Appendix — Dennis v. United States

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 1965

No. 502

RAYMOND DENNIS, ET AL., PETITIONERS,

vs. ;

UNITED STATES.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

INDEX

Record from the United States District Court for

the District of Colorado

Indictment —_.

Arraignment and plea

Motion to dismiss

Memorandum opinion, Kaus, Ch. J. and order

denying motion to dismiss

Motion on retrial for renewal of motions filed

prior to first trial

Stipulation as to second trial

Motion for judgment of acquittal

Motion in arrest of judgment

Motion for a new trial

Judgment and commitment as to Raymond Den-

nis

Judgment and commitment as to Irving Dichter

Judgment and commitment as to Harold Sander-

son

Recorp Press, Printers, New York, N. Y., January 31, 1966

eue Chis .

„ .

ii INDEX

Record from the United States District Court for

the District of Colorado—Continued

Judgment and commitment as to Albert Skinner 43

Judgment and commutenent as to Maurice E.

Travis 4H

45

46

Judgment and commitment as to Charles H.

Wilson

Notice of appeal

Order denying motions for judgment of Soutien

in arrest of judgment and for new trial 49

Transcript of proceedings In Chambers, August

26, 1963 49

Colloquy on renewal of motions and denial

thereof 49

Transcript of proceedings, August 29, 30 and

September 4-9, 1963 68

Testimony of Ralph W. Locke, Jr.—

direct 68

Motion to produce grand jury testimony of

Locke, colloquy between court and counsel

and dente)’ of motion 106

Court’s on motions to produee 109

y of Ralph W. Locke, Jr.—

cross 112

Stip and colloquy re death of William

Mason, witness on first trial 129

“Objections on second trial to admission of

Mason testimony, 155

Court’s ruling on second trial admitting Mason

testimony 219

Part of Government’s Exhibit No. 2 read to

the jury 219

Part of Government’s Exhibits Nos. 4 and 5

read to the jury — 267

Colloquy between Court and counse!l 276

Testimony of William Mason (read)

Colloquy between Court and couns e! 322

Record from the United States District Court for

the District of Colorado—Continued

Transcript of proceedings, August 29, 30 and

September 4-9, 1963—Continued

Motions on first trial to produce grand jury

testimony of Mason, colloquy and ruling __

Part of Government’s Exhibit No. 9 read to

the jury

Testimony of William Mason (read)

cross

Renewal of motions on first trial, atter cross-

examination, to produce grand jury testi-

mony of Mason, voir dire, colloquy and

ruling

Testimony of Bobby G. Fikes—

direct

Alten Lawrence—

direct

Motions to produce grand jury testimony of

Fikes, colloquy and ruling thereoen

Testimony of Bobby G. Fikes—

(resumed )—-

Cross

redirect

recross

redirect.

Fred L. Gardner

direet

Renewal of motion after eross- examinations to

produce grand jury testimony of Fikes, col-

loquy and ruling thereon

Motions to produce grand jury testimony of

Gardner, colloquy and ruling thereoen

Transcript of proceedings, September 10, ‘1, 13

and 19, 1963 N

Renewal of motions, after eross- examination, to

produce grand jury testimony of Gardner,

colloquy and ruling thereon

Part of Government’s Exhibit No. 16 read to

the jury

Original Print

346 176

349 177

351 179

392 198

425 207

454 229

494 256

532 257

542 2869

542 270

543 2271

551 2272

581 309

617 309

645 312

645 312

a

iv. INDEX

Record from the United States District Court for

the District of Colorado—Continued

Transcript of proceedings, September 10, 11, 13

and 19, 1963—Continued »

Offers in evidendee

Court’s instructions to the jury

Testimony of Mrs. Eleanor Fernandez—

direct

Offer of proof with respect to Defendants’

Exhibits Nos. Q-1-Q-5, inclusive, for identifi-

cation

Court’s instructions to the ur

Objections to the instructions

Defendants’ requested Instructions Nos. 6 and 7

and refusals by the Court

Government’s Exhibit No. 1—Resolution dated

April 8, 1948

Defendants’ Exhibits B, C, D, E, G—Expense

Vouchers of Ralph W. Locke

Defendants’ Exhibits Q-1—Q-5 inclusive—Expense

Account Reeords for Irving Dichter 8

Proceedings in the United States Court of Appeals

for the Tenth Circuit

Minute entry of argument and submission

Opinion, Murrah, Ch. J.

Judgment in Dennis v. United States and note re

other judgments -

Supplement to the petition for rehearing

Second supplement to the petition for rehearing

Letter from Assistant United States Attorney to

Clerk, U. S. C. A., 10th Cireuit, dated June 10, 1965

Appellee’s memorandum in opposition to supple-

ment to petition for rehearing

Order denying petition for rehearin g

Note re stay of mandate

Tierk's certificate (omitted in printing) —___

Order extending time to file petition for writ of

certiorari

Order allowing certiorari

Original Print

646 313

671 316

771 317

792 327

1003 323

1031 350

1120 350

1135 351

1136 353

1162 379

1167 384

1167 384

1168 384

1198 404

1198 405

1207 413

1212 417

1216 420

1218 422

1224 425

1224 425

1225 425

1226 426

1227 427

[fol. 3]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR on erie OF COLORADO

Unrrep Srares or Amenica, Plaintiff,

vs.

Aubert Przzarr, Raymonp Dennis, Irvine Dicuter, Gra-

Han Dotan, James Durkin, Assury Howand, Auton

Lawrence, Jack C. Mancorri, CHASER J. Powers, Hanolp

Sanperson, ALBERT Skrvner, Maurice E. Travis, Jesse

R. Van Camp, CRARLES H. Wussox, Defendants.

No. 15124, Criminal

Ix DICE T Filed November 16, 1956

Vio. Title 18, U. S. C. Section 371

The g rand jury charges: .

That beginning on or about the 15th day of June 1949,

and continuing up to and including the date of the return

of this indictment, within the District of Colorado and else-

where, Albert Nessati, Raymond Dennis, Irving Dichter,

Graham Delan, James Darkin, Asbury Heward, Alten

Lawrenee, Jae ©. Mareetti, Chase J. Rewers, Harold

Sanderson, Albert Skinner, Maurice E. Travis, Jesse R.

Van Camp and Charles H. Wilson, the defendants herein,

who were then and there officials and employees of the

International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers,

which was a labor organization within the meaning of the

Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (29 U.S.C. 152

(5) ), and who were then and there members of and affiliated

[fol. 4] with the Communist Party, did wilfully, knowingly

and unlawfully combine, conspire and agree with each other,

and with Arthur Bary, John Williamson, Gil Green and

Fred Fine, co-conspirators but not defendants herein, and

2

with other persons to the Grand Jurors unknown, to de-

fraud the United States and an agency thereof, tnat is to

say, the defendants conspired as aforesaid to fraudulently

effectuate, for and on behalf of said Union and its con-

stituent units, a compliance with section 9(h) of the Labor

Management Relations Act of 1947 (29 U.S.C. 159(h)), by

means of false and fraudulent statements and/ representa-

tions to be made and caused to be made by said defendants

to the National Labor Relations Board, which. was and is

an agency of the United States, and to fraudulently obtain

and use for and on behalf of said Union and its constituent

units, the services and facilities of said Board without law-

fully and in good faith qualifying said Union for the use

of said services and facilities under section 9(h) of said

Act, and to impair, pervert, frustrate and defeat the proper,

lawful and effective administration of said Act by the Na-

tional Labor Relations Board.

was a part of the conspiracy that said defendants wopk

hold Ad continue to hold positions of power, influgreé and

control in the aforesaid Union, that is to say-they would

hold and continteo hold positions as Intarſſational officers,

International Execute Board mepers, staff members,

and International Representatives in the said Union, that

the said defendants would-e tad continue to be members

of the Communist PAN and in collabezation with aforesaid

co-conspirators ho were functionaries dk the Communist

Party, but act officials, employees or members d& aid Union,

would-fominate and control and continue to domifate and

gontrol the affairs and policies of said Union.

It was a further part of the conspiracy that the said de-

fendants would file and cause to be filed annually and at

other times with the National Labor Relations Board affi-

davits commonly known as Non-Communist affidavits, ex-

ecuted respectively by the defendants Albert Ressati, Ray-

mond Dennis, Irving Dichter, Aten Lewrenee, Chase J.

Powers, Maurice E. Travis, Jesse R. Van Camp, Asbury

3

Heward and Charles H. Wilson, who were officers of said

Union, and also were members of dhdyliated with the

Communist Party, which said affidavits falsely and

fraudulently represent to said National Labor Relations

Board that said Union officers were not members of and

were not . äliated with the Communist Party, and that

said Union officers would pretend to resign from their

membership in the Communist Party and pretend to ter-

minate their affiliation with said Party, but would in fact

continue their membership in and affiliation with the same.

[fol.5] It was a further part of the conspiracy that the

said defendants would by the means aforesaid fraudulently

induce the National Labor Relations Board to issue to the

said Union certificates of compliance with section 9(h)

of the aforesaid Act, and said Union would, thus, fraudu-

lently obtain from said Board the authorization and right to

make use of said Board’s services and facilities, that is to

say, the authorization and right to have the name of said

Union appear on ballots in elections conducted by said

Board to determine the exclusive bargaining agent for

groups and units of employees, the authorization and right

to prosecute charges of unfair labor practices before said

Board end the authorisation and right to make ase of che

establishment ef what is commonly known as a elesed stp

It was a further part of the conspiracy that the said

defendants, well knowing the false and fraudulent character

of the aforesaid affidavits and the fraudulent character of

the said Union’s compliance with section 9(h) of said Act,

would use the services and facilities of the National Labor

Relations Board for and on behalf of said Union and its

constituent units, that is to say, they would file petitions re-

questing said Board to conduct elections for the purpose

of determining the exclusive bargaining agents for groups

and units of employees, would intervene in cases where

such petitions were filed by other labor organizations, would

appear at and participate in hearings conducted by said

Board in respect to said petitions, would induce said Board

+

to place the name of said Union on the ballots in elections

ordered and conducted by said Board, and would participate

in said elections and conduct election campaigns for the

purpose of inducing employees to vote for said Union and

winning said elections, so that said Board would certify

said Union as the exclusive bargaining agent for said em-

ployees; that said defendants would file complaints with

said Board relating to unfair labor practices, would appear

and participate in hearings conducted by said Board in re-

spect to the same and weuld utilise the preeedure of said

ert ted fet bhi eee od He ther eee Seed better

Pete rine ptt bret preter eee eee bok contd eee

Ht Beepeet te eettihititty ard pettione fled bay eee.

Overt Acts

The grand jury further charges, that in furtherance of

the aforesaid conspiracy and to accomplish the objects

thereof, the defendants committed numerous overt acts,

among which were the following: :

{fol.6] 1. On or about July 19, 1949, at Chicago, Illinois,

Albert Perzati, Jesse R. Van Camp, Chase J. Powers,

Charles H. Wilson, and Harold Sanderson, and Graham

Delas attended and participated in a meeting of the Suit

national Executive Board of said Union.

2. On or about August 8, 1949, at Washington, D. C.,

Albert Pessati, Maurice E. Travis, Chase J Pees, Jesse .

R. Van Camp, and Charles H. Wilson, filed false affidavits

with the National Labor Relations Board. :

3. On or about December 21, 1949, at Cuyahoga County,

Ohio, Raymond Dennis executed a false affidavit.

4. On or about May 19, 1950, at Danville, Illinois, Ray-

mond Dennis and Jesse R. Van Camp signed an agreement

for an election before the National Labor Relations Board.

„ GR ar abet date he dG at eee Ct etter

Aten Lawrenee executed a false affidavit.

6. On or about December 15, 1950, at Washington, D.C.,

Albert Pesseti, Maurice E. Travis, Chase J. Rowers, Alten

Pawrenee and Raymond Dennis filed false affidavits with

the National Labor Relations Board. fats

7. On or about April 18, 1951, at Salt Lake City, Utah,

Albert Skinner appeared at and participated in a hearing

conducted by the National Labor Relations Board. ;

8. On or about July 26, 1051, at Pes Angeles, Galifersie,

Jack G. Marectti filed a false affidavit with the National

9. On oF about October 26, 1961, at Bieminelem, Ate.

beme, Alten Lewrenee filed a petition with the National

totter Reh Head.

10. On or about November 19, 1952, at Cuyahoga County,

Ohio, Raymond Dennis executed a false affidavit.

11. On or about December 3, 1952, at Denver, Colorado,

Charles H. Wilson executed a false affidavit and caused

the same to be mailed to the National Labor Relations

Board at Washington, D.C.

[fol. 71 12. On or about November 6, 1953, at Denver,

Colorado, Maurice E. Travis executed a false affidavit and

caused the same to be mailed to the National Labor Rela-

tions Board at Washington, D.C.

48. On or about August 24, 1053, at Les Angeles, Cali

fornia, Y ©. Mareotti filed a petition with the National

14. On or about February 15, 1954, at Butte, Montana,

Albert Skinner appeared at and participated in a hearing

conducted by the National Labor Relations Board.

15. On or about March 24, 1954, at Kingston, Tennessee,

Charles H. Wilson appeared at and participated in a hear-

ing conducted by the National Labor Relations Board.

17. On or about October 19, 1954, at Denver, Colorado,

Albert Pezzati, Maurice E. Travis, Raymond Dennis, As-

‘bury Howard, Chase J. Powers and Alton Lawrence exe-

cuted false affidavits and each of the said affidavits were

sworn to before Harold Sanderson, who acted as *

Public.

18. On or about February 24, 1955, at New York, NY,

Irving Dichter executed a false affidavit.

. On or about June 23, 1955, at Denver, Colorado,

Pezzati executed a false affidavit and swore to the

same before Harold Sanderson, who acted as Notary Public.

3H. ba ee bet crete too does. tet -r, Wr telt

tee oF Powers filed a petition with the Netionel Faber

Betis Hered

21. On er about Marek 28, 1055, at Chicago, Hlincic,

ditties Heat A bpetrert att ttt pitttierpites: dit a ee nee

[fol. 8] All in violation of Section 371, Title 18 U.S.C.

A true Bill,

Charles Lewis Sayre, Foreman.

Donald E. Kelley, United States Attorney.

In Unrrep States District Court

ARRAIGNMENT aND Piea—November 20, 1956

On the 20th day of November, 1956, The United States

of America appeared by Donald E. Kelley, United States

Attorney and all the defendants appeared in person and

by their counsel, Nathan Witt, Esq., and Eugene Deikman,

Esq., before the Honorable Jean S. Breitenstein, Judge of

the United States District Court for the District of Colo-

7

rado, and the defendants waived the reading of the indict-

ment, and each entered his respective plea of not guilty

to the one count in the Indictment, and it is ordered that

the defendants have to January 14, 1957 to file motions.

In Unrrep States Disraicr Count

Motion to Dismiss—Filed January 14, 1957

The defendants move that the indictment herein be dis-

missed on the following grounds:

I. The Grand Jury was not selected, 4 or sum-

moned in accordance with law, for the reasons that:

(a) There has been a systematic exclusion by the Clerk

and Jury Commissioner of Negroes, Mexicans and other

racial or minority groups.

[b) There has been a systematic exclusion of manual

workers and wage earners.

(c) The representation of Negroes, 8 other racial

or minority groups, manual workers and wage earners has

been limited to token representation.

(d) The Grand Jury has been weighted in favor of and

dominated by representatives of the owner-manager groups

of the community.

(fol. 9] (e) The Clerk has failed to carry out the statu-

tory and constitutional mandate to employ such methods

and procedures as would insure a representation of a cross-

section of the community.

2. Section 371 of Title 18 and Section 159(h) of Title 29

of the U.S. Code are unconstitutional on their face and as

applied to the defendants, and in particular violate Article

I, Section 9, clause 3, and the First, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth

Amendments to the Constitution.

3. The indictment does not state facts sufficient to con-

stitute an offense against the United States.

4. The overt acts alleged in the indictment are not acts

to effect the object of the conspiracy, within the meaning of

Section 371 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code.

5. The first thirteen overt acts alleged in the indict-

ment are barred by the Statute of Limitations, Section 3282

of Title 18 of the U.S. Code.

6. The indictment is vague and indefinite and fails to

inform the defendants adequately of the offense charged so

as to enable them to make their defense.

Montfort, Wilson & Deikman, By Eugene Deikman,

Nathan Witt, Attorneys for Defendants.

[fol. 13]

In Unrtep Stares Distaict Court

Memoranpum ORION AN D Onper Denyinc Motion To

Dismiss—March 27, 1958

Knous, Chief Judge.

The defendants have interposed a motion to dismiss the

Indictment. Extended oral arguments on the motion were

heard following which the parties were requested by the

Court to submit memoranda on the points and authorities

upon which they relied. While several alleged grounds for

dismissal were enumerated in the motion, the arguments

and memoranda submitted by counsel primarily have been

directed to the contention of the defendants that the In-

dictment does not state facts sufficient to constitue an of-

fense against the United States.

