Appendix — Pipefitters v. United States

Supreme Court brief1972

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Objections. . defendants tg reftaial of court ‘o: iat * \

a verdict of. acquittal at the close.of the Govern. §- i.

‘ment’ evidence in accordance with motions lettered :

ie! om “B?, sO, ‘and “ep? and at the conclusion he

* of all the evidence: lettered “EB”, ‘spy sali , ?

“and. es 3a Bos aos one eras hacen ASE .1120 P

4. ee |

; ‘Mgtions for judglbent o of acquittal at: clobe of Gov el :

AGEN, WINE +o 50's oso Aviages Con oo sce se eng A> |

|. Local Union No. 563°»: ..« ero awe ke ee Ol

-. Callanan . RRR ORs sd he : mero: od

Lawler Seto te ts Site: |

‘Seaton .. srestieetyreseateeetadesneegeeseets ee DIB of

_ Motions for judgment. er eoauitian at clive of ae. t

‘> the evidence’ ’ aOR -

: Loéal Union. No. 562 ie ipeyavebaes onus eee. ak yi

Callanani ..........0.06. uth bgas secur bases a

bY MMMM opine ci.c Se wiiey cs pataeewcgae e.g bose «8 11%

Séaton 22... cae ee a ee ee 1133.

Verdict bad swotenen tng pcbyaeeeesaks cane seek eee et 1125 a

Notice of ‘appeal a aaees Leveate os we. Lee ae 1126 i

Opinion ted June. 8, 1970 of the United States ing x

=. of. Appeals for the Bighth | Cireuit seseceee AI28 3

Opinion dated July 17, 197Q of the United States" |

etter dated Augist 26, 1970 of ‘Marry L. Randall ©

to the. Eighth MES iagac se tetrpcsuse cs weecdeds 1150

tter dated September 10, 19700 of the Bighth Circuit

to Defense Counsel ..... Seeepeness rere eveees+ TIL

}pinion and Dissenting Deities of the United States

} ’

} 2

Court of Appeals for the: ‘Bighth Cireuit ....,....1144° »

Gomes of, — or the hae ee in _— : 1153

‘ ha pS i A NOU Mt li ti /, witli’

EF a iy ia

, Ph t

Ciena aia fe RTM ede ay cae Gazing ¢ i Stee

ee ee

Date’

| 1968

“wy

“A

Dai lasek hc AS APR NU i Ma nce ahh a gn wali HR ft

e "9 « . ‘

_ May 10

On praccipe filed by U. Sie

sued to deft. Pipefitters Local. Union 562, St.°

_ Louis, Mo., ret. June 3, 1968. :

Separate bonds of defts. Callanan, Sivek ena

*.. ‘Lawler in sum ‘of $1,000 each, made returnable |

‘in Ct: 3.on June 3, filed (Raymond. Salami—

May 13.

DOCKET ENTRIES" _

eee ose ee. iS

ep 3

oS, 68.0r 99 (8)

: ie United | States

ee ite Ger. i — e"

_ Pipefitre Local Thon No. “968, ao, et al 3

* ¢ @ = —-: me rate

May 9 Indictment filed. é. — “ie ea

Order filed fixing bond of defts. Cimanen, Law-

‘ler and Seaton i in sum of $1000 ea.

On*separate praecipes filed by U. s. Atty., war war- - >

rants, issued for each of ~aforesaid defts:: ret. .

forthwith. ee =

Surety on each bond).

Marshal’s return to Summons filed;. esnouted ‘on

_ , Pipefitters Local Union No. 562 by delivery to —

- Lawrence L. Callanan, its Business Mer., on

~ May 10, 1968. . f

Marshal’s Return to Warrant of Arrest of De-

. ~fendant Callanan filed; executed on deft. Calla-

€

a e

2 7 °

_ ——_ me .

nan on May 10, 1968, deft: released on ‘$1,000.00

bond.

~ Marghal’s return to Warmat: of Arrest of De-

fendant Lawler filed; executed on ‘deft. Lawler

"on May 10, 1968, ‘deft.’ released on $1,000.00

bond:

Marshal’s veber to ‘Wairant of ites of De- -

. . féendant Seaton filed;' executed on deft. Seaton.

‘ : . on May-10, 1968, ‘deft. released on $1, 000.00 bond.

June 3

Defendants Callanan and Lawler appear with |

. James F. N angle and Richard L. Daly,. their

attorneys, . and defendant Seaton appears with

James F. Nangle and: =e L. — his

attorneys.

* Each defendant waives formal iothiuucnt and

June 21

June 24

July 31

enters plea of not guilty” ‘to~ Indictment. De-.

fendants granted to July{: 31, 1968, to file con-

\templated motions and case set for trial on Sep-

tember 3y 1968. :

Motion of defendants for plate by the Govern-

= ment to the defendants. of their records previ-

-ously subpoenaed by the Government, filed.

Argument requested. a

Defendants’ ‘memo. in support: of. motion tor:

‘retarn by the Government to the defendants of -

defendants’ records leita ie caccoaeel from

them. filed.

Motions of defendants (1), to inmates Indictment

__ (2) for discovery and inspection under Rule 16;

(3) for-bill of particulars; (4) to inspect Grand |

Jury minutes (5) to inspect all evidence in pos-

. session of the Government favorable to defend-

ant; (6) for an indefinite continuance and (7)

to strike, filed. Argument ‘requested. Separate

Aug. 4)

| —3—

instions of* defendants: Callanan; ‘Lawler and -

Seaton, for a severance. under Rule 14 FRGrr, |

filed... Argument foquanted.

- All pending netiets set for sci on Aug. .

., 93-at 10 A.M. Counsel notified by: BS.

‘Joint--memo of defendants in wappiit of their

-motions to dismiss; brief on several discovery -. .

- motions and brief on motion for: severance > filed 2

ee and delivered to J. Regan.

‘Motion’ of. defts. to dismiss. indictment ermal

and submitted. Motions -of defts.. for discovery

_ and inspection under Rule 16; for bill of par-.

‘ ticulars; to inspect Grand J ury minutes; to in- °

| Aug. 12

spect . all evidence in possession of the Govt.

favorable to defts.;? to strike, for a severance,

; taken as submitted. Motion of defts. for_ an

, indefinite continuance heard, argued and ‘sub- .

mitted. ‘Motion for return by the Govt. to defts.

of defts’ records preViously subpoenaed from

them argued and submitted. Plff’s brief ‘in

opposition to_ several motions filed. .Plff’s mo-:

-tion for’ ‘discovery and . inspection pursuant Ao

‘Rule 160 of FRCrP filed.’ Plff’s briefs in op- |

position to defts’ motion for bill of paouare .

and to dismiss indictment filed. .

Marshal’ S ‘return to Subpoena’ to Prods Docn- | -

‘ment or Object filed, executed on Managing Edi-

- tor, St: Louis Globe-Democrat, 8/8/68.

.. Aug. 14

: Manials return’ to. Subpoena is Prodinoe Docu-

- ment or Object filed, executed on. Managing Edi-.

- tor, St. Louis Post Dispateh, 8/8/68."

Order filed overrnling motions ‘of defts. ‘for s sev- .

erance and separate. trial,

_ Order filed. overruling motions of defendant te .-° |

dismiss ‘indictment. ,

Order filed overruling, motions of defts, for dis- ;

covery and inspection. |

- Order filed overruling motions of defts. “for wa

of particulars, Oe

is Order filed overruling motions of defendants to --

- Inspect and copy Grand J ury minutes.

Order filed overruling motions of defts. to in:

spect all evidence in possession of the Govt.

‘favorable to defts.

- Order. filed denying motions of defts for an in-

. definite continuance of the trial. |

Order filed overruling motions of defts. to strike

_ Certain allegations of the Indictment.

Order filed on- motions of defts for return by

Govt. to defts. all records, previously subpoened.

It having been shown by the Ct.- that all said

. records have heretofore been returned to defts

by the Govt., said motion hereby denied as moot. _

Avg. 14 pad of nine. orders mailed to attorneys James

: - F. Nahgle, Richard L. Daly and Murry i Ran-

Aug.22 Marshal’s relores to gab ena filed. Executed

on A. Bralosci, 8/19/68; executed on L. J. And-

rews, 8/21/68;. executed on C. Anagnost,

8/21/68. ss |

| Order filed; each defendant 3 is ant an addi-

. . tional two challenges, for a total of: eightedd

_ (18) which challenges may be exercised jointly;

copy of order mailed by e. d. to attorneys of

. record Randall, Nangle &: — and U. S. At.

' torney.. 4 ,

Ben

_ Aug.23 Marshal’s return filed; subpoenas. exectited on:

Thomas Sory,:.Robert A. Durchek, Wn? M._ .

Dooley, Patrick Becherer; Rather P. Avery; Geo.

A. Miller, Charles - R. Simmons, Jr., Alfred M.

‘Smith, Forrest Snow, Ken Olivio, J oseph Ryan, |

John Ellison, all on 8-20-68. |

Aug. 27 Marshal’ s return filed; ebpoenns executed on

- ‘Bobby N. George, and Charles Binney on _-

8/24/68; and Jack Tebbs, on 8/24/68; on Larry Y

J. Crawford and Albert McGinty on 8/25/68.

Aug.27 Renewed motion, of defendants for continuance,

"filed; cause set for argument on Thursday Aug.

29, 1968, at 10:00 A.M.”

‘Transcript of proceedings had Aug. 9, 1968, filed

‘by.. Official Court Reporter. ne

Aug.28 Marshal ’s returns filed; sttbpoenas executed on

Eo, _ Dillon Ross, James R. Barnes, Marie C. Schulz,

Gertrude Krost, Herbert Morissee, J os. D. Weis,

z Albert W. Lakebrink, all .on (8/26/68.

Aug. 29.< Marshal’s return filed; subpoen nas_.exeeuted—

.. -@, L. Edwards 8/24/68 and on John G. a ft

_ Mrs. Blanche Helwig, and Hank Claubaugh, on: att 7

8/27/68. 7

- Aug.29 Renewed motion of defendants for continuance

we argued, submitted and overruled; notice of rul-

ing mailed by e. d. to attorneys Daly, Randall

- & Nangle and U. S. Attorney.

Aug. 30 -“Marshal’s returns filed; subpoenas executed on -

a -Leonard Barbour, Harold A. Foley, L. - A..

Thompson, Patricia Stieferman, and Edw. .

Steska, on 8/27/68 and on Eugene aeons! and

Robert G. Davis on 8/28/68. ,

Sept. 3 James F. Nangle, Jr., withdraws eatin of ap-.

| "pearance previously filed and enters his appear-

‘

7? ,

Recap

Local No. 562 and Lawler.

his appearance. for Local No. 562 and Lawrence

oe, Callanan.

a Local 562 ieee’ with James F. Nangle, |

urry L. Randall, Norman S. London and Rich-

ard L. Daly,’ its attys.;- Deft. Lawler appears

with Murry L. Randall; Deft. Seaton with Nor-

Defts having heretofore’ entered pleas of not

guilty to Indictment and cause having been set

_ for trial this day, parties arinounceé ready.

Jury. empaneled and alternate jurors Richard |

KE. Nolle and Dwight | Rodda empaneled. Jury

and alternate jurors sworn.’ Plff’s evidence com-

menced but not concluded.

Further proceedings on trial postponed until to-

morrow at 9:00 A.M. :

s ance as attorney for Pipefitters Local Union No, .

‘562. .

‘Comes ses L. Randall and withdraws his ap:

_, pearance “ preyiously filed entered. for the defts* ©

Seaton. and reenters his appearance for the dette |

| Ne orman. S. London eriters, his’ appearance as atty i”

- for defts. Pipefitter LopateUnion No. 562 and: as °

_atty for Geo: Seaton. ‘

Richard +- Daly withdraws ‘the entries of ie .

pearance previously filed in this case and enters ©

_-, man §. London, his atty.; and deft. Callanan’ 3

with Richard L. Daly, his atty.. ‘

The defts’ attys., trial jury, and alternate jurors

heretofore empaneled and sworn on trial of this

cause being present: Introduction. of evidence

in chief on behalf of the pltff is resumed but

not concluded. Upon adjournment, ordered, fur-.-

a re aye — * — —— .

‘

. oie

ther prcoodings ‘patent wit’ tomorrow a

| 95 AM. es

~. Sept. 5

The ° defendants, ‘thejr attorney and | jury and

alternate . jurors. heretofore © -empaneled | being |

_ present, introduction of evidence. in’ chief on be-".

half of the. plaintiff on-trial:is resumed but not

< - eoncluded: Upon ‘adjournment, further ‘ proceed-

ings ordered —— until Monday, Sept. ‘9,

1968, at 9:00 A.M. |

Marshal’s returns filed; ouliiaindn: exceuted on re

_ witness James Stiftler 9/ 1/68;

. Ender-

. muhle, Thomas Brit uy F. Richardson, Jr., -

_-. on 8/30/68 and’ on James’ D. Kelley, Tom Wil-

liams, Chester A. Cieslak, Gene Marshall; Albert

‘" M. Fagan, Edward Beck, Thomas Lee Flynn,

Dillon 8/28/68; on Walter Seianas, A. W. Van *

Metter, and Tom L. Evans. on 8/27/68; on ‘Ed-

ward F. Steiner,- George. ‘A. Greenfield, Roland

Jack J. Collom, Layne A: Mohr, John R. Menke,. .

E.. Gissing, on 8/31/68 and returned unexecuted -

on Robert R. Boxley and executed on: Gerald R. °

B. Day, George Babaz, Harvard E. Borchardt,

- on 8/28/68; on John Greer, William Sonsler, R.

_. Emmet Brodley, James. Dale Blex, on. 8/29/68;

‘Sept. 9

on Joseph Calvin Rardin, Thomas David, .on yet

August 30, 1968, and Jimmy G. Hendrickson,

Dan Long, on 9/5/68, and subpoenas returned. . .

- unexecuted on Wm.-M. McCandless, Paul Porter

and Peter T. Schoemann, subpoenas executed on:

Georgé ‘T. Kelley, 9/4/68 and J ames A.. Sassa,

KE. W. Stearns, and Richard Van Blon on 8/29/68.

continued:

The defendant’s situa jary and alternate ju-

rors heretofore empaneled and sworn en trial |"

being present jntroduction of evidence on ‘be- . Z

half of the plaintiff on sia is‘resumed but not

3 Sept. 10 10

Sept. 11

pte

‘eoncluded; further siienilings postponed ‘until

tomorrow at 9:00 A.M.

The defendants ‘attorneys, jury and slteviinte

jurors heretofore sworn being present introduc- ,.

tion of evidence i in chief on behalf of the’ plain- 7

tiff on trial is. resumed but not concluded; fur-

ther proceedings postponed unt tomorrow at

9:00 AM. ©

Marshal’ S- ‘return filed; rabpoeia executed on

Kenneth Worland on -8/28/68; on Angelo G:

; Geocaris on 8/29/68, George J. Laird, ‘Molly. |

Massi, Geo, James Laird on 8/30/68, Oran John

Feidler on 8/31/68, Wayne F. Hobbs 9/1/68, on

| «John W- Schuler on 9/3/68, * George H. Charno

on ‘9/3/68, John Crisan, Sr., on 9/4/68; Jim - -

Skaggs, Edward Merrigan, John J. Whalen, on»

9/5/68; N ofman Baker and Peter T. Schoene-.

_ mann on 9/6/68, Richard Maguire and Mrs. -

. Sept. 11

Chester ‘W2Sarff on. 9/7/68.

“Jury trial resumed; plaintiff g ‘idan saciid

and concluded. | Separate motions of defendants

Callanan, Seaton, Law and Pipefitter Local Un- -

~~ jon: No. 562 for judgment of acquittal filed at

close of plaintiff’s case presented and overruled.

Further. -proceedings on trial a Aage until to-

‘morrow at 9:00 A.M. ;

Jury, trial resumed; evidence on behalf ‘of. de-:

fendants. commenced. Further proceedings Post

poned ‘until tomorrow at 9:00 A.M.

' MarsMal’s ‘returns filed; subpoenas executed « on

John B.: Seeck and Vincent J. Politio 9/8/68;

Edw. McReake and Clark Matthews on. 9/6/68;

John P. OWaughlin, and Gene Puhl on 9/7/68;

and Frank S on 9 1/68; ‘Thomas me

_ : Pipefitters, ’ ete., Callanan, Lawler and Seaton’ |

95 oe

Geo. Suatanly: tad Walter : E. Detrich ‘ on 9/9/68;

Edward Langendorf could not be found’ and re-

turn unexecuted on Melton D. Harmon on: in- -

. structions of U.S. Attorney. ae

J uRy: trial resumed. ‘Defendants’ -evidence re-

sumed but-not concluded and. trial Gntinued to. | :

Sept. 16, 1968, at 9:00 A.M.

J ury trial resumed. “Defendants? duilenbe re-. . |

sumed but not concluded and further proceed- :

ings on trial pees until re at 9 200 ots

A.M.

J ury ‘trial. -oicaettail “Pimecieatas eileen re- “4

sumed and concluded. Motions of defendants

for judgment of acquittal at close of all the evi-

dence filed, submitted and denied. Further pro-

$ aoe postponed until tomorrow at as :00

A.M,"

Marshal’s return. filed; eubpoena aiieill on Sal.

a | Catale on 1 9/9/68. -

7 Sept. 1 19

1 “J ury trial resumed.’ After aneumeisis of counsel

and charge by the Court, the jury retires to

consider. its verdict pata jurors Richard

E. Nolle and . Dwi Rodda are excused from

further consideration of this case; thereafter, ;

the jury not having ‘reached a verdict at the —

hour of 11:15 P.M., it is impounded by the Court

to the- custody of: Desias Caldwell, U.S; ‘Marshal _ -

and Charles Lovell, Court Bailiff and said par-

aties, take the prescribed oath to keep said\ jury

in charge.

es ; P:)

Again come parties, counsel and jury empeneled | |

and sworn on trial of cause; whereupon the jury. _~

-Tetires to further deliberate = its verdict ;

\- :

«He

tse 10 — oe

thereafter, the jury returns pene Court i its ver-

No. 562, Lawrence L. Callanan, John L. Lawler,

THE INDICTMENT, and further finding a wrll-

ful violation of Sec. 610 T. 18 USC was not

“contemplated.

- On motion of defendante jury is catia and the

-members thereof individually as called acknowl-.

- edge said verdict as their. true verdict and.find-

ing herein. . |

. Verdiét filed. pectin of iiililags detected

‘to September 27, at 9:00 A.M. and. defendants

- gaid date..

“Sept w, Marshal’s, return filed; subpoena unexecuted on .

: _“Ernest i Sieve on advice of U.S. Attorney.

Sept. 25° Marshal’ s returns filed; subpoenas returned uli-

executed on Ben Meloan, Robert Kofron; Camp-

bell Parson, Frank. Barnhardt, Floyd E. Smith, "es

“Clark Walter Wallace b pigs not be found).

fot 27 Defendant Local 562 appears by its ‘attorneys

Jas. F.. Nangle; Murry L. Randall; Norman & ©

_ appears with Murry L. Randall,. his . attorney ;

don, his attorney; and defendant Callanan ap--

_. pears with Richard L. Daly; his attorney, for

imposition of sentences under verdict hereto-

said defendants guilty as charged in thé Indict-

of Sec. 610 T..18. sauces was. not contemplated. .

“dict finding ¢ach of defendants Pipefitters Local ..

and George Seaton GUILTY AS CHARGED IN ,

‘continued on their existing bonds, ‘until afore- i

London and Richard L. Daly ; defendant Lawler -— |

_ defendant Seaton appears with Norman S. -Lon:

fore returned by a jury: finding each @frafore-” |

ment and further finding that a willful violation ge |

‘olin of dotondant Loeal 56

: ans, i og ae “ 2

562 sani at a

fine of $5,000 collectible on an

Defendant ‘Lawler sentenced to’ ee,

MENT FOR-ONE (1). and punishment

-- further fixed at a fine of $1, 000,- collectible on

execution ; defendant released on his present-

‘bond pending appeal. oy;

‘Defendant Seaton penjenced to IMPRISON: i

MENT, FOR ONE (1) YEAR, and punishment .

further fixed at a fine of $1,000 collectible on —

- execution; defendant released - -on his | agi

_bond pending appeal.

