# Appendix — Pipefitters v. United States > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386414_0053%3A01 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1972 - **Citation:** 407 U.S. 385 ## 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- e € 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. . 3 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, =i _ 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. —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 o- 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 va eee i _ 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 0 _ 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. 3 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 ff - 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). ss ‘ ff 7 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). : -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.) L 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 _ Ca ’ * dues of ~~ al Action: Com- ae? ~ 7. : ’ 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 @", Adina abe. Poste iiebrhlaodarbe spon Gi sees a | —422— tm : 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 3 : K ; a. 3 2. Mt * | 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-— y ‘ 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. 3 4 . | ; Freedom of political expression irons hiinsin itt as ‘ 5 % 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 ig 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 oe s _- Kahriger, 345 U. 8. 22, 33-34. The obvious effect of Sec- U.S. 516, 539. he 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. - OH 1-6116, : Ses ae "Attorney for Defendants Seaton e | _ and Local Union: No. 562. ep 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: ; 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 4 + 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. 88 ~ ro 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, a at 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 . day of ‘January? A I believe * ‘it w irst “week in : -. Jatiuary.. ‘ , ? 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 ’ 4 * dD, fs / % 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 | . dollars, and” then five dollars, you know: the ten dollars © 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. your hands; how did you deliver that to Mr: Seaton ft’ In oe 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. Q. All right. Would you ont ‘aniything ie in the ent © 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 had. the man’s name and address at the top of the card. © 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 when I was there; it was not locked. © | : . 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 Mr. Randall: Your Honor, what period of time is is he re- © ~ 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 a 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- — ed 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 ' would be the nine dollar 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 i 1 | | 5 3 a 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 ~ what. that column contains? A. That’s an, accumulation © 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 2 ¥ a . “2 a3 Z| Re = | . 2 ° ae ‘ a oy > ts” ‘ weer BO Lhe, a this Tom. Sauk job, tail Seatasiois tig that had not been | posted,- so instead of posting Mr. BR. Davis $7.50-for that © 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 "AM right. From whatever job See were © working ont : 5 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 Ey 4 Pe 5) * Sho eS Sade any >. it from thas . whether he/ was-at one job. or another. Just wherever se rears? ; 4 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 ad -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? _— 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? : | 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 contractors pay. two dollars. _and.seventeen and a half cents per hour into? A. Yes, sir., [228] Q. And the-people who work. under the jurisdiction . of Local 562, the contractors pay the same amount into | that Welfare Fund, don’t they? . A. Yes, sir. Q. And they receive the same benefits? A. Yes, Sir, 7 Q. As the members of the local?. A. Yes, sir.’ - Q. And that includes Cliristmas vacation benefits; is that right? A..Vacation. e's Vacation benefits, medical benefits? A Yes, sir. -Q. Does ‘that include scholarship benefits for some of. -the children of this local, or outt- of-towners? A. I-am~ not sure. whether it includes, scholarships, but it includes. life insurance and ‘hospitalization and medical and vaca- Gon and holiday benefits. . Te, = A °Q. Now, you have been with the Welfare Fund since March of "64; is that correct ?. A. Yes, sir... Q. What was: being paid per hour as benefits into that ‘Welfare Fund. when you first went to work — in 19647 A. I believe it was ninety cents.: [229] Q. In other. words,— .Q. In other words, it’ s gone from seventy-five cents ‘to two dollars and seventeen and a half cents since March of - - A. Seventy-five cents.. . 19647? A: Yes, sir, it? S gone up. . Now, in the case of the W elfare Fund, at the pesaeak time that is paid directly by the contractors; isn’t that. correct? . A. Yes, sir, Pak pe gt —2— Q. te other words, they have checkoff, what we refer to | ie. as checkoff. It. is deducted? A No, sir. This is not de- ; ducted. % Q; .Oh, pardon me. It j is not. It is in addition. A. This -is in addition to their salary. | ; ia - —(Q. Bit it is paid directly by the contractor? A. Yes, sir, _ | And it is not, collected from the men themselves? A: @ No, sir, . ; ‘a Q. Ma’ am, going baek to the bogieining: of this thing, a when you first started, to work for the Voluntary: Fund nd -youtsay the offices of ‘the. Voluntary Fund were upstairs . | in this building; is that correct? A. Yes, | sir. There was * 4 one: office upstairs. : . _ (230) Q. And downstairs you bats five ollbecy?\ Q. And at that time one side of the corrid \Weltare Fund? A. That’s' right. ao And the other sidé was the local’ 8 business? \ A. Yes ; | Yes, ‘sir. was the “- Q. By Welfare office check? A. ‘Yes, sir... ° Q. You just receive one check -each ‘month since. you work there, and that is from the Welfare office? A. Yes. Q. For these hours that.you work each month on these , , books, on this Vohintary Fund, you haven t got a separate check for that? A. No, sir. Q. Ma’am, showing you what’ s been or Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, I’ll ask you to examine it and identify it for _ the Court - jury, Please. Can. you ent it for us? A. Yes, sir. — Q.. Would you please ao: $6! A. This is the ledger that T wrote up that I kept for 1963. : Q. Now, in this ledger you, contain, or you ont what — ‘figures and what—or make what entries in it? [238] A. Well, the bank rae and the dates, and the amount of ae oo - Be . ,. 1 ; x a ie = 7 nat Geen here, and the checks, .the shock numbers and the dates, and to whom they : -were written, and the amounts, and then totals on all of them. Q. Does this book reflect all receipts and all disburse- ments from out of that par ticular fund? A. Yes, sir. Q. For the year 1963? A. Yes, sl Q. All right. Thank you. Ma’am, } will show you now what’s been marked Gov ernment’s Exhibit No. 2, and ask you to examine it, if you would, please. Do you know w hat it-is? A. _ Yes, sir, it is the—— Q. Would you tell the Court and jury what it is, vieuse A. It is the journal ledger for 1964, and it has the same - thing, the bank deposits in it, cash deposits, and the checks, and to whom thoy mers paid, and- the ‘amounts and the totals. . \ ; —Q. All. right. In other. words, it shows. all receipt and all disbursements? A. Yes, sir. sit. Q. Does it purport to ‘indicate. the purposes* for. the [239] disburséments? A. Yes, sir. , Q. And what categories are contained 1 in that particular exhibit? A. I think I have it here: Office.equipment,. office expenses, payroll taxes, political, charity, defense, -edu- — cational, legislative. and migcellancous. _ Q. All right. Is°that same thing true for Exhibit No. 1, 1963? A. I believe it is; yes, sir. Q. It is. What you have just eae and identified as the original record and books of the Fund?. A. Yes, sir. “Q. And that. same thing i is true for 1 and 2 PA. ‘Yes, sir. . Q. I notice that,. well, Exhibit. No. 2 contains entries for the period from and through the rest’ of the year, as well as the first several months? A. Yes, sir. Q: “And to whom the disbursements were made? A. Yes, eyes ied ie: ETERS RET eT I HOE ONEI HM Ay . 