The indictment charges conspiracy to defraud the United

States. It covers the period from June 15, 1949, to the date

of the return of the indictment, November 16, 1956. The

defendants are fourteen officials and employees of the Inter-

national Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, a labor

organization within the meaning of the Labor Management

Relations Act of 1947 (29 U.S.C. 152(5)). The charge is

that the defendants were members of and affiliated with the

Communist Party and conspired with each other and with

other persons both named and unknown: 8

(1) Fraudulently to effectuate on behalf of the Union a

compliance with section 9(h) of the Labor Management

Relations Act of 1947 by means of false and fraudulent

statements made to the National Labor Relations Board, an

agency of the United States;

(2) Fraudulently to obtain and use\for the Union the

services and facilities of the Board without a good faith

qualification of the Union, and

(3) To pervert and defeat the proper administration of

the 1947 Act by the Board. 5 3

The indictment asserts, inter alia, that as a part of the

conspiracy the defendants would:

(1) File with the Board non-Communist affidavits which

would falsely and fraudulently represent that certain Union

officers were not members of and affiliates with the Com-

munist party;

(2) Fraudulently induce the Board to issue to the Union

certificates of compliance with section 9(h) of the 1947 Act

and fraudulently obtain from the Board the right to make

use of the services and facilities of the Board;

[fol. 14] (3) With knowledge of the false and fraudu-

lent character of the affidavits and of the fraudulent com-

pliance with section 9(h), use the services and facilities of

the Board on behalf of the Union.

The indictment alleges twenty-one overt acts. The first

in point of time is said to have occurred on July 19, 1949,

and the last on August 11, 1955,

Section 9(h) of the Labor Management Relations Act

of 1947 (29 U.S.C. 159 (h)) reads: 5

No investigation shall be made by the Board of any

question affecting commerce concerning the representation

of employees, raised by a labor organization under subsec-

tion (c) of this section, and no complaint shall be issued

yon

10

pursuant to a charge made by a labor organization under

subsection (b) of section 160 of this title, unless there is

on file with the Board an affidavit executed contemporane-

ously or within the preceding twelve-month period by each

officer of such labor organization and the officers of any

national or international labor organization of which it is

an affiliate or constituent unit that he is not a member of

the Communist Party or affiliated with such party, and

that he does not believe in, and is not a member of or sup-

ports any organization that believes in or teaches, the over-

throw of the United States Government by force or by any

illegal or unconstitutional methods. The provisions of sec-

tion 35A of the-Criminal-Code shall be applicable in respect

to such affidavits.”

Section 35A of the Criminal Code referred to in the

above-quoted statute was repealed by the Act of June 25,

1948, 62 Stat. 862, and is now covered hy various sections

of Title 18 U.S.C. Of these, only 18 U.S.C. $1001 is perti-

nent. It provides:

“Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any

department or agency of the United States knowingly and

wilfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme,

or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or

fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or

uses any false writing or document knowing the same to

contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or

entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned

not more than five years, or both.”

The indictment charges a violation of 18 U.S.C. §371

which, so far as pertinent, provides: ~~

[fol. 15] “If two or more persons conspire either to com-

mit any offense against the United States, or to defraud

the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner

or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do

any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be

fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than

five years, or “both.”

1¹

The position of the Government is that the indictment

charges a conspiracy “to defraud the United States” and

not a conspiracy to commit offenses. __

Hence, the argument of defense counsel that the et.

ment is insufficient to state an offense under the conspiracy

to commit offenses clause of section 371, supra, need not be

considered since, as has been stated, the Government relies

solely on the sufficiency of the indictment to charge a oon.

spiracy to defraud the United States.

The fraud on the United States is alleged by the Gov-

ernment to be the use of the facilities and services of the

Board for the Union after the fraudulent compliance with

section 9(h) by filing of the non-Communist affidavits re-

quired by section 9(h) of the 1947 Act. As noted above,

this section provides that before a union has certain rights

under the Act affidavits must be filed with the Board stat-

ing that union officers are free from membership in or

affiliation with the Communist Party.

Section 9(h) does not violate the federal Constitution

(American Communication Association v. Douds (1950),

339 U.S, 382). As stated by the United States Supreme

Court, the purposes of section 9(h) are:

(1) “to protect the public not against what Communists

* * * advocate or believe, but against what Congress has

concluded they have done and are likely to do again”

(American Communications Association v. Douds, supra,

p. 396).

(2) to “wholly eradicate and bar from leadership in the

American labor movement, at each and every level, ad-

herents to the Communist party and believers in the uncon-

stitutional overthrow of our Government” (National Labor

Relations Board v. Highland Park Co. Gun 341 U.S. 322,

325);

(3) “to stop the use of the Labor Board tiy union leaders

unwilling to be limited in government by the processes of

[fol. 16] reason” (National Labor Relations Board v. Dant

(1953), 344 U.S. 375, 385).

Upon their voluntary compliance with the conditions

prescribed, section 9(h) makes available to labor organiza-

tions the benefits and advantages arising from

12

(1) the Board’s investigation of questions raised by ~

labor organizations concerning the representation of em-

ployees, and

(2) the Board’s issuance of complaints pursuant to a

charge made by a labor organization (United Mine Workers

v. Arkansas Oak Flooring Co. (1956), 351 U.S. 62, 70, 73).

These rights are of the utmost importance to trade

unions. As said in American Communications Association

v. Douds, supra, p. 390:

“The fact is that 5g (ch) may well make it difficult for

unions to remain effective if their officers do not sign the

affidavits.”

Section 9(h) makes Section 35A of the Criminal Code

applicable to the required affidavits. In Leedom v. Inter-

national Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers (1956),

352 U.S. 145, and Amalgamated Meat Cutters, ete. v. Na-

tional Labor Relations Board (1956), 352 U.S. 153, it was

held that (352 U.S, 156) :

«“* the sole sanction for the filing of a false affidavit

under §9(h) is the criminal penalty imposed on the officer

who files a false affidavit, not decompliance of the union nor

the withholding of the benefits of the Act that are granted

once the specified officers file their §9(h) affidavits.”

The prosecution here is for conspiracy to defraud in

violation of the general conspiracy statute, section 371.

It is not a prosecution under section 1001, the false state-

ments statute. In Leedom v. International Union of Mine,

Mill and Smelter Workers, supra, p. 148, the Court nn

with reference to section 9(h):

“We s‘art with a statutory provision that contains only

one express sanction, viz., prosecution for making a false

statement.”

The first question is whether a prosecution under section

371 may be maintained. Section 9(h) does not expressly

repeal section 371. It is a cardinal rule of construction

that repeals by implication are not favored (United States

13

v. Borden (1939), 308 U.S. 188, 198). Where Congress by

more than one statute proscribes a private course of

[fol. 17] conduct, the Government may choose to invoke

either applicable law (Rosenberg v. United States (1953),

346 U.S. 273, 294). The existence of a specific criminal

statute or a reference thereto such as appears in section

9(h) does not preclude prosecution under other able

statutes (cf. Edwards v. United States (1941), US.

473, 483-484; United States v. Gilliland (1941), 312 U.S.

86, 95-96; Wallenstein v. United States (1928), 3 Cir., 25

F.(2d) 708). As I read Leedom v. International Union,

supra, it does not preclude a prosecution under section 371

for conspiracy to defraud the United States by preverting

the lawful function of the Board by means of deceit and

chicanery.

Defendants argue that fraud is not an essential element

of an offense covered by section 1001 and that a i

to commit a statutory offense of which fraud is not an

essential element is punishable only under the offense

clause of section 371. From these premises they conclude

that this indictment admittedly based upon the conspiracy

to defraud clause of section 371 must fall. Defendants ioe

numerous cases arising under the Wartime Suspension o

Limitations Act (18 U.S.C. 63287) and comparable statutes.

These statutes, among other things, extended the period of

limitations applicable to offenses involving any fraud or

attempted fraud against the United States. There pro-

visions have been determined to apply only to offenses in-

volving a fraud of a pecuniary nature or to offenses of

which fraud is an essential ingredient (Bridges v. United

States (1953), 346 U.S. 209, 221—conspiracy to defraud by

false statement in naturalization proceeding; United States

v. Grainger (1953), 346 U.S. 235, 244—-conspiracy to de-

fraud by false claims; United States v. Scharton (1932),

285 U.S. 518, 521—income tax evasion; United States v

McElvain (1926), 272 U.S. 633, 638—conspiracy.to defraud --

by false income tax returns; United States v. Noveck

(1926); 271 U.S. 201, 203—perjury; Marzani v. United

States (1948), C.A.D.C., 168 F. (2d) 133, 135-137, affirmed

without opinion by equally divided court, 335 U.S. 895, 336

{

14

U.S. 922—False Claims Act; United States v. Obermeier

(1950), 2 Cir., 186 F. (2d) 243, 256-257,/ certiorari denied

340 U.S. 951—false statement in ‘Hattralization proceed-

ings; United States v. (1952), 2 Cir., 100 F. (2d)

645, affirmed by equally court, 345 US. 979-——con-

spiracy to defraud by obstructing the lawful functioning

of the Office of Price Administration in the rationing of

sugar; United States v. Lurie (1955), 7 Cir., 222 F. (2d)

11, 13-15, certiorari denied 350 U.S. 835—conspiracy to

defraud by false statements made to War Assets Corpo-

ration and War Assets Administration in connection with

administration of sale of under the Sur-

plus Property Act of 1944; cf. United States v. Showalter

(1952), D.C.N.D. California, 103 F. Supp. 806—violation of

Servicemens’ Dependents Allowance Act).

[fol. 18] These cases merely hold that for the suspension

of limitations acts to be effective there must be an offense

involving a pecuniary loss or an offense of which fraud is

an essential ingredient. In none of those cases is there a

holding that the indictment or information then under con-

677 Mat tenmen nmeern en Smitod

tates

The fallacy of defendants’ argument lies in the premise

that the indictment here charges a conspiracy to commit

a statutory offense (violation of section 1001) of which

fraud is not an essential element. I do not so read the

indictment. The charge here is conspiracy to defraud the

United States by fraudulently effectuating a compliance

with section 90h), by fraudulently obtaining for the Union

the use of the facilities of the Board, and by perverting and

defeating the administration of the 1947 Act by the Board.

The use of allegedly false non-Communist affidavits was

only an incident of the conspiracy.

In a conspiracy charge the conspiracy is the gi gist of the

offense oh agar v. United States (1942), 317 U.S. 49,

54). This prosecution is not laid under section 1001. The

question of whether fraud is an essential element of an

offense under section 1001 is immaterial. Instead we have

the question of whether the indictment sufficiently charges,

ander section 371, conspiracy “to defraud the United States,

or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose.”

a Pte nee nn 2

15

The statute is broad enough to include any conspiracy

for the purpose of impairing, obstructing, or defeating the

lawful function of any department of the federal gov

ment (Haas v. Henkel (1910 > 72 0 Vian me 479). T

phrase “conspire * to ; nited States“

includes within its meaning interference with or obstruc-

tion of one of the functions of the federal government by

deceit, craft, trickery, or dishonesty (Hammerschmidt v.

United States (1924), 265 U.S. 182, 188).

Defendants rely heavily on Bridges v. United States,

supra. As I read that decision, it does not support their

arguments. The Bridges case specifically recognizes Haas

v. Henkel and Hammerschmidt v. United States (see 346

U.S. 221, note 19), and points out that those cases refer

to conspiracies to defraud in violation of the second claude

of the general conspiracy statute (section 371) and do not

control the interpretation of the Wartime Suspension of

Limitations Act. In the Bridges case the Court refers to

(fol. 19] United States v. Cohn (1926), 270 U.S. 339, which

at page 346 distinguishes a conspiracy to defraud under

the general conspiracy statute from an oifense under the

False Claims Act.

Under the Leedom and Amalgamated Meat Cutters cases,

supra, the Court held that the Board could not i

a union because false non-Communist affidavits were filed.

Defendants argue from this that as the Board must pro-

ceed even in the event of false affidavits, there is no fraud

on the Government. In other words, the successful opera-

tion of the fraud would deprive the transaction of its fraud-

ulent character. This argument is refuted by its mere

statement (United States v. Keitel (1908), 211 U.S. 370,

394).

In the Leedom case it was said (352 U.S. 148):

“The filing of the required affidavits by the

officers is the key that makes availabie to the union the

benefits of the Act.”

While it may be that so far as the Board is concerned a

false key is just as adequate as a true key, the persons who

16

use that false key to unlock the door and obtain for the

union benefits to which the union would not otherwise be

entitled thereby defeat the purposes which the United

States Supreme Court has said that Congress intended to

effectuate by section 9(h). The indictment herein ade-

quately charges a conspiracy to defraud the United States

by the impairment, obstruction, and defeat of a lawful

funetion of the Board. In my opinion, it sufficiently states

an offense against the United States.

In the opinion of the Court the other grounds for dis-

missal of the indictment set forth in defendants’ motion are

without merit. Wherefore, it is

Ordered And Adjudged that the motion of the defendants

* iss the indietment be, and the same hereby is denied.

t

Further Ordered that the supplemental motion to dis-

miss, filed by defendants on February 4, 1958, is also denied

and overruled.

Dated at Denver, Colorado, this twenty-seventh day of

March, A.D. 1958.

. William Lee Knous, Chief Judge.

[fol. 30]

Iw Unirep States Distaicr Court

Motion on RATRIAL, ror Renewa. or Motions Fb Prior

0 First Trui—Filed August 26, 1963

The defendants hereby renew on retrial the motions filed

prior to the first trial, as follows:

a. Motion to Dismiss the Indictment on five stated

grounds, filed January 14, 1957;

b. Motion of the defendant Travis for Severance and

Continuane, fled October 2 19805

e. Motion of the defendants other than Travis for Sever-

ance of their trial from the trial of the defendant Travis,

filed October 21, 1959;

17

[fol.31] d. Motion on the order of presentation of evi-

dence by the prosecution, filed November 3, 1959; and

e. Motion for the exclusion of evidence relating to events

prior to June 15, 1949, or in the alternative for exclusion

of evidence relating to events prior to June 23, 1947, filed

November 3, 1959. 4

2. Defendants respeetfully move this Court to consider,

in determining these motions, the arguments, representa-

tions, affidavits, ete., presented to this Court at the time

these motions were originally offered, together with such

further argument and representation as the defendants

shall now present in support of the renewal of these

motions.

Wherefore, the defendants respectfully move this Court

for Orders as follows:

a. An Order dismissing the indictment; or, if the Motion

to Dismiss not be granted,

b. An Order severing the trial of defendant Travis from

the trial of the other defendants in this case; and

¢, Orders directed to the prosecution in accordance with

and in execution of the motions with respect to prosecution

evidence filed November 3, 1959.

Respectfully submitted,

George J. Francis, Telford Taylor, Nathan Witt,

Attorneys for Defendants.

[fol. 32]

Ly Unrrep Srares Disrercr Covrr

Srirblariox as to Seconp Truai—August 26, 1963

This stipulation is entered into this 26th day of August,

1963, by and between George J. Francis, Telford Taylor

18

and Nathan Witt, counsel for the defendants, and Lawrence

M. Henry, United States Attorney for the District of Colo-

rado, and Lafayette E. Broome of the Department of Jus-

tice, for the purpose of expediting and simplifying the trial

of the captioned case and of establishing a method for the

introduction into evidence of certain documents without the

necessity of producing witnesses for such purposes. Coun-

sel for the Government and for the defendants reserve only

the right to object to the relevancy, materiality and com-

petency of said documents.

[kol. 33] 1: It is agreed that all of the .

affidavits (National Labor Relations Board Form 1081)

obtained from the National Labor Relations Board, on

which ‘appear the names of Raymond Dennis, Irving

Dichter, Harold Sanderson, Maurice E. Travis (signed

M. E. Travis), Charles H. Wilson and Jesse R. Van Camp,

defendants herein, either as affiant or as Notary Public,

are authentic and were signed and executed by the persons

_ whose names so appear, at the times and at the places re-

_ spectively indicated therein, and were forwarded and

caused to be forwarded by the said defendants to the Na-

tional Labor Relations Board at Washington, D.C.

2. It is further agreed that the files and records of the

National Labor Relations Board pertaining to cases in

which the International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter

Workers, or any of its local unions, or any of the defen-

dants herein, participated are authentie and may be re-

ceived in evidence without further identification, subject

only to objection for relevancy, materiality and competency.

In addition, a list of all such cases from the time of said

Union’s compliance in 1949 until the date of the indictment

returned herein, which was prepared by the National Labor

Relations Board prior to the previous trial of this case

and was submitted to counsel for the defendants before

said trial, may be received in evidence in the retrial of

this case, subject however to inspection of the same and any

objection for materiality, relevancy, and competency.

3. It is further agreed that correspondence and copies

of correspondence between the National Labor Relations

Board and the International Union of Mine, Mill and —

_ Smelter Workers, or any of the defendants herein, obtained

from files of said Board, are authentic, and may be received 5

in evidence, subject only to objection to relevancy, ma-

teriality and competency.

4. It is further agreed that copies of the minutes of

meetings of the Executive Board of the International Union

of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, copies of reports of

the various convention proceedings of said Union, copies

of the Mine-Mill Union (official publication of said Union),

and copies of expense vouch: submitted by staff mem-

bers of said Union are authentic records made and kept

by the said Union in the usual course of its business and

may he received in evidence without further identification,

subject only to objection to relevancy, materiality, and

competency,

[fol. 34] 5. The Government intends to offer in evidence

at the trial of the above defendants and defendants may

also offer the same exhibits received by the Court in the

previous trial, which began ovember 2, 1959 at Denver,

Colorado. It is, therefore, that photostatic copies

which were substituted for the original exhibit in the orig-

ina! trial may be received in evidence without the necessity

of producing the originals, subject to objection on grounds

of relevancy, materiality, and competency.

6. In the event that the Government or defendants

should decide to offer additional documents at the scheduled

trial of this cause, it is agreed that a list thereof shall be

furnished to opposing counsel at a reasonable time prior

to their offer in evidence, so that counsel may be allowed

sufficient time within which to inspect the same.

