# Appendix — Dennis v. United States > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386411_0290%3A01 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1966 - **Citation:** 384 U.S. 855 ## Text 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 [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386411_0290%3A01. Public record. Not legal advice.