5 ’ aa 3 i ASR NR DLA PY > ‘ eat a Rotattt hatalt hs musket aan AACR EP ON REPER OU HEY: ty nar e CS AOL ARAAR BION aa eta ws | " daetisespi bid tears WOnecu'a ~ continued to do it all until the end of °64. 98 . Q. Did you enter all of these yourself? A. Yes, sir, I @:-* _Q. Even after you had gone to the other fund? A. Yes, - _ gir. ask you’to examine it and identify it for jury, if you would, please? A. This is the re Court and | d.for 1965. Q. For. 1965. Does it have the same entries and the same categories and columns as the others? A. Except that in 65 we did not break it down according -to categories. It _ [240] Q. Now, I show you Government’s it: 3, and: is just the checks and the names of the people that the. . checks were written for, and the total amount. ‘There were no categories | for them. Q- So it shows all receipts and disbursements? A. ‘Yes, sir. Q. and to > whom the disbursements were made? A. Yes, sir. Q. But it doesn’t identify the purpose? A. That? s right. . Q. Now, did you keep this book also and make the en- . trieat A. Yes, sir. Q. ‘Throughout the whole: year - of 657? A. Yes, sir.” Q. All right.’ I will show you what’s been marked as the. Government’s Exhibit No. 4, and ask you to examine it— - and identify it, if you can, for us, please. A. ‘This isa : check register that was used in 1965. [241] Q. 1965. Will you define, or expinin at more thor- oughly for the jury, pease’ A. Well, this i did not keep at this time. Q. All right.-sA. But ¥ has a. check tihishoon ia the’ - - date the check was written, and to whom, ‘and the amounts, -and then the bank deposits that were made. -Q. All right. Now, I’ll' show you what’s-been marked as Government’ s Exhibit No.- 5, and ask you to examine: a and — it for the Court and. Jury, if ‘you would, —99 — | please. A This is the record for 1966, and I kept this record. . . Q. All right: And what does it contain?, “A. The dis-. bursements, and ‘ the receipts and the deposits into the bank, Q. All. entries: made if there were made by you? A. Yes, sir. Q. All right. At whose request. or diréction did you go from your Welfare Fund. chores to your Voluntary Fund. . chores? A. Well, I just continued to help out. In 64 when -] left, no one was really assigned to thé job, so while I, you know, when I started working in the welfare’ office, then I continued to do this, the posting and keeping up the records, and J. did it in the evenings and on Satur-.. days so that we could, you know, keep it up and finish it. off for the year. Then in [242] ’65 I just helped out when-~ - ever I could, you know, whenever they needed anybody, but mainly for this I kept thé journal | and made the, took care of the—I have lost my words—bank statements and reconciled them, and things like that. Q. All right. But after you left that particular Fund’ S office in. 64, you didn’t continué to collect the money that — came in? A. No, sir. Q. All right. . Now, you have identified ‘the ledgers ‘ or . the books for the years 63, °64, 65 and 66, and also the book. that has on ‘the front of it, “The Executive,” that has been marked Government’s Exhibit No. 4. Can y : ie ‘4 = * £ 2 2 ian “3 rn alam ne, Pinion ish to oat Te icbwabl rene Terme aC Wen Rare ero 1 RAE ‘+ 100—" Q.. Would every item and entry in’ the book that you “Tee. that is, Government’s Exhibit No. 4, been always a. contained i in A. In this year’s in that. Q. in the year? [243] om : Bee -@ ‘Pat piled A Yes, and: Gora Schulz, I believe ese Pat Stiefernian at that time was aia. dis by- the Volun- ie Fund, , oe ‘ : pas : Q. Now then, when -you. ‘moved. awe to the 'valeatey os sues Fund, can’ you tell the Court:and jury just ‘what your a. duties were, and what you did? A. The collectian of money . * was the main portion of my-job, keeping the records. Q. Collection of meney- and or the records? A. : Check disbursements. ~ .. | ee ae -Q Writing checks? :A. Yes, sir. pares pk oe Q. All right. Now then, directing your attention to the _ part of