(Illegible) ; Lawrence M. Henry, United States At-

torney; Lafayette E. Broome, Attorney, Depart-

ment of Justice; George J. Francis, Attorney for

- Defendants; Telford Taylor, Attorney for Defen-

dants; Nathan Witt, de kor ene 5

Filed August 26, 1963.

{fol. 381

In Unirep Srates District Covrr

Motion ror JUpGMENT or AocquiTTat—

Filed October 2, 1963

Come now the defendants, by their attorneys, and move

this Honorable Court, pursuant to Rule 29 of the Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, to enter a judgment of ac-

quittal for each defendant of the offense or offenses charged

in this indictment, on the grounds that (a) prosecution for

these offenses is barred by the Statute of Limitations, and

(b) the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction of

any defendant for such offense or offenses.

Respectfully submitted,

Telford Taylor, Nathan Witt, eden J. Francis,

e for Defendants.

In UxrrID States Disraicr Court

Morton n Anzest or J upeMent—Filed October 2, 1963

Come now the defendants, by their attorneys, and move

this Honorable Court, pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, to arrest judgment against

each defendant, on the grounds that the indictment does

not state facts sufficient to constitute an offense against the

United States, that it is duplicitous, vague, and uncertain,

that the Court was without jurisdiction of the offense or

- offenses charged, that Section 371 of Title 18 and Section

159 (H) of Title 29 of the United States Code are uncon-

stitutional on their face and as applied to the defendants,

and that the facts alleged in the indictment do not consti-

tute the offense of vonspiring’to defrand the United States

or any agency thereof, as charged in the indictment. eas

ae _ Respectfully submitted, . 8 :

Telford Taylor, Nathan Witt, George J. Francis,

Attorneys for Defendants.

[fol. 39} ;

In Untrep Srares Distaict Covar

Morton ror a New Tatat-—Filed October 2, 1963

Come now the defendants, by their attorneys, and move

this Honorable Court, pursuant to Rules 29 and 33 of the

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to grant a new trial

for each defendant and as grounds therefor state as

follows: 5 :

1. The verdiet is contrary to the weight of the evidence,

is not supported by substantial evidence, and is insufficient

to sustain the conviction of any of the defendants for the

offense or offenses charged in the indictment;

2. The Court erred in denying the motion of the defen-

dants other than the defendant Maurice Travis for a sev-

erance of their trial from the trial of the defendant Travis;

3. The Court erred in denying the motion of the defen-

dant Maurice Travis for a severance;

4. The Court erred in overruling defendants’ objections

to prosecution testimony that certain meetings were Com-

munist Party meetings, without proper foundation;

5. The Court erred in admitting the testimony of Wil-

liam Mason which he had given on the first trial;

6. The Court erred in admitting documentary evidence

and exhibits, and testimonial evidence, to which objections

were made by the defendants;

7. The Court erred in sustaining objections to questions

addressed to defense witness Eleanor Fernandez and in

excluding documentary evidence and exhibits offered by

the defendants, all in connection with the defendant Irving

Dichter;

8. The Court erred in excluding defendants’ Exhibit for

Identification “Y”, the duly certified list compiled by the

National Labor Relations Board showing the dates on

which unions complied with Section 9 of the Taft-Hartley

Act; 7

. The Court erred in refusing to charge the jury as

requested by counsel for the defendants, and in charging

the jury over the objections of counsel for the defendants ;

[fol.40] 10. The Court erred in denying the defendants’

motion with respect to order of proof, the defendants’ Mo-

tions for production to the Court or to the defendants of

the testimony of prosecution witnesses before grand juries,

and in the interpretation and application of 18 U.S.C. 3500.

11. The Court erred in denying the defendants’ challenge

for cause with respect to the alternate juror, Jacqueline

Lou Anderson.

Respectfully submitted,

Telford Taylor, Nathan Witt, George J. Francis,

Attorneys for Defendants.

Is Unrrep States District Court

JUDGMENT AND COMMITMENT As TO Raymonp Dennis—

November 7, 1963

On this 7th day of November, 1963 came the attorney for

the government and the defendant appeared in person and

and by his counsel

It Is Adjudged that the defendant has been convicted

upon his plea of not guilty and a verdict of guilty of the

offense of conspiracy to defraud the government of the

United States of America, in violation ef 18 USC 371 as

charged in the Indictment herein and ;

asked the defendant whether he

Tt Is Adjudged that the defendant is guilty as charged

and convicted. e

It Is Adjudged that the defendant is hereby committed

to the custody of the Attorney General or his authorized

representative for imprisonment for a period of a maxi-

mum of three (3) years agen he Indictment herein, said

defendant to become eligible for parole at such time as .

the board of parole may determine, under the provisions

of Title 18, USC, Section 4208(a)(2).

It Is Further Adjudged that the defendant pay to the

United States of America a fine of $2,000.00, and that the

United States of America have execution therefor.

[fol.41] It Is Ordered that the Clerk deliver a certified

copy of this judgment and commitment to the United States

Marshal or other qualified officer and that the copy serve

as the commitment of the defendant.

Alfred A. Arraj, United States District Judge,

G. Walter Bowman, Clerk.

In Unrrep States Disraicr Court

JUDGMENT AND COMMITMENT as TO IRVING DicutTer—

November 7, 1963

On this 7th day of November, 1963 came the attorney

for the government and the defendant appeared in person

and by his counsel

It Is Adjudged that the defendant has been convicted

be eee anden be eee deen eee ger

offense of conspiracy to defraud the government of the

United States of America, in violation of 18 USC 371 as

charged in the Indictment herein and the court having

asked the defendant whether he has anything to say why

dgment should not be pronounced, and no sufficient cause

to the contrary being shown or appearing to the Court,

It Is Adjudged that the defendant is guilty as charged

and convicted.

It Is Adjudged that the defendant is hereby committed

to the custody of the Attorney General or his authorized

representative for imprisonment for a period of a maxi-

mum of three (3) years upon the Indictment herein, said

defendant to become eligible for parole at such time as

the board of parole may determine, under the provisions

of Title 18, U.S. C., Section 4208 (a) (2).

It Is Further Adjudged that the defendant pay to the

United States of America a fine of $2,000.00, and that the

United States of America have execution therefor.

It Is Ordered that the Clerk deliver a certified copy of

this judgment and commitment to the United States Mar-

shal or other qualified officer and that the copy serve as

the commitment of the defendant.

Alfred A. Arraj, United States District Judge; G

Walter Bowman, Clerk.

[fol. 42]

In Unrrep Srates Distaict Court

eee and ComMITMENT as TO HAnOID Sanperson—1

November 7, 1963

On this 7th day of November, 1963 came the attorney

for the government and the defendant appeared in person

and by his counsel

25

It Is Adjudged that the defendant has been convicted

upon his plea of not guilty and a verdict of guilty of the

offense of conspiracy to defraud the government of the

It Is Adjudged that the defendant is guilty as charged

and convicted.

It Is Adjudged that the def t is hereby committed

to the custody of the Atto General or his authorized

representative for imprisonment for a period of a maxi-

mum of three (3) years upon the Indictment herein, said

defendant to become eligible for parole at such time as the

board of parole may determine, under the provisions of

Title 18, USC, Section 4208 (a) (2).

It Is Further Adjudged that the defendant pay to the

United States of America a fine of $2,000.00, and that the

United States of America have execution therefor.

It Is Ordered that the Clerk deliver a certified copy of

this judgment and commitment to the United States Mar-

shal or other qualified officer and that the copy serve as

the commitment of the defendant.

Alfred A. Arraj, United States District Judge, G.

Walter Bowman, Clerk.

[fol. 43]

In Unrrep Srares Disraicr Courr

JUDGMENT AND COMMITMENT as TO ALBERT SKINNER—

November 7, 1963

On this 7th day of November, 1963 came the attorney for

the government and the defendant appeared in person and

by his counsel

j

f

j

It Is Adjudged that the defendant has been convicted

upon his plea of not guilty and a verdict of guilty of the

offense of conspiracy to defraud the government of the

United States of America, in violation of 18 USC 371 as

charged in the Indictment herein and the court having

asked the defendant whether he has anything to say why

judgment should not be pronounced, and no sufficient cause

to the contrary being shown or appearing to the Court,

It Is Adjudged that the defendant is guilty as charged

and convicted.

It Is Adjudged that the defendant is hereby committed

to-the custody of the Attorney General or his authorized

representative for imprisonment for a period of a maximum

of three (3) years upon the Indictment herein, said defen-

dant to become eligible for parole at such time as the board

of parole may determine, under the provisions of Title 18,

U. S. C., Section 4208(a) (2).

It Is Further Adjudged that the defendant pay to the

United States of America a fine of $2,000.00, and that the

United States of America have execution therefor.

It Is Ordered that the Clerk deliver a certified copy of

this judgment and commitment to the United States Mar-

shal or other qualified officer and that the copy serve as

the commitment of the defendant.

Alfred A. Arraj, United States District Judge,

G. Walter Bowman, Clerk.

[fol. 44] : ;

In Untrep StTaTEs Distaicr Court

JUDGMENT AND COMMITMENT AS TO Maurice E. Travis—

November 7, 1963

On this 7th day of November, 1963 came the attorney for

the government and the defendant appeared in person and

by his counsel

and convicted, :

It Is Adjudged that the de t is hereby committed

to the custody of the Attorney General or his authorized

representative for impriso for a period of a maximum

of three (3) years upon the Indictment herein, said defen-

dant to become eligible for parole at such time as the board

of parole may determine, under the provisions of Title 18,

U.S. C., Section 4208(a)(2). . te

It Is Further Adjudged that the defendant pay to the

United States of America a fine of $2,000.00, and that the

United States of America have execution therefor.

It Is Ordered that the Clerk deliver a certified copy of

this judgment and commitment to the United States Mar-

shal or other qualified officer and that the copy serve as

the commitment of the defendant. :

Alfred A. Arraj, United States District Judge,

G. Walter Bowman, Clerk.

[fol. 45]

Ix Unrrep Srates Disrnior Counr

JUDGMENT AND CoMMITMENT as To CHARLES H. WI So

November 7, 1963

On this 7th day of November, 1963 came the attorney for

the government and the defendant appeared in person and

by his counsel

Wa Aae that the Gatland: he doen: dammtiotna

ee e eee

offense of conspiracy to defraud the

United States of America, in violation of 18 Ui

in the Indictment herein and the co

asked the defendant whether he has anything to say why

judgment should not be pronounced, and no sufficient cause

to the contrary being shown or appearing to the Court,

It Is Adjudged that the defendant is guilty as charged

and convicted.

It is Adjudged that the defendant is hereby committed

to the custody of the Attorney General or his authorized

representative for imprisonment for a period of a maximum

of three (3) years upon the Indictment herein, said defen-

dant to become eligible for parole at such time as the board

of parole may determine, under the provisions of Title 18,

U.S. C., Section 4208(a) (2).

It Is Further Adjudged that the defendant pay to the

United States of America a fine of $2,000.00, and that the

United States of America have execution therefor.

It Is Ordered that the Clerk deliver a certified copy of

this judgment and commitment to the United States Mar-

shal or other qualified officer and that the copy serve as

the commitment of the defendant.

Alfred A. Arraj, United States District Judge,

G. Walter Bowman, Clerk.

st

[fol. 46

In Unrrep Srates Disraicr Covrr

Norice or Aprzat—Filed November 8, 1963

The parties who are appealing herein and their respec-

tive addresses are as follows: Raymond Dennis, 10512 Lee

Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio; Irving Dichter, 1834 Colorado

Boulevard, Denver, Colorado; Harold Sanderson, 2076

South St. Paul, Denver, Colorado; Albert Skinner, 1540

Nursery St., Aurora, Colorado; Maurice E. Travis, 3117

Ohio Street, ‘Richmond, California; Charles H. Wilson,

5321 Bast Fairmount St., Tucson, Arizona.

Their attorneys are Telford Taylor, whose address is

200 Park Avenue, New York New York; Nathan Witt whose

address is P.O. Box 156, New York 23, New York; and

George J. Francis whose address is 817 Farmers Union

Building, Denver 3, Colorado.

On September 20, 1963, after a trial to a jury, the ap-

pellants herein were found guilty under an indictment which

charged them with violation of Title 18, U.S.C. Section 371.

The offense charged in said indi t alleged that these

appellants were officials and employees of the International

[fol. 47] Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, a labor

organization within the meaning of the Labor 9

ment Relations Act of 1947 (29 U.S. C. 152 (5)), and were

also members of and affiliated with the Communist Party.

The indietment further alleged that these appellants con-

spired with each other, and with other named and unnamed

persons to defraud the United States and an agency thereof

by filing and causing to be filed annually and at other times

false Non-Communist affidavits and in furtherance of said

conspiracy, committed numerous overt acts.

On November 7, 1963, the District Court entered its

Orders denying the motions of these appellants for Judg-

ment of Acquittal, for a New Trial, and in Arrest of Judg-

ment. On November 7, 1963, the following judgments of

conviction, fine, and sentences of conviction were imposed:

Raymond. Dennis, three years imprisonment and two thou-

sand dollar fine; Irving Dichter, three years imprisonment

and two thousand dollar fine; Harold Sanderson, three

years imprisonment and two thousand dollar fine; Albert

Skinner, three years imprisonment and two thousand dol-

lar fine; Maurice E. Travis, three years imprisonment and

two thousand dollar fine; Charles H. Wilson, three years

imprisonment and two thousand dollar fine.

Tie appellants herewith appeal to the Court of —

for the Tenth Cireuit from said Orders, ene den

tences, and Fines. ö

Dated: November 8, 1963.

Telford Taylor, Nathan Witt, George x Francis,

_ Attorneys for Appellants.

— —

[fol. 49]

IN Unrrep STATES Disraict Court

Oxper Denyinc Mortons ror Jupement or AcQuiTraL, IN

Annxsr oF JUDGMENT AND ron New TRA December 30,

1963

This matter having come on to be heard on the 7th day

of November, 1963 on the Motions of defendants for Judg-

ment of Acquittal, Arrest of Judgment and New Trial, and

the Court having heard arguments of counsel and being

fully advised in the premises,

It Is Ordered That,

Defendants’ Motion for Judgment of Geet be and

is hereby denied;

Defendants’ Motion In Arrest of ie be and is

hereby denied; 0

Defendants’ Motion for New Trial be and is hereby

denied.

Dated at Denver, Colorado, this 30th day of December,

1963, nune pro tune as of November 7, 1963.

By the Court: Alfred A. Arraj, Chief Judge.

ly Uyrrep Srars Distaicr Count

Proceedings before the Honorable Alfred A. Arraj,

Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District

of Colorado, and a Jury of Twelve, in Courtroom A, Main

Post Office Building, Denver, Colorado.

* * * * * * 8

CoLLoquy on Rexewat or Mortons Aub Denman TREREO

August 1963

Proceedings in Chambers

The Court: All right, we are ready, if you are, Mr.

Taylor, to prdteed. ;

[fol.50] Mr. Taylor: May it please the Court, the De-

fense wishes to renew now prior to retrial the motions

which have been filed in this case prior to the first trial,

those being the motion to dismiss the indictment which was

filed on January 14, 1957, the motion by the defendant

Travis for severance. and continuance filed October 21,

1959, the motion of the other defendants to sever their trial

from the trial of Travis filed the same date; October 21,

1959, the motion with respect to the order of presentation

of evidence by the prosecution filed’ November 3, 1959,

and the motion in the alternative to exclude evidence prior

to June 15, 1949 or in the alternative prior to June 23,

1947, that motion also being filed November 3, 1959.

Now, may it please the Court, we have embodied that

motion in writing and it has been served on the United

States Attorney and service acknowledged, and I would like

to give a copy of the motion to the reporter embodying the

record, I think you have copies.

The Court: May I see it?

Mr. Taylor: Your Honor, the motion simply lists those

prior motions and asks Your Honor to consider what was

said before, as well as what we say now, 1 of

them, with appropriate prayers at the end.

Now, if I may run through those with respect to the

situation in this Court before and in the Court of Appeals,

the motion to dismiss the indictment was primarily based

on the question of whether it states an offense, that being

a problem that was argued before Judge Breitenstein, and

then before Judge Knous, and was decided against the

defense, and that question was passed on in the Court of

Appeals by adopting Judge Knous’ opinion, and therefore

we assume Your Honor doesn’t want to hear any further

argument on that now a Your Honor’s action would be

governed by the Court o Appeals.

Of course, if Your Honor wishes to hear argument, we

are prepared to present it.

The Court: No, unless you have something you wish to

supplement on that.

Mr. Taylor: No, sir, there is nothing to supplement.

The Court: That motion will be denied. That is, the

motion to dismiss.

* * * * * s ©

[fol. 68] Thursday, August 29, 1963

RARE W. T

of the Government, having been first duly sworn to tell the

truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, testified as

follows:

Direct examination.

By Mr. Broome:

Q. Will you state your name, ‘Please, sir :

A. Ralph W. Locke, Jr.

Q. And where do you live, Mr. Locke?

A. Torrance, California.

Q. And what is your occupation?

A. ‘ool and die maker and mold maker.

Q. And how long have you been a tool and die maker?

33

Q. ri... obteaneeaiinen oa

peti aban hannah male geome once

Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers! - it

E

Q. 222ͤĩ7'

became a member and how long you continued a member :

A. I joined the International Union of Mine, Mill and

Smelter Workers in 1940, I believe it was. I continued my

membership until 1942 in October when 1 enlisted in.the

Navy. I rejoined the Mine- Smelter Workers in 1945

after my discharge from the N.

Q. And how long then did continue to be, a: member

of the International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter

Workers after that, in 1945?

A. Until 1949.

Q. I believe you mentioned that Military service; what

branch of service were you in, sir?

