work and that it would be sub- 
mitted to the National Labor Relations Board for a vote? Is that 
true, that that had been agreed to by the United Mine Workers and 
the Brewery Workers? 

Mr. Clinch. It could have been. But I didn't agree to it. I was 
presented with that proposal on Friday. The numl>er of meetings 
I attended was limited to two. I made an inquiiy. I was submitted 
the proposal about the hour of 5 o'clock, on Friday. The newspaper 
carries it. 

I was asked what I thought about it for management, and I said, 
"Basically it is good. I would like to submit back. We are in a 
jurisdictional dis])ute. Will the Teamsters concur?" 

Point 1 was that District 50 of the Miners would call oft' the strike. 
I said fine. 

Point 2, that the men go back to work progressively. To tliat point, 
yes.^ 

Third, that we would agree to go before the National Labor Rela- 
tions Board. On that I said I had one important inquiry: Would 
the Teamsters concur? Management would proceed before- the 
NLRB, and I still will say we will do so voluntarily, for election 
remedy, as a petitioner, if we are not caught Avith the very problem 
for wliicli this committee is a])p()inted, trying to improve, which I 
thiuk this committee is spending a good time on and I higlily hope 
you will accomplish it, a long procedure as a petitionei-. 



IMPROPER ACTIVmEiS IN THE LABOR FIELD 18061 

And the Teamsters did not <rive any indication, to my knowledge, 
that they would or they would not. At least they have not to this 
date concurred, for an aggrieved case instead of a contested case. But 
there was no acceptance of the proposal and then rejection the next 
day. 

That is the mayor and I know him well. He is mistaken on that. 
I did not agree and then reverse my position. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is right on the fact that it was because of your 
agreement and conferences with the Teamsters that you did not 
accept it? 

Mr. Clinch. That is not correct. There was no agreement. That 
question was discussed before the committee, the Citizens' Committee. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did you reject it, then? 

Mr. (^LiNCH. I didn't reject it. We got to the point of rejection. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you rejected it now? 

Mr. Clinch. I still will say it is my considered opinion as a lawyer 
it is the one aspect of us to commit oureelves to be petitioner. 

Mr. Kennedy, Will you agree to have a vote amongst the em- 
ployees as to whether they want to affiliate? 

Mr. Clinch. I will not deny them a right to vote ; no. 

Mr. Kennedy. Will you agree? AVill you accept that? 

Mr. Clinch. There is a distinction, not to debate. I took the posi- 
tion, but they are in possession of the right to overcome it, that by 
striking without arbitration, leaving their jobs, that they severed, 
that they are not our strikers. I said with full knowledge to this 
committee if the drivers wish, the five drivers, to return to their 
jobs, they may do so. Full well, they know they can petition. They 
can still to this minute go back to their jobs. I am stiJl waiting an 
indication to put them back to work. 

The only issue, if I make myself clear — — 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't. 

Mr. Clinch. Is I believe that the company should be relieved of 
the burden of being a petitioner, which would possibly require 2 years 
of litigation to the U.S. Supreme Court, by being a petitioner. But we 
will submit, and I will say now, unless I am changed in my authority, 
to any ruling of the NLRB, if we are not in position of the burden, 
as petitioner. We will be respondent, and I will be happy. 

Mr. Kennedy. When you say 'Sve," do you mean you and the Inter- 
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, or you and the brewery, or the 
three of you ? 

Mr. Clinch. I am speaking only reference thereto "we'' in the 
sense of those in management of Star Union Products Co. I am not 
talking about "we"' in the sense of me and the Teamsters. I have no 
connection with the Teamsters. 

Mr. Kennedy. Except that you receive money from them. That is 
a little connection. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

Mr. Clinch. Am I excused ? 

The Chairman. You may stand aside. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. O'Brien. 

The Chairman. Mr. O'Brien has been previously sworn. 

36751 O— 59— pt. 49 24 



18062 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

TESTIMONY OP JOHN T. O'BRIEN, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
EDWARD J. CALIHAN, JR.— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. O'Brien, can you tell us about the situation as 
far as the trusteeship imposed on Mr. Matual's local in Peru? 

Mr. O'Brien. Mr. Kennedy, I respectfully decline to answer because 
I honestly believe the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was this backed by Mr. James Hoff a originally ? 

Mr. O'Brien. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive the $5,000 that was sent to you by 
Mr. Harold Gibbons ? 

Mr. O'Brien. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was Mr. Gibbons one of those who was trying to 
stifle the democratic procedures within the union ? 

Mr. O'Brien. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why would so much money be spent by the Inter- 
national Union to try to take over this local, Mr. O'Brien ? 