your. duties that had to do with the collgction of - money; what type of collection did you — A. The ones that were brought | into the office, sir. —. “ oO Who brought the collections intd. the office? © . [261] Q. ‘My, question,, sir, is s this: On occasions did you collect money: for’ the Voluntary, Fund while you were in | Q. The bulk of ‘the collection business 5 afi A: 301 A. Be Qs At what hours would Gg a : office A. There | was no specific hours, | :: Q ‘Sir? A. It was no specific hours. If scunebinily: came -in, and it was my job to collect it, and I went over-and took care of them, : but we tried to keep most of our busi- Heet- ey for the. Vol- when you were. still in the Welfare Fund | ‘: - mess for ‘Voluntary after 4:30. til vaedhes o’clock or on a oe Faye nee — Ke Soe Vale 12 es hae Q. ‘Tf it came j in. cater 4 :30,. you'd be in the e Velma | 4. offiveet AL Yes, sir. - yas nos Q. If. it cathe in through the day, yaad: probably bei in Sree the Welfare office? A. Kes, OE ae | Rip tue' [262] Q: ‘And y aed tell the. fellows come in there and ts conduct’. your , happened so seldom’ we took. them over to ‘my, Office in § the: Voluntary. It, wasn’t an “office. It Was. just a désk. : -Q. ‘The two. were real close together? A Yes, sir. - es Q ‘You could just move from oné:to » the other. without, oe any difficulty? A. Yes, sir. | — - - Q.About how - ‘many- feet’ apart were. th opt AS Well, fs they had, the one side was the ‘Welfare, and the other side. 4 - at that time was # asstooms, and. my. desk ‘was in | ‘the classroom, and I’d say it was approximately across © : ade . ee Yessir SH REN ee \ “Q In fact, did theyre come in often? A. No, sir. _ Seldom. Their offices were all downstairs, and they had no ~ don’t recall, they might have a peti sir, but— = % Q This file, was it in-a” iling tabi bel. or in. a aa: ie I can’t remember_at~ this time. “There was 2 filing ° when [264] T T hada group of them,. then I put them in. the no. occasion, “because it was Qa Mr. Callanan could come in if he. wanted tot A Q Did they ever come in while _you “were théret: A. To maybe pass the time of day, or something, but very: ~ [265]. occasion to ‘come up. They . were: able to, but :I. locked, oe Fey ge ee : . ’ - . 3% i | | oy ie gta 3 (thereupon, the trial Was resumed before the jury as wi | | ‘follows: ). . i ae | | on Q. (By Mr. Riddle) Sir, are’ you, ‘feiniftiar with the fund 4 “that I, believe was calted the Callanan Gift. —_, A 4 Yes, sir. oer aT Mee . Mr. ‘Daly: — the- record show. our continuing objec: a a - tion to all of this examination? ~~. 3 - * The. Court: I have overruled: the objection, so “that re ‘think you have preserved your record by making the gb, jection to it, and I assume that your next series of ques-. c| tions willbe directed.to that © nhs | ‘ey Riddle: It will, Your Honor. ak Spa YG 269] The Court: “So. ‘the objection will ‘go to the questions : , 5 7 a '’ pertaining to that,. and the rulings will be the same. ig “Mr. Riddle: All right. As a collector during the time you testified.to, did you Mave occasion t6 receive’ monies 3 into the Callanan Gift Fund? “A. Yes, sir. eer . 7 * 4 Q. Where did: you. receive them? 4. By that. time, sir, aN -1 believe I was downstairs in our own office in the same _ building, but we'd run two ‘offices downstairs at this time. Q. Well, can you explain that. for. us, the two offices , dowistairs? A. Weil, they got all this new machinery . seins sir, and they had to , make use of the. room Where - 4 }. « > "Se TEAL farted ED Sere classrooms were, and: they” made this ‘all into oa ‘ the Welfare; the whole top: -floor. . @. The’ wholé\second floor?’ A. bea So they had, int fast, "the executive diréctor’s offices downstairs, nd he maved : weeteins, and then ‘we took, over his offices downstairs: Q. You mean the Voluntary Fund moved from upstairs. & downstairs about that time? A. Yes, sir; I can’t remember ie . the date, ‘sir, how it eoindided, or anything. - £270] Q. ‘Then it is: your teRimdny that: at the time you. -were ¢ollecting for the Callanah Gift Fund you’ were doing business downstairs instead of aipstairs? A. Yes, sir. -Q. Now, how was the Callanan Gift money brought to you? A: In more or less the same manner that the Volun- tary Fund had been brought: to me. 7 Q. ‘By the same people? A. Well, there were é Variations. 