A. United States Navy.

Q. And the tenure of that when you went in the Navy

and when you got out?

A. I beg your pardon?

Q. And when was it that you went in the Navy and when

did you get out?

A. I went in, in 19—in October of 1942, and I got out

after the V-J day in October of 1945.

Q. Did you get an honorable discharge?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, Mr. Locke, were you ever employed by the Inter-

national Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers?

A. Yes.

[fol. 69 Q. And what was the date of your employment

or its title or its name or what would you call it?

A. International representative.

Q. And when were you so employed, first?

A. 1948.

Q. And how long did that employment continue?

A. Until 1949.

JJ ² ei pies i rnneatiel

ae eer yes eee Seeines Oe ee eee pee tepee:

sentative?

A. In Detroit aud Cleveland anil Los Rageles.

Q. Now was that position as international representative

F355 ] ꝝ i udS¼ꝛ !.!!! “

tional Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers?

A. Originally, it was the Die Casting Division of the

International. Later it became District 3 in my particular

area?

Q. All risks; sir. Now when you were attached to the

Die Casting Division, as an international representative,

do you recall who the head of the Die Casting Division was?

A. Kenneth Eckert was a board member. -

Q. And he was a board member?

A. He was a board member.

Q. Where was his headquarters, be, sir?

A. Cleveland.

Q. How long was it that you worked in Detroit?

A. From January until April.

Q. And when you finished wick at Detroit, where did you

got

A. To Cleveland.

Q. And still as an 1 lnstional representative of the Die

Casting Division.

A. Yes.

Q. How did you happen to make a trip over to Cleveland?

A. I was instructed by Eckert to come to the Die Cast

Council Meeting that was going to be held in Cleveland in

early April to report on the succession of Detroit.

Q. And pursuant to that request or that instruction, you

did go to Cleveland.

A. Yes.

Q. Was there a meeting of Die Casting Council at that

time in Cleveland?

A. Yes.

Q. Will you please explain to the jury and the Court,

Mr. Locke, just what you mean by Die Casting Council?

A. The Die Casting Council was composed of

from the Die Casting Division from all sections

Q. And can you tell us, sir, as nearly as can

when that meeting of the Die Casting Council took

[fol. 70] A. In early April. Do you D

date? 4 5

A. Well, it was the Sth of April.

Q. All right.

Did you attend the meeting?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall where in Cleveland it was held?

A. It was in the Holland Hotel.

Q. Do you recall the names of any of the other

or officials who were present at the Die Casting Council?

A. I can recall some of them.

. All right.

A. Kenneth Eckert, of course, was a board member and

was present and shared the :

You see the delegates from Cleveland were Joe Londan,

and Ray Dennis. I don’t remember who the other one was.

The New York delegation, the only one that I can name,

positively, now, is Irving Dichter.

The Chicago delegation was composed of James Pinta,

and Bill Jackson, I think. I am not quite sure about that

name, but I think it is Bill Jackson. :

The Kansas City delegation, I don’t remember who they

were. The Los Angeles delegation didn’t come because of

the expense of the trip.

Q. All right. Now you mentioned Mr. Raymond Dennis;

do you know Mr. Dennis?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you see him in this Court room?

A. Les Ido.

Q. Would you identify him, please, sir?

A. He is sitting right there behind the counsel with the

glasses on. That would be the Negro.

(fol. 71] Mr. Taylor, may it please the Court, objection.

It is hearsay and irrelevant because the defendant was not

there. :

The Court overruled.

A. A discussion revolved around a resolution that

Eckert presented to the Die Cast Council.

B Mr. Broome:

Q. All right, sir. Have you seen that seeidbeticn’

A. I saw it approximately 15 minutes before the council

: In 5 office of the Mine-Mill and Smelter Workers

in the CI Building i in Cleveland?

Q. 0 that in Mr. Eckert’s office.

A. Yes.

Q. All right, sir. And who showed it to you, if anybody?

A. Irving Dichter.

Q. Who was present at the time you saw this resolution

and it was shown to you?

A. Mostly the same people that I mentioned before as

being delegates was Dichter, Pinta, Jackson, I believe it

was; Dennis, Joe London, myself, and Eckert, of course.

I don’t recall the names of the rest. It has been a long

time ago.

*

Mr. Broome, may this document be marked as Govern-

ment’s Exhibit No. 11 iy be

The Court: Yes.

By Mr. Broome:

Q. Mr. Locke, I hand you what has been marked as

Government’s Exhibit No. 1. I ask you to examine it and

see if you can identify it? :

A. Yes, sir, that is the resolution.

Q. That is the resolution you spoke of?

A. That is a copy of the resolution I saw in the office in

Cleveland.

Q. Yes. And is that the resolution that was presented

to the Die Casting Council. :

A. Yes.

Mr. Broome: If it please the Court, the Government

offers in evidence Exhibit No. 1.

Mr. Taylor: May we see it! Your honor the defense

objects to this Exhibit on the same ground that it is not

probitive, and to conspiracy, it doesn’t question the au-

thenticity of the Exhibit.

[fol. 721 The Court: May I see it.

Mr. Taylor: Your Honor, can we have a continuing ob-

jection on this evidence prior to the date charged, so we

don’t have to repeat it each time?

The Court: It will be understood that the defense objects

to any testimony going to the time prior to the alleged

conspiracy set out in the indictment.

Mr. Broome: May it please the Court, may I have per-

mission to publish this exhibit to the jury at this time?

Read it? Jong

The Court: Yes.

(Mr. Broome read Government’s Exhibit 1 aloud to

the jury.)

By Mr. Broome:

Q. Now, at the time you first saw this resolution, Mr.

Locke, in the office as shown to you by Mr. Dichter, do you

recall anything that Mr. Lichter said about it?

A. Les.

. All right.

Mr. Taylor: Your Honor, can I renew the objection now

on the ground of hearsay?

The Court: Well, the objection is overruled, and at this

time, ladies and gentlemen the Court will instruct you that

you can only consider any purported statements made by

Mr, Dichter in connection with the case against him, and

him alone. It cannot be considered by you in any manner

or to any degree against any of the other six defendants,

unless it is later shown that any of the other defendants

were present, of course.

By Mr. Broome:

Q. Who was present at this meeting where you were

shown the resolution?

A. Well, Eckert was there. Dichter was there, Pinta, Joe

‘London, myself, Ray Dennis, and others that I can’t recall

offhand.

Q. Now, reverting to the question I asked you before,

will you tell us, please, sir, what it was that Mr. Dichter

said, as nearly as you can recall?

A. He stated that this was a dirty, sneaky thing to do,

that the resolution should have been shown to the staff

prior to the time of the Council meeting, and that there

[fol. 73] should have been discussion among the staff be-

fore presenting a resolution of this type, and that he was

going to call Travis and have him come to Cleveland as

soon as he could to see what he could do about it.

Q. All right, now, Mr. Locke, you mentioned Mr. Travis.

Do you know Mr. Travis?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Do you see him in the court room?

A. Yes, sir, I do.

years.

Q. All right.

A. But these were the principal speakers.

Q. Now, was any action taken on the resolution?

A. The resolution was passed by the Die Casting Council.

It was adopted.

Q. Now, Mr. Locke, following that meeting of the Die

Casting Council—strike that. Let me ask you this question,

first. Mr. Locke, were you ever a member of the Communist

Party?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you tell us, please, when you first joined the

Communist Party?

A. 1941.

Q. And how long did you continue to be a member of

the Communist Party? f ;

A. I dropped out in 1942 when I enlisted in the Navy.

I rejoined the Party in—I don’t know whether it was 46

or thereabouts, right after the Cleveland convention at

which time I spoke as a Communist, and it was after I

returned home. I rejoined the Party and remained in the

Party until 1949,

Q. Do you remember about what time in 1949?

A. It was around June or J uly.

Q. All right.

A. Probably July.

A. Tm not sure. Phin santhag: had Wo e Peeve

got into Cleveland. I can’t be quite sure whether or not it

was that same afternoon or the following morning.

Q. What kind of meeting was it, Mr. Locke

Mr. Taylor: Objection, Your Honor. That calls for a

conclusion of the witness and is purely descriptive.

The Court: Objection overruled.

A. It was a meeting of the Communist Party members

on the staff of Mine-Mill who were present in Cleveland

at that time, in addition to which there was Joe Brandt, the

Communist Party functionary of the —funetionary of the

Communist Party.

Q. Do you know what his position was in the Party?

A. I don’t know the official title. I understand it was the

Industrial Secretary or something of that nature. They

have so many titles.

Q. Of the Communist Party?

A: Yes.

Q. Now, this man, Joe Brandt, is that who you refer to?

A. Ves, sir.

Q. Was he an officer or employee of the International

Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers!

A. No, he wasn’t even a member.

Q. Now, will you tell us, please, sir, as nearly as you can

recall, who was present at that meeting?

A. Travis,—well, start with Joe Brandt, Travis, Dichter,

myself, Ray Dennis, Jimmy Pinta, a couple of other dele-

gates from the New York area. I can’t recall their names,

and I think it was Bill Jackson from the Chicago area,

3

V

A. Les. ARE aie 7

Q. Do you recall the topics discussed?

A Tes. e ee

Q. What were the topics discussed“

A. The topics were the resolution and the action to be

taken against Eckert for imposing them. ;

Q. Who discussed it? st

A. Joe Brandt was chairing the meeting for the most

part. He spoke on it. Travis spoke on it. Dichter spoke on

it. Pinta spoke on it. I guess almost everybody expressed

an opinion. :

[fol. 751 Q. All right, sir, now will you tell us as nearly as

you can now recall it?

Mr. Taylor: I object to that as hearsay, Your Honor.

What Mr. Brandt said is not admissible.

The Court: I am going to sustain the objection at this

time.

By Mr. Broome:

Q. Well, now, can. you tell us what Mr. Travis said?

A. He was in agreement with Mr. Brandt.

Mr. Francis: Objection, Your Honor.

The Court: The objection is sustained. That isn’t a re-

sponsive answer, Mr. Locke. Can you state in substance

what Mr. Travis said?

A. (Continued) Mr. Travis said that he was going to cut

off Eckert’s expense account, his salary, his phone bills and

do everything possible to keep hin from traveling around

through the locals and creating a tecession movement. The

question also of the signing of the affidavits was discussed,

He said that this was an impossibility because it would

behead the union, to sign the non-Communist affidavits

under the Taft-Hartley Act.

Q. Now, Mr. Locke, had there been any discussion along

0, ane ORK: TON CONN AON. TERT NN I

Brandt?

A. Yes,

Mr. Taylor: Objection, Your Honor, and ask that it be

stricken.

Mr. 3 Your Honor, I think this is admissible,

"fie Court: by Joe Brandt.

Court: 2 would it be on exception to the hearsay

1 Broome: It might appear that he is doing what Joe

Brandt told him to do.

The Court: The objection will now be overruled, and you

may continue then.

Mr. Taylor: Was it overruled, Your Honor?

The Court: Yes.

[Fol. 76] By Mr. Broome:

Q. All right, now, Mr. Locke, will you please tell us as

nearly as you can recall what it was that Joe Brandt said!

Mr. Taylor: Objection, Your Honor. I thought the ob-

jection was sustained to that before.

The Court: It was, and I am permitting it to be an-

swered now. The objection is overruled.

A. Joe Brandt led off the discussion in outlining to the

Party members what we should do in Mine-Mill. He stated

that Eckert should be cut from the staff, that his expense

account should be cut off, his phone bills, everything, mile-

age, that he was to try to keep him as close to home as

possible so that he couldn’t visit the other locals and create

a secession there. He stated that the Party was going to

publicly expel Eckert and publish it in The Daily Worker”,

and send it out to the plant leads of all the shops we had

in the Cleveland area and elsewhere, and I guess that was

about all.

Q. That’s about what you can recall, Mr. Locke?

*

4

Mr. Taylor: Exeuse me, Mr, Broome, Your Honor,

could I now ask that Your Honor give the limiting instrue-

tion with respect to that answer. I guess I must ask that

the jury be instructed as it not be binding on any defen-

dant, is not a declaration by any defendant.

The Court: Well, the request would be denied, but I

will instruct the jury that on any of the statements that

are attributed to a party that’s not a defendant, you should

only consider that against a defendant as you may find

from the evidence that the defendant adopted the state-

ment. All right, you may proceed.

Mr. Taylor: Excuse me, Your Honor, that would be lim-

ited to the defendants that were present, I presume, and

who could be found to adopt the statement?

The Court: That’s right, and it was Mr. Dichter and Mr.

Travis who were present. I don't know if Dennis was pres-

ent or not. You will have to rely on your own memory for

that.

By Mr. Broome:

2. Do you recall anything Mr. Dichter said?

A. He was in agreement with Joe Brandt. I don’t re-

call—

Mr. Francis: Objection, Your Honor. It is not respon-

sive.

The Court: The objection is sustained. Now, the answer

[fol. 77] will be stricken. Can you give us the substance

of anything he said?

A. (Continued) Dichter was appointed—

Q. No, that’s not responsive. We will get to that. I be-

lieve you said you did remember specifically wnat he said?

A. I don’t recall specifically.

Q. All right, sir, now following that meeting, this meet-

ing that you had described as a Party meeting, did you

attend any other type of — that day?

A. Yes.

44

2. And where was that meeting held? ; ag

A. In Eckert’s office in Cleveland, in the CIO Building. 5

Q. Who was present at that meeting? 8

A. The staff from—well, there was, of course, Eckert,

Travis, Dichter, Dennis, London, myself, Pinta and Bill

Jackson, I believe. I think that’s his name, and a couple

of others from New York and Chicago. I can’t recall who.

and then Toledo. There was Pete Zvara from Toledo and

it was all staff members of Mine-Mill.

Q. Yes, all right. Was there any discussion at that

meeting?

A. Yes.

. And who participated in that discussion?

A. It was Eckert and Travis and I don’t recall who some

of the others were that spoke.

Q. Well, now, will you tell us as nearly as you can recall

what Mr. Travis said?

A. He told Eckert that he was fired, that his expense

account was no longer. That included his mileage and all

other expenses, including the telephone and so forth, that

he was placing Irving Dichter in charge of the Cleveland

office, and that all of the staff members were to make their

reports from the Cleveland area east to Irving Dichter and

all the locals or staff members from Cleveland west were

to make them to Travis directly, and under no circum-

stances were we to—the staff members—to have any con-

tacts with Eckert in any way. ?

Q. And what, if anything, do you recall that Eckert said!

A. He told Travis, he says, This is unconstitutional,”

according to the Constitution of the Mine-Mill Smelter

Workers, that is, that Travis did not have the authority

to fire him or cut off his expense account or do any of the

things that he was going to do, that he intended to take it

up with the Executive Board of the International and that

they were the only ones empowered to do the things that

Travis dictatorially did at that meeting.

Q. Did anyone else there that you recall participate in

that discussion ?

A. Les.

Q. Who was that? | 25

Lfol. 78] A. Pete Zvara discussed it. He also was in

agreement with Eckert, this was against the Constitution

of the Mine-Mill Smelter Workers. Dichter spoke briefly.

I don’t recall exactly what he said, but he was in agree-

ment—

Mr. Taylor: Move to strike that, Your Honor. If he

doesn’t know, he doesn’t know.

A. (Continued) He did discuss the organization—

Mr. Francis: Just a minute.

By Mr. Broome:

Q. Do you remember now what Mr. Dichter said?

A. Jean't give you the exact words.

The Court: Now, just a moment, let me instruct you,

Mr. Locke, that when one of the counsel rises to address

the Court, if you will not continue with your answer until

the Court rules, please.

The Witness: Yes.

The Court: As I reeall the request of »counsel, Mr.

Taylor was that something be stricken. Well, I don’t know

what there is to strike. He didn’t relate the conversation.

Mr. Taylor: I understood the witness to say he couldn’t

remember what Dichter said, but he was sure it was in

agreement with somebody else. If he doesn’t remember

what it was, I am sure he can't testify, but he was sure it

was in agreement with somebody else. If he doesn’t re-

member what it was, I am sure he can’t testify.

Mr. Broome: Then, he started to tell what he said.

The Court: Well, the answer will be stricken and the

jury instructed to disregard it. You may inquire if he now

remembers what he said.

By Mr. Broome:

Q. Mr. Locke, do you now remember anything that Mr.

Dichter said?

46 7

os: Not the direct conversation. I could give you the Lips

it. 425

Q. The substance?

A. Substance.

Q. Can yo u remember the substanee of it? bi:

(fol. 79] A. The substance of it was that Dichter was then.

going to move into Cleveland, going home only occasionally.

He would set up organizational plans for staff meetings in

the Cleveland group and the outline of generally how we

were going to proceed in this secession movement that we

were sure was coming about.

Q. All right. Following that meeting— -

Mr. Taylor: Your Honor, if they have left the meeting,

could we have the one with the instruction.

The Court: All right. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury,

as to the alleged conversations which the witness has tes-

tified to or the statements made by some of the defendants,

now as to the alleged statements made by Mr. Travis, you

can only consider those statements against the defendant

Travis only and cannot be considered by you in any manner

against the other defendants, except, insofar as you may

determine from the evidence in the case that any of the

other defendants present at this meeting may have con-

sented to or adopted these statements made by Mr. Travis.

The same instruction is made with reference to alleged

statements made by Mr. Dichter. These can be considered

against the defendant Dichter not be considered by you

against any of the other defendants except only insofar as

you may find from the evidence, if you do so find, that the

statements so by Mr. Dichter were consented to by any of

the other defendants present at this meeting. All right.

By Mr. Broome:

Q. Now, Mr. Locke, following that meeting that you have

described, was there any change in the management of the

Cleveland office.