Defendant Callanan <sineioall to “IMPRISON:

- MENT FOR ONE (1) YEAR, and punishment —

. further fixed at a fine of $1,000, collectible on

execution; defendant released on ‘his _ present

- -Y Sept. 29 .

bond, pending appeal. ‘Regan, ‘J.

: Separate judgments ‘and éocmmnitciantn filed and |

elitered; certified copies: ‘issued to U. S. Marshal.

Notice: of iacual of defendants Pipefitters Local

Union No. 562, Lawrence L. Callanan, John L. -

Lawler and Geo. ‘Seaton, froni judgment . and ©

- ‘sentence imposed upon them this day filda” and

such notice together with docket entries mailed

‘to’ ‘Clerk af USCA. Copy of appeal mailed. to

U. Ss. Attorney a and to the. ‘defendants.

e~y

| Uhitea States of America, ts Q - .

| "Pipettttare Local Union Nb. 562, St.

ada; AFL-CIO, Lawrence L. Calla,

. Seaton,

oo Te om vf

INDIoTment, ©

“Filed j in U. S. Bistriet Court May 9, wos}

a 8

, (Arraignment June 3 Befote District. Jadge 2

John - Regan.)

- United Stain District Court,

Eastern District. of f Missouri.

Plaintiff,

Vv. 7 |

_ Louis, Missouri, Affiliated With | No. ......... _

“the United Association of Journey- :

men and Apprentices _of the’ . ;

Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Indus- | 18 U. S.-C. 371.

try of the United States and Can-’ ..

Violation:.

nan, John L. Lawler, George®| —

" Defendants, 7

The Grand. _ charges:

y= That at all: times hereinafter mentioned defendant

“ Pipefitters Local Union . No. 562, St. Louis, - Missouri,

(hereinafter referred to as Local 562), affiliated with the

United Association .of Journeymen and , Apprentices of

“the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United -

tes. and Canada, AFL-CIO (heremafter referred -to as

i the United Association), was a labor organization within -

_ the meaning of Section 610 of Title 18, United States .

Code, that is to say; an organization in which employees

participated and which existed, in part, for the purpose -

ae - dealing with 1 employers Somocrning grievances, labor

—13— as . oR

; ; ; ae “

dispptes, wages, rates of pay, — of employment, or |.

conditions of work. . . = e or

2. That at all Gage hereinafter ‘Gace J ohn | B

Burke Was an officer of defendant Local 562.

3: That from on of Bout October. 12, 1966, up to and

including the date of the filing, of this indictment, de-

fendant Lawrenee~L. Callanan was an officer of defendant

- Loeal 562.

4. That ‘at all. times bersitiatter mentioned defendant

-John L. Lawler was an Officer of. defendant Local 562.

5, That at all. times hereinafter ‘mentioned, defendant’ .

George Seaton was an officer of defendant Local 562.

_ 6. That at all times hereinafter mentioned Edward J.

Steska was an officer. of defendant Local 562.

’ 7. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the Pibe-/

fitters Voluntary, Political, Educational, Legislative, Char- .. °

ity and Tefense ‘Fund (hereinafter the Fund), was a

fund of defendant ‘Local 562; established, maintained, and

administered by officers, employees, members, agents, fore-.

men and job: stewards: of defendant. Local 562, to effect.

a regular and systematic collection, receipt, and expendi-

‘ture of moneys obtained from’ working members of de-

fendant Local 562 and from working members of other

labor organizations employed. under the jurisdiction of ~

defendant Local 562. :

8. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the term .

1964 General Election refers to the general election held.

in 1964 pursuant to the laws of the United States and

of the-several states at which, among othets, Presidential

and Vice Presidentia] electors, United States Senators

and Representatives to Congress were voted. for, and the

term 1966 General Election refers to the general election’

held in 1966 pursuant to the laws of the United States

-and-of the — states at which, among — United

| —

States Senators ' and, Representatives i Congress ‘were / .

voted for, gl:

9. That from in or about. 1963 and-continuously there-

after up to and including the date of the filing of this”

indictment, in the Oity of St. Louis, in the Eastern’ Dis- . -

‘trict of Missouri and | ‘elsewhere, Local 562, Lawrence

L. Callanan, John L. Lawler and George’ Seaton, the de-

fendants herein, ‘and John-F. Burke and Edward J.—

Steska, named herein as co-conspirators. but not as de-*

' fendants, unlawfully, wilfully and knowingly did conspire

and agree. with each other and with divers other persons |

to the. grand: ‘jurors unknown, to ‘violate Section 610 of

Title 18, United States Code in that they did unlawfully,

wilfuily, and knowingly conspire and agree to have Local -

562 make contributions and expenditures in connection —

with elections at which Presidential and: Vice Presidential

electors or United States Senators and Representatives

.to Congress ‘were to be voted for, and to wilfully consent

to the making’ of such contributions and » expenditures

by Local 562,

10. It was a part of said conspiracy that the defendants

and co-conspirators would establish and maintain a special

fund entitled **Pipefitters Voluntary . Political,” Educa-.

‘tional, Legislative, Charity and Defense Fund,’ which .

fund. would have the appearance of being a wholly. inde- .

- pendent entity, separate and apart from Local’ 0623. and

‘that. the defendants and co-conspirators would thereby

conceal the fact that Local 562 would make contributions °

_ and expenditures. in connection with elections at which

‘Presidential and Vice Presidential electors or United

States Senators and Representatives to > Congrées were to

be voted for.

11. It was further a part of the sbasuieaey, that de-.

-_fendant John L. Lawler would be Director of ‘the Fund

and that at a certain time he would be succeeded as Di-

Boiss 0.

Bx *

Rabi OF se

fendants John L. Lawler and Lawrence L. Callanan .

not have the books of the‘Fund audited, or afford mem- —

the practice of collecting for political purposes One dat

rector of the Fund. by defendant Lawrence L. Callanan -

and that the Director of the Fund would appear to have

- eontrol and management of the Fund, including the re-

ceipt and disbursement. of money ‘and’ the keeping of its

books. . -

- 12. It was further a part of the conspiracy thay de-

ould.

bers of defendant Local 562 ‘and other pipefitters con-

tributing to the Fund any accounting for the money. on

hand,. paid into: or disbursed from the Fund.

#13. It was further a’ part of .the conspiracy - that the

defendants and co-conspirators, by means of the. creation -

and operation of the Fund; would continue in new form

lar ($1.00) per day worked from members of defendant

Local 562 and Two Dollars ($2.00) per day worked from

non-member’ pipefitters employed on jobs within the juris-_

diction’ ‘of defendant. Local 562.

14. It was further a part of the conspiracy that the |

defendants and co-conspirators would waive and fail to

enforce Section 180 of the Cofstitution of the United

Z Association ’ in order to facilitate the payment of monies

into the Fund; by failing to collect from non-members

of Local’ 562, working under its jurisdiction, a required

travel card fee of not in excess of Eight Dollars ($8.00)

per ‘month, and in lieu thereof, collecting payments to

the Fund at the rate-of Two Dollars ($2.00) per eight-

hour ‘working day frgm guch non- ‘members.

15. It was further a part of the conspiracy that - the

defendants and co-conspirators -would cause general fore- _

men, area foremen,: job stewards, officers, agents, em-

ployees and other: members of Local 562 acting in a

supervisory capacity over members: and pipefitters. work- .

dal ia ath natal

Be is Silage ta sna

eee

_ ing on jobs under the jurisdiction of Local 562, to become

agents of the Fund in order to facilitate the collection |

of monies for the Fund on a regular basis on job sites

and at the headquarters of Local 562, 1242 Pierce Avenue, .

St. Louis, Missouri. |

16. It. was further a part of the. sconpiiny: that the

defendants and co-conspirators, in order to facilitate an:

orderly, regular and systematic collection of contributions.

to the Fund, would cause the agents of the Fund,: re--"

ferred to in paragraph 15 of-this Indictment to. distribute

to the pipefitters working ‘at all job sites contribution |

agreement cards ‘to be signed ‘by such pipefitters, and

‘to distribute to: foremen and job stewards at. such job .

sites printed ‘collection sheets for’ the Fund upon which

to record the number of hours worked by such. Pipefitters

. and the amount of the contributions -paid by each into |

_ the Fund; and that such foremen or job stewards would

advise newly: employed pipefitters at such job sites of |

the existence of the Fund and of. the rates of’ participa-

' tion, that is, for-members of Local 562, One Dollar: ($1.00)

per eight hours worked; and after January 1, 1965, Fifty

. Cents ($.50) per eight hours. worked, and for members

of other pipefitter locals Two Dollars. ($2. 00) -per eight

hours worked. -

' 17. It was further a out of the conspiracy that’ de

, fendant Local 562 would make substantial. contributions

in connection with. the 1964 General Election and the.

‘1966 General Election and that defendants Lawrence L.

Callanan and John L. Lawler would onsent to such, con-

tributions by issuing checks drawn upon the account of

the Fund in the approximate total amount of One Hun- »

dred Fifty Thousand Dollars: ($150 000).

18. In pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy and to-.

_ effect the objects thereof, the defendants performed the

following | and other overt acts. — ?

SS Se Aaa ag OG BR See NINE IE

bi ans wise is

SANE ROS RNS oad A KY AE og ™

- Overt Acts

1. On, or about January 8, 1963, defendant John L.

. Lawler catised an order to be. placed with the Marvel

_ Printing Company, 912 North 7th Street, St. Louis, Mis-

- souri, calling for the production of 2500 Voluntary :Fund

Agreement, Cards..

2..On or about. Jentery 15, 1963, ‘defendant ohn L.

Lawler caused. a checking account to be opened in the

_. name of the ‘‘Pipefitters Voluntary Political, Educational,

Legislative, Charity and Defense Fund’’ at the: State ~

Bank and Trust Company of Wellston in St. Louis, Mis-

souri. . : e

3. On or about January 22, 1963, defendant Teores

. Seaton received the production order referred to in overt

act No. 1.

4. On or about Taare 22, - 1963, dcterdiant John ‘L.

Lawler caused check No. 105 to be issued on the account

_of.the Fund in the amount of Forty Dollars Eighty Cents

($40.80), payable to the order of the Marvel Printing —

Company. . ta "4

- 5. On: or about February 13, 1963, co-conspirators Ed-

- ward J. Steska and John F. Burke met with members of

defendant Local 562 in St. Louis, Missouri.

6. On or about J anuary 30, 1963, defendant J ohn L.

Lawler caused .an order to be placed. with the Marvel

Printing Company, 912 North 7th Street, St. Louis, Mis- -

souri, calling for the production of, 25 books of een |

Report’’ collection sheets. ,

7. On or about. February 2, 1963, defendant john L:

Lawler caused check No. 120 to be issued on the account

of the Fund in the amount: of. Forty- eight Dollars Ninety-

six Cents ($48.96) - payable to the order of the Marvel

Printing Company, 912 North. 7th Street, St. Louis, Mis-

_ souri,

(—18—

8. On or shout January ‘298, 1964, “defendant John L.

. Lawler caused a checking account to be opened in the

_. name of the ‘‘Pipefitters Voluntary Political, Educational,

Législative, Charity and-Defense Fund”’ at the ‘City Bank, ©

4981 West Pine, St. Louis, Missouri. .

we De On oF Gbout January 28, 1964, “defendant John L.

Lawler. deposited Fifty-eight Thousand Eight. Hundred

Eighty-seven Dollars Eighteen Cents ($58,887. is) in the

| account of the Fund mentioned in overt act. No. 8. |

10. On or about ‘October 15; 1964, ‘defendant Lawrence

~L. Callanan became Director of the Fund:

11. On or about November 3, 1965, defendants Tawiense a

_L. Callanan, John L. Lawler and George Seaton, and co

_ conspirators John F. Burke and Edward J. et met

at fo42 Pierce Avenue, St. Louis, Missouri. }

12: On or about N ovember 10, 1965, defeniants Law-

. rence L. Callanan, John L. Lawler and George Seaton,

- and co-conspirators John F. Burke and Edward J. Steska

met at 5850 Elizabeth Avenue, St. Louis, Missouri.

13. On or about January 20, 1966,. defendant Lawrence

L. Callanan caused a checking account. to be opened in

~Yife name of the ‘‘Pipefitters Voluntary Political, Educa-

tional, Legislative, Charity and Defense Fund,’’ ‘at the

' Southwest. Bank of-St.. sce: 2301 South Kingshighway,

St. Louis, Missouri.

- 14. On or about August 24, 1966, defendant Lawrence

L. Callanan caused a checking account-to be opened in

the name‘ of the ‘‘Pipefitters Voluntary Political, Educa- -

tional, Legislative, Charity and Defense Fund,” at the |

American National Bank, 6639 South Kingshighway, St.

Louis, Missouri. 7

15. On or about September. 1, 1967, defendant Law-

rence L. Callanan caused a deposit in the amount of One

419 —

Hundred One Thousand. Seventy-seven Dollars ($101, O77); 4

‘to be made to the account mentioned’ in overt act No. 13.

| 16. Oh or about February 21, 1964, defendant John L.

_ Lawler caused to be issued check Né. 370 drawn on the

‘ account of the Fund at the State, Bank ahd Trust Com-:

pany ef-Wellston, St. Louis, Missouri, in’ the amount of

- Five ‘Thousand Dollars ($5,000).

17. On or about May 18, 1964, defendant Soin: L. Law-

ler caused tobe issued check No. 452 drawn on the account

of. the Fund at’ the State Bank and Trust Company of ©

-Wellston, St. Louis, Missouri, in the amount of One Thov-

‘sand Dollars ($1,000).

-18. On or about May 18, 1964, defendant. John L. Law- |

ler caused to be issued check No. 453 drawn on the account ~

of the Fund at the State Bank and Trust. Company of

Wellston, St. Louis, Minsoariy' in the amount of One Thov- .

sand Dollars ($1 000).

19. On or about May 19, 1964, defendant J ohn L. Lawler:

caused to be issued check No. 455 drawn % on the account.

of the Fund at the: State Bank and Trust Company of |

; Wellston, St: Louis, Missouri, in the amount of Five Hun-

dred Dollars ($500). | ,

20. On or about May 19, 1964, defendant John L. Lawler’

caused to ‘be issued check: No. 458 drawn on the account

of the Fund at the State Bank and Trust Company of

- Wellston, St Louis, . Missouri, - in .the amount of One

Thousand Dollars ($1,000).

21: On or about May 25, 1964, defendant: John L. Lawler __

caused to be issued check No. 462 drawn on the. account. -

of the Fund at the State-Bank and Trust Company of

-Wellston, St. Louis, Missouri, in the amount of One Thou-

sand Five Hundred Dollars ($1,500). .

22. On: or about May.25, "1964, Aad ontant J ohn L. Law-

ler caused ‘to be.issued check No. 463 drawn on “the ac.

~ count of the Fund at the State Bank and Trust Company

—20——.

“>

of Wellston, St. Louis, Missouri, in the amount ef One. ’

_ Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($1,500).

23. On or about May 25 1964, defendant John L. ‘Law ler

caused to be issued check No. 464 drawn on the accouni

of the Fund at the State Bank .and Trust Company _ of

~ Wellston, St. Louis, Missouri, in the amount of f One Hun-

- dred Dollars ($100). : te

24. On or about May 95," 1964, ‘defendant John L.

_Lawilér“caused to be issued check No. 465 drawn on the

account of the Fund at the State Bank and Trust Company

of. Wellston, St. Louis, _ Missouri, in the amount of . One s

Thousand Dollars. ($1 000).

25. On or about; August 18, :1964,. defendant John L.

Lawler caused td “be issued check No. 603 drawn on the ~

account of the Fund at the State Bank and Trust Company: °

of Wellston, \St. Louis; Missouri, in the amount of One

- Hundred. Dollars’ ($100). ‘2

-26. On or about. September 29, 1964, defendant John L.

unt of the Fund_at.the State Bank and Trust Company

of €liston, St. Louis, Missouri in the amount of Two.

_ Thousand Dollars ($2,000).

- 27. On or about ekeaber 29, 1964, defendant John L.

Lawier caused to be issued check No. 681 drawn on the

account of the Fund at.the State Bank and Trust Company

of Wellston, St. Louis, Missouri, in the amount of One 7

EE Dollars ($1 000).

28. On or. about October 8, 1964, 4 dete Tan L.

_ Lawler taused to _be- issued check No. 688. drawn on. ithe

account of the Fund at the State Bank and ry

of Weliston, St. Louis, Missouri, in the amo 0 aa

‘Thousand Dollars. ($2,000).

~ 29. On or about October 13, 1964, defendant John L.

Lawler. caused to be issued check No. 6o4 drawn on the’

“+ sat

well waved

BNaeee eT cue Shab Peat COR ae Bred aie: 3

ee RE RE

- Lawler caused to be issued check No. 680 drawn on the a

US A ERD Tor ate aCe Te eR ER Sadie honk

account of the Fund at the State Bank and Trust Geawiaiy

of Wellston, St. Louis, Missouri, - in the amount of: One

Thousand Dollars ($1 000). .

- 30. On or, about October 13, 1964, dcanet John L.

- Lawler caused to be issued check No. 695 drawn on the -.

-account of the Fund at the State’ Bank and Trust Company

of Wellston, “St.. Louis, Missouri, in the amount of One |

Thousand Dollars {$1 000).

81: On or about October 13, 1964, daenicae ¢\Vobn L.

Lawler caused to be issued che@p No. 696 drawn: on the |

account of the Fund at the State Bank and Trust Company ’

of -Wellston, St. Louis, Missouri, A the. amount of One

- Thousand. Dollars ($1,000).

32, On or about October 13, 1964, sl cdendiasle John L. .

: Lawler. caused. to be issued check No.:697 drawn on the

account of tff® Fund at the State Bank and Trust Company |

of Wellston, ‘St. Louis, Missouri, in the amount - Ont

Thousand. Dollars ($1 ,000).

33. On or about Gctchus 16, ‘1964, ‘aetendant John L.

Lawler caused to: -be issued check No. 704 drawn on the

account of ‘the Fund at the State Bank and Trust Company

of Wellston, St. Louis, Missouri, in the amount of One.

Thousand Dollars ($1,000).

34. On or about ‘October 16, 1964, a fadiant John L.

Lawler caused to be issued check No. 705 drawn on the

account of the Fund at the State Bank and Trust Company

of Wellston, St. Louis, Missouri, in the amount: of Two

Thousand Five Hundred DoHlars ($2,500). i

35. On or about October 16, 1964, defendant John L:

Lawler caused to be issued check No. 706 drawn on the

account of the Fund at the State Bank and Trust Company :

of Weliston, St. Louis, Missouri, i in the amount of Twenty-

' five Thousand Dollars - ($25,000).

‘ ff

vote

ots

pis * ; ° eo Set,

4 Re ‘ ieee ° ; -

- ° ' &

me, | ne

: 36. Pay or aol Oatobee: i6, 1964, defendant ike L.

-» Lawler caused to be issued ¢heck Nd. 707 drawn on the.

- account of the Fund at the State Bank and Trust Company —

of Wellston, St. Louis, Missouri, in the ae of Fen

Thousand Dollars ($10, i) ee .

- 37. On or about October 21, 1964, defendant John L.