7 : I imaginé. They changed ‘constantly as‘ jobs changed. Q. Did you have this sheet or form of the type we were / talking about that theretofore was" called, ‘‘Pipefitters Voluntary /Fund’’? Did you have a sheet jist like this?” A. It wag very similar to it, gir, but it wasn’t exactly. Q. The heading was ‘different, was it not? A. I believe ” - it was changed, but I can’t be sure. The heading. was S dif- ferent; yes, sir. Q. All right. ‘But the. coleiens were the wan ry I be: °. - lieve that was changed. It seems to me-it was. —— I'd have to check them though. : : (Q. But over on the gies corner there was figtirest A Yes, ' sir. Q. Showing’ the amount paid by each member whose ' Tame appeared on each sheet ? [271] Ag Yes, sir. Q. ‘During the time that ' ‘you ‘were receiving the Calla-. nan money, were any payments at that tinie received into the Voluntary’ Political Find? A. Yes, sir. There was an overlap of when the Callanan Gift Fund was voted in by —us— the membership, amd some ‘people, of. course, ‘owed to the Voluntary Fund, and I tried to keep it as separate as | : : could. In other words, if they wanted to come in and pay. = for something they owed before the Gift. Fund, but came a | ’ in after it-started, I tried to’ keep, that money as well as © _” Teould, and:I believe I ‘did, separate, and then after the © Gift Fund came in, or: it ‘was is stopped, there was an’ over- 2 Jap there, also. - : © Q. Let me see if I anderatiaed 3 you oe hare. Did .. you say there was a -meeting: of the: members of the Uniont — ' A. Yes, sir. ae 4 ~ Q. And that meeting was noni wetisner up » the Calianea a Gift Fund? A. Yes, sir. 4 | “Oe Did you attend that nssiting? A. Yes, sir. ~ Q. Where .was it-held? oi I believe it was at the Elec- “tricians’. Hall. : Q Q. ‘About how many ‘people were ‘uted (272] A. A ~ rough guess, six, seven hundred ‘people; something like - that. . “~Q. Was there: any poke taken at that. icaieus to sus ~ pend the Voluntary Political Fund while the Callanan — Fund was operating? A. Yes, sir, I believe this was done. — .Q. So at this’ meeting then}. if I understand your testi- 4 mony correctly, it, was voted to suspend the’ Voluntary 2 Fund, Political Fundt. Av.Yes, sir. _&§ ~Q. And inst Ntute in its: place the Callanan Fund? A. I. 4 believe t 8 is -how it’ was; yes, sir. e: ” % -Q. All right. And what about the rates or the assess E mieite for the Callanan Fund as. compared to the other — Fund? A. I beileve the motion was made to carry it on, : | the same as the Voluntary Fund. Q. All tight. So if the assessment * was rade ae for. q z - out-of-towners, that: would continue right on thréngh the :. Gallanan period? A. Yes, sir, I believe this was pee : eat ae 3 ey ‘And if it Was. 5 $1.00 a day for the 562° s, that would a cuuniies right on through? A. To the best of my ames “yes, sir, I believe it was, go Q. Now,. then, if I understand’ your testimony correctly, [273]-at the time that you ee me withdraw. - that. a > the time ‘that you initiated the Callahan Fund, that — ere were some people who still owed for back payments ‘on the Voluntary Fund, or Political Fund? A. Yes, sir. There*was a date: Now, I can’t remember what: the date. - was, and I don’t. remember if it was the date. the Callanan Fund was set up, but. people pwould come in and say, ‘“‘Well, I owe ‘so much from su h \jand such a date,” and I said, ‘‘ Well, a portion belongs to Voluntary Fund and ‘a portion belongs to the Gift F: d, ”” or whatever it might have entailed: Q. You are saying that ‘members would come’ in to you and say, ‘I owe back assessments for the Political Fand”? A. Well, usually they’d come in; they’d say, ‘‘I haven’t ' paid since such and stich a date,’’ and it was up to me to find the cutoff point and try to keep them separate. | Q. Was it up to you to try to figure ‘out how. much thef. a owed in arrears? A. Some pe6ple ‘kept: records of their ‘own, sir, and most of them said, ‘I owe for so many days,”? and then I would figure it. up for them, and ‘some would say, ‘‘I owe so veauas meme or whatever it might be. | nes Q. Was it