Mr. O'Brien. Mr. Kennedy, I respectfully decline to answer because 
I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Have you anything good to say for your union ? 

Mr. O'Brien. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe the answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. It might. All right. You may stand aside. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, could I say for the record that the 
people who were responsible for the investigation of Mr. O'Brien 
and Mr. Glimco were Mr. Alphonse Calabrese and Mr. Jack Balaban, 
who have been with the committee a long period of time. They were 
helped by Mr. John Williams, Walter Malone, Joseph Gordon, and 
Wally Sturtz, as well as Mr. James Mundie, Mr. Leo Nulty, and Mr. 
Martin Uhlmann; also Miss Ethel Appel from the Departmient of 
Labor. Mr. Walter Sheridan handled the investigation in connec- 
tion with Peru, with the help of Mr. Carl Schultz. 

The Chairman. They all have the thanks of the committee, and I 
am sure, of the public. 

The committee will now recess until next Monday at 2 o'clock. 

(Members of the Select Committee present at the taking of the 
recess were Senators McClellan and Church.) 

(Whereupon, at 4:55 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene 
at 2 p.m., Monday, March 23, 1959.) 



APPENDIX 

CERTIFIG&TE 



STATE OF CALIPORNIA ) 

) SS 
CODNTI OF LOS ANGELES) 



Claud S. Gillespie, being first duly sworn, says that he is 
Secretary of Occidental Ufe Insurance Coiif)any of Califomia and certi- 
fies that the attached photostats are true and correct copies of the 
following listed letters and contained in the files of said Conpany: 

1. Letter fjrom John T. O'Ebrien, dated March 16, 1955« 
to Allen Creitz. 

2. Letter from J, P. Dandy, Vice President of Occidental 
Life Insurance Coapaisj of Califomia, dated March 22, 
19^5, to John T. O'Brien, Tmstee, Health and Welfare 
Fiind, Local No. 710. 

3* Letter fron J. P. Dandy, Vice President of Occidental 
Life Insurance Corapany of Califomia, dated April 28, 

1955, to John T. O'Brien, Trustee, Health and Welfare 
Fund, Loeca No. 710. 

U* Letter from Harry F. ChaddLck, Chairman, Trustees of 
the Health and Welfare and Pension Funds, dated Novem- 
ber 7, 1956, to J. P. Dandy, Vice President, Occidental 
Life Insurance Cotapaxiy of Califomia. 

5. Letter tron J, P. Dandy, Vice President of Occidental 
Life Insurance Conpany of Califomia, dated December 6, 

1956, to the Boards of Trustees of the Highway Drivers 
and Dockmen's Health and Welfare Funds, Local No. 710* 

6. Letter from J. P. Dandy, Vice President of Occidental 
Life Insurance Coii;>any of Califomia, dated December 20, 
1956, to the Board of Triistees, Higjiway Drivers and 
Dockmen's Health and Welfare Funds, Local No. 710. 

7. Letter from Harry F. (Jiaddick, Chairman, Local Union 
No. 710 HeauLth and Welfare and Pension Funds, dated 
December 18, 1957, to Harland R. Maris. 

8. Letter from J. P. Dandy, Vice President, Occidental 
Life Insurance Coiq>aQy of Califomia, dated January 10, 
1958, to Harry F. Chaddick, Chairman, Board of Trustees, 
Hi^iway Drivers & Dockmen's Health and Welfare Fund, 
Local No. 710. 

18063 



18064 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

9, Letter Jointly signed by J. P. Dan<fy, Vice President, 
and £« S. Jensen, Assistant Secretary, dated April 7, 
1958, to the Trustees of the Meat and Highway Driyers, 
Dockmen, Helpers and Miscellaneoos Truck Terminal &a- 
ployees Health and Welfare Funds, Local Mo. 710. 

10* Letter trovL Harry F. ChaddLok, Chairaan, Local Union 
No. 710 Health and Welfare and Pension Funds, dated 
April llj 19$8, to J. P. Dancfy, Vice President, Occidental 
Life Insurance Coii^)any of California. 

11. Letter from Harry F. Chaddick, Chairman, Local Union 
Ko. 710 Health and Welfare and Pension Funds, dated 
April 11, 1958, to J. P. Dandy, Vice President, Occidental 
Life Insurance Conpany of California. 

12. Letter Jointly signed hy J. P. Dancty, Vice President, 
and E. S. Jensen, Assistant Secretary, dated ^ril lit, 
1958, to the Trustees of the Meat and Hi^way Drivers, 
Docknen, Helpers and Miscellaneous Truck Terminal Sa- 
ployees Health and Welfare Funds, Local Ho. 710. 