- Lawler caused to be issued check No. 708 drawn on the’ -

. account of the | Fund at the State | Bank and Trust Company ©

of Wellston, St. Louis, Missouri, in the amiount of Two a

Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2, 500). . aay on

38. On or about October 2. .1964, defendant John ie

Lawler caused to be issued check No. 713 drawn on the

account. of the Fund at the State Bank and Trust Com- |

pany of: Wellston, St. Louis, Missouri, in the amount: of

' Twenty-five ‘Thousand Dollars: ($25,000). °

39. On or about April 8, 1965, ibepdink’ Lawrenge- ti .

- Callanan caused ‘to be issued check No. 272 drawn on the 7

account of the Fund at the City Bank, St. Louis, Missouri, :

in’ the amount of Five Thousand Dollars’ $5, 000).

ie 40. :On or’ ‘about February 22, 1966, defendant Lesions 7 @

: Ik Callanar caused to be issued check No. 647.drawn on

_ the account of the Fund at thé City,Bank, St. Louis, Mis- ©

i souri, in the amount. of One Hu dred Dollars - -($100). :

<& - 41. On or ‘about “March in * defendant Lawrence. L.

‘ Callanan caused to be issued ch ok No. 660 drawn on the

account of the Fund at the City. Bank, St. Louis, Mis- —

- souri, in the amount: of Five’ Thousand Dollars ($5,000).

42. On or about May ’ 5, 1966, defendant ' Lawrence a = @

Callanan caused to be ‘issued chegk No. 727 drawn on the q

account of the Fund at the. City Bank, St.’ ‘Louis, Missouri,

in the yeneent. of One Thousand Dollars ($1 000). :

.43. On or about June 7, 1966, defendant Lawrence L. a 9

’ Callanan caused to o be issued check No. 788 drawn on ‘the eo,

th aiid Rea sae eis My ee

‘ ’ .

d 4

- oe

og ‘

. $ °

; ‘ *. oe : o -

ee ee :

. : sre = 23— oe

secount of the Fund at the City Bank, St. iors, Bisiwii,

ie in the amount ssp ‘Threé Thopsand Dollars. ($3,000).

44,- On or Pm 4 June 23, 1966, defendant Lawrence L.

Callanan caused to be issued check No. 110 drawn on. the

account of , the Fund at the Southwest Bank, St. Louis,

~ Missopri, - in the amount of Five pusnaraaae Dollars .

~ ($5,000). - oP - ;

2 aa On or ‘about Sia 97, 1966, defendaiit canine a...

Callanan. caused ‘to be issued check No. 116 drawn on the

- aecount of the Fund at ‘the Southwest Bank, St. Louis,

‘Missouri, in the. amount of One Thotisand Dollars ($1,000).

gz 46. On or about Taly 29, 1966, defendant Lawrence ‘L..

: -Callanan caused to be issued check No. 278 drawn on the

-. aeeount of the Fund at. the Southwest. Bank, St. Louis,

Missouri, in the amount of One Thousand Dollars. ($1 ,000).

» 47. On'or about August-23, "1966, defendant Lawrence L. .

Callahan caused to be issued check No. 322 drawn.on the

account of the Fund at the Southw est Bank, St. Louis, ne

Missouri, i in the amount of One Thousand Dollars ($1 000). 2

48. On or about September 30; 1966, defendant Lawrence

L. Callanan caused. t6 be issued check No. 215 drawn on

the account of the’ ‘Fund at the American. National "aes

St. “Louis, Missouri, in the amount of One Thousand I

| Hundred Dollars’ ($1, 500). -

49.- On‘ or about ‘September 30, 1966, ‘detonsiak took a“

“Lh Callanan eansed to be issued check No. 216 drawn on «ff

‘the account of the Fund at the American National Bank, ¢ :

pCftCSEW Louis, Missouri, in the amount: of One’ Thousand Dol- |

a ae! ($1,000).

50.. On or about September 30, 1966, “defendant Law rence

a. L, Callanan, caused to be issued check No. 217 drawn on

5 the account ‘of the Fund ‘at the American National Bank, a

‘" §t: Louis, Missouri; in the amount of One Thousand Five —

Hundred Dollars ($1, oe

eee

. . in Z :

51. On or about QOotober 5; 1966, defendant Lawrence’

‘s . L. Callanan caiused to be issued check No. 242 drawn on ©

the account of the Fund at the American National Bank,

St. Louis, Missouri, in the amount of One — Dol- .

lars ($1 ,000).

52.°On or about October 5, "1966: defendant ‘Lawrence L.

Callanan caused to be issued check No. 243° drawn on the.

account of the Fund at the American National Bank, St.

- per aes in the amount of Two Thousand Dollars

BS. On. or ‘about October 5, 1966, defendant ‘Lawrence

, ~L. Callanan caused to be issued: ‘check No. 244 drawn on .

_ 7 the acgount: ‘of the Fund at the American: National Bank,

_ —.. St. Louts, Missouri, in: the amount ‘of Ten Thousand Dol-.

+ lars ($10,000). | rN —

_ . | 54. On or ~ October 6, 1966, defendant : Lawrence lx. *

=. Callanan cau NtO = issued check No. 249 drawn on the - |

“account of the Fund a e American National Bank, St.

Louis, Missouri, in t amount of Two Thousand Dollars _

($2, 000). oy -. % z

~ «SS: On or about October 1966, “‘eiadn pera a:

.. L. Callanan caused’ to be issued“eheck No. 250 drawn on

- the account of the Fund at the American National Bank,

St. Louis, Missouri, in the. amount o

Dollars ($1,000). | | - . Dott |

56. On or about ‘Detober 10, 1966, — i

L. Callanan’ caused to be. issued check No. 262 drawn on ~

the account of the Fund at the American National Bank,

+. §t. Louis, Missouri, in the amount of One Thousand Dol- .,

“are! ($1 000).

Bite: On or about October 19, 1966, defendant Lawrence

mr Callanan caused to be -issued..check No. 286 drawn on

the account of the Fund at the » American National Bank,

; x

_ “aecount of the Fund -at the Southwest Bank, St. Louis,

a5 |

-. §t. Louis, Missouri, i in the emant of One Thousand Dol- .

- ars ($1 000). - :

58. On or nent October 27, 1966, ‘defendggt Lawrence

L. Callanan caused to be issued a check-No. 314 drawn: on

the account of the Fund at the American National Bank,

St. Louis, Missouri, in the amount of One ‘Thousand Five

: Hundred. Dollars ($1,500).

59. On or about October 27, 1966, defendant lawns

L. Callanan caused to be issued check No. 315 Urawn

- on fhe account . of the Fund at the American National

- Bank, Sti: Louis, Missouri, i in the amount of One Thousand ;

Five’ Hundred Dollars ($1,500).

60: On or about October 27, 1966, defendant Lawrence

L. Callanan caused to be issted check: No. 314 drawn on 7

the account of the.Fund at the American Nattonal Bank,

St. Louis, Missouri, in the amount of One ‘Thousand Dol-’

. lars ($1,000).

61. On or about July 14, 1967, defendant ae L.

_Callanan caused to be issued check No. 447-drawn on the -

/ - Missouri, in the amount of ‘Five paongene Dollars ($,- _

(In violation of 18 U. Ss. C. 371)

VERYL L. RIDDLE,

. United States Attorney, .

_ EDGAR N. BROWN, ‘

_. BRIAN O’GCONBOY,, |

Special Attorneys,

Jf Department of Justice.

A True Bill:

ee ee ee ee

' Foreman. s :

een

Sensdtses eabhintat Mame

Cabile vai ‘dicsabyssi Pr eee Z

ee ee eee

s .

—2%62- . ®™

MOTION TO DISMISS THE | INDICTMENT.

(Filed in U. S. District Court July 31, 1968.)

Come the defendants and move the Court for an order

‘dismissing the indictment in the ‘above entitled cause and .

as grounds for said mIODos: defendants respectfully state:

1. The jadiotuent is vague, ambiguous, uncertain, in-

definite, repugnant and duplicitous and does not -consti- |

tute a plain, concise. and definite statement of ‘the es-.

sential facts constituting the alleged offense. charged.

2. The indictment fails adequately to inform the de-

_fendants of thenature of the charges against them, fails .

- to charge facts sufficient to constitute a violation: or of-

fense under the Laws of the United States, and is in vio-

lation of the Sixth Amendment, of the Constitution of the

United States, in that ‘it is insufficient to adequately in-

form the defendants to enable them to prepare their ‘de-.

fense, and to avail them of the defense of prior jeopardy

_if other proceedings are instituted against them. -

3. Section 610, Title 18, U.S. C., as construed and ap-

-plied,: abridges the defendants’ rights, as well as the

rights. of all union members, of freedom of speech,. press *

and assembly and the right’ to petition the -Government

for redress of grievances, in violation of the First and

Fifth Amendments of the Constitution of * me United.

States..

' 4. Section 610, Title 18, U. S. C., as construed and ap-

plied, creates an unlawful and arbitrary - classification in

that it applies only to unions.and corporations, and by .

- prohibiting unions from forming parallel political organi-"

zations denies unions alone the right of group political

~ activity. Consequently, Section 610 as construed and

applied, discriminates against the defendants and all

union members, in violation ‘of the Fifth Amendment of

the. Constitution of the United States. . . a

"5. Section 610, Title 18, U.S. C., as bona tee and apt

_. plied, is arbitrary and capricious and deprives the de-

fendants and all union members of liberty and property

without due process of law, in violation of the Fifth

- Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

«6. Section 610, Title 18, U. S..C., as construed and ap- ~

plied, is vague and indefinite and fails to provide a rea-

sonably ascertainable standard of guilt, in violation of

the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution of

the United States. — _

72Section 610, Title 18, U.S. C., as construed and. ‘ap-

plied, invades the rights of the defendants and all union

members which are protected by the Ninth and Tenth

Amendments to the Constitution .of the United States.

8. Section 610, Title 18, U. S. C., as construed and ap-

plied, unlawfully abridges the rights of defendants and

all union members to choose their Senators: and Repre-

sentatives i in Congress, as guaranteed by Article 1, Section

2, and the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution of ©

‘the United States. . . _

9. Although Paragraph 7 of the’-indietment pallens that

“the Pipefitters Voluntary Political, Educational, Legisla-

tive, Charity and Defense-Fund was a Fund of Local 562,

it does not allege that the contributions or payments .

made to said Fund were not wholly voluntary nor that the

pipefitters who contributed to said Fund did not do so

voluntarily and were. not fully. aware that the money so

contributed would be ‘used for political contributions and

expenditures and the, other non-union purposes‘ of said

Fund. Nowhere in the indictment does the indictment

allege that any of the contributions ‘to said Fund were

involuntary or " that the: pipefitters making such contribu-.

ry se

. members’ of other locals, and did not receive, contr

oa,

tions were unaware that the contributions would be. .ex-

pended for political expenditures and contributions.

' 10. The indictment fails to allege that the contributions

_and payments to the Pipefitters Voluntary. Political, Edu.

cational, Legislative, Charity and ‘Defense Fund were in-

‘voluntary or-that* they were dues, or that the payments

to said Fund were necessary for membership in Local

. 562, or, as.to non-member: pipefitters employed on jobs

-within the jurisdiction of Local 562, required and neces-

sary in order for said pipefitters to be so employed.

11. The gist. of the indictment is to allege that ‘Section

610, United States Code, prohibits labor unions. from

forming parallel political organizations which receive

voluntary contributions from the members of the union

to be contributed: and expended in Federal ‘elections.

| Congress .. intended such. political. organizations. to be

legally authorized. Thus, the indictment fails to staté

an offense; and as so construed and applied,. violates the

provisions of the United States ‘Constitution as set forth

’ herein above.

12. The allegations of the indictment, -on its face, show

no violation of the law, in that such allegations affirma-:

tively show that the expenditurés and contributions were »

made by the Pipefitters Voluntary, Political, Educational,

' . Legislative, Charity and Defense Fund; that-'said Volun-.

tary Fund was a political organization which raised its

funds by direct contribution from individual members, of

Local 562 and by direct contributions from ° indivfnal

ute

or expend any funds of -Local 562, or — other labor

union. ; |

“~

13. The, sharees alleged | in the indictment are barred

by laches.

°14..The indictment should be dismissed for the reason

that the defendants have been. denied an opportunity to

*, 7

’ 5

. =

os? e

ane

defend themselves in that the Government has obtained

*. . and retained their records,-as alleged in Motion for Re- |

_ turn of Records, heretofore filed. ; :

| RICHARD L. DALY, .

| ! North Seventh Street,

St. Louis, Missouri 63101,°

MAin 1-1701,

Attorney for Defendant Callanan.

“MURRY L. RANDALL,

506 Olive,

St. Louis, Missouri 63101,

- MAin 1-1980,

Attorney for Defendant Lawler.

JAMES F: NANGLE, JR...

408 Olive, .

. St. Louis, Missouri. 63102,

- CH 1:6116,

- Attorney - for Defendants - Seaton.

and Local Union No. 562.

MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS.

(Filed in U. S. District Court July 31, -1968.)

In order to peateet the defendants avant a second

prosecution, and to enable them to adequately prepare

their defense and avoid surprise at the trial, the defend-

ants, pursuant to Rule 7 (f), Federal Rules of Criminal’

Progedure, - -move the court .for ‘an order directing the

_-plaintiff to file and serve upon the- defendants the follow-

ing particulars, to wit:

“4. With respect to paragraphs 2 through 5 of the ‘in- |

dictment, state the offices held by the alleged co-conspira-

tor John F. Burke during the times alleged in the indict:

ea. oe

Nance: aati

9 - |

hens peipiae the periad of time that he held sna such

"office. Give the same information with respect to defend-

ant Lawrence L. Callanan, defendant John L. Lawler, | |

defendant George Seaton, and alleged co- >-conspirator Ed- .

- ward J. Steska.

2: With respect to paragiaphs 7, 10 and 17 of the ini.

dictment, state whether. it is the government’s position

- and theory of the case that the mere fact that the Pipe-

fitters Voluntary, Political, Educational, Legislative, Char-

ity and Defense Fund. was established, maintained, and

administered by members, officers, employees, agents, fore-

men and shop stewarts of Local 562 is, in, and of itself,

sufficient to make said Fund, under the law, a Fund of

- Loeal 562. State whether. or not it is the government’ S

position that Section 610, Title 18, U. S. Code, prohibits

the membets,. officers, employees, agents, foremen and

shop stewarts of a union from establishing any political

organization or fund forthe purpose of making: contribu-

tions and expenditures in connection with elections at

which presidential and vice- presidential electors or United

States Senators and Representatives to Congress are to

be voted for.. With further respect to said paragraphs- of

_the indictment, state whether it is the government’s. posi- .

tion and theory of the case that the alleged ‘‘regular and

systematic collection, receipt, and expenditures of money

obtained from working | ‘members of Local 562 and from

working members of other labor organizations employed

under jurisdiction of the defendant Local 562’ were vol-

untary or. involuntary collections and contributions.

3. With respect to paragraph 9 of the indictment, state

whether the defendants and ‘co-conspirators alleged the

conspired to. have Local 562 make contributions’ and ex-

penditures, as alleged therein, from the general funds of.

’ said Local 562° derived from dues and assessments of

members thereof, or whether said defendants, and co- con- .. :

‘spirators — and conspired, as alleged therein, to make

ob)

such contributions and expenditures: from the Pipefitters

Voluntary Political, Educational, Legislative, Charity and -

Defense Fund, as alleged in paragraph 7 of the indictment.

4 With respect to paragraph 10 of the indictment, state

the information requested in paragraph 2 above. Further,

with réspect to paragraph 10 of the indictment, state

whether the alleged defendants and co-conspirators con- '

-cealed the fact that the Pipefitters Voluntary Political, :

Educational, Legislative, Charity and Defense Fund .was

making contributions and expenditures in connection with

‘elections at which’ the presidential and vice- presidential

electors, or United’ States Senators and Repreecaaaven :

to Congress were to be voted for.

5. With respect to paragraph 11 of the indictment,

specify the period of time during which defendant John L.

Lawler was Director of the Fund and-the period of time

during which defendant Lawrence L. Callanan was Di-

rector of the Fund throughout the ‘period referred to in |

the indictment. Further, with respect to said paragraph

11, state the person or persons other than the Director

of the Fund who ouegediy had control and. management

of the Fund. 7 |

6. With respect to patna 12 of the indictment, state’

whether it is the Government’s position or contention that

the defendants John L. Lawler and Lawrence L. Callanan.

or anyone else misapplied or embezzled any of the assets -

of the Fund. Further, with respect to paragraph 12 of |

_ the indictment, state whether the members of said Fund

were aware of the candidate to which the Fund was mak-

ing contributions and expenditures in connection with elec-

tions at which presidential and vice- presidential electors,

or United States. Senate and Representatives sof Congress

-were to be voted for. Further, with respect Yo said para- —

_graph 12 of the indictment, state whether or not said.

‘expenditures and contributions | were made in accordance

with the wishes of the members of said Fund, or whether

such contributions and expenditures were made against

the wishes of the members of said Fund.

7. With respect to paragraph 13 of the indictment, state.

whether the collections ‘‘for political purposes”’ referred -

to in said paragraph, from members of the Fund, were.

' - Made voluntarily or involuntarily. Further, with respect

_. to said paragraph, state whether the members of said Fund

were aware that the collections referred to therein were

to be used and were used for political purposes. |

8. With respect to: paragraph 14 of the indictment, state °

whether the provisions of: Section 180 of the Constitution

of the United Association for the collection of a travel

. ecard fee were unlawful under the laws of the United States.

9. With respect to paragraphs 15 and 16 of the indiet-:

| ment, state whethér the ‘‘agents of the Fund’’, referred:

therein, were als6, members of the Fund. ”

—

10. With respect to paragraph 17 of the indictment, J

., State the information. which was requested herein. above

in paragraph 2. =

11. With respect to overt Acts, Nos. 1. and 6, state -

‘whether or not the orders referred to therein were made

for the Fund or for Local 562. ae _

12. With respect to overt Acts Nos. 2, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15,

state whether. the monies deposited in the bank accounts

_ Fund_or of Local 562: es _

referred to in each such overt Act were monies of the

13. With respect to overt’ Act No. 5, state whether the

. meeting referred to therein was a meeting of the members

. of the Fund or. of the members ,of Local 562.

14. With respect to each of overt Acts Nos. 16 through

_ 61, both inclusive, state whether the monies in the account _

+ Ras

~ icgciine eis 4

sy Sain

of the Fund referred to in ore of said overt Acts were >

the monies of the Fund or the monies of Local 562. Fur-

ther, with respect to each of, said overt. Acts, state whether

said: monies so expended by each of said checks came

from the general dues arid assessments of the members of

Local 562 er came from voluntary, contributions and: collec-

a tions from the members of the Fund.

«1. State whether: the Government ialoaaia) to rely .on.

any overt Acts not specifically. so alleged in the =e

If so, set forth such additional overt Acts, |

Respectfully submitted,

RICHARD L. DALY,

‘7 North Seventh Street, |

St. Louis, Missouri 63101,

, MAin 1-1701,

-. Attorney for Defendant .Callanan.

~ MURRY L. RANDALL,

806 Olive,

St. Louis, | Missouri 63101,

MAin™ 1-1980,

Attorney, for Defendant ‘Lawler.

JAMES F. NANGLE, mR,,

408.Olive,'°

St. Louis, Missouri 63102,

CH. 1-6116, ~

—- Attorney for Defendants Seaton and -

Loeal Varo No. 562.

an hs,

J OINT MEMORANDUM OF DEFENDANTS IN

. SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTIONS ~~

TO DISMISS. .

(Filed i in U. 8. District Court August 5, , 1968.)

The indictment fails to state an offense dader the laws -

of the United States. paw

The indictment in one ’ count charges a conspiracy to

J violate Section 610, Title 18, United States — Section

, 610 provides in ‘pertinent part:

It is unlawful for * * * any labor organi ization’ to

make a contribution or expenditure in conne¥tion with

_ any (Federal) election * * * or for any candidate,

‘\\ political committee, or’ other person to accept or re-

— any ene prohibited by this sect on.

means\ any. organization of any kind, or any agency

which employees participate and which exist for the

‘ purpose, in\ whole . or in part, of. dealing with em-

rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of

work. — :

} . . ~~ :

Tt,

The statute also makes it” unlawfal for any shine of

‘tribution or expenditure by such labor ‘organization.