A. Yes.

. And what was the change?

A. Dichter replaced Eckert in the office.

Q. And do you know what became of Eckert?

A. He moved to another building.

Q. All right. Now, did some part of the staff remain

with Dichter.

A. The whole staff remained with Dichter.

Q. Was any part of the staff gone with Eckert?

A. No.

Q. Are you talking of the Cleveland staff!

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And who was the staff at that time at-

tached to the Cleveland office.

A. It was Dichter; Ray Dennis, myself and Joe London.

Q. All right. And now who did you make your reports

to after this change in management. a

A. To Dichter.

[fol. 80] Q. All right, sir. Now do you eee e how—

did Mr. Dichter stay in the area all the time?

A. For the most part he was in Cleveland. He visited

his home occasionally in New York.

Q. Yes. And how long did that arrangement last, that

he stayed in Cleveland?

Mr. Francis: if it please the Court, I think we should

have this tied down as to time. The statement has been

made by the witness that following that meeting, namely,

this meeting of the staff office in Cleveland, Dichter re-

placed Eckert; Eckert moved to the other place, and then

the staff reported to Eckert. The witness does not-tie down

when this matter occurred.

The Court: Continuing objection is well taken. I think

vou should tie it down as well as you can as to time.

By Mr. Broome:

Q. When did this change take place?

A. Right after the meeting in Eckert’s office. Eckert

moved out. Dichter moved in.

Q. Do you remember what month? 15

A. Dichter moved in and Eckert moved out; that's the

way it was.

Q: Do you remember what month that was.

A. That was in April.

Q. All right. In what year?

A. 1948. *

Q. All right, sir. And how long did Dichter remain in

the Cleveland office in charge of it, to the best of your

recollection.

A. It was about two or three months or maybe a little

longer.

Herman Clott came in shortly after Dichter left.

Q. All right. Now, did Mr. Dichter set up any change

in procedures as far as staff meetings were concerned?

A. We had meetings nearly every morning for awhile.

Q. And that was immediately after he took over the

Cleveland office?

A. Yes.

Q. And how long would you say?

A. For awhile.

Q. How long would you say it continued?

A. Oh, maybe a month or two.

Q. Les. And then following that, did you have staff

meetings?

A. Yes. |

Q. And how frequently did you have staff meetings?

A. Oh, once a week or twice a week, sometimes.

Q. Now, who, generally, would be in attendance or was

in attendance at these staff meetings?

(fol. 81] A. It was Dichter, Joe London, Ray Dennis, my-

self and Joe Brandt.

Q. Is that the same Joe Brandt you mentioned before.

A. Yes.

Q. That was present at the meeting?

A. He was present at a number of the meetings.

Q. Well, I mean, is he the same Joe Brandt you named

as being present at this hotel at this meeting in Cleveland!

A. Yes, sir

49

Q. Was he at that time a funetionary of the Communist :

Party? tae

A. Yes. Cette eae

Q. Do you know how it come about how Joe Brandt came

to the staff meetings? Be erst

A. Joe London went to his office and fetched him; brought

him to the meeting. ;

Q. Well :

Mr. Francis: Objection here, your honor. The action

of Joe London would be hearsay, under the hearsay rule.

The Court: Objection is overruled.

By Mr. Broome:

Q. All right. Do you know how Joe London came to go

get him?

A. On Dichter’s order.

Q. You heard Dichter give such orders?

A. Yes.

Q. And how long did these meetings go on; over what

period of time, would you say, that Joe Brandt would at-

tend the meetings of the staff.

A. Do you mean in the International office or just the

meetings of the staff, per se?

Q. Well, in the international office?

Mr. Francis: We would have the same objection; hear-

say, your honor. The time element should be tied down.

The question is how long, but he doesn’t state from when

to when.

The Court: I think the objection is well taken. You

should try to establish a starting time period.

By Mr. Broome:

Q. About when did this practice start of calling Joe

Brandt into the staff meetings.

A. In April.

(fol. 82] Q. That's when Dichter took over?

A. Yes.

50

Q. These meetings would take place in the office of the

Union. ; Beg ui

A. Ves. L 353

Q: Did they continue to take place in the office of the 5

union during all of the time that Brandt —or did it continue? 0

A. No. a |

Q. Now, you say it started in April. How long did these

meetings with Joe Brandt in attendance go on that were

held in the office of the union. ;

A. I would say approximately a month and a half or

close to two months, maybe.

Q. And then were there some changes made?

A. Yes.

Q. And after that where were the meetings, where would

they take place?

A. In other rooms; hotel rooms, sometimes, or down at

the other Hungarian Workers Hall or places like that,

Q. Mr. Locke, do you know what the reason was for mak-

ing this change.

A. The staff— aoe S

N. No, just answer my question. Do you know what the

reason was?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you hear it discussed?

A. Yes. ;

Q. And where was the discussion; where did it take

place?

A. In the office of the CIO, the Mine-Mill office.

Q. About when was this discussion? :

A. I think it was around June, sometime. I can’t recall

exactly. This has been so many years ago.

Q. And who was present at this discussion?

A. Well, do you mean at the time that we made the

decision?

Q. Wherein it was diseussed?

A. Yes. It was Joe Brandt, Dichter, Ray Dennis, Joe

London and myself. :

Q. All right. And do you remember who entered into the

discussion :

51

A. I think we all did. Joe Brandt and all of us entered

Q. Let’s start with Joe Brandt. Did Joe Brandt say —

A. Well, the discussion was over the place of

the staff with Joe Brandt. e

The discussion centered around the bad v Y espe-

cially so to the Alcoa situation which would arise of Joe

Brandt going in and out of the Union office in the CIO office,

Mr. Francis: Objection, your Honor. The answer is not

responsive to the original question.

(fol. 83] The Court: The objection is overruled.

By Mr. Broome:

Q. What was it that Brandt said, if you can recall it in

substance? 5

A. That we would hold a meeting some place else,

Q. Do you remember anything that Mr. Dichter said?

A. We were all in agreement.

Mr. Taylor: Move to strike.

The Court: That answer will be stricken as not respon-

sive.

By Mr. Broome:

Q. Could you remember in substance what Mr. Dichter

said about him?

A. Well, he sai that this could lead to bad publicity,

we did, that could cause bad publicity, should be avoided.

A. No, I don’t reca) .

Q. All right. N ow you referred to an ALCOA situation?

Mr. Taylor: Please the Court. May we have the caution-

ary instruction, please. You are leading out,

The Court: Again, ladies and gentlemen, you are in-

structed in connection. with this purported meeting that any

52

statements made by Mr. Dichter can be considered by yon

as in the case against him only and not against any of the

other defendants unless you find from the evidence that

any of the other defendants assented to or consented to

what he said at that meeting: .

Mr. Taylor: Does that apply to the statements made by

Brandt, too, your Honor?

The Court: Yes. Those statements would always apply

to the alleged statements made by Mr. Brandt. You should

not consider any of them against any of the defendants

unless you find that they assent to them or consent or

adopted them.

By Mr. Broome:

Q. Now you referred to the ALCOA situation, just what

did you mean by that, Mr. Locke?

A. The ALCOA Local in Cleveland had voted to succeed

from the Mine-Mill and Smelter Workers.

[fol. 84] Q. Yes? :

A. And there was a struggle on the part of Mine-Mill

to hold a local one, the Mine-Mill and Smelter Workers.

Q. Was there an election then pending before the

NLRB?

A. At the conclusion of the contract there was an elec-

tion.

Q. Yes. All right: Now, what size local was the ALCOA

Local in comparison with other die-casting locals in the

area?

A. It comprised the overwhelming majority of the Mine-

Mill membership in Cleveland.

Q. About how large was it, if you can recall?

A. Five thousand, approximately.

Q. All right, sir. Now, you say it was in a state of try-

ing to secede—

A. Yes.

Q. —from the Mine-Mill?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know who was leading that secession move-

ment?

now under consideration.

The Court: I don’t think it is n

every statement i

By Mr. Broome:

Q. What was your answer on that?

A. Kenneth Eckert.

. Kenneth Eckert. All right. Now, following this

change of meeting places, did the staff continue to have

meetings with Joe Brandt?

A.. Yes.

Q. And about when did this arrangement start where

you were meeting with him but not in the office?

A. It was during the ALCOA secession.

Q. Is that the best you can do?

A. Well, I could say it was in the summertime when I

started—

Q. All right. And how long did those meetings go on

where you were not meeting at the Union Hall or offices of

the Union, but the staff was still meeting with Brandt at

other places? How long did that arrangement continue?

(fol. 85] A. That lasted until the ALCOA NLRB elec-

tion was over.

Q. Were those meetings attended by the staff members?

A. Yes.

Q. And who were the staff members during this period?

*

A. Wal, it wna, I Skink: by: then, lott bal ass Suto Abe

office there. inate: we Ray Demin, Joe London gad: J;

Q. All right?

A. And me and others.

Mr. Francis: Just a second, your Honor. I don't believe :

the witness had finished answering the question. 3

Mr. Broome: I thought he had.

The Court: Are you finished answering the question?

The Witness: I don’t know whether it was required.

The Court: You were just asked who was present, that

time.

A. (Continuing) The international representatives

from the United Electrical Workers and some from the

Chemical Workers in Cleveland. Staff’s joint leaders in

this ALCOA Company.

Q. I see. All right. Mr. Locke, during the summer of

1948, did you belong to any Communist Party Club?

A. Yes.

Q. And what was the name of the club?

A. The ALCOA Club.

Q. Do you know about what time you became a member

of this club?

A. I was assigned there—I imagine it was around May

or June. Just shortly after I had come in to Cleveland.

Q. And who assigned you there?

A. Joe Brandt.

Q. Do you know the names of any of the other members

of that club?

A. I know some of them, yes.

Q. All right. Will you tell us who they were?

A. Well, there was Joe London. Herman Clott was

meeting with us. I don’t know whether he was actually a

member of the club, but he was assigned to that club.

Dichter attended some of the meetings.

Ray Dennis was there, attended the meetings, and Joe

London and myself.

55

Q. Now over what period of time did you belong to this

club and did you attend the meetings 8

A. Until after the election meeting. Until after the

ALCOA election. 1

[fol. 86 C. Did the club have any purpose in existing!

A. It was a Communist Party Club; ALCOA Workers,

primarily. ae by

Q. All right, sir. Now during the summer of 1948, Mr.

Locke, did you have occasion to make a trip to Chicago?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember when it was?

A. I can’t place the exact date. It was in the summer

time.

Q. Well, to the best of your knowledge?

A. June or July, I guess.

Q. All right. In 1948?

A. I think it was around June. I am not sure of it,

The purpose of the trip was to look over the ALCOA Plant

being built in Chicago.

By Mr. Broome:

Q. Are you saying what Mr. Travis told you?

A. Yes.

Q. All right, sir, and you did make the trip?

A. Les.

Q. And did you—where did you go first in Chicago?

A. To the International offices.

Q. And who did you meet there?

A. I met Travis and some of the other fellows.

Q. Did you have a conversation with Travis?

A. Yes.

Q. And was anyone else present at the conversation?

A. I can’t recall specifically, but it might have been Stern

or Sanderson there.

Q. All right, now, will you tell us, please, sir, what Mr.

Eckert said on that occasion, if you can recall it? “

A. Mr.— a 5

. I don't mean Eckert, I mean Travis. .

A. He told me—I had reported briefly on Eckert's activ.

ities in the secession in the office and he told me that eve.

ning they were having a meeting at his home of the Com-

munist Party people in Chicago and that I should come

to it. :

Q. Did you attend that meeting?

A. Yes.

Q. And where was it held?

A. In Travis’ home.

Mr. Taylor: Exeuse me, Mr. Broome, are you leading to

a conversation?

Mr. Broome: Yes.

[fol. 87] Mr. Taylor: Could we have a cautionary about

the conversations with Travis, and might we have—I sug-

gest the testimony of the witness about the presence of

anyone else is so uncertain this should be considered only

with respect to Mr. Travis.

The Court: You are instructed, ladies and gentlemen,

concerning this last conversation that the witness has re-

lated with Mr. Travis that you should consider anything

purportedly to have been said by Mr. Travis only against

Mr. Travis in the case against him and not against any of

the other defendants. All right.

By Mr. Broome:

Q. Did you attend the meeting at Mr. Travis’ home?

A. Yes.

Q. Will you tell us as nearly as yon can recall now who

was present at the meeting?

A. It was Travis and his wife. It was Harold Sander-

son, Bernie Stern, and I think Henry Horowitz was there

and his wife, Morrie Wright, and myself. Otherwise, there

was Pinta, and a couple of other people from the Chicago

area. aes

: 57

Q. All right, sir. Now, you mentioned the name, Mr.

Sanderson.

Do you know Mr. Sanderson?

A. Les.

. Do you see him in the court room?

A. Yes, sir. :

Q. Will you please point him out?

A. He is the man sitting at the end with the glasses on.

Q. All right, sir, now was there any discussion that went

on there that night?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you remember any of the topics that were dis-

cussed?

A. Taft-Hartley affidavits were discussed again.

Q. All right, who discussed it? )

A. Travis and Bernie Stern and others. I don’t recall.

Q. All right, tell us as nearly as you can recall what it

was Mr. Travis said?

A. Well, he stated again that we, the Mine-Mill Smelter

workers could not sign the affidavits. It would be impossi-

ble, It would behead the union, and that we would have

to fight it out even if we had to take the union back to the

hills. There was other discussion, but I can’t recall off.

hand.

Q. Was there other things to the conversation?

A. Well, the activities of Eckert was discussed. Another

subject was discussed in quite detail and that was the as-

sistance that we were getting from the Communist Party

in Cleveland and the various other organizations like the

staff of the U.E., and so forth and so on, but mainly it was

the question of what the Communist Party was doing to

assist in leaflets and newspaper distribution at the plant

gates and so forth.

[fol. 88] Q. Did you make a report on that?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, was there anything else that you recall that

Mr. Travis said that night at this meeting? %

A. I can’t remember. 3

Q. Was there other discussion? Well, just was there!

A. Yes, I guess there was. :

Q. Could your memory be refreshed?

A. It might, 3

Q. Do you recall whether anything was said about Phi

Murray at that meeting?

A. Yes.

Mr. Taylor: A general question, Your Honor, by whom?

The Court: Objection overruled.

Mr. Francis: The further objection that the question is

seriously leading.

The Court: Yes, and so that we will understand the

ground rales gentlemen, just have one counsel for a side

make an objection. It is confusing to the Court. The ob

jection is overruled. You may proceed.

By Mr. Broome:

Q: Now, who was it that discussed Phil Murray?

A. Travis.

Q. All right, can you tell us, please, sir, what it was Mr.

Travis said about Phil Murray!

A. That we should use Phil Murray's position in boy-

cotting the affidavits to bolster our own position in refus-

ing to sign the affidavits.

Q. Yes, all right. Mr. Locke—

Mr. Taylor: Your Honor, if Mr. Broome is leading up,

can we have the cautionary instruction, please!

The Court: You have completed your interrogation?

Mr. Broome: On this point, yes.

The Court: This meeting?

Mr. Broome: Yes.

The Court: Again, I instruct the testimony given by this

witness on statements purportedly made by Mr. Travis

ean be considered by you only in the case against Mr,

[fol. 89] Travis, except as you may find, if you do find by

the evidence, that such statements were assented to or con-

sented to or adopted by the defendant Sanderson.

Mr. Witt: May we have a moment at counsel table, if

the Court please?

The Court: Les.

(Counsel conferred)

Mr. Witt: Thank you, Your Honor.

By Mr. Broome:

Q. Did there come a time when the—when the Die Cast-

ing Division was dissolved, to your knowledge?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall about when that was?

A. It was right after the convention, I think it was in

late summer, September or October, around September, I

think.

Q. All right, and now following the dissolution of the

Die Casting Division, what became of the staff that had

formerly been attached to the Die Casting Division?

A. The Die Casting Division was then placed into the

geographic districts in which the locals were located.

Q. And what happened? Did you have any locals left

that had been in the Die Casting Division in the Cleveland

area?

A. Yes.

Q. What disposition was made of them?

A. They were sent or put into District 3.

Q. And you and other members of the staff, what ar-

rangements were made with respect to your services?

A. We were to work under the Board member of Dis-

trict 3.

Q. Who was the Board member of District 31

A. Jesse Van Camp.

Q. Do you know Mr. Van Camp?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Could you point him out, please? Do you see him i in

the court room? 5

A. He is sitting next to Harold Sanderson, second from

the left. a

Q. Do you remember when you first met Mr. Van — *

A. In East St. Louis.

Q. When was it?

A. It was in December when we went to this educational

meeting, the first time.

Q. What was the occasion of the meeting?

[fol. 90] A. It was an education meeting called by the

International for the International representatives.

Mr. Taylor: Is this December 1948?

By Mr. Broome:

Q. You said December 1938?

Mr. Taylor: 48.

A. Yes.

The Court: The witness hasn't given the year, I don't

think.

The Witness: All right, I will. It is December 1948.

* * * ‘ * * „ *

Q. All right, sir, now, Mr. Locke, did there come a time

when you were transferred out of the Cleveland area?

A. Yes.

Q. And do you recall about when that was?

A. It was in the early spring. Let’s see—

* * * * * * *

Mr. Broome: I believe there is a pending question.

The Court: What was the last question, Mrs. Spencer,

please?

(The reporter read the last question and answer.)

By Mr. Broome:

Q. In the early spring of what year?

A. 1949.

Q. Gor sm ds ght botiec aioout . slo's

spring, could you, for instance, tell us what month it was?

A. It was, I would say, February or March or there-

abouts.