Subsorited and svony-to before me 
this ^?^ day of UWA 

barr Publid An and fS.ia ssULd Claud S. (Ullesnie ' 




iotary Publid Ikn and /S.ia ssdLd Claud S. GdJlespie 

County and Stat« ^ 

LAURA J. ZOLL 

NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the County 

of Los Angeles, State of California. 
My Commission Expires April 8, 1962 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 



18065 



O^^^iee ojf ih^ 7tu3t€€5 hbalth and wiLfAU who 



tAlNIT CUtMUAM 
■All. M. CANNOM 
NAUT CMAOOKX. 



iOHH T. O'UIM 

NtAHK HOWN 

MAM ICMMin. bcT^Tn 



">rttli U, 195$ 



T*i«plioM CUffiM* 44742 
4217 Searii Habtod StrM* 
CUe*f • 9, IWnob 




Mr. All«n Cr«itt 
B*glonal Oxvnp >>ap«rTl*or 
Oceld«atal Idf« Inonrane* Co* 
1 R. ^aSaU* 8t. 
CtalcagD, XUlnoLi. 

Dmt Alltat 

kM «• wllX b« laervaoing b«iMflts for our wmium «• «r* 
iat«r«st«d In olitainiBg frca OcsldMttal tlw but peaslU* re- 
tention «• e«a fat. 

V« want jnsn to bKM yoor ratantloB oa 1900,00.00 anonal 
proslua sad also on $1,000,000.00. We are interested la tl» 
baa* retention that Oceideatel obargee, itealied aa to tax, 
profit and other flgnrea wfaleh eooiiriae seid retention. BO lOT 
include aagr brokerage fees In ttwse flgoree. 

7igare the retentioaa on the baale that «e will asettae all 
of flea adainiatratlon expenses and salaries. Than give us the 
additional percentage <aiarge If Ocoldental retains the adalnlstratlDa 
expense aztd salariea. 

Tour pro^?t attention la this aatter Is rexjaested. 



_~l:?Uc^-^ 



JlDief 



John T. O'BrlMi, Trustee 
Health aod Welfare foad 



36751 O — 59— pt. 49- 



18066 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

6 



■r* Htm T. 0*lrtM. ftiMM* 
■M&tk mAwatm* 9md 

jaMm9fH» kui f i w w Mtrt to •» warn lattor sf nv* A Is vfcl* y«« !««*«•• 
«»• »••» yvMlU* awMBftiMi vMUrti •Mtiwfta Mm git* m t»iufm myuoa 
MM jiSf&-UMib Hi aMMT* jMi cNipUMi • TMor iiiiw# •Mir wr ••' wi w ui w i 
«>wl i Mi !«•• mrtmi. «» • ftaoMta «ki«h vUl to 9«» laito •ffMk rnr AwUjr. 
tfe anrivlac «» Mia f wbmU* «• tor* — ■ — »• tto wvmmws wf ivaBlac owr Orntp 
BlvUtM to MK tp Uto *! ! ■■Mir MMTllM to «to ato* •t tto jwl iawi ato«r tto 
tortotf cmv fattotoa to fMM ai to«« witowt tto fMtor mt pntlt ato rtok 
Asrtoc to tto aNI— toito «• fM& ff»wm«* Sim** totk tto ptwmUm ta»» oi 
«l* rtok atorlag ftotar vavy with tto aiatoa ratia, aar »«r fanala pxateaaa a 
Mtoattiaa aHiali toanaaaa crataaXljr aa tto alato lattia l»ara aa a a « 

I « aattSag aat tolav tto satatotoa liilah wa aaa «UUa« ta Mka arfaattva m 
Wm h tfSS toaai m alato f«*toa a« Ml. TMl. Ml ato 90)1. Tto rataimaa fr 
aar «iate mito totaaaa ttoaa fl^nraa aaali to to pmtMrtias. Xa aMai«waa 
«tt% yaar ttoaaal, tto «at«rttaa la «aMai vtttoat taatonga faaa af air Mat 
aa* «ttto«t aar aUaaaMa ftr a i fiatt af virtog olatoa aai iaaatac aartlf iaataa. 
It «1U to aai n a aij ' to aM tto aaaaat af tto ¥wtofi^n faa to tto stowittoM 
— *— >*»«■ *■* tf ^f1* *-tol Umn tto aag— — '^^ t^' TAtIp MW« ■■ miHI 
fttoto li— It wlU toaa ftmilf to rf l tto aatoal aaat af tfcla ftoattas. t 
lauaaa tto aaat wmU to laaw tor i tota ai 1.7$f aaa 1. 