The history of Section 610° follows. In 1907 Cioran

outlawed political contributions » ‘by corporations (34 Stat.

or employee. representation committee or plan, ii

' any such labor organization to consent to any such con-

For\the purposes of this section “labor taiglicienticn?” :

~ployers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages,

; i

864). In 1925, this provision was. incorporated ‘in the Cor- :

, rant 4 Practices Act, where it was eens, oe the ;

—%3— 0 7.

making of the receipt of such contributions . an offanse °

(43 Stat. 1070). During World War ‘Il, in 1943, its pro-.

visions-were extended for the ‘duration of the War, by the

- §mith-Connally “Act, to labor unions (57 Stat. 167), be-

‘cause it was felt ‘‘that it was‘ unfair to individual union |

members to permit the union leadership to make contri- —

‘butions from general union funds to a political party

which the individual member might oppose.’’ (Emphasis

added.) (U. S. v. CIO, 335 U. S. 106, 115, 68 S. Ct. 1349,

. and Congressional history there cited.) In 1947, by the .

Taft-Hartley Act, its. provisions were permanently ex- —

tended to labor unions, and. the statute was also extended

_fo cover expenditures in, ednnection: with Federal elections.

At this time, questions were raised in the Senate in con- |

nection with the Conference Report as to what) ‘constituted

a contribution or expenditure by a labor organization.

This legislative history of the: statute has been \ \rélied on

heavily by the Courts in interpreting Section %10. See

United States v. Congress of Industrial Organizations

- etal, 335 U.S. 106, 68 S. Ct. 1349; United States v. Inter- _-

national Union United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricul--.

tural* Workers of America (UAW-CIO), 352 U. S. 567, 77

.§. Ct. 529. See also 46 Marquette L. Rev. 364: ne); 40°

Texas L. Rev. 665 (1952).

This legislative history clearly establishes that labor’:

unions can create political: organizations which can make ©

political contributions and expenditures, provided the con- ~

tributions are made by the members of the union. directly

to the political organization, and are not ge

the union itself. At that time the Politi

mittee of the .CIO- was already in oY ation.

Following are excerpts from. the Pendscebiunnl Record -

of: June 5, 1947, of: ‘the Serlate Debates on the —— |

Report of the Taft-Hartley Act: °

‘““Mr. Taft: * * * Such an sanitation, (National Asso-..

ciation of Manufacturers) could receive ‘money: by _

’ *

dues of ~~

al Action: Com- ae?

: ’ fe cs 36 - ail .

us sdiret Yate from individual aie fast as

ioe the CIOMPAC can properly operate as a political or-

. Banizatio raising its funds from individual inem-

- oy . *Associatio could: do the same thing. But no. COrpo-

\ ead

a. Pact (98) Cong. Rec. 6438). (Emphasts added. )

pe AR ad Are te ele * ° te

re A SE Mir Taft t:: * ee _AS to the association: itself, it: seems

| __. to. me% he conditions are ‘exactly parallel, both as to

ge . _ corporations, and labor ‘organizations, Such’ an asso-

en an éleetipi would violate. the law,-in my .opimion, ex- .

pet aati as’ the PAC, “if it got its fund from labor unions,

°° * teonld:-violate . the law: If the labor people’ should

-. desire to’set up ‘a political organization and: obtain

‘direct’ contributions for it, there would be nothing.

" sinlawful . ‘in’ that: “If the : - National’ \Association of

- Manufacturers, we >will say,’ wanted - -to obtain’ ‘indi-

~ vidual | contribiitiéns for. a’ series. of advertisenients,

and if it, itself, were- not a corporation, then, just as

%. =

“A ; “% o 8°

ae . ae rete eis en seisvnbaa ass i

~ a fy rr 2 aparesastigehit : sh eaeiedladeaa xn oh? a 7 N ’

os : "x

. ‘ .

an ew ee oo

oa a. “a political campaign.” ‘But. the ‘prohibition is. against .

SS eee ‘a labor organization ‘or a corporation participating ,

. “in an election either by a coritribution to somebody

3 : has been- understdod: to be the law: of corporations for

: “ander. the terms. of. the | ‘Smith- -Connally-. ‘Act, no one

ey See stipposed that corporations could make ditect' expen- -

= on ‘ditures, ‘without it being considered a “-eontributidn:

- But after ‘the: labor organizations were. included, that. ~

- .“* . question was raised. -In order that .it might be finally ~

ae “resolved i in ‘this bill,. we make it perfectly. clear that

it. oovers ‘either a contribution to somebody else or an

’ ee

bers). ‘In the same. way, : the National Manufacturers i

ration could contribute. to _ National Manufacturers Pa

ciation rétéiving: corporate funds and using ‘them’ in”

3 oh in ‘the case of, ‘PAC, tt could take an active part in. ~

else or by direct expenditure of its own. funds. That .

‘many years, and until labor. organizations were placed |. y

e .

—37—

expenditure of oné Ss own: funds for: the same purpose,

in connection with an election’? (93 Cong. Ree. $459).

== added.) ~ ;

eee ee we

| *\..- -$¢Mr. Maganun: Mr, President, if the Seaabee will

yield, let me ask him another, question. All the funds

of. labor -unions: come from dues paid by their mem-

. bers. All the activities of the unions are based upon

. expenditure of funds provided. by dues. That money

is-in the union’s treasury. If the pending bill should

_become law it would mean that all labor organs which

are. now in: existence would, from. now on, be pro-

hibited, from participating in a campaign,” favoring

a candidate, mentioning his name, or endorsing him

for public office! asks @", <=“

“Mr. Taft: No, I do not think * means that. The 7

‘unfén can‘ issue a newspaper,. and can charge the

members for thé newspaper, that ‘is, the members who, |

buy, copies of. the newspaper, and the union could put »

a such. matters in the newspaper if it, wants. to. . The

unidén can separate the payment of .dues from the’

*- payment for a newspaper if its.members are willing -

to do so, ‘that is, if the members are willing to. sub-

scribe to that kind of a newspaper. I presume, the

‘members’ would be willing to do so. A union can.

-publish such. a newspaper,” or unions can do as was

done last year, organize. something like the. PAC, a.

‘political organization, and: receive direct contribu-

_tions, just so long as the mémbers of the union know

“what they are contributing to, and the dues which

“they pay into. the union treasury are not used for.

such a purpose.

Mr. Magnuson: I think all - union members on

that a part of their dues in these cases } BO for the

‘Publication of some labor organ.

“Mr, Taft: Yes. ‘How fair is it? We will assume that.

60 percent of a union’s employees are for a Republi-

- can candidate and 40 percent dre for a Democratic

candidate. Does the Senator think the union’s mem-

bers should be forced to contribute, without being

asked to do so specifically, and. without having a

right to withdraw their payments to the election of

; someone whom they do not favor? Assume the paper

favors a Democratic candidate whom they oppose or -

a Republican . candidate whoin they oppose. Why

should they be forced to contribute | money for the -

election of someone to whose election they are op-

posed? If they are asked to contribute directly to tlic ©

support of a newspaper or to the support of a labor-

political organization, they know what their money is

to be used for and presumably. approve it. From

such contribution, the organization can spend all the:

| money it wants to with respect to such matters. : But

‘the prohibition is against labor unions using their

‘members’ dues for. political purposes, *.* * and per- ©

haps in violation. of the wishes of many of its (mem-

. bers)”” a Cong. Rec. 6440). (Emphasis added.)

F e 2 # # # # \

_ .

; Mr. Wabsonon: Would the Anti- Saloon League, for

j example, be prohibited, from i =e ol againat »

or: political candidate?

‘sMr, Taft: As I understand, the league Sond! prob-

ably receive coritributions from individuals, and it

would be like the PAC or any other organization -

~-. which was organized f for — ie cee (93 oe

Rec. 6440).

—38— :

Lo: elle tas eet Beals Hts ad si Cae ly saiggyaiialae eae ait cite

. . @ ~

. :

° .

o ° . ° e

The: judicial decisions have carefully salewuaied this

intent of Congress to permit labor unions and labor people

.to set up political organizations with direct ‘contributions

to it for political expenditures or contributions. |

The next year, in United States v. CIO, 335 U. S. 106,

110 (1948), the indictment alleged that the CIO News was

published by expenditures ‘‘from the funds of the said de-

-fendant GIO,’’ which news had contained a statement by

Phillip Murray, President of the CIO, urging the election.

of Judge Ed Garmatz to the House of Representatives.

The indictment also alleged. that defendant -Murray

“caused the funds of the said defendant CIO to be ex-

pended’’ for said purpose (Note 3, p..110). The United

‘States Supreme Court held that the indictment failed to*

—_ 39 —

allege an offense, for one reason that it did. not directly:

“allege the source of the CIO funds’’ (p. 111), stating that

‘“‘The funds*used may have been obtained from subscrip-

tions of its readers or from portions of CIO membership

_ dues, directly allocated by the members to pay. for thé

. ‘News’-or from other general or special receipts’’ (335

U. S. at 111).' As previously stated, the court. noted ‘that

the legislative history indicated ‘‘that it was unfair to in-

dividual union members to permit the union’ leadership to

make contributions from general union funds to a political

party which the individual-member-might oppose’’ (at p.

115) (Emphasis added). The majority quoted at length

7 jie Senator Taft’s remarks, including the statement that

‘unions can do as was done last year, organize something

' * like the PAC, a political organization, and receive direct’.

contributions, just so long as members of the union know

what .they are contributing to, and the dues which they

pay into the union treasury are not used for such pur-

‘poses’? (335 U. S. at 119). The Court also noted that

‘Senator Taft stated on the Seriate floor that funds volun-.

iarily contributed for election | purposes might. be used-

~ without violating the section’? (at p. 123). The four jus-

tices’ coneurring opinion, who thought. the statute to be

unconstitutional, stated “that in making his responses to

“1 dn addition, this. expenditure 1 was held not to. be an ‘ex-

——- within the meaning of that word ineSection - 610.

PO ehh erlived tieiew °

he RE BI tends HOt cate A ah

“the numerous and varied inquiries (Senator Taft) tested

_ coverage invariably or nearly so by applying * * **the

source of the funds: received and expended * * *.”? It was. -

Senator Taft’s ‘‘view that the primary purpose of the

_ amendment was -‘mimority protection’, the line drawn .by

_ the section was between expenditure of funds received by.

the unign expressly for (political) purpose * * * and, on’

the other hand, expending funds not so limited by the per-

‘son or source supplying’ them’’ (335 U. 8S. at 137). See

further discussion of ‘‘minority protection’’ and ‘source |.

_ Of the funds used’’ at 335. S.. at: 146- 148.

On muthenity of this case, the’ present indictment does .

not allege an offensé. As noted, the indictment in the CIO

case alleged that the expenditure came ‘‘from the funds

of the defendant CIO’. This was held to be insufficient.

There must be an allegation that the expenditure ‘came

‘from general dues of the union. ‘The teachings € the CIO -

case have been incorporated in all indictments involving

labor ‘urtions and: labor leaders (save the instant one)-

‘which have been returned with respect to Section 610,

_ either for substantive offenses or conspiracy. Each count

of the indictment in United States v. Warehouse. and Dis-_—.

tribution Workers Union Local 688, et al., No. 60. CR 42,

' (1) and No. 60 CR‘189.(1), Consolidated, Eastern District

of Missouri, contained the allegation that the ‘‘contribu-

tion was derived substantially or entirely from the dues .

payments’’.

The pertinent allegations of the indictment in United |

States v. Automobile Workers (NAW-CIO), supra, 352

U. S. 567 (1957) which was held sufficient, read: as fol-

lows:? ;

2 See 352 U. S. at-584; “It: was further charged ‘that the.

fund’ used came from the union's dues, was not obtained by

voluntary Political contributions or subscriptions from mémbers

of. the union.’

——41—.- ,

‘Phat said expenditure of money mentioned in Para- |

‘graph 3-of this Count was from money taken opt of

the general fund of defendant and not from any other

" ‘source; that said general fund consisted. of union dues

and affiliated with defendant; that said expenditure

» was not made from voluntary political contributions,

or from subscriptions of employee members belong-

ture for telecasts mentioned in Paragraph 3 of this

Count Was not paid for by advertising or sales, but —

was paid. from defendant’s general fund, which con-

sisted of dues paid by defendant’s dues-paying mem-

bers, which fund was a fund separate and distinct

from any fund established: by voluntary entanyn

specifically ear- marked for political purposes.’

Thus, so the Supreme Court - vuled, ‘the igditmeat

charged’ appellee with having used union dues to. sponsor

commercial television broadcasts designed to influence the

electorate to select candidates for Congress in connection

with the 1954 elections’”’ (352 U.-S. at 585).

In United States v. Painters Local Union No. ‘481, 2 Cir., |

172 F: 2d 854, reversing 79 F. Supp. 516 (1949), ‘‘The

‘funds were derived from the general: treasury of the -de-

fendant Union; the general treasury, in turn, was derived

from dues and fees paid by members of the Union. * * *

(N)o portion of the dues and fees was allocated for any

particular account or ot of the Union” (172 F. 2d

at 855) (Emphasis added).

“Ti United States v. Lewis Food Company, Inc., 9 Cir. *

366 F. 2d 710 (1966) an indictment of a corporation, the

indictment omitted to allegé that the Corporation made

- ‘the political expenditure” from general corporate funds.

The Government, however, conceded that it was necessary

paid by members of the local unions belonging to .

ing to and affiliated with defendant, and said expendi- —

an —

SF Re Oy eR RR TUS te ne tay ’

. + ba

: aa

PRN EPR

iio esses cninibisinad

my ‘

nalethpllngntiasante hy ea

P ‘ Bish so be

§ pee Palas ae >

Adina abe. Poste iiebrhlaodarbe spon Gi sees

a |

—422—

: to prove that the expenditure came from general corporate

- furids. 366 F.2d at 713.-With this concession, the Court

held the indictment to be sufficient and-that the allegation

that the ‘Corporation made the expenditure inferred ‘that -

general corporate funds were used.’’ The Court further

stated that, ‘‘It is even questionable whether expenditures

“from such independent sources (funds contributed by

stockholders or otherwise obtained) would be corporate —

expenditures at all” (366 F. 2d at a)

The instant fudictinent: Serpe a ‘more serious defect

than the CIO indictment. It simply alleges that the Pipe-

_. fitters ‘Voluntary, Political, -ete., Fund ‘‘was a fund. of:

defendant Logal 562’’ Perecrach 7). But ‘it. affirmatively

alleges that the Voluntary Fund was a “special fund’’

which had ‘the. appearance of being a wholly independent.

‘ entity”’ (Paragraph 10). ‘See also Paragraph 16. No-

‘ where does‘the indictment allege that the funds expended .

or contributed come from «eneral dues. Further, a reading

of the indretment as a whole shows that the. funds ex-

pended did not come from union. dues, but w ere collected

separate and apart from the dues’ structure of the Local

(See Paragraphs 7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16). Although - the in- ©

dictrhent alleges that there were regular collections of the

contributions to the Voluntary Fund, it does not allege

* . that the pay ments were inv oluntary nor that the eontribu-

- tors did not know that their contributions were to’ be

‘used for political purposes. Indeed, the indictment _Tecog- |

nizes that the collections. for the Fund were made “for

political purposes’’ ( Paragraph 13). This indictment may

fairly, be construed, we submit, as alleging that it is a

violation of Section 610 fer officers, agents and members

of a union to also act as officers, agents and members of |

- a paraHel political organization in the obtaining and ex-

. pending of direct voluntary‘contributions-for political pur-*.

- poses. There i is nothing in “the legislative history, judicial .

43 — |

decisions or language of the statute to. support . such a

construction. 3 :

Indeed, ‘the: judicial decisions have limited : the. scope -

of Section 610 far more narrowly than that sought to be

applied here. Thus, in’ the: CIO case, the indictment was |

-not only found to. have failed to allege that the money

came from genera dues, but also the majerity, in avoid-

ing the constitutional issue, interpreted the word ‘ex-

penditure”’ in a very limited manner. By a similar. nar- °

yow interpretation of the word ‘“‘expenditure”’, the Second .

Circuit avoided’ the Constitutional issue in the Painters.

_ease. In United States v. Anchorage Central Labor Coun-

- cil, 193 F. Supp. 504 (D. Alaska, 1961), the Court found

contributions by labor unions to a labor gouncil for politi-

eal broadcasts to. have been voluntary, and not proscribed

by Section 610, even though the ultimate source of the

money: for the ‘political expenditure may have been mem-

\ bers’ dues. See also the comments in 46 Marquette L. Rev.

"364 (1963)-and 40 Texas L. Rev. 665- (1962).

In United States v. Warehouse and Distribution Work. :

ers’ Union Local 688, Nos. 60 CR 42 (1) and 60 CR 189. -

(1) Consolidated, Eastern District of Missouri, the Local -

obtained the permission of a part of the members to use.

‘part of their general dues’ for political contributions and ~ -

expenditures. The indictment contained substantive and

conspiracy counts.’ The late Judge Moore ruled that the

‘statute. did not. even apply to general dues wliere the

- particular members: involved had authorized such ex-

penditures, stating. ‘‘It-is my opinion that in the present

state of the record there has. been no evidence adduced

by the Government that. the allocations by” sential two-

3 An indictment not only must + athe all the slinaiibtes ef the

offense, biit the allegations must also be in clear specific terms,.

“and may not be vague and uncertain. Russell v. United —

369 U. S. 749, 82 S: Ct. 1038 ; Van Liow v. United —s.

Cir., 321 F. 2d 664.

2 OREN RN:

bl s .

a A Harti

. : . .

Pan ser” nn ona mar ANN

’ . .

ne eee cla SS hh oT)

tS Aah RD Its

sta eiiaaeinnienat teat

‘

ee Seapets

7 i

K ;

* |

thirds of the indiy idual members of Local 688—a de- |

fendant here—were not’ entirely voluntary—even though

they. may -have been allocations from general dues paid

by such individuals as union members.’’ Judge Moore’s

ruling gave full effect to .the legislative history.

We respectfully wibinlt that the indictment fails to |

state an offense.

II.

Section 610 as construed and applied in ‘he instant in-

-dictment is unconstitutional.

_As we have noted, this indictment may fairly be con-

; strued as alleging ‘that Section. 610° prohibits officers,

; agents.and members of a Unton ‘from forming” a parallel .

' political organization and utilizing the Union leaders, offi-

* cers and agents in such political organization, in the ob-—

_ taining, pooling and expending of direct. voluntary con-

tributions for political purposes. . ‘

Gelli the ‘legislative history of Section 610 and. judi-

cial precedents are appraised to permit labor people to

pool their financial resources and utilize them for political

activity, expenditures and contributions, through the regu- |

lar leaders of their union, in a separate organization par-

allel to the union, the statute would clearly be unconstitu-" ~

tional. Section: 610 has been saved once only by. a. |

. narrow construction with four justices believing it to be

unconstitutional. U. 8. _v. CIO, supra. On a second occa-

a .

sion, three justices held it to be unconstitutional, with the

majority not metolving that issue (United States v. —

supra).

ia: the CIO: case, the Supreme Piss: said (335 U. S. at

120) ‘it is clear that Congress was keenly aware of the

constitutional limitations on legislation — of the danger = -

Fos

“ e@

of, the. inv alidation by the Courts of any enactment that

threatened abridgement of the freedoms ‘of the First

Amendment. ‘It did not want to pass any legislation that

would threaten interferences with the privileges of speech

or press or ‘that. would undertake to supercede the Con-' -

stitution. The obligation rests also. on this Court in con-

struing Congressional enactment to take care to interpret .

them as to avoid a danger of unconstitutionality’’. Al- 7

though we believe it is clear that Congress intended torau-

thorize parallel ‘political organizations with the same lead- -

‘ers, we note that there is a judicial rule that where a

statute \i¢ susceptible of two, constructions, by one of’

which Q&nstitutional questions - arise, and by the ether Co 4

which constitutional questions are ayoided, the Court’s .

duty is to adopt the latter construction. Harriman v.: In-

terstate Commerce Commission, 211 U.S. 407, 422.