I mean, I can’t recall the exact date.

Q. Yes, sir.

A. My expense voucher will show that. No doubt, they

will bring that up.

Q. Now, was there any diseussion in the office or among

the staff about the business of reducing the staff?

A. Yes.

Q. And was a reduction in fact made in the staff?

A. Yes.

. And were you the man who was sent away?

[Fol. 91] A. Yes, I was transferred to Los Angeles.

Q. Do you recall how you first learned there was to be a

reduction in the staff?

A. Herman Clott told me that he had received a letter.

. Just a minute. Was anybody else present at this con-

versation ?

A. The first one between Clott and myself, no.

Mr. Taylor: Then, I object, Your Honor, hearsay.

The Court: The objection is sustained.

By Mr. Broome:

Q. Was it subsequently discussed between you with any-

one else present, between you and Clott and anyone else?

A. Yes.

Q. Who was this other person present?

A. There was Herman Clott, Joe London, Ray Dennis—

wait a minute, I am not sure Joe London was there, but

anyhow, Ray Dennis and Joe Brandt and myself.

Q. Is that the same Joe Brandt now that attended this

party meeting at the hotel on the east side of Cleveland?

62

A. It is, 5 N

Q. And the same Joe Brandt that attended your staft

meetings that you testified about? aa

A. Yes, sir.

Q. All right, what was discussed? Where did the meet.

ing take place? : :

A. This meeting took place in the Mine-Mill Office in the

C.LO. Building in Cleveland. ee

Q. And with respect to the time that you were removed

from the staff or transferred from the staff, when was it?

A. I don’t understand your question.

Q. I am trying to fix the time of this question when Joe

Brandt was present. Now, with relation to the time that

you actually were transferred out of the area, how long

before that was it?

A. A week or two weeks probably.

Q. Now, was there any discussion at the meeting?

A. Yes.

Q. And do you remember who entered into the discus-

sion?

A. Joe Brandt.

Q. All right, anyone else?

A. He did most of the speaking.

Q. Anyone else?

A. Herman Clott.

Q. All right, now, you tell us as nearly as you can recall

what it was that Joe Brandt had to say there?

[fol.92] A. He had been told that the staff was being

out by one. He came to the meeting and stated that under

no circumstances was Ray Dennies to be dropped from the

Cleveland staff, that they had no negroes on the executive

board of the International union and Ray Dennis was being

groomed for the board membership of the Third District.

Q. And how soon after that was it you were transferred

out? :

A. It couldn’t have been over a week or two.

Q. How long was it after that—let’s see, where did you

go then?

63

A. I went to Los Angeles.

Mr. Taylor: Mr. Broome, if you have left that conversa-

tion—may we have the limiting instruction, Your Honor?

The Court: After this conversation, ladies and gentle-

men, the Court instructs you the alleged statements made

at this meeting by a person identified as Herman Clott

are not binding on the defendants in this case. It shall not

be considered by you as against any of the defendants in

the ease except as you may find from the evidence that the

defendant Dennis adopted or consented to these statements.

Mr. Taylor: I believe the same as to Brandt, Your Honor.

I thought there was some statements by Brandt.

The Court: I don’t recall any statements testified to by

Brandt, but if there were any by Mr. Brandt at this meet-

ing, the same instruction would apply. That is, you cannot

consider those against any of the defendants except as you

may find from the evidence that the defendant Dennis may

have adopted or consented to or assented to any state-

ments.

I wonder if this might be a good point to break?

Mr, Broome: I have just one or two other questions to

finish the direct.

The Court: All right.

By Mr. Broome:

Q. Where did you go when you left the Cleveland area!

A. I went to Los Angeles.

Q. Did you continue on the staff for a while out there?

A. Yes.

[fol. 93] Q. What district was that?

A. District 7.

Q. How long after you got back to California was it that

your employment continued with the International?

A. Until July of 1949.

Q. And you were severed at that time?

A. Yes,

Mr. Broome: May it please the Court, that concludes.

the direct.

ee * * 55 7 4

Col. 106

Motios to Propuce Granp Jury Testimony or Locke, —

Contoquy Bzrwezen Court anp CounsgEL AND

Dent or Motion

Mr. Taylor: The defense now moves for the production

of the minutes of the Grand Jury testimony given by the

witness Locke, Our motion is made in the alternative,

production to the defense, or if that be denied for produe-

tion to the Court for examination in camera.

We represent to the Court and suggest that there is a

sufficient and particularized need for scrutiny of the Grand

Jury minutes; that there is more than à possibility, there

is a probability, of inconsistencies between the testimony

that Locke has given here and what he has told the Grand

Jury; the particularized need being supported, we suggest,

by the fact that the testimony deals almost entirely with

alleged declarations by one or more of the defendants;

that the contents of these declarations are uncorroborated

by other witnesses so far as we know and judging from

the prior trial there is very little chance they will be cor-

roborated; that the specific wording of these declarations

may be of considerable importance in determining their

weight, and, furthermore, that there is inconsistency be-

tween the testimony given on this occasion and the testi-

mony given at the prior trial.

For all these reasons, there is a sufficient likelihood of

- inconsistency so that the minutes should be produced to

the defense.

Mr. Broome: If the Court please, our position is just

the same as it was on the occasion when this motion was

made at the prior trial four years ago. I don’t believe

‘counsel has shown any particularized need, but it is a

*

—

%

matter that is so much within the discretion of the Court

that I don’t think we ought to take a position on it one way

or the other.

[fol. 107] The Court: It is my recollection that this par-

ticular problem was before the Court of Appeals and it

was discussed by Judge Murrah in his opinion and he

stated in substance that the Court was correct in the man-

this time.

Mr. Taylor: Your Honor, I don’t want to argue that

further, but the same question is likely to arise again.

Might I suggest, Your Honor is of course quite right this

was deait with in the Court of Appeals opinion. My belief

is what the Court of Appeals technically ruled is that Your

Honor did not abuse discretion in declining. That does not

mean your discretion is foreclosed. I mean, opportunity

for fresh exercise is here. a

The Court: Well, the matter may come up from time to

time, so I suggest you may make the minutes available to

the Court. I am not deciding whether I am going to ex-

amine them in camera or not. I would like to see the bulk

of them and so forth, because, gentlemen, we can either

stretch this trial out for three or four months, or we can

handle it within a few weeks,

T have nothing scheduled that will preclude me from go-

ing on to Christmas, if necessary here, and if that’s what

it take“, that’s what we will do, but I am not going to spend

my nights reading FBI statements or Grand Jury minutes.

I am going to rest, because I am tired after one of these

days, and I am sure counsel are also, so this is the point,

80 you can present them to me, Mr. Broome, if you will?

Mr. Broome: Ves, I will be glad to do that, Your Honor.

The Court: But I think—I don’t think there has been a

need shown and if the task doesn’t appear to be too bur

densome or too onerous, I would be willing to read them,

but if I find I have got to read volumes and volumes, I am

not going to do it until a higher Court tells me I have to,

* * * 3 e * *

[fol. 109] Friday, August 30, 1963

Proceedings

*

Covrt’s Rutines on Motions To Propuce—

, August 30, 1963

The Court: Before we proceed any further, gentlemen,

the Court should like to state for the record so that it will

be perfectly clear as to what the Court’s ruling was with

reference to the motion of the defendants for the produc-

tion of the Grand Jury minutes concerning the testimony

of the defendant or the witness Locke.

The Court feels that up to this point there has not been

any showing on the part of the defendants for any need,

and particularly for a particularized need for the produc-

tion of such minutes.

This would apply both to the suggested in camera in-

spection in the court of the minutes and of the production

to the witness or to such motion of it that may be appro-

priate. Should it develop that such a need is shown to the

Court, the Court will examine the minutes in camera and

will deliver to the defendants any portions of such minutes

as the Court feels they are entitled to under the applicable

law. All right, gentlemen.

[fol. 112] Ran W. Locxx,

Cross examination.

By Mr. Francis:

Q. Mr. Locke, you are still under oath and you are the

same Mr. Locke that testified yesterday afternoon, are you

not?

A. Yes.

Q. Yesterday, I believe, Mr. Locke, you testified that you

became a member of the International Union of Mine, Mill

and Smelter Workers in 1940. Do you recollect that testi-

mony of yours?

A. Yes.

Q. Is it not a fact, Mr. Locke, that actually you became

a member of the International Union of Mine, Mill and

Smelter Workers sometime in 19421

A. That is correct. This was after the Die Cast Division

had voted to go into Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers.

Q. Previous to being a member of the International

Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, you had been a

member of the National Association of Die Casters, isn’t

that correct?

A. That’s correct.

Q. And then the National Association of Die Casters

merged with the International Union of Mine, Mill and

Smelter Workers sometime in 1942.

A. It was in the early part of 42.

Q. And I believe you testified, did you not, that you had

joined the Communist Party sometime in 1941.

A. Right.

Q. So that you joined the Communist Party previous to

the time that you became a member of the International

Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, is that not cor-

rect ?

(fol. 113] A. Technically correct.

Q. Your first employment was in Los Angeles by the |

International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Werben .

would that be correct? ot

A. I was employed by Kenneth Eckert and was to report

for work in Chicago. 5

Q. You were, at the time of employment, in Los Angelest

A. That is right. ;

Q. And then is it correct that you then went to Chicago!

A. That’s correct.

Q. And from Chicago, I believe you testified, did you not,

that you were transferred to Detroit?

A. Right.

Q. And at that time you were under Mr. Eckert?

A. Right.

_ Q. In other words, he was your superior?

A. That’s correct.

Q. And I believe you testified, did you not, that you

moved from Detroit to Cleveland in April of 19484

A. That is right.

Q. Was that still under Mr. Eckert?

A. At that particular time, yes.

Q. Now, Mr. Eckert’s first name would be Kenneth?

A. Kenneth.

Q. Ken or Kenneth?

A. Kenneth.

(Defendant’s Exhibit A was marked for identification.)

Q. Mr. Locke, I hand you for purposes of identification

what has been marked as Defendant’s Exhibit A. Will you

look at that and tell us if you can identify it?

A. I have never seen this document before. That is not

my signature.

Q. Lask you to examine more particularly what is marked

as “expense account.” Is that your signature at the bot-

tom?

A. No, sir.

Q. Have you ever seen that document before?

A. No, sir.

69

Q. Would you re-examine that to make sure?

A. I examined it. I have never seen it before and that

is not my signature, “R. Locke.” That is not my signature.

Q. As an International representative you would have

occasion, would you not, to submit expense account vouch-

ers? ; | foe

A. Yes.

Q. And those expense account vouchers were made for

the purpose of reimbursing you for expenses paid out of

pocket by yourself!

A. That’s correct.

(fol. 114] Q. Also to reimburse you for per diem expenses?

A. Correct.

Q. Those expense vouchers would be submitted by you,

would they not, to your immediate superior?

A. That is correct, to the Board member i ,

Q. And while you were under Mr. Eckert, you would be

submitting those to Mr. Kenneth Eckert, is that correct?

A. While I was under him, that was true.

Q. Then Mr. Eckert would either approve or disapprove

or make whatever notations he thought appropriate on

your expense account and you would be reimbursed by the

International Union, is that correct?

A. I have no knowledge of that, I was not a board mem-

ber.

Q. Directing your attention to the pink portion of Ex-

hibit A, I ask you to examine that for a moment. Have you

examined the pink portion of Exhibit A?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. Do you recollect ever being reimbursed the amount

set forth on that pink slip?

A. I do not recognize that.

Q. After you would make out an expense voucher, Mr.

Locke, to whom would you submit it?

A. To the board member in charge.

Q. And that expense voucher would set forth your ex-

penses and movements about the country for which you

were being reimbursed, is that correct?

70

A. Yes. 5

Q. You testified, do you remember, about an alleged

Communist Party meeting in the hotel in the east side of

Cleveland in April of 1948. Do you recollect that testimony

yesterday?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Will you tell us again what day of the month that wast

A. Counsel, this is 15 years ago. I am doing the best I

can to answer your questions honestly. It was either the

day of the Die Cast Council Meeting or the immediate day

following. I recall this very clearly because Travis drove

into Cleveland in his own car. It was a Studebaker. We

drove up Euclid Avenue to approximately 55th Avenue,

turned right, went about four blocks, and entered the hotel,

Now, what else do you want to know?

Q. So, despite the passage of this many years, you still

remember the route?

A. Yes, I traveled around that area quite a bit in Cleve-

land. I was a pretty busy International representative, one

of the few that was.

Q. April 8 was the first day you had ever been in Cleve-

land, isn’t that correct?

A. No, it is not.

{fol. 1151 Q. April 8th was the first day you arrived in

Cleveland as a International representativé for this union!

A. That is correct.

Q. Previous to that you had been in Detroit, isn’t that so!

A. Yes.

Q. And on your arrival you e e, as I under-

stand, or the next day, proceeded to jbin a Communist

Party meeting. 5 |

A. No, sir, you have it wrong. My testimony did not state

that.

Q. Well, didn’t you testify yesterday that you attended

a Communist Party meeting the second day after your ar-

rival in Cleveland of April of 19481

A. That is—

1

Mr. Broome: If the Court please, I do not believe that’s

what the witness testified.

The Court: Well, the witness can answer.

A. (Continued) I arrived in Cleveland. I registered in

a hotel. The following morning I went to the International

offices in Cleveland, at which time the resolution was pre-

sented to the staff members at that meeting. We proceeded

to the council meetings. If you will recall the testimony,

that is exactly what I testified to.

Mr. Francis: May I have the reporter read that answer

back to me, Your Honor?

The Court: You mean this one here?

Mr. Francis: Yes, Your Honor.

The Court: Les.

(The reporter read the last answer aloud.)

By Mr. Francis:

Q. Well, actually, yesterday you testified that you ar-

rived in Cleveland and went to the International union

offices on the same date, isn’t that what your testimony was?

A. I don’t think I stated that, same day.

Q. Well, your testimony is that you arrived April

7th of 1948 and attended a Die ing Council meeting on

April 8th?

A. I didn’t state that I arrived in Cleveland on the 7th.

kol. 116] Q. Well, then, tell us, on what day did you ar-

rive in Cleveland?

A. I can’t remember the exact date. It was the evening

prior to the Die Casting meeting, Die Cast Council meet-

ing, in the Hollanden Hotel.

Mr. Francis: If the Court will excuse me a moment?

(Defendant’s Exhibit B was marked for identification.)

By Mr. Franeis:

Q. I hand you, Mr. Locke, what has been marked for

purposes of identification as Defendant’s Exhibit B and

72

CCVdVdV0V'uo mem

it is!

The Court: The question was if you could identify * :

that is.

N A. Oh, this appears to be a typewritten copy of an ex-

pense voucher. This does look like my signature. I think

if you compare this with what you have on the other one,

you will find no comparison.

Mr. Francis: I ask the last remark be stricken, Your

Honor. There was no such question pending.

The Court: All right, the last part of the statement will

be stricken from the record, of the answer.

Mr. Francis: We offer Exhibit B into evidence.

Mr. Broome: No objection.

The Court: The exhibit will be received into evidence.

By Mr. Francis:

Q. Now, in this voucher of yours which has been ad-

mitted as Defendant’s Exhibit B, is it not true that you

indicated that you had arrived in Cleveland on the 8th of

April!

A. I didn't notice that date. I don't know how Kenneth

Eckert got his signature on this.

Mr. Francis: I ask that last remark be stricken as not

responsive.

The Court: The remark will stand. It doesn’t make any

difference. Let’s get on with the cross examination.

[fol. 117] A. Yes, it shows I arrived in Cleveland on the

8th.

By Mr. Francis:

Q. Doesn't that also show that Mr. Kenneth Eckert ap-

proved this voucher?

A. This I have no knowledge of.

Q. Mr. Eckert’s signature appears on Exhibit B, does it

not?

A. That I have no knowledge of either.

Mr. Francis: May I display the exhibit to the jury,

ease?

E Court: No, but you can read it, if you want to.

Mr. Francis: Thank you, your Honor.

If the jury please, this white page is labeled “Expense

Account. District Cast-Die Division, April 15, 1948.” 1,

meaning April 1.

“Detroit area: 55 miles, $2.20 and $9.00.

“April 2, Detroit area: 50 miles, $2.00; $9.00.

“April 3, Detroit area: 40 miles, $1.60 ; $9.00.

“April 4, Detroit area: 45 miles, $1.80; $9.00,

April 5, Detroit area: 60 miles, $2.40; $9.00.

“April 6, Detroit area: 45 miles, $1.80; $9.00.

“April 7, Detroit area: 55 miles, $2.20; $9.00.

“April 8, Detroit to Cleveland, $8.00; $9.00.

Summary of the balance of that period comes to 655.60;

total per diem, 6135.00.

The expenses are itemized. Signature “Ralph Locke,

1000 Walnut Avenue, Cleveland, approved by Kenneth

Eckert.”

Now, this was a voucher then for your employment in

movements up to April 15, 1948, is it not so?

A. J guess it is,

(fol. 118] Q. Mr. Locke, I hand you what has been marked

for purposes of identification, what is marked as Defen-

dant’s Exhibit C. Will you examine it and tell us if you

can identify it, please? ;

A. This is in my own handwriting. It is my expense

voucher.

Q. And for what period of time?

A. The 10th of April to the 30th of April. But I did not

submit this to Eckert.

74

Mr. Francis: Now, I offer Defendant's Exhibit C into

evidence, Your Honor. gle |

Mr. MacDonald: No objection.

The Court: The exhibit will be received. :

Mr. Francis: If it please the Court, may I read the ex.

pense voucher portion just in summary fashion! 1

The Court: All right.