toa ito w il tM aia aa tellavat 

i« i M iaw l »niitoa tfM.eoo /^ Oalp^Mta 

Ml 

toalt«Bta& ^«aaa l.8tt 

Ar«toafta UStt 

Vtoftt ato Btok atuim IJtt 

W3tf 



?« ' 


am 


Wl 


I.«M 


i.MI 


l.M< 


l.l9f 


t.e5ii 


a.an 


l.tK 


XmM 


itiii 


4.»7« 


5.5*1 


5.tU 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 18067 

Mr. Jokm T. 0*lirl«i ~^ MMb at. IfSS 

a. A* w it prMlVB $1,000 »OeO Olala ll«M« 

ion Tax Ml fan 

o««id«at«i uptmmm i.sasi i.tax Ltaii i.aas 

FMiim Tuc i.5i)l Ltof a.e5C a.a9f 

PMfit «« Kiifk auAg laUj uaf i>^<* l.itf 

k»kn k'fiM 3.33i 5.79 

81m«« tk« ••iiui««t amuit » — a uy f»r tlM tlala x— n » t* k«I4l •• • wpantto 
fiiaA. tte eUla ntl* is •Maiaad Ir MiM *k* rati* of «laia draft* Mtm«U|r 
MclMd by^ 0««l«mt«l la uqr pwl»d to tte pn^imm r—^r^t tr 0««U««t«l far tte 
«■• p«riod. Aa atatad abora, tlM rataatiaa tor loaa ratlaa la Wt a aaa tkaaa 
abom la oMalaaA Ir latarpalatlaa* V»r anapla. fiar a 7591 alala ratla vltk a 
praaloB •t $900,000. tka ratastloa aaiiU U kalf war katvaatu k»fT% «■< 5»Sfi» •» 

I m aaklas tllm Cralta to dallvar tkla lattar m tkat la %km ar«it X hara ■•« 
aeaiplatalx alarlf lad aU tba palmta U it, ka vlU ka akla «e asplala tbaa to 
jraa» 




raUwl 

oet Mr* Harland Nnria 



18068 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 



ipHiat, 1155 



f«i«k Hid iwfto* riiii 

4217 SMflk lOi*! 



r. 9mtum 
•r 




wtfi >• iW>HiMM» a»af ^9 abef yllei— for tto parlad b m 
•^ 1^ 1, 1955. TteM MUBtlM p i — t^— lurlai «itt tte lam 
swtlfO ad «M OMMit «dr ■■■■■I perwdai aad «»• oslvitv* ^T ^ 
•t» f ••• aid clBta ptqnMKi ni MvklflMte iamm 



■r, Maria kw •*«« ■• te vmU tto MtattSai pi- — i t ag— iddsk iMfdbd 
b« ^yU— ¥U If tlM TCt«M«i did Mt wvr «l«li tb* loM ntia. «• 
•n williNt t« 9M*« «M fallMtef z<«rt«itiaMt 

• 900»(l0e 5.5C^ 

•l»000,OQO . 5.itf 




Ik* riftertSflB f«r an «n«% af aanaid pradaa W%ira«i tkmm taa 
vaOd ba «l>lafiMd tgr a paa rata atlaaTatlan. 



Ihaaa vaiaaUaa partwiM— •*• aailaatra ef tarokaiaca faaa nd aia±B 
pgqrMat and aartlflaata laaaa as>«Mi«» AiOr ara iadapaadaitt of tha 
laaa vaHa aad aaold n«t dMnga at all ikattar Hia laaa ratio aaa lav 
aaalil^ 

Siaaaraly 




eoi Mr* Harland Maria 
Mr. B. L. Jaiklaa 




Tlaa 



i 



J 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 



18069 



O'iiice off tfiQ Ttu6iee5 health ahd welfare and pension funds 



A 



TtUITIII . . 



•AtMT CUfHUAH 
lAIL N. CANNON 
HAMnr CHAMHCS, OMhlM* 

JOHN T. OIMM 
mOMAt i. OMAN 
HUNK tCMMtTT. ttl^fnu. 



JLocat Union A/^.l 10' 
TcUphon* CUfftId* 4-A742 
4217 SouHi H«IH*<1 StrMt 
Chicago 9, IlllnoU 



November 7, 1956 





lir. i, B* Dandjr 

Occidental Life Insurance Co. of California 

Financial Center Building 

Oakland 12, California 

Dear fo. Dan^t 

Our annual B-eting of the Board of Trustees will be 
held this aontb and I have been requested by the Trustees to 
obtain from you a breakdown on the retention of seven percent (7$) 
being assessed under our Health & Welfare benefit policies with 
your coapany* This information is necessary for us in considering 
the renewal of this policy on its annual date* 

Txi. comparing the retention of similar coverage, we find 
that there ia discrepancies that the Trustees, can not explain and, 
therefore, an anelysia would be helpful in o\ir deliberation, 

I an sending a copy of ttiis letter to Mr. Harland Maris 
so that he aight be advised of this request, 

loxir lanediate consideration will be appreciated. 