Before. discussing the statute’s Violation of the ‘First.

Amendment, as here applied (by abridging ‘defendant’s.

freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly ‘and of

petition for redress of. grievances), we note that there -

is no difference in the constitutional issues as to po- ©

‘litical contributions or expenditures. -The word ‘‘ex-

penditure’? was added to the statute in 1947 because it

was felt that the prohibition against contributions was

not broad enough to prohibit ‘political ° expenditures, so _— >

that indirect econtributions_in the guise. of expenditures

could be made without violating the statute. U. S..v. CIO, |

supra, at 115. As Senator Taft. said in the Senate debatés:. ]

(93 Cong. Ree. 6439), ‘Call we are doing here is plugging a

-up. the hole which developed’’. A_ blanket - ‘prohibition .

against contributions would equally violate the~ First .

Amendment as a blanket prohibition against expenditures.

_ Whether a contribution is given directly to a candidate to

‘be- used to publicize his views or an expenditure is: made “a

- in order that he may do the same thing, freedom of speech

is abrdiged by the statute. The organization which actu-—

‘ 2 é

. ° *y a .

ae . s

: .

. .

7 lies pays for hiring the hall, ‘the billboards, or the radio

_ time has little effect: upon abridgement of First Amend-—

+ ment freedom.” It is the source of the funds which ‘is sig-

nificant. :

recognized: as one of the fuindamental liberties of the Fi

Amendment. New York Timgg v. Sullivan, 376 U. S.

269-270; N: A. A. C-P. v. Button, 371 U.S. 415; Watkins

v. United States, 354:U. S. 178; N. A. A.C. P. v. Alabama, |

. 357 U.S.) 449, Although First Amendment rights dre

‘not absolute, they enjoy a preferred status.in our Constitu-

i tional scheme. Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U. S. 398; Lamont

‘ v. Postmaster General, 381.U. S..301; United States v.

_ * Garolene Products: Co., 304 U. S. 144;. Thomas v. Collins,

| 323 U. S. 516; Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 38; New

: York Times v.. Sullivan, 376. U. S. 254, 270.

4 . |

; Freedom of political expression irons hiinsin itt as

‘

4 Within the realities of modern polities, the. right to ex. /

3 __ pend and contribute is a part of: freedom of speech, press, .

7 assembly, and petition for redress of grievances. ‘‘Unions

can act and speak today only by spending money, ‘as in: -

” deed is true of nearly every. organization and even of indi-

viduals if their action is to be effective’. United States v.

-CI0, 235 U. 8. at 146, N. A. A. C. P. v. Button, supra. The

right to expend and contribute are essential to the exercise

- of First Amendment freedoms.’ In terms of the cost of

television and radio time and newspaper advertisements,

the freedom to speak and to print without | the right to

provide funds is an empty one. Similaly, the freedom to’ °

assemble is void if there is denied..the right to spend.’ -

monies for a hall, or a rally, or to get out ‘the vote, or

' distribute handbills BR other campaign literature. The: .

right to petition the Government for, a redress of griev-.

ances by removing from elected office those responsible —

for one’s grievances is useless if,'in these modern times of -

‘.. radio. and television, furfds cannot be spent to air-a par- -

me ee

4 ,

as " . ? 2 ; =

ticular candidate’s espousal of 0 or ofiposition + to the griév-,

\ ances. Indeed, Section 610 as interpreted by the prosecu- . %

‘tion would prevent members of labor unions from: givings -

and. pooling /thoney to defeat candidates pledged to enact. ©

a! Federal right-to-work law. As a matter of fact, Section’

610 would itself beeome a’ ‘self- perpetuating. ‘grievance

because it would deny the right: to the aggrieved to ass oe

effectively against it. - ; ite a

Furthermore, Section 610, SO interpreted, ‘denies the —

individual members of local unions the right of voluntary |

‘association. N. A. A. Cc. P. v: Button, supra. These in--

dividuals form. and join labor unions for legitimate col-—

Jective interests. Through@eir union they seek’ to in-.

~ erease the effectiveness of their individual participation..

Politieal activity is: necessary to improve and . maintain

_ their bargaining position and to progress further along

economic and‘ social- -Jines. The same reasons for col-

_- lective bargaining also’ dictate’ collective political repre-

sentation. If labor people are denied the right. to asso-

ciate voluntarily for political action through their chosen. ©

leaders, they are effectively denied the right of collective’

representation and association in economic matters. Po- ©

litical activity is necessary to obtain and retain the right

to engage. in collective representation and assocjation in -

economic 1 matters in order. to bargain on even terms. Labor

leaders-must be politically active in order to aceomplish 5

thréagh legislation. these objectives which collective bar- ~

gaining cannot yield, such -as higher minimum wages,

reasonable maximum hours, restraints on child labor, in-

creased. public education, greater social insurance, ade- ..,

quate housing} and effective anti-depression measures.

- Reynolds, Labor. Economics and Labor Relations (1959).

The support: of Federal candidates favorable to unions,

laboring men, is their program is an essential right of.

Yabor. people s

table shall “nat be lost in Congress. Collective. political

: i

that gains won by lahgr at’ the. bargaining ae

~ action is ‘essential to their common’ intervets. ‘Under. the. :

ee Governmént’s* interpretation of, Section 61 4

. would’ be, denied any. meaningful collective political ac: = @

tion, or_they, would be prohibited ffom making political. -

.. eontribution iz co-ordination with their union .leadets -

- and union aims. Thus*the member’ s freedom of politica?

association is. substantially “and unconstitutionafly di-

-.. minished. U. S. y.. C. Bo. supra (con®ari ‘ing opinion) ;

- U.S. v. Ue A. W., supra (dieseaiting opinion). : a

Sirico the union itself i :s prohibited from spending gen-.

eral dues for politieal | purposes, political expression and. -

association ih parallel organizations’ with the same lead- _

/- ers is necefsary if members of unions :are to. be permitted

any effective political expression at all. Because’. the’ :

First Amendnient’ precludé® any abridgement of the full —

and’ free exercise of the right to speak (as well as its

_absolute prohibition) (Lamont. v.. Postmaster. General,

381 U.S. 301, 305; Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297

. °° WS 233, 249-951; Thomas v. Collins,.323.U. S. 516, 538-

‘ | 540; Hague v. CIO, 307 U, S. 496),-a reading of Section

* 610 to prohibit Gohuatary: collective —— — must -

result + ‘in meonstitutionality. : :

. 6 oe

), labor, people a

The Government’ s interpretation. of the statute ‘would :

" «give it too brdad a ‘sweep to meet the relevant evil, namely "

: . to avoid the use of 4 member’s involuntary, dues i in aid of - |

a candidate which he does not support. Butler v. Michi-

San, 352. U.S. 380. Indeed, .even as ‘written, . the, vague-

* “ness and uncertainty. of Section 610 has been recognized

a ~. In every case which has ‘considered it. In'U. 8. v: CIO,

. supra, ‘‘expenditures”’..was belaboréd’ and limited. In

United States v. Construction Workers Local 264, 101 F.

_ Supp: 869 (W.. D. Mo., 1951) the District Judge in order’.

_to avoid the. constitutional issies, found the. expenditures

by the Union to be too-small and too indefinite to come

? _. within the statute. Ih United: States v. Painters: Local

at, 12 F.. 2d 854, _ Second Circuit also avoiding the

wise ular oie ce a . oe .

. ‘ . 2

‘ hs : :

ad ii “se 7 % .s

m ele te ea.

~ -constituitiganl i ‘issues, Diicind: not: ‘only the quale: .

,_ .but also the’ voluntariness of the direct politiedl expendi-

turesyby pointing ‘out that the expenditures (by the union . ~

itself from general dues) “had been authorized by a

majority of the uriion members at a-special union meet- ~~

ing. - In addition, the Statute’s: legislative history -and

treatment by the. Supreme Court in both the C. LO. case *

and U. A. W. case indicate that the source of. the funds -

- determine criminal conduct ° thereunder.-. Indeed, it has

__-been held that Jarge political contributions and expendi-

tures~from general dubs by: a‘labor union are not pro-

hibited by-Section_610 _where’ voluntariness ” is involved. : :

“J. & v. Local 688, supra.

“9 ee Government’s. construction ot Section 10. would. ee

| leave labor people, and unions, ‘including. these defendants, ~ >

with: no clear, definition of their rights to participate in

' Federal election. They would liave no opportunity to make.

~ themselves heard for or against particular. federal candi-- .

ning the risk: of prosecution ‘under.

vuter limits of. ‘the’ statute are to-be-

: dates except by —

Section 610. If the

ere beyond its literal terms, .an ‘ef-

int would ‘be imposed . upon the

is “exercise of First Amendment rights which is: really-out-*

side the purview of the statute. ak Thomas v: a

. 323 U. S. 516, 535. se Awe Be

In words pattioularly ST a to. tffe j sink statute

+ "the Court, in Smith v. California, 361-U: S. 147, 151, said:

“Tt has beer stated here that the usual doctrine. as to.

the separability of constitutional and unconstitutional .

"applications of statutes may not apply where their

~ ‘

: ‘effeet.is to leave standing a statute patently capable

of many. unconstitutional - applications, ‘threatening

those who validly exercise ‘their rights of free expres-" :

sion, with. the expenses and inconvenience of criminal "

wl prosecution. edi Sn And this Court has intimated that. .

Se a

| “stvieter standarda of ‘permiseible eabatoss vagueness. : 3

‘may: be applied to a. ‘statute having q potentially in-

hibiting: effect on speech; a man. may the Jess’ be=

‘ required. to’ act at. his peril’ here, ‘because the free’ ye

| dissemination %f ideas may be. the loser. ” aes

, Thus interpreted, the statute ’s vagueness furnishes an.

independent basis for invalidating it under the due process -

'~ @lause of the Fifth-Amendment. As a criminal. statute, it —

2 * fails: to: provide a reasonably. ‘gevertdinabls standatd of @

. ~guilt. Connally v. General Construction, Co., 269.U. S.

. 883, 391: It is ‘‘so vague that.men of. comimon intélligence. ~

, must necessarily guess - at its meaning and differ as.to —

“its: application.» See also Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306

U_S. 451, 453. It neither gives. notice to the individual. ~

“as to the standards of conduct whick-he must follow nor

» an: adequate guide to the prosecutor in enforcing the law. -

-) Indeed, as we’ have noted, in other cases the Government

-. has interpreted the statute differently. In it# brief filed in

the ease of ‘ United States v. UAW, supra, the Govern-—

- ‘ment conceded. because of the statutory history, that there

"> were a ‘number of ‘‘random exqeptions’’ falling outside. -

, the ambit of Section’ 616, such as funds from is from voluntary ; 4

.» | contributions (Brief p.°39) -and’ funds spent for re regular “a

a union newspapers \(Brief p. 51). , .

~} >, In other: cases: . the Government has. ( sometimes’ dsapite :

the express wording of the statute) recognized the Con-

gressional intent to except these. ‘categories. ‘Certainly, .

_, as we have shown, ‘Corigress intended to gy the prac-

tice alleged in ‘the instant indictment. Section ‘610 a

means something-more than its express: terms, ‘as here |

- eontended by the Government, we submit that there are

no standards to guide labor unions‘ and their officérs and

labor people’ in determining what t6 do. :

- Section 610 being criminal, should be onbetcaed nar- |

rowly. So algae, we again submit that yd -¥olun-

: os a °

“etary. Find, ven abs a tik a of Local’ 562.

financed: by. voluntary contributions, would: riot be in -

- violation. of Section 610, both.on reason and authority.

. Zo expand the. language of Section: 610 .to inake the Vol.

untary Fund a violation is not: only to flout the’ prior” proc- ~

‘ess of exclusion from Section 610 by the Courts in individ?

ual cases, but also Teaily to overturn opinions in five

decided cases as welt as. to ignore the legislative paoty .

and. the Government’s own prior concessions.

; ‘

Due process considerations do not end with “poten:

‘tial defendants.: They niust look: to see whether or not :

adequate prosecutive’ guides -in enforcing the Taw have

“been established; whether or not the law is discriminatory

in operation; and whether or not the law provides an op- “ee

‘portunity for discrimination. in enforcement. Vick Wo v..

Hopkins, 118 U.. S. 256, S73-376 [°° . o

In the latter connéction, ‘it sliould: be noted that there

:* has been only-on@ indictment of a corporation or corpora-

tion officer ‘under Section 610. Yet, -we believe, it “is

eoemmon . knowledge that- the suggestion made by the :

__ writer in : the December 1957 issue of the Washington Uni-

versity Law Quarterly has been taken seriously by cor- ~~

ek porate—entities. This suggestion, found. at :footnote . 54

p. 406, is that if unions or corporations wish to circumyent

- Section 610, there is- nothing to prevent them from paying

. their ‘officers ‘higher salaries: with the understan ding task

the extra money will be individually contributed. ‘by. each

PS such officer toward political activities. which’ will benefit d -

hi employer. Of course, la people and labor ‘unions

t in reality do as corpo ions are doing, and their

caily hope of effective: political action is to form parallel |

voluntary political organizations as. was s done here.

' As the Government has here. interpreted Section. 610,,

the defendant’s constitutional rights under the due process

clause of the Fifth Amendment are also — Boo

_- Kahriger, 345 U. 8. 22, 33-34. The obvious effect of Sec-

U.S. 516, 539.

200

Be tion 610: ‘loonie. a: special, dceiokinnts: and arbitrary a |

-. . exertion-of legislative power directed mostly, if not. solely,

_ against the effective political expression of organized.

-<working riién. Section 610 is. the only» instan

‘where

Congress: has ever ‘sought to prohibit associations of in-

. dividua® sformed to promote common interests, ftom ex- |. |

- pending futids or making contributions in Federal elec- ©

- tions... Businesses, and unincorporated assocjations .of . ©

"businessmen whose interests. are adverse to organized -(

labor. are not covered: by the statute and « can expend and §

contribute in: Federal \vlections. Only unions among all --

the many kinds of. unin¢oxporated, associations are singled

‘ out: for this prohibition. But ‘‘the, right either of work-. - «

| | Men or. of unions . . . to: assemble: Sna ‘discuss their own | “

ae affairs i 1S as fully ihaakad bey the constiéntion as the qeht " a

of businessmen, _ farmers, educators, political party mem-

‘ bers or others to assemble ‘and discuss . ‘their affairs and

to-énlist the — of others. “ae - Thomas y. ee aa8 “¥

Due’ ‘process forbids i arbitrary or ae eae .

tory’ Federal legislation. Yick Wo v.. Hopkins, supra; =

Nichols v. Coolidge, 274 U. S. 531; 542; United States v.

——tion 610 10 thus interpreted. is to weaken the political ,

_ strength of labor unions in Federal elections by. muting»

their political voice, Zand conversely to increase the ef- a

.. fectiveness of anti-labor associations, by leaving

-..” free to. spend as. they choose. . :

His no answer to argue that the discrimination ar

labor unions is not arbitrary’ because. corporations are

|__‘similar rly-prohibited. For there is no indication: that the

Government will take the position that all unincorporated

businesses, employers and their management, ‘and busi-

__. Ress associations, whiich represent the counterpart ‘to :

.* ‘Jabor unions; are ‘prescribed by: Section 610. The cor-

—_— — alone is not the only natural oo of

“labor in “the. political arena. Other. forins of business —

proprietorships, left unrestrained, are “also the opponents.

e of labor unions. If we. assume Ne the interests of.em-: .°.

7 -ployers are traditionally, opposed ‘t the interests of labor .. .

organizations, we in the omission of non-corporate es

eimployefand business and*trade associations an arbitrary

discrimingtion“ in\favor of the -anti-labor interests. | A

statute’ hich | seeks to force tinians and labor péople en- -

tirely out of ‘political activity, while permitting to their

: “counterparts a counteryailing political ' activity; denies.

due process individually and collectively to unions and —

e their members. ;

- We respeetfully submit “that Section 610 as con ued -

‘and applied in the ‘instant indictment is unconstitutional

and that the indietmesit should be seepeemsay

(RICHARD L. DALY, se e :

y cae} ty . Tt (@ North. Seventh Street,

| : ee . St. Louis, Missouri 63101,

Es ae _ MAin 1-1701,

ne | ees e "Attorney 1 for, ‘Defendant ‘Callan,

a "7 MURRY L. RANDALL,

We bev 506 Olive, .

——$t. Louis, “Missouri 63101,

pe pea ae :

Cred ois _ Attorney for Defendant Lawler.

Feet ok ay. “JAMES 1 F. NANGLE, JR,”

met, Moe - St. Louse, Niskoeri 63102,

ee > OH 1-6116, :

Ses ae "Attorney for Defendants Seaton

e | _ and Local Union: No. 562.

eee

GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION a

S _TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS ° o

me ITS INDICTMENT. be iene

_ (Filed ats Distriet Court ‘August 9, 19.)

‘Defendants move to. dismiss’ this ‘tidictment on -. | :

ground phat it does not state an offense and on the ground. Fe q

that ‘Section 610 of ‘Title 1B, eg — Code, is un: . #

ae constitutional. ee) aes, as ‘

"The indictment states an. off : ihe

L ‘Defendants-contend that this indictnieht i is ‘defective

__becatise it does not specifically allege that the’ funds - con-:

: tributed. camé. from the general funds of defendant Local.

BB Paragraph, 9 of. the indictment pases | that, the.de- Ee

é fendants oe ne —

( -*anlawtally, wilfally aa snoeiniy did conspire and /

i 3 _ agree with each other and with divers other persons

di . to. the Grand Jury, unknown,.to violate Section 610

3 yl Title 18, United States ‘Code... .”?

\ ~The Government conte 8 that the shaiee’ Lingunge: suf: :

' ficiently charges a violatto ‘on of law and that it fully in- = ©

- -forms the ae rape re the nature of the —— —

them, } oe es

_~ Under this sail the flovaamant 5 is entitled to prove -

that, ‘the defendants conspired to’make contributions or

-expenditures fromthe general funds of Local ‘562 in con- ~

nection with the election. of Federal candidates. The point |

is ‘settled i in United States v. Lewis*Food Co., 366 F.2d ~

7 10. (9th Cir. 1966). This case involved prosecution of |

- a corporation for making an expenditure in violation —

‘of Section 610. It was there, as hefe; contended that E

_- thé.jadictment failed to state an offense, under the statute |

pee |

Oe 2 : fins : 1 ; , ot ae ro

- —

_—*

DS te eR a

: * Sides it dia mio allege: that general funds of the | cor-

—

0 2 dismissed. However, the -reason the ‘Court disinissed the -

- indictment was ‘not that it failed to allege that the funds _

used to publish a newspaper were derived from. the gen-

eral funds of the union. The Court held that bven if

_ such funds came from the general funds of the union,

— had been aged:

<a or pinion, ‘the. allegations’ i in om none

that the, corporation ‘made an. ‘expenditure’ _ for Ae

- stated -purpose, necessarily infers. an a ogaitio on that

| - general. corporate a were used. Corporate ex-

* penditures normally _ = from -a “corporation? s gen-.

-eral funds and_not ft some independent fund: con-

< tributed~by shareholders, or otherwise obtained. It

| “even questionable whether - expenditures from such

independent sources would be cérporate | expenditures :

-at-all . . With: respect to the use of general cor-

porate funds this-indictment meets these requirements

- [that it contains a plain, concise dnd definite state--

ment of the facts: constituting: the: offense charged].