Mr. Francis: If the jury please: This white sheet ison

expense account on printed form, International Union of

Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, period ending April 30

and indicates Mr. Locke’s whereabouts in the Cleveland

area from April 15 to April 30. :

The amount of reimbursement asset down at the bottom

is $163.86,

There is a carbon cf that being made out to Mr. Locke

by the Mining-Mill, International Union of Mine-Mill for

that amount made payable to Mr. Locke signed “Ralph

Locke, 1000 Walnut Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio; approved by

Ken Eckert.”

By Mr. Francis:

Q. Mr. Locke, in your testimony yesterday about the

%

Q. I hand you this document, ask you if this refreshes

your recollection as to the time in question?

A. (Witness reading) :

Q. Have you examined the document? ,

A. Do you want me to read it in full or do you want to

take it now?

Q. I ask you if you have examined the document?

A. I haven’t finished.

(Witness reads, witness lays document down)

Q. Have you finished examining this document?

A. Yes, I have. :

Q. Thank you. Does this refresh your recollection that

you did on or about March 19, 1955, meet with some Gov-

ernment agents, agents of the Federal Bureau of Investi-

gation?

A. I have testified to that already.

The Court: Well, just answer the question directly, Mr.

A. (Continued) I don’t remember the date.

Q. Well, he asked you—

A. It has been years ago—

The Court: Well, he asked you if it refreshed your

memory, if you did meet with them?

A. Your Honor, if he wants me to testify that I did meet

ith im on this particular date, I don't remember.

be Court: All right, then. Go ahead, Mr. Francis.

76

three occasions, with the agents from the F. B. I.; ves.

Q. And you recognize this statement; that is what Tam 3

getting at? 18 .

A. I signed it. a

Q. All right. At the time you signed this 8 Mr.

Locke, do you remember whether you had doubts as to

whether William Jackson was a member of the een ;

Party? =

A. I don’t remember that. .

Q. All right. I will ask you whether you recollect maybe

this statement to those agents on or about March 19, 19557

Mr. Broome: If it please the Court, if counsel is going

to ask questions based on this statement, I think the state-

ment itself ought to be offered in evidence.

The Court: Well, the objection will be overruled.

Q. I ask you whether you recollect making that state.

ment, whether this refreshes your recollection on William

Jackson.

“Set up below are officers of I. M. M. S. who I have con-

cluded were very sympathetic to the C.P. cause, the period

of time I knew them to be so inclined, as the reasons for

my conclusion, which is to the best of my knowledge, Wil-

liam Jackson in 1948 spoke in a progressive fashion at

Union caucuses and conventions.”

Does that refresh your recollection, Mr. Locke?

A. No, it does not.

Q. Do you now testify that William Jackson who was

in the hotel on the east side of Cleveland on April 9, 1948,

was a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. Broome: If it please the Court, that, I think that

6

The Court The objection is sustained.

Q. Was 0

land, that you testified to, meaning April 9, 1948, a Com-

1

77

A. It was a meeting of Communist Party members only.

Lfol. 1211 Q. And when you say it was a meeting of Com-

munist Party members only, does that include William

Jackson? 5

A. I told you previously that I thought he was there.

Now, that’s as far as I can tell you. I am doing the best

I can.

Q. Tell us again, then, who was present in this hotel

meeting on the east side of Cleveland, April 9th of 19481

A. It was Joe Brandt, Communist Party functionary,

was employed by the Communist Party. Maurice Travis,

Irving Dichter, Ray Dennis, J inuuy Pinta—let’s see—did I

mention Dichter? 75

A. Myself and all told, I think there were about twelve

or fifteen or eighteen people

Q. And did that include Bill Juckson?

A. I told you I don’t remember.

Q. But you thought yesterday that he was there, is that

correct?

A. I said I thought he was there. This is fifteen years.

The Court: You have answered the question, Mr. Locke.

__Q. Who were the members of the staff of the Interna-

tional Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers in Cleve-

land after April 9, 19487

4 Irving Dichter was assigned there. Joe London, my-

self and Ray Dennis. Oh, the International paid part of

his salary and the local paid a part of his salary at that

Q That was the staff then on April 9, 1948

A. There was one other fellow, I can’t recall his name,

Q. When did this staff hold its meetings after April 9,

A. At first in tke office of the International Union in

Cleveland.

78

Q. Where were those offices?

A. In the C. I. O. Building.

Q. Where in Cleveland is the C. I. O. Building?

A. I can’t remember the street. |

Q. What floor of the C.1.0. Building were the offices’ of

the International Union?

A. The second floor.

Q. The second floor. How many rooms constituted their

Q. One would have been a reception room and another

an office or what was it?

A. Yes, that’s correct.

Q. How many people would 3 be in these offices

day-to-day?

A. The staff would be in and out and two secretaries.

Q. Do you remember their names?

{fol. 122] A. Well, we had a number of them after April

8, but Esther Houseman was the only one that was steadily —

employed there until she had to take time off.

Q. In which of these two rooms did the staff meet with

Joe Brandt?

A. In the office.

Q. How big an office was this f

A. I never took the trouble to measure. I had two or

three desks in there.

Q. And every morning Joe Brandt would sit down with

the staff in Cleveland, is that correct?

A. I didn’t say that. No, that is not correct. He did not

sit with the staff every morning.

Q. Didn’t you testify yesterday that immediately after

this meeting in the hotel, the east side of Cleveland, that

Mr. Dichter required meetings of the staff every morning

or nearly every morning? Sea

A. That’s correct, of the staff.

79

By Mr. Francis:

Q. Now, how many of these did Joe Brandt attend, let’s

say, the balance of the month of April?

A. I don’t recall the exact numbers, probably five or six

times.

Q. Can you tell us when the first meeting took place with

the staff after April 9th with Joe Brandt present?

A. I don’t remember.

Q. You think he did sit at least five time with the staff

in the month of April?

A. In the Mine-Mill office.

Q. Now, who would conduct the meetings when Mr.

“Brandt was present? Did Mr. Dichter conduct them or did

Mr. Brandt conduct them?

A. I don’t understand what you mean by conducting?

Q. Was there anyone in charge of the meetings?

A. Mr. Dichter and Mr. Brandt.

Q. In other words, Mr. Dichter and Mr. Brandt would

jointly conduct these meetings when Mr. Brandt hap-

pened to be present?

A. Correct.

Q. This took place for approximately two months, I be-

lieve you stated yesterday on direct examination, is that

correct?

A. You are referring to the meetings in the International

office only, aren’t you?

Q Yes.

two months, those meetings

Brandt was present jointly by Mr. Brandt

1 , is 3 — —

fol. 123] Q. What had happened to Mr. Eckert? Did be

sit in on these meetings? ä

A. No.

Q. What was Eckert doing now with respect to this, the

fight over the effort to obtain a secession?

A. What was he doing?

Q. Yes.

Mr. Broome: If the Court please, I think counsel ought

to fix the time.

Q. (Continued) From April 9, 1948?

A. He had moved his office out of the C.1.0. Building

into a neighboring building. What he was doing, I have no

way of knowing.

Q. Well, then, I believe you testified yesterday, did you

not, that following these staff meetings that met almost

or nearly every morning, there would also be meetings else-

where with Joe Brandt in hotel rooms in other locations?

A. I don’t understand your question.

Q. In addition to these staff meetings with Joe Brandt,

did you not testify yesterday that there were also meetings

outside of the staff offices?

A. This was after the decision to keep Brandt out of

the International office.

Q. I see, and at those meetings, were there people pres-

ent other than the staff of the International Union of Mine,

Mill and Smelter Workers?

A. Along toward the conclusion of the Alcoa campaign,

just prior to the election, there were meetings where Joe

Brandt was chairman which included the United Electrical

Workers, some people from the United Electrical Work.

ers, the Chemical Workers and the Mine, Mill and Smelter

Workers staff. These meetings were chaired by Joe Brandt.

Q. So that you had not only the Mine-Mill staff there,

but members of other

. deferring to. I am

not talking about throughout the period of the Alcoa cam

paign. We continued to meet with Joe Brandt, the staff of

Mine-Mill individually—I mean, as a separate unit in other

81

locations other than the International office in the CI. O.

Building, because of the bad publicity it might create.

Q. When you attended this meeting in Chicago, Mr.

Locke, did you know in advance that it was going to be a

Communist Party meeting? I mean, did you know before

you got to Chicago?

A. No.

[fol. 124] Q. What was the purpose then of your going to

Chicago to see Mr. Travis?

A. I have testified to that already. I was instructed by

Mr. Travis to come into Chicago and report on Eckert and

the secession and what the Communist—-he didn’t—this

came up in the meeting. I beg your pardon, this wasn’t part

of the telephone conversation. I was to come in, into

Chicago, to report on the secession and Eckert and the

condition of the local and particularly the Alcoa local, and

I was to put this down for publication and in my expense

voucher as a trip to Chicago to look over the situation in

the new Alcoa plant in regard to organizing.

Q. What did you report as to the activities of Eckert at

this meeting :

A. What meeting, sir!

Q. The meeting in Chicago.

A. Which meeting?

Q. The meeting at Mr. Travis’ home in Chicago?

A. All right, now.

Q. What did you report as to Eckert’s activities?

A. I reported that the Alcoa local was in pretty bad shape,

that we were in danger of losing some of the other locals, and

I outlined before this meeting what the Communist Party

members in Cleveland were doing to aid and assist the In-

ternational union in the fight with the U.A.W. at that time

against the secession of the local, outlined the distribution

of “The Daily Worker” at the plant gates, the assistance we

got from the Party in distributing leaflets at the plant

gate, and we also discussed the Taft-Hartley Act.

2. Well, more specifically, what did you say as to what

Eckert was doing? Give us as best you can what you

reported about Eckerts’ activities?

3

A. Eckert was doing the same thing we were doing,

tributing leaflets,

Q. On whose behalf? 1

A. On behalf of U. A. W. They had the local. We didn’t

Only thing we had was a contract. 5

Q. So, Eckert was distributing leaflets and working on

behalf of the U.A.W. 5

A. That's the way it ended up. Originally, the local voted

to secede from Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers and go into

the N. A. D. C. W., which was the National Association of

Die Casting Workers, which Eekert at that time was at.

tempting to recreate. I don’t know whatever happened to

that. I don’t think he got a churter from the C. I. O., so they

went into the U.A.W. We had lost the local in a local meet.

ing election, attended by most of the members, prior to the

actual N.L.R.B. election.

Q. So that Ken Eckert in effect was acting on behalf of

U. A. W. in this fight in Cleveland? 7 a

[fol. 125] A. Yes, he was leaving the local.

. And that is what you reported to this group in Mr.

Travis’ home in Chicago?

A. Right.

Q. And then when was there this Alcoa election? When

did it take place?

A. I don’t recall. I think at that time that I was working

on the other Die-Casting locals in the area and in Cleveland

and out of Cleveland, Cranwood, and places like that. I

don’t reeall when the elections actually took place.

Q. Did the ladies who were present in Mr. Travis’ home

take part in these discussions?

A. AsI recall, that's all.

Q. Were they also members of the Communist Party?

A. They were in a Communist Party meeting, or a meet-

1 of Communist Party members. I thought that they

One of them, I was introduced to as a Communist

member. The lady with Henry Horowitz, I cannot

testify to, other than that she was at this meeting, which

was a meeting of Communist Party members.

Q. How many people were in Mr. Travis’ home on this

occasion ? 7

A. The ones that I have mentioned before, plus I would

say maybe three or four other people that I can’t recall

their names anymore.

Q. Would you say they were men and women or just

men?

A. Men, Chicago area.

(Defendant’s Exhibits D and E were marked for iden-

tification. )

Q. Mr. Locke, I hand you what has been marked for pur-

poses of identification as Defendant’s Exhibits D and E,

and hand them to you and ask you to examine them and tell

us if you can identify what they are. Can you identify them?

A. They are my expense vouchers, and again I say I did

not submit these to Eckert.

Mr. Francis: We offer Defendant’s Exhibits D and E into

evidence, Your Honor.

(Defendant’s Exhibits D and E were shown to opposing

counsel. )

Mr. Broome: No objection.

The Court: The exhibits will be received.

{fol.126] (Defendant’s Exhibits D and E were received

in evidence. )

Mr. Francis: If the Court please, may I make brief

reference to these to the jury?

The Court: All right. : 5

Mr. Franeis: Exhibit D, ladies and gentlemen of the jury,

purports te be and is an expense voucher of Mr. Locke on an

expense account form of the International Union of Mine,

Mill and Smelter Workers, and is for the time of May 1.

1948 to May 15, 1948. The exhibit gives the amonnt of money

coming to Mr. Locke for his expenses and per diem and is

signed, “Ralph Locke”, where checks should be sent

_ Walnut Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio, approved by Kenneth —

Exhibit E is again an expense account voucher form on

printed form, showing the expenses of Mr. Locke from the

16th of May, 1948 to the 3ist of May, 1948, and shows the

amount paid to Mr. Locke and it is approved Ken Eckert

By Mr. Francis:

Q. Was Mr. Travis satisfied with your report, after your

report in his house?

A. You would have to ask him.

e oe he tell you that he was satisfied with your work!

0.

Q. He did not, und how long did you stay there in

Chicago?

A. Just overnight.

Q. Was any plan made at that meeting as to how to com.

bat Mr. Eckert and his work in the U. A. W.!

A. There was discussion of how to combat his activities,

yes.

Q. And what were the proposals to combat Mr. Eckert and

the U. A. W. f

A. To work more closely with the Party, enlist more

aid from the Party and bring in other unions into the fight

against the secession and keep up the campaign, make

house-to-house visitations of the members of the Alcoa

locals, and I think that’s about the sum and substance of

it. There was a lot of discussion. I can’t recall everything

that was said.

Q. Mr. Dichter did not accompany you to Chicago, did he!

A. No, he did not.

_(Defendant’s Exhibits F and G were marked for iden-

tification.)

(fol. 1271 O. I hand you what has been marked for pur-

poses of identification Mr. Locke, Defendant’s Exhibits

F and G. Will you examine them and tell me if you can

identify them? ;

WE LPT Ser veer es

and putting them on. This is not my signature, either.

Q. Which exhibit are you referring tot

A. Yes. This looks like my signature here.

Q. Which one is that?

A. G. This is not mine.

Mr. Francis: We offer Defendant’s Exhibit G into evi-

dence.

Mr. Broome: No objection.

The Court: No objection. It will be received.

Mr. Broome: If it please the Court, was that “F” that

was received?

The Court: G“.

Mr. Broome: G, Thank you.

By Mr. Francis:

Q. Iam handing you Defendant's Exhibit G, Mr. Locke?

A. Isn’t that the one I just had?

Q. Yes. Does that indicate you were in Chicago the second

half of July?

A. No, sir, in Chicago on this. The one in May is the

one that shows I was in Chicago. The 21st of May.

Q. Is that when the meeting in Chicago took place?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember what you testified to yesterday?

A. I thought it was in June. This is fifteen years. I am

supposed to remember dates?

Q. Yesterday did you think it might also have been in

July?

A. I testified I thought it was in June.

Q. Are you sure you didn't also say it was in June or

July?

A. I could have.

85

A. These glasses will be worn out from taking them off

Mr. Broome: If it please the Court, with Mr. Francis’

ae en ee

please.

Mr. Francis: Which one was that?

Mr. Broome: The last one; F, “F” and “G”. 15

[fol. 128] (Mr. Taylor presents to Mr. Broome Exhibits |

D, F and G.)

Mr. Francis: Shall I wait for the examination?

The Court: No, no. Let’s go on.

By Mr. Francis:

Q. Directing your attention to your testimony yesterday

in counsel for the Government at page 555 and 556, do

you remember being asked these questions and giving these

answers:

“Question: All right, sir. During the summer of 1948, Mr.

Locke, did you have occasion to make a trip to Chicago!”

Do you remember when it was? Answer: I

can’t place the exact date. It was in the summer time.”

“Question : dada at es Answer;

June or July, I guess.

“Question: A right, In 19481 Answer: I think it was

around June. I am not sure of it.“

Do you remember being asked those questions and giving

those answers?

A. Yes, I do.

Mr. Francis: May I have a moment’s recess for a moment.

I want to assemble—

The Court: Well, I would have hoped you would have had

it assembled so we could progress much more rapidly than

we have this morning on this cross-examination. We will

be in recess for ten minutes.

(Whereupon, the Court recessed at the hour of 12:2

P.M.)

87

. Mr. Locke, you remember givi testimony in this

matter while under oath in 1959 before this:?

A. What matter? 5 Pe ate

Q. In this same case.

Q. Do you remember what your testimony was then

as to when this meeting in Chicago took place?

[fol. 129] A. As nearly as I can recall, about the same

as the testimony I gave today.

. Which is what?

A. June, around June. I now find out it was May 21.

Q. Are you sure that you said it was in June when you

- testified the first time? |

A. I said it was around June.

Q. All right. Lo you remember these questions being

asked you and your giving these answers:

“Questioa: Now, Mr. Locke, while you were working in

the Cleveland area under Mr. Dichter, did you have an.

occasion to make a trip to Chicago?

Auswer: Yes.

Question: Can you tell us as nearly as you can recall

at this time when that was?

Answer: Possibly July or later, I don’t recall the time

exactly.”

*

’

Do you remember that question and that answer!

A. I don't remember that.

Mr. Franeis: No further questions of this witness.

Mr. Broome: There will be no redirect, Your Honor.

The Court: You are excused, Mr. Locke.

88

STIPULATION AND COLLOQUY RE Dzarn or WAA M, 5

Witness on First Triau

Mr. Maddrix: If it please the Court, the Government

desires to present a foundation prior to asking permission

of the Court to read to the jury William Mason’s prior

testimony, and at this .2 with your permission I would

like to read the stipulation between counsel.