Sincerely yours, 

OFFICE OF TKE TRUSTTBS 

HBAITH & WELFARE & PLNSIOK FUNDS 



Ti&rrft, Chaddick, Chairauui'^ 



HFCtol 



0(. 



cot Harland Maris 
J. T. O'Brisn 



18070 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 




€p 19$6 



Bawds «t TvwtM* of th« Hli^auj 
Sriwa aad SmIomb's BMUh and 
Vairan Fnte, Uo«l lo, T1X> 

kill So. UTtOMl StTMt 
ChiMf» 9» nHtrt« 



'r^PCL. 

'ti 

i_MISC. 

I COR R. 

F. U. F. 



Qrovp MUo]r Ho. my-iJikYL 



fiSBftlMMttt 



U T^\9 %• >r* ChaUtek'a latter cf laMriMr Tih. «• «• 
aattiag oat Mloa the taraaUaaa af tka 7 inraaat Ntantlaa. 



ftqagaaaa PaU Oat - 

CiaaHaaiaB to Agaat 
Oaaravlto to Oattaral, Aewi 
I'^faodm Tax to nilaala 
Fadaml. laoeaa fax 



1.30)K 



WiMm adT OeelAMtal Boa* Otftoa and 

Flald Qraai^ Sivialoii S q aa aa a a 

CJkarga far Allaaing Qaaradboad 

Sataatiaa 

■argia for Profit aaA UA 






flaalrtantal 
iataroot 



fac AoarbaA by 
It 4« 9«rt^ aCteat liy 
aa tha (Oate Kaaarvoa 



7.08f 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 18071 

Mr. fbarj P. Ghaddiok -C- Pmrtiir ft, 19$6 



lesenre 



7«0(tf 



6.82^ 



I trost this civM th« iBfan^tioa r»qalra< if a0i, 

•onUat BM* 



SiaB«r*l3r 



RLJiTj 

eoi Kr* £« S« Jensen 
Mr. R, D, Carter 
Hr# W, w» Wiiaon 
Mr* Barland Marls 
Mr. A. L. Creite - 3001 




ftwldnk 



, j«*ii^ .■ ■■K''.'^'';,.'..-.;S:.2?f::-jSa*tJ^3Si>. 



18072 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 




I 



r. u. F. 



Mmri of TAWt a — 
Hli^nHy DrlT«c« nd Dockma'** 
BMltli ft Valfkr* r«d« IamI HO 
i2X7 S. Balatod StrMk 
Chlaac» 9» Xlliaedbi 



Ckraqp P«Uflgr lo, 



-•yV^^tfl'i^wft"' »» 1*5^ 




Q«BUcMBt 

■ I as setting otit balov Ite r«ft4ntiaB vhldi OMLd«ital !• viUiaK !• 
gmmtM far tlw poUsj 7«cr ibrnmrj Ip 1957 to ^hmMrj 1, 19$<« 

This rotentloB ecnaists of thr«* faston* Th* flmt ia the aatoA 
retantlon vhlc^ v« rtttaln to e«nr«r tho ribaro of oar Eca* Office aai 
rieU «oq>«gM«a and to pxwrido a aaxsla for profit and risk* Tho 
aoeoad faotor ia the taxaa whicfti ve are raqidrad by lav to pay to 
the State of Tlllwcla and to the Federal Ga w d n inaat. Tke third 
factor is the eoBBJiiaaian tiiidi ve pay the agaiita 



1. Ocoidcntal Rotantiai 

2. Tasaa 

niliiolo 
Pederal 

3. CoRnlsaiao 

toul 



Annual 
PraRliM 

♦l.A0Qt999 

2.45f 



1.509( 
6.94K 



Aoraal 
PrMi«i 
UaiSSaSSS 

2«391t 



2*16^ 

1.50|( 
6.92^ 

Stiioorolj 



Annoal 
,Preoiw 

2.331^ 



2.]tf 

1.50^ 



JWA 




Tioti Praoidoirt 



CCt Mr. Chaddlek- 3270 Lakeahore Driro 
Mr, M&rla 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 18073 

coPr ^ ^ % 

OFFICE OF THE THUSTEES 
LOCAL UNION NO. 710 HEALTH AND WELFARE AND PENSION FUNDS 

4217 S. Halsted Street, Chicago 9, Illtnoia 

December JSt/i, 1957 



Mr. Harland R. Maria 
Occidental Life Inanrance Company 
14th and FranXlin Streets 
Oakland IS, California 