’ Entry of the plea of not guilty; therefore, gave rise |

Fc nro pci pec gels

funds. *", (Supra, p. 713, en hasis eh. .

Defendants tely | upon. United States: v. 6. L 0, 335

U.S. 106, i which an’ indictment under- the statute was

Section 616 did not. extend. ‘to an expenditure for pub- —

ve lishing a union newspaper distributed to its membership:

| “Tt is: our conclusion that this indictment charges‘ |

only that the CIO and its president published with

a ‘union funds a regular periodical for the furtherance ~

of its aims, that President Murray authorized the —

use of those funds for distribution of this issue in

regular edurse to those accustomed to receive copies

- of the periodical and that \the issue with ‘the state: .

: ment described at the begi ig ¢ of this = vio-

Sag | > ; f. . bahay i g i iy

‘oorrapt Practices Act?”

ided.) Lp gene

4 lp .

9 Defendants ‘farther allege that the tadictment is’ dé.

fective i in that it’ does not allege that the funds: involved

were not voluntary: As indicated above, the Government 4

is entitled. to :prove; and admittedly must prove, that ..§

. the’ ‘funds here involved were general funds of Local 562. *

Proof of the offerise charged. here does not depend oe

2 oe _ whether the funds * were, volunteered or. né- by. “union |

: = members. The. issue is whether, these: funds wer the

yi general funds of Loeal 562.. Shareholders cannot, for ex-

aniple, consent or volunteer to have a corporation make ~

* _, contributions or. expenditures in connection. with Fed-- 4

eral elections. This is the holding in United States v.

Lewis Food Co. supra. fhe Geicae’t ,

The Supreme Court stated that the other legisla-.

- tive motivation :for enactment of - ‘legislation. such as |

section 610 was the: ‘necessity for destroying the in-’. :

8 fluence over élections which corporations exercised’ |

. &., . ‘through finaiicial contributions. 335 U. 8. at, 113, 68 4

es Ct. at -1353. ‘This cottsideration would he meaning.

: less if a corporation could make expenditures for ac-. -

_’_ tivities otherwise forbidden by section 610-by simply —

obtaining ‘unanimous- consent of its shareholders. In |

“ .° the Auto Workers case, the indictment contained:no |

ce allegation that the expenditure of union funds was ©

ae. - contrary to the wish of*members. Nevertheless, the

an Supreme Court found the indictment erage oe seg ‘

4 phasis added.) g

The same is, of course, true of labor © organiaatifi . Ae o

‘cordingly, it is not necessary for the Government to allege

that the funds. involved were or were not. contributed |

ee eo. pe : ee cae ; oe

" atod Soton 513 Ce

Pe : of “=,

o* . pe * 4 7

. oe : p,

> est application. In United States V.- -United States Brew- |.

ers’ Ass’n., 239 F. 163. (W. D. Ra. 1916),. application. of .

Section 616. of. Title 18; United ‘States

: ps ‘applied. in this indictment, vow the’ Unie Siates ee Eee

Eh scass secant ies 3

1, ‘Defendants ‘contend that section 610 offends the First

a, Fifth Amendments protecting rights of: speech, press,

ly, and petition. ‘Defendants cite United States v.. .

“O-1 » 395 U: 8. 106 and United States v. Auto Workers, can |

: 362 U.S. 567. pce a ee es

+ he ‘Nowetonniel puintendie: ‘that this ease does \not. i me

: Nolye First Amendment | issues. Unlike the cases ‘cited * ig

“by defendants, this. case concerns ‘‘contributions” as dis-

- tinet from —‘ expenditures’. The Government, as indi- ”

eated in the checks set out in the overt acts, ig concerned’

here only with contributions. -, The ‘mere transfer of money .

‘ admittedly has an ‘effect: upon speech and its communica. *

-,tion. The ‘impact. upon free speech of- “contributions”,

- however, is wholly , different from the impact upon speech. _—

_ of “expenditures”? for publication of’a newspaper: (ZLO0.. -

case}, for sponsorship of political..television broadcast _

(U.-A. W. ,case),’ or ‘advertising ‘in ‘a deseo” ube aie

newspapers (Lewis Food Co, se). i, peg!

ee It is possible to confuse ‘two different i issues; one issue __

— is whether Congress, consistent’ with the First “Amend-*. =

Z ment}; may: extend the prohibition of section’ 610 to in- tr

.» elude labor organizations; the other is whether.‘ particu-

lar ‘expenditure’ includes activities’ that ‘are protected

_by the First Amendment. ‘The, Government contends that woe

: this case involves the-statute in’ the aréa of its narrow- i

": the statute -to contributions by corporations was upheld — .

against eatioas' that it ber ea uport’ ‘First Amend- ?

a ment SEA, Soe nace ee ee

- 7? be ae ae ©

Pn, ‘

iat -

* es -

’

o a

‘ .

Wad). alta %

The Governnient’ *s

the U. A.W. case.

pasition7on. this sia is fortified in - j

Here .the dissenting Justices, in a

¢ footnote. to their opinion, indicate’ that Congress can, as

. it has. done ‘under the statute, prohibit ‘‘contributions’’.

o ; They concluded. ‘that ‘expenditures’ could be regulated

sae requiring {hose who made expenditures: to disclose _

A = : their connection’ with such. expenditures.

fon’ the foregoing.

_ to Dismiss.

~ ROGER EDGAR,

:* Asgistant United States Attorney, .

reasons the Government vespeetfully . oo

_wibinite: that the Court ‘ee deny a Motion .

i +

7 VERYL tL. RIDDLE,

United States Attorney,

EDGAR N. BROWN, - \ &

Special Attorney,

+ Department of. Justice,

Bin

_ ORDER.

(Filed i in U. Ss. District Court August 14, 1968. )-

ad matter | is before the Court on raptiogi of defend.

—-

Dated this 14th day af August, 1968, oe i ere

olay JOHN-K. REGAN;

ae. ants .to dismiss the indictment.

~The: Court having’ fully eee ie the riatter, It Is

_ Hereby Ordered, that said thotion be and it is decak.)

“United States District Judge.

- Hereby Ondersd that said motion, be and it is ee.

3 overruled.— 2. totes

. Dated this 14th day of Angust, 1968,

. Z /s/ JOHN K: REGAN, Pius

“By Mr. Riddle:

~ Court and jury, please? A. Patricia Stieferman.

[178] . TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS.

speak up so, all mempers of. the jury panel, including the

“two [179] gentlemen who are in the piternate s seats over

‘here; can hear yout A. Yes, sir. ,

~ bers of geet: pascal ‘transcript: of eee:

(Filed in. U. s Distriet - Court Augist 14, 1968.)

“Phis matter by. before ‘the Court on motion of défend-

“ants: fora bill of particulars.

The Court having. full¥ Snel the cadive, it Is

Panos States Distines- J udge.'

» °

@OVERNMENT S EVIDEN CE.

. PATRICIA STIEFERMAN, o-

being first duly sworn, ‘testified | in n behalf of the Govern- -

ment as follows: : . :

Direct Examination, |

Q. Ma’ami, would you state your full name. for the :

_ Q, Stiefelman is it pronounced? A. Stieferman.

_ .Q. Stieferman. And Mrs. Stieferman, is it? A. Yes.

Q. Mrs. Stieferman, throughout your testimony will you

‘ > « =

ee Numbers appearing j in brackets in text indicate page num-

/ F

eo:

‘«

5 Q. So that all the gentlemen. ‘on the other side here can. q ;

hear you.. What is your present address? A. 10823 Vor- 4

hof Drive...

Q. In St. Louis, - St. Louis, Missouri.

Q. All right: For whom: are you presently employed! E

- A Pipefitters Welfare Educational Fund.

Q. And at what address? A.. 1242 Pierce Avenue. -

Q. 1242 Pierce . Avenue. Just. ‘for clarification, what

section, generally, in town is Pierce Avenue located?

: A. It is south St: Louis, off of Hampton and West’ Park.- a

-@ Off of Hampton ‘and West what? A.-West Park.

Q. West Park? A. Yes: ;

Q.. That would be in the area. ‘generally south of the

hockey . arena? A. Yes.

. All ride. d how long-haxe you been ere)

as.I recall, you said a Fund? [180] A. Yes,

sir. | -: _

-Q. For Local 562°. A Yes, sir.

Q. How long have you been employed by the Welfaret :

a3 A. Since 1964.

Q. Since 19 and 64. Do you ean the iniomith $ A. I

believe it was April; -March or April -

Q. What . are your duties there, in a general way? A

I do general office work; bookkeeping. ,

‘Q. Are you a bookkeeper? ‘A. I do; ¥es, sir.

Q, All right. How old are yon, Mrs. Stefermant A

-Thirt -eight years old.

Q. ‘Now, who is your immediate supervisor in your

- employment thete at the Welfare at A. Mr. Edward

‘ Henry. .

Q: Mr. ‘Edward es ‘Do you know. what title or po-

"sition he holds with Local 562? A. He’s with the Welfare

Department, and he’s the director of the Welfare.

ti nr pies” seg

Ba WAR Aes reread he ia aie hea bib iin se Grid

te Ce ss Li aie eaten rp

Lae thas niga eR D a;

yee! ae 4 ¥ Lane

2» ind ape FARA KMS oe Lal ew

bia ON Me Rison ith Wal Als shes ue le

— 61, —

Q. Director Pr: the Welfare Department? A. ‘Yes.

»Q: ‘Has he been your supervisor throughout the’ time . °

of your ee for the Welfare Fund? [181] A. Yes, . ;

sir. a ener

‘Q. N ow, in ‘pectornibig your duties in that department,

“86 you make: entries showing the amount: collected into

the Welfare Fund? A. Yes, sir.. | :

Q. And ‘enter them on ledger sheets and the various .

. records of the fund? A. Yes, ~ ee ,

* QWow, do you receive money? A. Checks. from the

contractors. .- » . ’

‘Q. Checks from the contractors? A Yea i

Q. Now, can you tell the Court and jury - how often

+you receive ‘these checks? A. Well, the contractors gen-

“erally pay once a week. — It is a fringe benefit, and they ©

pay per man. They list the, men and the number of hours

arid the amount that they are paying.

- Q. All right. A. And: they send one” check i in for all. the |

_. men working for them.

- Q. All right. So on: this sheet, as I understand your.

~ testimony, there would be a list of all the members gf .

562 working for that contractor? A. All aia work-” .

. ing for that contractor... . ,

[182]. Q. ‘Yes. And have their names gn it? A. Yes, ‘sir.

Q. And what other information .does, this sheet héve!

A. Social Security. numbers.

Q. All right. A. And the total hours they are paying

for; total hours they worked. = | _

Q. The total hours they worked during the week? A.

Week. ;

Q. All right. And then does it have andther colutant

A Yes. The amount of money. |

‘Q. The ‘amount of money? AL ‘Phat “they. are paying |

‘for, for this man.

: aed

@ That the bciteacing 3 is. paying ‘ato the Welfare Fund’

for each person? A Yes, sir. :

Q. All right. N ow then, does ‘it have a. sebiine hick

shows the gross pay for each man for that wore period!”

A. No, it does not. ° s

. Q. ‘Does it have the number of hours he wicked <_<

_ Yes, sir:

Q: Ma’am, does . it ie he ene of. pay; that is, 0 R

much, the rate per hour that——_ A. Foreman’ 8 pay? ©

_ [183] Q. Yes. A. No. ~ |

Q. All right. Now, this. comes in to you on @ sheet or

a form? A. Yes, sir.

Q. “And with that do. you receive. a check? _" Yes, s sir. |

Q. And the cheek you receive is in what amount? A a

The total amount. Ps #8 :

to Umea — Baile asi a eae a ASR Ai

tine TLC Ue eae eis

_ Qe In other words, you have a oorama of figures on

one side of the sheet? -A. Yes, sir.

Q. And at the bottom they will be totaled A. Yes, sir.

Q. And~the check you get is in the amount of. that. <

total?’ A. Yes, sir. me |

/Q. After you receive ‘that lack. what ‘ip you do with

: itt A. Well, it is deposited daily into the bank. We

break. it down by funds, : -deposit so much into each fund

pér hour. We have an accounting machine which does

this, and ‘then we post it to the contractor’s. statement,

showing how much he’s paid all year, and then we post :

it to a card for each individual’ man, showing - the total

hours that he’ Ss worked, and the total hours for the year. '

[184] Q. Now, who makes ‘these bank yp Soil A. They |

are done by mail.

- Q. By mail?- A. Um hmm.

Q. Have you used more than one bank ‘during the

- period of time you have been in this Position’ A. N ° sir.

Q. Just one bank? A. Yes, sir.

KC SR BAe ni a

—63— |

Q. What is the name of that bank? A.J efferson eRe

Q: All right...Now, do you have any other .responsi-—

_ . bilities: in’ connection with your job in the Welfare De-

partment or Fund? A. That would be generally what

I do. We have. several girls that help out on this. My- _

self, that is the majority of. things that I do.

-Q. Now, the place where you work, is that what is

generally referred to as.the.hall? A. That would be down- :

- . stairs. ;

Q. All: right. A. Our office has a whole floor upstairs, .

and that’s the welfare. office.

-Q: Is the building at this address; at ‘1242 Pierce Av-

| enine, [185] is that a single building? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is it multi-storied 1 A. Yes, sir.

Q.. How many stories are in it? “A. Fwo.

Q. That’s the ground floor and one — ‘upstairs? A.

Yes, sir. re

_Q. Now, I was cite you ahout the hall, and 3 you: said

Q. All right. Is there anything else on the main floor, 5

‘other than the hall? A. The union office, I believe, is

what you mean by the hall? :

Q. Yes. A. And there’ S also an office for the Vohintary

Fund. se | p

—-Q. All right. ‘On the main floor? .A. You; sir.

Q. Well, now, could you describe what is on this main ”

. in for the ue and for the Court, pleaset teil A...

‘You mean the umber of offices? -

. Q. Yes, the number of rooms, and approximately their

size? A. Well, there are’ two rooms to the left of the

r that the hall was.downstairs? A. Yes, sir. = ————__

| ~Q. Now, the hall occupies then the main —— of this 7

building? A. Yes, sir.

¢:

building that are, the Voluntary Fund offices; two. »_ Offices |

there. And then on the right of the aes is three ;

“likes for the Union, one large r room and then two smaller. i

Offices off to‘ the. side. a

Q. ‘All right. So there are four. ssparate’ rooms or offices,

"two on one side and. two ie the other't es

and then two separate offices

~ The Court: Five. . re J | a

The Witness: There’s one’ ange ‘room of a ‘union hall, 7

room, | and then on the other sidé-of. the hall there are

_two connecting #ilices for. the Voluntary Fund. |

Q.: (By. Mr. Riddle) - All right. Does ‘the hall itself, is

it,a much larger place than the others, that-is? A. Well,

\the welfare office is the largest, but on the first floor, yes,

the “unig hall is the largest office.

Q. Is this union hall, is that ened for meetings f'n mem-

bers? A. No, sir, I don’t believe it is. |

Q. All right: What’ sit used for? a Well, -the business’ .. |

- agents work from there. The [187] secretary and treas-. —

urer has an office, and the business Manager has an ‘office.

Q. I see. Now, where are the meetings held? Do you 2

kaow that? Of the members? A. At a bras iaba at but-

J don’t—— . | &

Q. Not in’ this building? x Not i in . this building.

Q. All right. Now then, your job -which—you are pres-

ently on the secqnd floor. I’ believe you mentioned there

were some other eer blaster there for aan or with | 3

you? A. Yes. :

Q. How many others? <A. There are three regular girls

‘that. work, and we have occasionally another r pr that

Pi comes in and helps.

.Q. Ma’am, prior to March or April of - 19 and 64, _where

did you work? A. I worked piss the Pipefitters Voluntary

--Fand.. ee | . &

Q: All right. And at what addresst A: 1242 Pierec @

Avenue.

‘@

of those, that one large E |

; a ; a z a * ; ns = a 7 |

Cm a f aN

Q1 In ‘the same building? A. Yes, sir.

~, Q. On a different floor? A. Well, at that - time the

_ | Voluntary Fund was on the second floor where -the wel-.

fare office is now, and that was’ pe the say offfee that” .

was up there. stint

| Q. All right. Ma’am, when ‘did you a pking for

owhat you call the eran Fund? Eee ‘desces |

Fund? A. January of 1963. ° oe

a Q. ‘You say in January: of 63. Do you velo es

>. day of ‘January? A I believe * ‘it w irst “week in

: -. Jatiuary.. ‘ <i Sc meung

5 Q ‘The first wkk in ‘ae A. Tos, ‘sir.

4 Q. Now, who eniployed yout A. J ohn L. Lawler.

3 -Q. What kind of work had you been doing prior to. ay

| that time? A. I had not worked fo ten years. I was —

- _ married, and have. three children, and I was starting back .

to work at that time. — | a

Q. All right. Ma’am, when Mr. Lawler hired you, were

‘you given any instructions. as. to what your duties were?

“A. Yes, sir. We were going to open up this office for

the Pipefitters Voluntary Fund, and I ‘was to do the

clerical work, answer the telephones and accept money

fromthe people that paid into the Voluntary Fund, and -

; keep, prepare the bank statements, or the bank deposits, ~

a: and check out the bank statements, reconcile the bank

: [189] Q. All right. Now, were you given any tas, or

literature, or cards to work with? A. Well, for the office

itself, we were having a card system to keep the record

' hy members. We had a machine, 3100 machine from the

National Cash. Register . Company. of ~

Q. You call-it a 3100 machine? A. ‘Yes, sir.

Q. All right. What. else did you have? A. iy fetecthes -

and desks, and just: a general office equipment; aes:

machine, ag cei

uh; SY AP ERS

HOE NERE NRE <

° .

. -@ “Adding machine and comptometert A. Yes, ‘sir.. 4

_ Q. All right. .Was anybody assigned to work with you “f 4

in that office? A. No, sir. I worked there alone = =

~_ Q: And I believe, if I recall your testimony correctly, .

that was on the: second floor? A. Yes, sir, at that. time. q

Q. The. same office that you are. working in. “nowt: A. §

_ Well, it was just a small office. There was no one else up z

_ - there, and ‘they’ opened ‘up just ¢ a small office for myself _

up there. | q

' Q. All right. Now/ i in eomneatting with your duties, did

you collect money? [190] AL Yes, sir. ‘ _

Q. Ana beginning’ when? | x January of 1963.. a

_ Q. What about the first. week that you were on, duty? - &

Did you collect any money that week? A. Yes, sir.. _

Q. All right. Noi OW, : from ‘whom did you collect this

money? A. From the men 1 that were ountetatany, to the —

Voluntary Fund. .- ”

Q. An right. How was thedimoney delivered to veut

-A. In different ways. Some of it was mailed in. Some- 4

times men would come in and pay individually, and some- 4

times men would come in- -and- pay ‘for a group. of men « 3

that worked together on a job. °

-Q. Now, you. say that you got ‘the money thest from

these sources, one by the mail? A. Yes, sir. aa

Q And one by individuals Just coming inf A. Yes, sir, ff

Q. And, three, by péople coming in from off the. job

. who had eqilected from other péople? A. Yes, sir,

Q. Now, let’s talk about the money that came in from “|

off the jobs. [191] A. Yes, sir.

_Q. They were collected: by one person 1 that, brought it 7

in: to you. Let’ s talk about that first,

‘Ma’am, was this money delivered to you—I am talking

now about the first week, along about that time—was it

? : a ee

. ?

- dpliveced ree you in eheck or in cash! A It wi uld be cash |

‘and sonie checks. = = fae ?

Q.. Could you. give- the jury or eet” an Slienaitics

" about what- peréentage of the total would be checks and :

what percentage of the total would be ‘cash? “te Well, it’.

would be mostly in cash, and a small Peony: weer ae

be in checks._ ae es iS

_Q. A small per cent? You mean one ‘per ult A. Dif.