The Court: All right.

Mr. Maddrix: It is stipulated by counsel for defendants

and counsel for the government that one William (some.

times known as Bill') Mason was a witness for the Govern-

ment in the above entitled case, that he testified at the trial

of defendants at Denver, Colorado, on November 16 and 17,

1959, direct testimony on pages 1231 to 1296 of the transcript

of record of that trial, cross-examination on pages 1423 to

1515 of the said transcript.

[fol. 130] “It is further stipulated that subsequent to his

appearance in Denver as a witness as aforesaid, he died

as a result of an automobile accident on October 25, 1962,

north of Butte, Montana.

“Tt is agreed that the deceased is the same Bill Mason who

testified at the original trial and it shall be unnecessary

to offer further proof of this fact.”

This is signed by Lawrence M. Henry, United States At-

torney, Lafayette AH. Broome, Attorney, Department of Jus-

tie, Telford Taylor, Attorney for Defendants, and Mr.

Nathan Witt, Attorney for Defendants and I would like to

also say that I recall Mr. Taylor making an addition to this

stipulation by saying it would not be necessary for the Gov-

ernment to show and prove the accuracy of the transcript

of his testimony.

Mr. Taylor: That’s correct, Your Honor, it is not in the

stipulation, but I would state on the record there would be

no need to call the reporter, and we can acknowledge the au-

thenticity of the record.

The Court: All right.

* * *

Lol. 155 :

OssEcTiIons on Seconp TrRiaL’t0 ADMISSION oF

Mason Trsrnroxr

Mr. Witt: Will you give me a moment, please?

The Court: Yes.

Mr. Witt: If it please the Court, before I come back to

the 3500 problem, I want to say, aside from that problem,

and assuming that there is no error committed in the pro-

duction of any of Mason’s direct testimony or the exclusion

[fol. 156] of the sustaining of objections to any questions

on this cross-examination on the first trial, we think the

prineiple of using the testimony of the dead man is wrong

and should not be followed.

In that connection, we recognize in the present status of

the law, we have no great hope that Your Honor will agree

with us, but at least we want our position on that issue

preserved for the record.

ven if that principle is followed and should be con-

tinuing to be the law, we think it should not be applied in

the case of a witness like Mason. In this case, it was

peculiarly important that the jury which was to pass on

guilt or innocence of the defendants would have an oppor-

tunity to observe them, consider his manner on the witness

stand, and be able to, as a part of the usual standards that

are required to testimony, when given orally on the wit-

ness stand. And we think that is peculiarly true in Mason's

ease, because of the deep animosity and bitterness dis-

played on the witness stand against Mine, Mill and defen-

dants and also, because of the large number of incon-

sistencies in his testimony, that even if the basic principle,

which allows the permission of a dead man’s testimony be

correct, we think it should not be applied here.

And then related to this last point is the fact that Mr.

Broome stated in Washington, and the SACB proceeding

on one occasion that he did not intend to produce Mason as

a witness in that proceeding and would not produce Mason

again in any proceeding under any circumstances,

Whatever Mr. Mason’s reasons were, we don’t know ad

perhaps we will not have a statement here, but at least a

record of these proceedings indicates that that was Mr.

Broome’s position at that time, I think it was either in 1960

or 1961.

In view of that, we have a situation here where Mr.

Broome was saying in that position that he would never

produce Mason as a witness again, so that if Mason were

alive, if Mr. Broome still felt that way, he would not pro-

duce Mason here on the witness stand, but now, Mason has

died and he is urging that testimony he gave four years ago

to be admitted.

J don’t understand that, the principle which permits the

admission of the prior testimony of a deceased person is,

of course, based on the notion that if the proceeding is be-

tween the same parties, involves the same issues, then if

the witness’ testimony has been subjected fully, under

the right of cross-examination, under the circumstances,

it should be admitted. |

[fol. 157] But your Honor will recall that we had one seri-

ous issue in the course of Mason’s cross-examination on the

pi trial, and that related to the matter which I touched

iy i in my examination of Mr. Zoeller this afternoon;

chat i is, whether the fact that Mason was a naturalized citizen

and was subject to denaturalization under the McCarran

Act of 1950 has anything to do with his furnishing informa-

tion to the FBI at the beginning of 1952.

We think, your Honor was wrong in his rulings with this

to that line of cross-examination; that we recognize that the

Court of Appeals have turned us down on tliat issue earlier

in the second Travis trial and that the Court of Appeals in

its opinion reversing the conviction in this case passed it by

without comment.

We recognize what the status of the law is and at least it

is our position that with your Honor’s all due proper respect

in the Court of Appéals, was wrong and we want to urge

that again.

And, finally, before we get back to the 3500 problem, your

Honor will recall that we made the motion for Mason’s

grand jury testimony in the alternative, as your Honor re-

members ; the testimony of Mr. Mason, which he gave before

the two grand juries, the so-called grand jury in 1954 and

the grand jury in this case in 1956.

Of course, if Mason were alive and were on the witness

stand, we would renew those motions, but we think your

Honor’s denial of those motions on the first trial was er-

roneous and the decision of the Court of Appeals uphold-

ing that denial was erroneous, and for that reason we think

we would deny the full right of eross- examination on the

first trial.

And, finally, aside from all those matters, we do have this

3500 question, which your Honor will consider this after-

noon.

* * * * * *

[fol. 219]

Counr's Rutine on Szconp Trias

Apmirtine Mason Tzstimony

The Court: Therefore, this point does not affect the

admissibility of the testimony, this ( 18) 3500 problem. It is

out of the way now, under the Court’s ruling, so from that

standpoint the case or the matter is properly admissible,

and there has been a proper showing to the Court or a satis-

factory showing by stipulation at least that Mr. Mason is

deceased, and is the same deceased person, is the same

William Mason, who testified at the previous trial in this

ease in 1959. Therefore, it is the ruling of this Court that

the testimony as contained in the official transcript of the

proceedings may be read to the jury in this case, as the

testimony of William Mason.

* * * *

Part or GoveRNMENT’s Exuisit No. 2

Reap To THE JuRY -

Mx. . May this document be marked as Goveri.

ment’s Exhibit No. 21

(Government’s ‘Exhibit No. 2 was marked for identifie.

tion.)

Mr. Broome: May it please the Court, we offer in evi.

dence Government's Exhibit No. 2, being the minutes of the

International Executive Board of the International Union

of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, a meeting on April 26

to 29, 1948, in the Hamilton Hotel, Chicago.

[fol. 220] Mr. Taylor: Your Honor, Mr. Broome showed

me this previously, and as with the other exhibits that come _

from the files and records, we have no objection on au-

thenticity, no need to prove it by a witness or anything.

We do object on the grounds of irrelevance and lack of.

probative value and the lack of any materiality to the case,

The Court: Let me see it. 4

(Document handed to the Court.)

The Court: The objection will be overruled. The exhibit

will be received.

(Government's Exhibit No. 2 for identification was re-

ceived in evidence.)

Mr. Broome: May it please the Court, I would like to

have permission at this time to read certain portions of this

exhibit with the understanding, of course, that if counsel

so desires they may read any other part of it that they wish.

The Court: All right.

Mr. Broome: “Minutes of the International Executive

Board, International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Work.

ers—C.LO. April 26-29, 1948, Hamilton Hotel, Chicago,

Illinois, Monday, April 26, 1948.

“The meeting was called to order at 10:20 a.m. by Presi-

dent Clark. The following officers and Board Members

93

were present: John Clark, President; W. J. Madill, Vice

President; M. E. Travis, Secretary- Treasurer; William

Mason, Board Member District #1; Orville Larson, Board

Member, District #2; Jesse Van Camp, Board Member Dis-

trict #3; Leonard Douglas, Board Member District #4;

Albert Pezzati, Board Member District #6; Chase Powers,

Board Member District #7; Robert Carlin, Board Member

District #8; Ken Eckert, Board Member, Casting Division.

“Also in attendance were the following—

Mr. Witt: Excuse me. May we have a moment at the

counsel table?

The Court: All right «ss —

{fol. 221] Mr. Witt: May we approach the bench?

(The following proceedings were had at the bench out

of the hearing of the jury:)

Mr. Broome: Mr. Witt has requested that I omit reading

of his name as having been present there and I have agreed

to it.

(The proceedings were resumed within the hearing of

the jury.)

Mr. Broome: “Also in attendance were the following staff

members: Bernard Stern, Research Director; Harold San-

derson, Research Department; Morrie Wright, Editor;

Graham Dolan, Educational Director; Sam Feldman, Edu-

cational Departmert, Al Skinner, Political Action Direc-

tor; Henry Horowitz, Press Department.

After a brief recess, tae meeting reconvened at 4:30 pm.

All Board Members and staff personnel previously listed

were in attendance. In addition, the following Casting Divi-

sion members were present: :

Alfred Bartnikowski, Ernest Love, Richard Moorehead,

Cliff Lanzinger, Walter Gilmore, Edward Radden, Ray

Dennis, Max Alexander, and Irving Dichter.

President Clark stated that the visitors were here on a

matter of vital concern to the entire International Union.

He said that the last convention took action that we do not

sign the Taft-Hartley affidavits and that we stay clear of the

present National Labor Relations Board. Subsequent In.

ternational Executive Board meetings have reaffirmed the

position taken by the.convention. However, in view of the

resolution presented by Board Member Eckert to a recent

Casting Conference, calling for compliance ‘vith the Taft.

Hartley affidavits, the whole issue must be thoroughly

gone into. He stated that any local had a right to advocate

compliance, but that officers of the union and staff members

are obligated to carry out the policy of the International

Union, and that Brother Eckert should have presented his

resolution to the Board before going to the Council with it.

President Clark requested Brother Eckert to explain why

the resolution was presented to the Casting Council meet-

ing.

[fol. 222] Board Member Eckert stated that the prior

presentation of the Resolution to the Casting Conference

before coming to the Executive Board with it was not, in

his opinion, any violation of International policy, that he

was merely advocating that the policy be changed. He

stated that there was no basic difference between a union

law in this respect and a civil law. He said that he knew

that if he came to this Executive Board and voiced such an

idea (that the International should file the Taft-Hartley

affidavits) he would be accused by some of the Board mem-

bers and the Casting Division staff members as not speak-

ing for the Casting Division and that therefore he felt that

it was necessary before advocating that policy before this

Board that he have them on record in order to substantiate

any proposals he might make to.the Board itself.

. .Seeretary-Treasurer Travis spoke and repeated the re-

marks which he had made at a staff meeting earlier this

month, He stated that raising this issue now in the manner

in which it has been raised will do untold harm to the con-

tract negotiations now opening in the various sections of

the union. Secretary Travis also read a section of the

organizational report of Vice President Robinson bringing

out certak weaknesses in the preparations for the Preci-

sion strike.

President Clark then asked to hear from the Casting

Division members and staff members and stated that fol-

lowing that, the Board would resume its executive sessions

and resolve the question. 10

Brothers Ray Dennis, Max Alexander and Edward Rad-

den spoke against signing the affidavit and stated that

Board Member Eckert was wrong in presenting the resolu--

tion to the Casting Division at a time when the critical

Precision strike was on. Brothers Love and Bartnikowski

spoke in favor of complying with the Taft-Hartley affi-

davits. Counsel Witt, Brothers Dolan and Feldman also

spoke on the matter of the handling of the Precision strike

and the mistake of raising the issue of Taft-Hartley: :

Brother Dichter spoke on the Precision strike and the

harmful effect of the resolution presented by Brother

Fekert on the strikers. He stated that a real educationai job

should have been done from the very time that the com-

pany notified the union that it would not bargain. He

stated that he didn’t place the responsibility for the fail- 3

ure to do this on any one person. . ES eae

(fol. 223] He stated hat none of the die casting locals

had been informed that such an important issue was to

eome before the Casting Conference, and that no staff

‘member had been consulted on the matter, except Zvara,

who is supporting Brother Eckert’s position. He stated that

this was not the democratic way of doing things, that em-

ployers were directing the campaign within the labor move-

ment on the issue of compliance, and were using this issue

to weaken and divide the unions, and that mere compliance

would never satisfy the employers, or the unions raiding

our organization, that from that point, the International

would have to give up all of the principles it stands for,

and by the time it did that, there would be no union left to

fight for. He said the present division was ‘giving heart

to every employer with whom our International has con-

tracts and would spur on their arrogance in negotiations.

Tuesday, April 27, 1948

Brosident Clatk called the meeting to order ut 10 adie: pS

officers and board members previously listed were pres.

ent. Board Member of District #5 Wilson and Vice Presi. 0

dent Robinson were absent. In addition, members of

staff were present, and the ee ee

sion.

i The discussion on the TaftHartley affidavits *

presentation of the Resolution to the Casting Division by

Board Member Eckert was resumed.

Vice Fru neee ha he members of the

a : iar w is position on the question of the

W alldavits, that he was in favor of compliance, but that

as long as it was the policy of the International Union to be

against compliance, it was his duty as an officer to ear

out that policy.

Board Member Eckert again stated that in his opinion

he was within his rights in presenting the resolution on

compliance to the Casting Conference before coming to the

Board. Brother Love defended Board Member Eckert’s

position and said that the Doehler locals were in favor of

compliance with the affidavits.

Board Member Powers stated that there was no question

that the feeling on the Executive Board not to comply with

the Taft-Hartley law was overwhelming, and that all of the

[fol. 224] Board members had expressed themselves on

the question frequently and defended the position of the

International on non-compliance. He stated that all of the

Board members were capable of doing their own thinking,

on the matter, and that the convictions which he held on

this issue were as a result of conclusions reached that it

was a correct policy, and that the accusation that the Board

Members had changed was incorrect. that instead it was

Board Member Eckert who had changed.

At this point, Brother Frank Clark, of Local 758, spoke

briefly, and stated that it was the position of his local that

Board Member Eckert was incorrect in presenting the

resolution to the Casting Division and that if more energy

97

were spent educating the membership of the Casting Divi-

sion on the issues involved in complying, the turmoil

created over this issue would not exist and instead the

Casting Division members would be concertrating on wage

_and contract negotiations and matters of vital interest to

the membership. 8

Brothers Dennis and Dichter also spoke at this point and

warned that a split over this issue would play directly into

“the hands of the employers. :,

Board Member Pezzati condemned what he said was an

attempt on the part of Board Member Eckert to place the

blame for opposition to Eckert’s changed position on one or

two individuals. Brother Pezzati stated that it was clear

that almost the entire Board felt the strongest disap-

proval of Board Member Eckert's changed position on

Taft-Hartley, and also on the manner uséd in presenting

his changed position.

Board Member Mason spoke on the fighting traditions of

the Mine-Mill membership and stated that there was no more

democratic union in America than Mine-Mill. He stated

that there were two issues before the Board: first, the issue

of the International's position on the signing of the affi-

davits, and second, the relationship between Board Member

Eckert and the rest of the Board. He said that there could

be no compromise on the first issue, that the union must re-

main firm on its position of non-compliance. He deplored

the disruption that has arisen over the issue and stated

that far from stopping raiding by other unions, the con-

fasion and division of the membership over the issue would

further encourage raiding.

{fol. 225] Brother Skinner spoke on the need for devoting

all our energies to present negotiations to improve the

working conditions of our membership and stated that the

present disruption created over the signing of the affidavits

was a boon to the employers since it would present our

union in a weakened position. He pointed out that so far

this year there has been only one good settlement in the

Casting Division. In other cases, the employers are taking

advantage of the split in our ranks to deprive the member. —

ship of benefits. He stated that the Resolution has done

untcld harm 0 all negotiations this year. If a proper edn.

cational job had been done, the membership of the Casting

Division would not now be expecting short cuts and legal

gimmicks to solve the problems of Taft-Hartley and wou

rely, instead, on their own strength.

*Searetary ‘Travis then urged the Board e and

visitors to resolve the issue without sacrificing the Principle

involved and the welfare of the membership.

Brother Bartnikowski stated that he wanted to bring

back to his local a recommendation of the Executive Board

that they ecmply with the Taft-Hartley Act.

President Clark stated that he had criticized Board Mem-

ber Eckert for not coming to the Executive Board with his

position on Taft-Hartley, and that Brother Eckert’s posi-

tion in introducing a resolution calling for compliance at

the last Casting Conference was wrong and could not be

defended. He stated that he wanted the minutes to show

the positions of the absent officers cn the question of com-

pliance, namely Vice President Robinson and Board Mem-

ber of District x Charles Wilson.

“He read a statement submitted to the Board by Brother

Robinson, in which Brother Robinson wrote I am more

convinced today than ever before that we must fight to the

last ditch against the use of this anti- union law. We must

not, in the interest of our membership and organized labor

become just another union falling into its ruinous 8 trap.

We would be working against the interest of the member-

ship to at this time upset the decision of the St. Paul con-

vention and capitulate to the reactionary drive against labor

by signing the yellow dog affidavits ...’

“President Clark then stated that Brother Charles Wilson

had requested that the position which he espoused at a staff

meeting in Chicago two weeks ago be presented to the

[fol. 226] Board, that he was unalterably opposed to com-

pliance with the Taft-Hartley Act in any form, including the

signing of any affidavits.

“Brother Clark then stated that he would be glad to ex-

press some opinions of the shop paper and other material

being put out by the Schultz Pardon me, I think that is a

part I will omit. If you wish to read this, you may.

“Board Member Eckert stated that he wanted to reiterate

his position. He said that he thought that the International

should comply with the signing of the affidavits, but this was

tactically necessary, that he d

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.