Dear Harland: 

The Annual Meeting of the Boarri of Trustees of this Fund was held 
on Friday, December 13th, 1957 at uihich time formal action was 
taXen to approve all operations of the fund for the year of 1957 
and the records indicate that our contract with Occidental Life 
Insurance Company of California expires on January 1, 1958. We 
are, therefore, notifying you thai is is necessary that a new 
agreement be entered into for the- coming year covering Policy No. 
2773 LDAH. It would be appreciated if you would request of 
Occidental Life Insurance Company an irmiediate commitment for the 
year 1956 together with a bread-down as follows: 

Annual Annual Annual 

Premium Premium Premium 

ii. 100.000 ii. 300. 000 $1.500.000 

1. Occidental Retention 

2. Taxes 

Illinois 

Federal 

3. CoTTtnission 

TOTAL 

The Dir^otora are very anxious to maintain an efficient and econom- 
ical operation of this fund and, therefore, request your immediate 
attention. With kindest regards and a Very Happy Holiday Season 
to you and youra. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ Harry F. ChaddicX 

Chairman, LOCAL UNION NO. 710 
Health and Welfare and Pensioh 
HFC/hnl Fund a 



18074 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 




Bowd oif frwUM 
nijwuj nrtfTi It 

LMftllo. 710 



Mr. GhaMiaitt 



BtflAad Marls formrdad 
•aaaldtarad tka ralaallM «ldah 



10lh UMar taw 
aff« 



«ha *«f« pAmr^ 



I M aattiag oat balav tha ralartiaw lidak OMldMtaX !• aiUJag «• 
affw tm tha pallajr yaMr J wawy 1, WJ« ta laaoaiy 1# 1>S>. fM* 
aRhftM Aaaa tiM vaiaotiiaa tookaa daaa aa caqaaataa la ]r«v lattar* 



aRhftM 

I. OaatdaaHI** 

nilaaia 
IMwal 

3. Brakar«a emaOMtUm 

Talal 



6.^ 



2«l9f t«3^ 






nam 

.mi 



ttaawaV 



RLJivJ 

oet Ur. E. S. Jensan 
Mr. R. D. Cart«r 
Ur* H« C. Franklin 
Ratine I^funl File 
A. L. Creiti 
H. Murla 




IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 18075 

April 7» IfSt 



Mi W#i«y ftrt^ 



BilMra awl 
T— 111 ft^l^Ma iMlUi and Half •!« 
ftai* JmmX telM ■•• 710 
4217 SoBtk ibl«U4 
9, 



talUr ■»• 2773-tOUI 



firat 
U 



i) or tks 



1» 195B Mri aflaTf tta» 
Wr Itea U) or tks lHt«r agrMMirt'datad MteMrjr 14. 1957 
to fMd la ito MUnlr m f U owi i i 



M nwtrt— t«l»» ntoailau 




ti«ioo,ooo«oo 

1»300»000»QO 
19500*000«QO 

m kM«tB aodlfftad* toa Uitor 



y. <♦ 









14, 1957 sImU 



occnarAL un ipw/icg ocnpaix 

or CALZPOBIU 



OBLUBOOS mCK TDMOUL BIK0IB9 
■Um AB 1BVARI rOMB LOCAl. 01101 
■). 710 




BUiIM 



18076 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 



LOCA 





OFFICE OF THE TRUSTEES 

710 Hcaltk and Welfare and Pension Funds 

421T S. HALSTED STREET, CHICAGO 9, ILLINOIS • CLIFFSIOE .4-6742 

33 North La Salle Street 
Chicago 2, Illinois 
April 11, 1958 



Mr. J. P. Dandy 
Occidental Life Insurance 
Company of California 
1151 South Broadway 
Los Angeles 54, California 

Dear Mr, Dandy: 




Group Policy No. 2773-LDAH 



Your letter of April 7 directed to the Trustees was pre- 
sented to the regular meeting held today and we adopted a 
resolution authorizing the officers to enter into a contract 
for the year I958 commencing with January 1 with the following 
exceptions. 



The retention agreement shall be: 



If Aggregate Annual 
Premium is 

$1,100,000.00 
1,300,000.00 
1,500,000.00 



Retention Percentage 
Each Computation Period 

5.9'^^ 
5.88^ 
5.82J6 



The changes are the result of an adjustment of broker's comrais- 
sions from .725^ to .50^^ and is in conformance with a resolution 
previously adopted by the Board of Trustees to the effect that 
the Trustees shall not enter into any contracts whatsoever that 
would exceed a broker's commission of .50$^. I explained this to 
Mr. Harland Marls of Dearborn Insurance Agency and he was in 
hopes that the Trustees would reconsider, but unfortvmately this 
was not possible. 