- ferent on. different jobs, but I suppose about 5 per cent,

or something like that. 5

-Q. Would be checks, and 95° per cent would be “caaht :

: A. Yes, sir. -_— j me

- Q. All right. Now, with the cont ‘that was brought ~~ —

was anything else given to you? ‘A. Yes, sir. They would. .

list, they had sheets, and they would lst the man’s name 3

oa and the amount that he was paying, and sometimes they

. would have the hours on,that they had worked for that “

a. 4 week, or for iced! tasape dt of time they were collect- .

., ing for. —

4 [192] Q. So with the cai dies was a sheet? iz Yes, sir.

i: |

a Mr. Randall: Your Honor,“ am going °to object to this

| - procedire of Mr. Riddle of repeating again the, answer

a the witness. =. a /

. The Court: It will be owecraled: He. may 4 ses Go

ahead, | |

\ Q.. (By Mr. Riddle) Ma'am, with respect . to the sheet .

we are talking about, can you. describe how the \sheet |

‘and money was delivered to. yout A. The man’s name

was listed, and the amount of money, and then a ‘total :

of the amount of money, usually. | a ay

Q. All right. Well, was the sheet jomgaa around the =. ,

mdney, or the money separate from the sheet! A. Well, .-* 7

it was nsually togetlr, you key wore tngothier.

oth

4 ¢ .

‘ ,

. i

— _—_—

Fond.”

Gee All right. A. Bither job name, or contractor’ s name,

“a forget which, but I think it said job name, forerhan’s

they could fill in the Tames [193] and the amounts of

and at the bottom, was the total

_ the names? A. Yes, sir.

‘of 562, or ont-of-towners? A. Yes,.tir.

dencé. We- have the sheets here. -

the sheets are going to be marked. bs G

ae Mr. ‘Riddle: They. will be referred to, Your Honor.

The Court: All right : "ee

after the names? A. Well, I believe it. was the hours,

1 a The hours worked? A. Worked. —

or—— [194] A Week. But, they would pay different

. amounts. I m

times they

. they would just’ write it in if it were for more than that.

Tt. wasn t always done exactly the same way.“

j } , ced

‘ aes . ; Pes ;

y ee ; . :

e ; : . ; ee .

i ; - :

* Q Now; calling your attefition: to this sheet,. would -

_ you describe it as best you gan rerhember what -was‘across ~

the top of it? A.'I believe vee Shs erase: vate

name, date, a line for a date, and then just: lines where:

money. The name column, the. total hours—maybe, no, —

I just think it was a column where: they pat hours in, —

Q.-On the left-hand column then would be the et of |

WAS Randall: The sheets themselves are the best evi- a

Q. All right, Now, do. you eegit- what period of time ;

‘each sheet covered?. What. work period? A : month,

The Court: Well, she can tell about ae ie assume that J

Q. (By Mr: Riddle) And what was on the next column: :

sometime “it would. be for a week, some- - ~

ould be paying for a month, or, you ‘know, —

“Say. if is Jo

. .

; - Coe bee of , sate Sab . > ,

? 2 - Fe .

6. ‘All right. Now, ition the amount, of worked. hohe, as

“y suppose it had eight, eight, six or ten, figures like that

- aerosst A. Some of thent would,. and‘some of them, would: ee

" just have the total, like 40 hours a week if it were for

a-‘week, or whatever; 32 hours, or 16 hours, or that type. -

Q. Al. right. So that would be “the second column. _

‘Then what would be tye third: last column “over on.

the right-hand side of this nin Sh

amount of money that, was paid, |

Q. The amount of money that was paidt. A oe hum. -

Q. All right. Now, at that time, in. January of 19 and -

63, what amount of money was paid for a 40-hour week,

that is, the ‘amount that: would appear in, the right-hand |

column for members: ‘of tah A. For. anes it was a

: dollar a day. ;

oe for. five days, it would be: five dllarst ee Yea,

- sir.

| 195]. Q. Ale right. ‘ae wha with

showing up. in ° ‘that right-hand /srela for what we call -

“out-of-towners? A. That was two dollars a day. .~ |

—

Q. And then if they worked. 40 hours, the age gu

pearing over in the right hind- oaune would be\

dollars? AL Yes, sir, >: :

r Q Ma’am, was there ° any designation on this check,

or check sheet we are talking about to ‘show whether

the person. was a member of 562 or bf. another local’.

A. This varied, Sometimes there were. Sometimes they’

would mark down member, you know, 562, or maybe’ they

would put out of town, or sometimes they would put |

.a local number, but everyone, seemed to do it differently. °

- was, you know, no set ales they did it. _ eae

it had nothing. on it,

Q Now, in. thstances where it had nothing oh it, did.

you make: determigation whether the given name, we'll

Toned, scunek che was-a member of teecal =

"A, That, would be the ;

10 baled ana

’

dD,

ie Te

_ 562 or an out-of-townert “A. Well, the anjount. of. money

» would be ‘different if, he was an out-of-towner.

| Q. So if you ran down the right-hand columh ai you

saw five. dollars, five’ dollars, five dollars, and. then ten |

eee ap out-of-towner? [196] A. That’s right.

Q: Is the term or pisoe ‘‘ont-of-towner’” familiar to

pyou? A. Yes, sir. ,

tm Q. Do“you know’ what 1 mean—or what is your under:

;. standing of that phrase? A. Well, I sbelieve, to ‘me it .

: . just means anyoné that is not particularly a Member,

—__—ithat is not a member of 562. It doesn’t necessapily mean

++. they are from out of town, — :

Q. I-see. ‘But. ount-of-towner is that phrase used to de

scribe non- members rather than where they geographically

: “reside? A..That’s what I understand it to: be:

. - .-Q. All right.. Ma’am,, again referring to this ‘sheet, or

¢ this document that came in, what, did you eall. it? A.

i a Contribution sheet.

Q- ‘Are you. familiar with the term ‘checkoff sheet’?

A. Yes, sir. But that: did. not apply*to this office.

'Q. What is a checkoff sheet i in your—— A. Well; that’s —

for the local: union. This is where the dues and assess-:

‘ments are paid by the. contractor, or deducted from the

man ’s check and paid into the union. _—

- =Q. Now, on this sheet we are talking ‘about ‘that was

used for these. collections and for the delivery of the

.monies to. [197] you, you mentioned that there was at

the top of the form an indication of the foreman on the ;

per -AL Yes, it was printed in there, “Foreman”.

the collections and brought them into your office, were

they usually and normally the foremen, on. the job? A.

Well, I never. did know, you knew, whether they were

the — ‘or just who they were. Sometimes they

a an

> Q. ‘Now, from your recollection, the person who ‘made y

‘.. —are.you talking about at the end of the day .or—

| Crs

woud put down the name of the conan there, but that

wasn’t necessarily the man who brought it in, and so

- I never did really know who—I_wouldn’t know who the

foreman was on the job, er who, you know. So I —

' have no idea = + s @ as

— All -right..So on a given time—still talking about

in January of 1963—this foreman, or some ‘man, would

oome into your office? A. Um hntm. -

-Q: And he »would have this sheet and money together ?

A. Yés, sir. <= .

—Q. And he gave it to you? “AL Yes, sir,

Q. All right. Now then, tell the Court and jury "what

you did with it after you received it. A. While the man

was there, if he was there, if he gave it to me, then I

Ww ould. check: to see that the addition was. [198] correct

-and the amount of money was correct that he was turn’

sing int.

Q. In other words, ‘you would check his — A. ial

Q. figures! A. Yes, Sir. a -

ee Q. To see if the total on the extreme fietblend column :

. came to the same figures as the amount ‘of cash he was

. giving yout A. Yés, sir.

. Q. All right. Now, would. you give him a weceipt? A.

No, sir. If. he asked for one, I would, but moe they

didn’t.

Q. Now, after you did this <aiealaiion then what did

you do with the sheet and thesmoney? . A. Well, = money —

Q. Yes. A. Well, ‘I would prepare, if they were going

_ to make a bank deposit that day, T would. prepare the

bank deposit jlor them, ‘for the cheeks or whatever was

“going to be deposited. With the sheets, I would: prepare

them to post. to the tards of the men

Q. All right. Now, about’the cash. Did you make out

~~ the’ bank deposits for cash? [199] A. In ’63, in January _

——

—72—

"y : of °63,.they were riot putting cash into the checking ac. :

count that ‘they chad. The* checks that they, had, I pre-

pared those for. the bank,. and the cash } was not put mito

the bank at that time. _—

Q. All right. So*you made a | segregation of the money

when it came in to you? A. Yes, sir. ~~»

—Q. And in one stack you had. checks? A. That? 'S right.

: Q. Another stack you have cash? AL That’s right.

; - Q. And if I recall your testimony, the checks: you would

' make out avbank. deposit slip for? A. Yes, sir.

‘Q.- And then what would you do with it after you made

out the bank deposit slip? A. Wells would give ‘it to

sotheone—I never made: the bank deposits myself, so I

would give it to whoev er. was going to make the bank

' deposits,

“ « i m . RTAe Mg " a,

alee RCL MARIN i ove at oe aM nt seats Poder he Ba th

cm e

Q.'In January of 63, =e was making the bank de-

posits, if you know? A. Mr. Seaton.

Q. Mr. George. Seaton? A. Yes, sir.

[200] Q. Is this the gentleman sitting at, the inti heret.

‘A. Yes, sir. |

Q. Mr. ‘Seaton is sitting at the end of the table, has his. ..

hands on his chin?. A. Yes, sir, = * | 2

,. (Defendant. Seaton stood.) ee: | s

Q. (By Mr. Riddle) Now then, with respect to the. Sash,

tell the Court and jury what you did with it. A. Counted *

—it and made ‘a total, and put it in an envelope and gave

-it to Mr. Seaton. a

Q. Mr. Seaton? -.A. Yes, sir.

Q. All right. Now, A. May. i ‘say ‘that this gen-

erally is what I did, but there were times when George,

Mr; Seaton, was not there. Then I would give it to, you

know, someone ‘else other than him. I don’t mean that

this was ‘something I did every single ay, if he were not ,

there, but usually I gave it to him. .

_ into an envelope. .

amount in it.

—73—

Q. If he was there, you’d give it to him? AL. That? s

right. _

Q. Did you have a cash register in. your officet A. No,

sir. ; 7

Q. Did you “have. a cash box? A. Yes, sir.

[201] Q. And where did you keep it? A: In a desk drawbr.

Q. Now, still talking about the cash that you: had on >

your hands; how did you deliver that to Mr: Seaton ft’ In

what form? A. I would count it and total it and put it

Q: All Tight. And oonid you seal the ears. A:

Yes, sir.

selopet: A. Just the adding. machine; tape with: the total

| a |

Q. All right. Anything else? A. No, sir.

Q. Now; ‘at that time, what have you done, or what did

you do with this sheet, the voluntary checkoff sheet, or’

. whatever you call it? A. Well, at the end.of the day Ts

'. kept those segregated for the day.. Those totaled out to.

the total-amount of the checks and the total amount of

the cash that I had for that day, and: then I would | post

| those to the individual cards for the men.

-Q. All right. Now, about these individual cards for

[202] the men. .Can you tell us about them, what was on —

the cards, and what you did with*them?- A: Well, it just

I don’t remember. exactly how the columns were, but I

believe it was a date, and it was posting date, the date

that I was posting, and the next column the amount I

* was posting for that particular time, and- then the total -

amount. Then I would pick up the total next time, and,

you know, post that, aia would add to it; cunning total .

on it.

—14—

Q So a in Testes of 1963, did you have one a .

of these cards for each man that ‘was working: on a 562

job? A. No. I made the cards—You mean as we started?

Q. Yes. A. I made the ¢ards up when—when we first

started, I just started making up the cards as the sheets oan

were coming in.

Q. Oh, I see. When one of these collection sheets would

come in, you would get the name off? A. That’ 8 how we

started; yes. a

Q. All right. Then over a period of, I guess a few

weeks, you would have a card’then ‘for every person who

- Iwas working? ,A. (Indicating yes.) — . *

"Mr. London: I will object to the form of this question.

The Court: ‘All rjght. It will be sustained:

- Mr. Riddle: All right. I will athiekw that, Your Honor.

[203] Q. (By Mr. Riddle) Do you know at what time, or

at what point of time, you had one of these. individual * |

cards for each. worker on a 562 job?

_ Mr.. Randall: Your Honor, I am going to. object. It is .

-assumin a fact that she’s not. testified to, that she had

one for each worker; only people that contributed.

The Court: I think ‘that this is "leading, and assunés

"something that isn’t in, so the form of the question’ is

objectionable. The objection will be sustained.

_ Mr. Riddle: All right. I will withdraw that quettion:

: Q. (By Mr. Riddle) Ma’am, did you make a card, of. the

type that you described for each member of 562, or each

person who was working on a 562 job when a contribution

came in from hinf? A. Yes, sir, I made a card. |

Q. All. right. Now, how many of thesé cards did you. ¢

-make during the first two months that you were on the

job there?, Your best estimate. A. Well, I would guess,

eee

put { wouldn’t have any idea. I would say | 800

or—but I mean it is just a guess. I don’t know.

Q. All right. Now, ‘these individual cards, again 1 re.

“Ferrinig your attention to them, where’ were they stored or

kept? [204] A. Well, we had a cabinet where the eards.

were, had a drawer. that could be pulled/out, and they -

were set in there saht nee of the machine that ve.

posted to.

—— Q. All right. And: where did you: tore or keep these -

~ individual collection sheets? A I had a cabinet, a- steel

cabinet that I kept ‘them.

QQ. All right. Now, was your room, the room that you

. were working in, locked? A. When I was not there. But

. Q All right. . Who had a key or-access to your room? .

A. I had a key, and I think there was a master key for -

all the rooms. One key, I think, fit all-the rooms ba there, «

| but. I don’t know who had a key to it.

Q. You say there was a master key? A. That fit all the

doors in’ that second floor, -but we only. used the one office.

Q: Do you know where the. tiaster key was — A.

. No. ¥

Q. Do you knew who had socess to the master key? A.

“No. , ee |

Q. | We ‘ve talked specifically about January, and possi-

bly February of 1963. I understand from your testimony -

that you worked continuously in this office up until March

or April of 19641 [205] A. Yes, sir..

Q. Did your duties change any from month to month

- from what -you have testified to about January and Feb-

ruary? A. No.. It was approximately. that all fhe time.

‘That ’s approximately what I did all the time. ;

Q. -Ail right. Now,. ‘throughout that period of time, did -

you ever. make’ a ee of the. cash in a bank? A. a

sir. |

716

ae to? : :

. Mr. Riddle: From Ji anuary 1,

The Court: Well, I think that—it-follows-the- anestiok » a

+ --~péfore, and - the question before had to do with her duties . m

_ until she left in April of ’64. - _ oe a 3

Mr. Riddle: Thanks, Your Honor.

Mr, Randall: I am Sorry. I didn’t understand. ae,

. The Witness: I made no deposits canto: the bank at any

time, ) . :

Q. (By Mr. Riddle) of cash? A. Of. anything. I maide

_ noedeposits. :

Q. And _ throughout that period ‘of ae, that is, is :

time that you were _working there, you gave the . cash

. to Mr. Seaton if he was present? A. Yes, sir.

[206] Q. ‘And if not present, to somebody else?. A. Yoo; si sir.

. Q. Ma’am, again referring your attention to these cards 4

i for these checks——_ |

mad

(Thereupon, Government’s Exhibit N O. 70 was marked

by the reporter for the purpose of identification.)

' Mr. Riddle: Your Honor, we had a number of exhibits

- from’ 1 “through 69 marked previously. This exhibit was

not marked previously, so we are giving it the number 70.

The Court: All right.

Q. (By Mr. Riddle) I’ll show you, ma’am what has

been marked Govertiment’s Exhibit 70, and ask you to ;

- examine it for us, if you could,. please. Is that a familiar

document to. you! A. Yes, sir: 2

. Q. All right., What does it appear to be? A. A con- 4

tribution sheet; ‘copy of a contribution sheet. | 3

Al ort) Sa ee ie

Srcrin, or Ammer)

; :

* yy Sa eee }/ A Atty me! ”

ENO EL aR Sat te Pe 3 ee » Hosa

On enna RAR AR EAR Calg Oi ithe SS Tawa toe

. ’

—1—

Q. Is that. this collection -sheet, or gontabaiion sheet

that you have been ‘Feferring to: heretofore in yom testi-

‘mony? A. Yes, sir. | >

Q. And that contains the name of the sehipheiali’ A. Yes,

aan:

Q. Amounts i ae “worked and totals? A. Yes, sir.

Q. All right. And for what pay period does that sheet .

[207]: that you have in your hand cover? A. It says

March 10, 1963. |

- Q. ‘March 10, 63. All right. “And what job would a

be? A. It says Tom Sauk.

. Q. Tom Sauk job? A. Yes, sir. .

Q. And it has — a number of. employees’ names on the

left-hand column? A. Yes; sir.

Q. All right. What is the name of the first employee! :

A. R. Davis. —

Q. All right. And then does it indicate the number | of

hours worked?.. A. Yes, sir. > re

Q. How many hours did ‘he worke A. It says. eight,

. ‘hours .each day for five days; 40 hours.

Q. And what appears in the extreme right-hand column? |

A. Paid column, $7. 50. .

Q. Now. then, what does that indicate to you as. the

office manager or bookkeeper? The $7.501 A. That i is how .

much he paid for the week. —

Q. All right. - Does ‘that tell you whethor or not he’s

an out-of-towner or a member of Local 562 tn 208] A. This

would be an out-of4owner.

Q. An out-of-towner? A. Yes, sir.

- Q. How could you tell that would be an out-of-towner! |

A. By the amount of money that he paid.

Q. By the amount of smoney that he paid. All,right.

a Let’ s look at another one on the list. Look over care- —

4 7B _ ,

. - a"

fully and see if you: can see or identify any person on aus

list who was nat an. out-of-towner that would be a regular

member of 562. A. I don’t know them by name.

Q. All’ “right. ‘But. by using your analysis, based upon -

the paid column on the right side——

Mr. Daly: Your Honor, we will object. to this. I think

he is asking the witness to-make an assumption, some-

thing-she: doesn’t know of. her own knowledge.

The Court: Well, I think maybe the form of the ques-.

tion may be objectionable, Mr. Riddle, but I think that

you can ask her if there is any amount in the right-hand

column that, is less than the son or different: than the

- one that——.

Mr. Riddle: Very well, Your Honor.

Q (By’ Mr. Riddle) By looking at the right-hand col-

umn, is there any amount less than the one you just men-

tioned; Mr. .Davis?. A. shal ax dollars for sai days 7

worked. _ .

[209] Q. Six dollars ‘for four days worked. Now then,

is there any other difference in the column from the one

. that you mentioned first, Mr. R. Davis? A. The next one

Q. What is that man’s name? A. R. Seeker. .

Q. Nine dollars. All right. Now, how. mainy - hours of

did he work? A. He worked thirteen hours one day and

eight hours every other day. »

- Q. So he worked more than neied hours toe ot A.

-Yes, sir. a ee .

Q. And there’s a total, 1_ believe, MES y the

bottom on the right-hand side? A. Yes sir. One ‘hun-

_. dred seventeen dollars,

Q. One hundred seventeen dollars. _And this i is for how

“Inany employees? A. Sixteen. - 3

age |

SS spats TSHR

Awd

”

= 4

| —19—

-Q. Sixteen: Ma’ am; I notice that there appears on

here a column between the hours worked and the name of

the worker. A. Yes, sir. ie

Q. Can you examine that and tell the. Court and jury a

of several weeks’ work for [210] posting rather than post.

each individual week. Sometimes Wy ag bat if. we

didn’t have time, we would add them tip, you. know, likes * ~

if for two or three weeks, or however many. awit I would -

have, and pyt that. total, hecunmal@ton — in that column

there; and post that figure. .. — : \ Sa

Q. All right. Now, who did the a dundiaiing and the.

posting of that figure on this sheet?\ A. { did. :

Q. All right. Let’s take the top man that opopess on

there. His name is Davis. A. Yes, sir. :

Q. And in the first column there appears a figure 0. as “e

thirty dollars? A. Yes, sir.

Q. What do¢s that. thirty dollars” indicate? i That he

had paid for several weeks, and I-added his totals os

and posted them at one posting, thirty dollars.

'Q. Then does this sho the amount of money he’s. paid

theretofore between—for.|a given period of time? A. It: ~

would show that he had several — and thatI ,

posted them at one time. - ,

oui Shae Qa Nae MR NI RU

Saban AY ha CE

SSW DRA TR

. Q. How does this ‘column here, the frst column, differ.

from the last eolumn? Can you explain that to the Court

_’ and jury, please? [211] A. How does it differ? .

| Q. Yes. A. Well, it’s an accumulation of things that I

: totaled up and posted. These figures. here, if you mean— +

- these were put down by someone on the seats I put. these

here down here.

- Q. So they are your work product? A: Yes, sir.

Q. And how did you go about finding out how. mach ee

7 previously been. paid by these sixteen employees? A. Well,

what I meant by that was I would have several weeks of

a .

“2

= | .

° ae ‘

a oy > ts”

‘ weer

BO Lhe, a

this Tom. Sauk job, tail Seatasiois tig that had not been |

week and $7.50 for the wext, I would take ‘all these slicets |

and add them together and put ‘one/ figure down here, and: —

. then post this figyre here, and then these sheets ‘would =

. have been élipped’ together and the totals here would aa 4

the’ totals of each individual sheet. g

.Q. Very ” well. All ahh: Now, ‘then, where- did you *.

enter this. thirty-dollar figure. which ‘would be. an aceumu- 7

lation of several ‘weeks, or'a few weeks? Where would you

enter that figure in a pest A. On Mr. “ Davis’ 8

. eard. "be ZAs

Q.' ‘His individual card? A. Yes, sir. 4

(2i2} Q. All right. Now then, is this the type of posting

_ that you did’ on the individual: card that you testified to 3

- earlier? A. Yes. I would either post them’ weekly as they a

came in, or, you know, how much they were paid. .If I did’

not have time‘to get them all posted, then I would-add ~

them up like this and post them ‘like that, you know, sev-- =

; eral ‘weeks together.

Q. All right. N OW, so on. this individual card, “if I ender .

pe stand your testimony, there would be at all: the total - *

‘ “amount paid for. the period indicated on it? A. On the

‘individual tard there would be the. total amounts that they

had paid; a en ; “Sy 3

A Yee SPEEA 5 oe

“ Q All right. Now, the workers whi appear on this par- :

‘Bealar sheet, that is, Government’s Exhibit. No. 70,°I @

believe you say that that: appears to be: that: ‘they were 3

working on the Tom ‘Sauk job? A.- Yes, sir. " §

.Q. What would you do, if. anything, in the event a ||

worker appearing on that. sheet. was transferred to the —

Portage de Sioux jobt A. Nothing. 1 wouldn * possibly

even know . it. | ae ee

+ . s

yy aos ’

*, ¢ a

A ke

* Sho eS Sade any

>. it from thas

. whether he/ was-at one job. or another. Just wherever

se rears? ;

a a

vse

“tN

oe All right: How Soll you ‘pik that. person up ‘oin his aS

[213] single job? | ®. ‘When he would be reported from a

- different job, or else. mail his job ‘in, or pay it. Where he

worked had no bearing. on how I was handling it.

_.Q, But the’ question I am asking you, ma’ ’am,” is. even -

: deal he did change jobs in the week, at the ‘end of. the

period you would pick his name up and enter on that

* ‘single card the total ainount he had paid, whether it. was

from the Tom Sauk job or: from another job. - I guess 3

‘Tm not. explaining it right. er 3 , é

-Q. Well, please do. A. I would enitian. all. Aa names

_ on this sheet. Now, “if he worked ;at a different, job, 2

and his name appeared on that ‘sheet, then I would enter: .

sheet; but I would not, you’ know, know

his name ¥ ould appear, that’s how I would post him.

Q. All : ight. Ma’ am, from the: records. that you kept,

- could yo determine if a person was ‘delinquent or in ,ar-

Well, 110, because I really don’t, x wouldn’t know .

like if they were working or not working, or if they were,

-*you Inpw, i in town or out of town, o or—Now, I could show

‘.you if & man had not: paid anything, but that would not f

necessarily mean he was delinquent. For instance, he may

have retired, or he may be. — or he may not be ‘working,

, or ‘whatever.

o on

[214] Q. But the. ona you Seok in your office would

tell you whether or not a mati had paid anything or any ned

given. week? A. Yes, gir. bt) ae |

Q. And if you wanted to. check J ohn Jones: working or

the job, down at Tom Sauk, all you had to do was go to

the record and check to see. if he had paid? <A. Again,

' not. by jobs. . ‘His record would not. show that. If I were

tsSot ©

to look up, you know, like for instance where this Mr. oo

Davis, if I knew he. was working at Tom Sauk, I would

have to look at these records,

.&:

—

ae ate

"word a ” T will. sustain it as to that word.

~Q All right. Aas of the ‘800 or so cards that you tes- cs

tified you had, i in. just a few seconds you could look te his a

- eCard’ ‘and tell? A. How many dollars ‘he had paid?

Q. How much he had paid. A. That’s right, Yes, sir. |

Q. And from that could you find out how much he had,

paid’: and from -the cards or from the sheets” you have in -

your hand, you could find out how much he had worked?

A. Not necessarily. Not necessarily that either. -

Q. Ma’amt A. Not ‘always. had a way either, because

-Imany times they would put, I mean everyone did it a

little bit’ different, but many times’ they would have on

- these sheet? - ‘only men who had [215] paid, for instance. _

_ Now, ‘he may be working there and have | not. paid. “Do “SS.

you see vhat I mean? .

_ Ne low, then; suppooe-+T am ‘inking y you the

way you handled your se now. ‘A. Yes.

Q. Suppose thdk this | R. Davis: on. one of these reports 3

shows ‘up as having oe, nothing? A. There were some

that did it that -way to _ They had nothing there. 2° |

Q: Then suppose the next eek the, sheet came in at

_ the same Job for the same R. “avis that shows he had

caught up. How would you enter that? A. Justin the

- total amount. a: : a, ~ .

' Q. From checking the, collection. sheets ‘that™ 1e in,

could ‘you determine whether a man had: caught” up

whether. he; was samaracapems |

Mr. London: I am going to object to this, Voue Honor. :.

_ There i is ho ‘such: thing as a man being delinquent or being

“in arrears or ‘having to catch Up. There i is none of that in

evidence.

—The Court: T assume what you are objecting to is the ,

_é

| Mr. Randall: Tour Honor, in addition to that, she said

she had ng way of telling at all if asl didn?t list the

[216} name.

‘The Court: I think he has a right to” on what |

the records, were that were employed.

_ Q. (By -Mr. Riddle) Ma’am, . may I ask you this ques- .

tion: In.examining the type of report, the form you have

in your hands, from time to time, did you notice that no-

tations would be entered frequently. showing that a “per-_

son owes or that a person was behind? A. That was /writ-

ten on records.

w+ Often and frequently, was it not? ~ |

Mr. London: I will object to the form of this question.

Mr. Riddle: | T will withdraw it. 0

The Court: The questions were whether or not she ever

, noticed. All right. She may answer. |

The — Yes. Yes, TL did notice it.

-Q. (By Mr. Riddle) “What. would. you actos with ree

| ‘spect to that? A. Well, sometimes. if would just have noth-

ing in. this total pee column.. Sometimes; ‘there would be. =)

a notation ‘‘owes”’ ;

‘Q. Owes? A. i sometimes hice ieeaid ‘be a | epedion

that would say, ‘‘Paid by mail,’’ or, ‘Paid at the hall, ia or, 7

you ‘know, they would write little things in it.

_ [217] Q. Ma’ am, on the particular sheet’ for the week end-

_ ing March 14, 1963, are there any people on that. = who

, ae to pay or contribute? A. No, sir.

: “ee Daly: Your Honor, I am going to~ object. She

‘wouldn’t know how many people. were on the — She only ,

; lists’ those that: did pay.

The Court: Well, I will sustain the objection as tis the -

| form, of that — and, to’ the question. You might

—— ws _

— 84—

ask her if this affects all pemk that were yoeie at

Tom Sauk.

Mr. Riddle: I will withdraw that question.

The Court: Or if she knows how many were working.

Q. (By Mr. Riddle) Ma’ ‘am, of the sixteen names that- —

appear.on that sheet, had any of those sixteen mor paid

for this work period? A. No, sir.

Q. Now then, ma ’am, do you know, of your own knowl-

edge, if anybody else was working on this project at Tom ;

Sauk for that period ending March 10, 1963? A. I don’t

know who works on the jobs.

Mr. .Riddle: All right. If it. please ‘the Court, at this. -

as we'd like to.offer into evidence the Governmént’s Ex-

hibit No.°70.:

The Court: Well, I think it is admissible, but I: -

| [218] would prefer that we try to get as many as we are

going to have, and then, although Mr. ‘Nangle was jump-

ing to his feet aie Do you have an objection, Mr.

. Nangle?

Mr. Nangle: Your Honor, I’d like to confer with these

others. The only thing is that the original is available,

and we might want to examine the original before Your.

Honor actually admits this in evidence.

The Court: Well, that is perfectly. all sight. I would 3

. think that you would know.

Mr. Nangle: Well, we weren’t wivined that this docu-

ment might be offered in evidence today, Your Honor.

- Mr. Nangle: I didn’t know that this document would be

; admitted i in evidence. -

The Court: I realize that this was not one that you

went over last night, but wouldn’t it be more ordenty for

~ .

— 85 —

“your pur rposes to get them in line, aiid iltimately I-will

admit 1, 3, 7, 10, and so forth, and maybe .70.

Mr. Riddle: Your Honor, I will withdraw. our offer. at

. this time, and we will submit ‘a umber of them at the

same time later.

Q. (By Mr. Riddle) Ma’ amin examining the: sheets, .

‘hundreds of sheets that camé in while you were working

there, or there, did you notice any collections or payments |

from [219} apprentices?

Mr. Daly: I will object, unless—— 7

Mr. Randall: No foundation. .. .

MreRiddle: All right. I will ask fo | _

The Court: All right.

Q. (By Mr. Riddle) Are you familiar with the term

‘“‘apprentice’”? A..Yes, the term apprentice. .

Q. What do you understand an apprentice to be? A. *

One learning the trade; not a journeyman, not a full jour-:

. neyman.

“not sure about that.

Q. Well, do you know whether or a0 apprentices paid

into the fund while -you were there? A. I’m not sure. I

don’t remember ever—Do you. mean ‘like a special, collec-

‘tion af apprentices? |

Q. Yes. Or no collection from apprentices at all.. Do

you know? A. No, because I wouldn't know them by: name.

I wouldn’t know any names of apprentices, and if -they

didn’t show up on the sheets, T wouldn’t know if they

» were apprentices or not.

Q. During the time you were there, do you — of Pang

[220] member of. the 562, or any person working on the

job, who didn’t pay into the fund that you controlled? A. ~

Well, I would have no way of knowing like who ‘would

Q. And not a member of the local? A, Well, now, I’m —

VR AA Tah EL ah ey

I ANC ox 0 ot angled ane gael te

Bilis gdeci et iawipecaaiiaon. iesinaten

— 86

not pay, you know, if they paid regularly, because of the

_ work ‘schedule, because I wouldn’t know whether they

were working or not.

Q. Do you know whether an Soprenties pays the régular | :

dues into the union? Do you know-that? A. No, sir.

~Q. Ma’am, Again referring to the sheet here, or the title

sheet, and it’s evidenced by Government’ S Exhibit 70, did

you havea supply of these in your office? A. Y es, sir.

: -Q: Do you know how these: got from your office into the

' hands of the. foremen or stewards? A, Well, the one who -

they would at times ask me for them, and I would give

them more sheets. Now,:whether or not they gave them

‘to the foreman, I don’t ‘iow but I know that is one of —

the ways that they got them. I had, you know, a supply

of them. -

«6 Now, siien: you began’ working there on January

‘AIst—the first week in January, did you distribute- these a

. Sheets to everyone? Or how did you distribute them out

. on the jobs? [221] A. I don’t know. I don’t think I gave

+ thém out as a group. I think they were already given out. —

That part of-it had been taken care of, as I remember.

I don’t remember giving them out as.a group. Just when

they needed more, then I would give them.

Q. When you came on the. job, these forms, collection |

sheets, were already out on the jobs, is that what you are

7 telling us? A. Yes, that’s how I believe it was.

Q. All right. Ma’am, are you familiar with the designa-

tion of metal tradesmen? A: No, sir. I mean I have heard -

metal tradesman, the word ‘“metal ae, ’”? but I don’t

know what it is.

_Q. Do you know the difference bétwein a pipsiities and - _

a metal tradesman? A, Well, pipefitters—I know what

pipefitters are, but I don’t know what metal tradesmen

are, 3 a an $4 >

_— 87 —

| 0. Do you know if fietel Tradeamen, are a part of. the

apipeltior: local? “A. No.

Q. You don’t know that? A. No, sir.

Q. Did you ever see any metal tradesmen come into’your

_office,;or come in where the Voluntary Fund was, and

identify [222]. himself as such? A. No, sir.

Q. Ma’am, on the individual sheets or cards that you

_ maintained for each member or worker, I. believe you tes-

tified that you had his address on: eres A. On some of .

them, I did...

Q. All right, Where’ did you obtain that address? <A. I

believe I was given.a list. I was having problems identi-

fying ‘people. There were so many ‘names that are alike,

similar, and I was trying to find, you know, a way. that I

could perhaps identify them better, and I believe I asked

; for a.list of names and addresses. I thought. by this [ —

could perhaps tell them apart.

Q. How did you. a8k for that list of names and ai

dresses? A. I would imagine it would be Mr. Seaton, but

I’m not positive of that. I’m pretty sure that’s who it was.

_ Q. All right. And what did you. obtain from Mr. Seaton — -

in response to that request? A. Addresses for the—some

names and addresses that I tried to,. you ‘know, identify

~ these people with, I put on their cards then.

— Q. All right. Now, : making reference to this “pension

fund that you keep now A. Yes, sir.

[223] Q. Can you tell the Court and jury whather or not -

‘the out-of-towners are given any.credit for pension for

money that comes into that fund if any money is paid in

, for them? A. Well, the out of town: people, there’s no dif-|

ference in them in the: welfare. . Anyone who works out —

of this local in this jurisdiction is paid fringe benefits into

’ this local, so our office actually doesn’t keep any distinc-

tion between the out-ef-towners or menibers of 562. That -.

doesn’t enter into it, and their’ benefits are the same.

. .

ECR BR ERLE ATM ECE RE RTI RE

Sa a haa

ee ee peer eee

oe gg

sir. : | S 3

Q. So on the welfare, not welfare, but the pension and %

welfare portion you get from the contractors? A.. Yes,

Q. This contains contributions frem them to ‘thé out. _

of-towners, as well as your regular members? A. ¥es, sir.

Q. All right. Who succeeded you in al position! .

“AL Edward Beck. —

Q. Ma’am, are you related to either of the defendants!

A. Yes, sir. Mr. Callanan is my uncle.

Q. Are you married to his son,. oF how is itt A. No. |

_ He is my mother’s brother, and my unéle.

Mr. Riddle: We liave nothing further of this witness

~ at this time, Your Honor.

Mr. Randall: Your Honor, may I be permitted to [224]

mnberronate the witness?

The Court: All right.

Mr. Randall: May I first ask if there is any “Jenks

statement on this witness?.

Mr. Riddle: No Jenks Act.

- Mr. Randall: Did the witness testify telors the as a

’ jury?

Mr. Riddle: Yes, sir.

_. Mr. Randall: May I request } her testimony before the -

| grand jury?

The Court: We will have a hearing on this.

(Thereupon the following colloquy — among the -

Court and counsel, at the bench, out of the hearing of the’

. jury:) oe _ 7s

The Court: I think that maybe they are entitled to this. —

Mr. Riddle: Your Honor, we have no objection for them ~

seeing the transcript. of the grand jury as these witnesses

‘go on the stand. We have concluded that that would be

in the interests of justice.

The Court: How much testimony is there?

Mr. Riddle: Fifteen or twenty pages;. ‘not too much. ~

The Court: How long would it take you to digest’ it?

“Mr. Randall: Not:very long, Your Honor. I’d be willing —

to proeeed with some interrogation of this witness, ‘and

[225] maybe we could get the testimony and the other

attorneys will look at it. We will try to do-it as speedily

as possible, Your Honor, and if we could get it before =

the witness is excused——

Thé Court: Let the record show that the District At-

torney’s office has given a transcript of this witnesses’ .

testimony before the grand jury.

Mr. Randall: When you have your ‘regular es we

can digest it. °

(Thereupon: the trial was resumed before the jury as ~

follows: ) | an, |

is giving a transcript of this witness’s testimony before

-. the grand jury to the defense cousel. It is the first time

-they have seen it, so we will Have about, well, be back

about. twenty after. Be guided accordingly now, so. be

available at twenty after, and .bear in niind the ‘admoni-.

tion I have given you heretofore. habits lady, you can

step. down. . so "7 th

_ (Followi ing a brief recess, witness Patricia “Stieferman Y.

resumed the witness stand, and the further following pro-

ceedings were had:)

eS RO eee

. XN

. Cross-Examination.

By Mr. Randall: 7

_Q. Mrs.’ Stiefelman, in your direct examination you

first . describe. your functions with the Welfare Fund, or

[226]. welfare benefits for pipefitters? A. Yes, sir.

_—

Q. And you said that the contractors paid so tnuch per

' hour into this Welfare Fund? ‘A Yes, sir.

- Q. How much do they pay per hour of work into the

_ Welfare Fund? A. Two dollars and seventeen and a half

cents. .

-Q Two dollars and. seventeen and a half cents. Now,

how much do the pipefitters draw per hour of. work, in

addition to the Welfare Fund? Do you, know that? A.

. No, sir. ) —

Q. What theif wage seale is? A..No, sir. |

— Q. And turning for a moment. over to your: later testi-

mony. concerning the voluntary contributions, during the °

_ period that you were in charge of that, or worked with ~

that? The members of Local 562 paid twelve and a half.

. cents per hour; isn’t that eorrect.- A. A dollar for eight -

‘hours; yes, sir.

' Q. And those people ~who were not. “members paid

twenty-five cents per hour; is that correct? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, let? s talk a moment to what Mr. Riddle. [227]

a he f

characterized. the out-of-towners. Now,,many of those ; =

people who were not members of Local 562 also were not...

members of. another pipefitters local, but were merfibers

_ ‘of the Boilermakers or Ironworkers, and those unions?

| A. Yes, sir.

Q. And some of them were not members of any union; |

_isn’t that correct, ma’am? A. I don’t know: that.

Q. You don’t know that. Now, getting back into your

earlier testimony, are you aware that the pipefitters local | :

; held, their meetings at the Electricians’ hall? A. ‘Yes, sir.

BE RIA ON SE

. eT

—S1L>

: | Q. In other: words, they don’t really have a hall at all,

’ do they, Mrs. Stiefelman? ‘A. No, sir.

Q. All you really have there is an office building? AL 5

That’s right.

° Q. And during the—at the pregent time, the upstairs .

portior: of the office: building is occupied by. the staff of

_ the Welfare Fund, or the welfare benefits? A. Yes, sir.

Q. “This fund in which the c

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.