The above figures have been adopted and a resolution prepared, 
a certified copy of which will be forwarded to you for your 
records within the next few days. 

' Yours very truly, , 

Harry 9^ Chaddlck 



HFC: AM 



Mr. Harland R. Marls, Oakland 
Dearborn Insurance Agency, Chicago 



■.•'3r>3W3raSBK^»rJS«IB«?NR5'A,.^*-^.Ta»> - 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 



18077 




OFFICE OF THE TRUSTEES 

7IO Hodllh and l^elfare and Pension Funds 

4217 S. HALSTED STREET, CHICAGO 9, ILLINOIS • CLIFFSIOE 4.-S742 



33 North La Salle Street 
Chicago 2, Illlnola 
April 11, 1958 



Mr. J, P. Dandy 
Occidental Life Insurance 
Company of California 
1151 South Broadway 
Los Angeles 3^, California 



Dear Mr. Dandy: 



Group Policy No. 2773-LDAH 



This Is to advise that at a regular meeting of 
the Board of Trustees, Health and Wjelfare Funds, 
Local 710, today, a resolution was adopted 
appointing Dearborn Insurance Agency, 1 North 
La Salle Street, Chicago 2, Illinois, as the 
broker of record on the above policy. 

This letter will be your authorization to pay 
to Dearborn Insurance Agency any commissions now 
due or that may be due in the future providing they 
do not exceed that contained in the retention agree- 
ment, which provides a broker's commission of .505^. 

This letter will rescind any previous instruc- 
tions to you regeirdlng broker's commiss.'ons. 

Sincerely yoxirs. 



HFC: AM 
cc 



Mr. Harland Maris, Oakland 
Dearborn Insurance Agency, Chicago 



'■<y^'mz 



^-JSij 



^^•Vi.&a 



18078 

l,i..i n^im; i w 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 



AfvlX Hi* 19$B 



Mt Mr* >• 8. J WW 
»• J. W. Ra* 
Hlaa Fagr* Btle«r 
Mr. A. L« Cr«i%i • 3001 
K«tMtl«l Bo^ 



at Urn 
HOpM* 

FtmAi haeaX ntOm m>m 710 
h237 S««lk iMatod 
QilMa* 9* XUlaaJs 



Wil— » 



tte fiiM pM««n«l»a' Mm (•) oT «Iw 
])b* 19Sf U iMMfty MMiti to mi la Ste 



(«) Tlw DoUavlag 
TCtadllMit 



nAkgr "^ t773-CDtfi 
VSBmd 



as QnidHtal** 



If 4flpr«fKU Aanal 



^ 



ll«2flO^OQO«00 
1»30(^OQO«00 

l9$00y000«00 

M iMSVla Mitftod, «l» 
tiMOl rwln iB AOl fartM Ml 

HCFtTJ 

M OtXWSD t 

ncsnoB OP m mbit aip monmr 

QRXTKIBf OOOBflai^ iBLPBBS AKD 
lOSCKUAIRQaB IRICITSttXmL 
atPIO niS BFAJSR AID If'SmiRt 
FUHDS LOCAL JJHVM IT). 710 



^- 






i^if$r 



occxnafix lifk mnuun ecvMi 
or GALXPGnm 




BBL 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 18079 

AFFIDAVIT 



STATE OF CAUFCEHIA ) 

) SS 
CODNTT OF LOS ANGELES) 



John P, Dandy, being first duly svom, says that he is Vice President 
of Occidental Life Instirance Company of California and further says that: 

1, The tvo original policies issued to insure Mie menbers of 
Local No. 710 as beneficiaries of the Hi^way Dri-rcrs and 
Dockmen's Health and Welfare Funds were Policy No, 1920-LDAH, 
idiich was issued March 1, 1950, and Policy No. 1966-LDAH, 
Yialch was issued April 1, 1950. Policy No. 1920-LDAH insured 
the docknea and Policy No. 1966-II)AH insured the hifhvay 
drlTers. These ifere the only two policies written by 
Occidental Life Insurance Company of California Wilch were 
in force on oembers of Local 710 prior to i^pril 12, 1951* 

2* Said Policy No. 1966-LDAH had only been in force for one 
year and 12 days on April 12, 195l» 

3. The following is shown by Company records to be the e:q)erience 
under Policies 1920-IDAH and 1966-LDAH, combined for the first 
12 months of each policy: 

Premiums $276,601.26 

Claims Paid 159,U29.12 - 57.6U$ 

Reserre 21,U25.50 - 7.755^ 

Cash Refund 28,552.30 - 10,32$ 



Subscrllied and sworp to l^efore me 
this .^ day of AjW > 



Notary Pub 11^ in ala^ for said 
Coxinty 
LAURA J. ZOLL 

NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the Coonty 

of Lob Angeles, State of California. 

My Conunission Expires April 8, 1962 





18080 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 14A 




i 



1 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 18081 

Exhibit No. 14H 








I 



\ 



36751 O— 59— pt. 49 26 



18082 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 14C 



I 




1 



-/^ i 






s/^ 



3^/m ~.^AJrh 




f^ 



6i>- 



.J^"?.Tl-»i 



A 



^<>- 1487 ^ ll^TSTTo^ 



OKOKH OK 







! I 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 18083 

Exhibit No. 16 



i 




^^ fci^ 8 J « 



i 
§ 

g 



1!^ 



U 



t- 

^'^ 

c- 



Con 
o > «-< 
•H < o 

^3 •« •■« 
CO C rH 

o*fei 

> M •» 
«H CO 

!:« a> 
P n o 

o o 

O to "H 
KOJ O 

a i-i 

Eh 



o 

-4 
I. ^ 

T cn 

r^ li 

•^ a; 
*. t4) 
-J fO 

^ c 

4JfH 
Cr-I 

C CO 






E 



CO 

o • 
C 4J 



•C 9 

O *J 

c 
c 
c 

CO O 
C V- 



c 

P. 

01 



at to a 
C » 

lO-iH o 
CrH -O 

•rt <D C 

8> « C 



18084 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 20 



ZKHICAGO CA Sf S 

OCODENTAL LJFE 

INSURANCE COMPANY 
OF CMFGRNIA 



REMIUMS RFCRIVFD- ~^"^3 ' • *iei54.443.96 




H.B.KAIUS •---•»» 

c.scjut • - - - le SH 

J.TIPIOH - . . - ' 



jl infUHQICCRi 
H.a NtRIS - - • • 55 s*. 
H.W.HMIS - • - - »0 SH. 
ATICTOH ■ ■ • - 5 Sk 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 18085 
Exhibit No. 24 

OCCIDENTAL LIFE 
Insvtrance CompcuQy of California 

Home Office Los Angeles ^k- 
October 6, 1950 



Mr. Earland Marls 
Financial Center Building 
Oakland 12, California 



He: Comnisslon Drivers, 

Chauffeurs, Warehouse Helpers 
Union, Local 703 



Dear Bar land: 



Today ^en you called, I was in Frank Brown's office 
\rtilch you found out azxi then you had some discussion vlth Frank 
relative to the above deal. 

After our conversation we went through this whole plan 
and disciissed it thorou^^ily with John Mahoney and Mike Raimondi. 
Biey have l800 ellgibles and they are going to buy a Welfare 
Plan soaoewhere between $3.50 and $4.50 per month. 

The next meeting is to be Friday, October 20 and I 
would like to have you be here for it because there are other 
discussions that are going to come vrp, aM Frank Brown would 
like to have you here for that particular part. 

Everything else seems to be in order, however, I 
will let you know if anything else comes up that needs your 
ixanedlate attention. 



Very truly yours. 



Allen L. Creitz, 
Regional Group Supervisor 



ALC:da 



18086 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 25 



OCCIDENTAL LIFE 
INSinAHCE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA 
Home Office: Los ADgeles 



One North La Salle Street, Room 2225 
Chicago 
Telephone RAndolph 6-2281 
Group Department 

Decenjber 7> 1950 



Mr. Harland Maris 
Financial Center Bldg. 
Oakland 12, California 

Dear Harlaiid: 

As you no doubt know after receiving my vire, everything appeeu:^ to be 
in order on the Hotel Case. I will attempt to give you a brief 
resume of the meeting. 

The Hilton Hotels invited the Trustees, Attorneys and the Insurance 
Conpemy's representative to attend a special meeting in which the 
Hilton Hotels agreed to serve a Christmas luncheon. 

Brother, was it a luncheon! We had sqviab baked individually in 
casseroles, and all you could drink. In fact, everything weis superb. 
I need not go into detail on this, but I will say that Fred Guest 
reeuLly threw a wing-ding. 

After everyone drank and ate to their hearts content, the meeting was 
called to order. Since everybody attending was in such a beautiful 
mood, Charles Aaron brought up the matter of cost. I gave him my 
full explanation and wound up, at least I think I did, with everyone 
in a very good mood, including Blakely and the other m e mb ers . 

The only thing that Charles Aaron brought up was the fact that on 
these pension cases the ceirrier absolves the cost of administration. 
I expledned to Mr. Aaron the difference between Group and Pension 
business and after he tmderstood, everything was in perfect order. 
I think we can now consider this a closed issvie. 

I wish that you ^ro