t often that —" asked. you howe aad they owed you in arrears on that Political Fund, the: Voluntary: — ‘Fund? A: Not often. . It: was’ individuals that came in, ’ and,some [274] of them, well,.it varied on. what they - wanted to’ pay, or what they thought they: owed. oF ee Well, they ‘knew how much. iit. was. They knew | whether it’ was’$1.00 a day or $2.00'a day? . Mr. London: I will object to the form. of the question, | Your Honor. . | = —120— TS aa ee “The Court: It will. be sustained. Mr. Riddle: All right, € (Thereupon Government's Exhibit No..71 was ‘nari E 2 ‘ by the reporter for the purpose of: identification. ) Be -Q. Sir, I'll show’ you what’s been marked’ Government's | Ss Exhibit: 71, and ask you if that is the type of the collec. 4 tion sheet for the- Callanan Gift Fund | that was } used t A. & ; Yes, sir. Q. This is ‘the type of sheet that was handed i in to yo with the money? A. Yes, ‘sir- Q. Now, .was the Callanan Gift money paid to you in — ia eash or by. check? A. Mostly cash, but checks alsé; yes, ~ ‘sir. It was male out to the Callanan Gift Fund by check. . Q. Now, sir; looking. at ~Government’s Exhibit 71, and. = "at the date, can you tell us if the first name on tlie list, Don: Gilmore, was a member of 265, or an out-of-towner! [275] The Court: You mean 562? - Mr. ‘Riddle: I mean n 562. Excuse me. es A. Yes. ae on Phe | Q. And hich of was het A. He is a 562 man. | - Q. All right. I show you the name. appearing beside No. 11, Ed Burns. -Can you tell by looking at this Gov-. is ¥. Tr ALR Le Tine Coan He Ee 9 ce oh i 1 OETA) NAOT Em a ing Awe f art soe pe tis Dar) Masai a Bd birt, ernment’s Exhibit No. 71,; and tell the Court and jury | whether or not he was a member sas Local 562, or an out- ms __ of-towner? , @* @ . Mr. Daly: I will object. to ‘that. I think: it calls for a a ‘ conclusion on the part of the witness. 4 * The Court: It will be overruled. ey e The ‘Witness: Normally he ‘would. be an “out-of-towner, 7 but sometimes, like on there being, see, there.is not any |= Hours, and. to know for sure, I would. ‘say he’s probably an | | ont-or-towner. a ¢} ; Steska? A. Yes, sir. ERE RT IAB EO ANI 9 bb ak ef AIO A eS TE REMAN SERRE CR RF Nei RS Q. And what do you eo that conclusion on, ie rs | : Because of the rate of pay that’s paid. . Q. And: his rate of pay, ee to this cheeks ——" A. Ten dollars. Q. And the other rate of pay. is whatt A itty centa : a “day, $2.50. Q. Well, duritie the petted of the: Callanan . Gift Fund, what was the-rate of pay for out-of-towners? A. Two dol- ‘ . - lars a. day. [276] Q. Two dollars a day? A Yes, s sir. + Q. What was the. rate of pay during the Coltusen Gift Fund period for 562 members? A. Fifty cents a’ day. | -Q. Fifty cents a day. N ow, sir, when you. received the . _ —Tam still talking about the ‘period of time that the Cal- lanan collections are coming in; that fund—what did you do with that cash? A. I made up the deposits,-and I gave the sheets and money to Mr. Ed Steska: Q. You gave the sheets and the money both to “Mr. Ed el —_——_—=—- _.Q. You testified that you had ‘as filing heretofore the | Pipefitters Voluntary Fund sheets in your office? A. Well, — Mr. Steska was the committee of the Callanan Gift Fund, and he was in charge of the whole operation. —_ Q. Do you know at- that meeting Mr. Steska was ap- pointed? A. I believe the same meeting that the motion was made.to make the Callanan Gift Fund. Q. The same meeting that the Voluntary Political Fund ‘-was cut off and the Callanan Fund ‘was instituted? A. Z “believe that’s right; yes, sir. [277} Q. Do you Jxnow who presided at that — re = | 1 don’t remember ; no, sir. . ; ~Q. All right. Sir, how long did the Gallia Gift Fund > . stay in effect or supersede the Voluntary Political Fund? a ' . A. Td have to clieck the records. I think it waseabout | - 12 two and a:half months, or ae like’ that. Td 1 have 2 to check the records. - | Q. Do you know at what. time the Callanan Gift Fund 4 Was. to be cut off t* A. I believe it. was at the—no, sir, I 4 "| Teouldn’t tell how that was approached. | # - Q.- Was the cutoff date tied to a ‘time or date, or te an 8 amount of: money?’ A. I belieyg that was left up to the ie - committee of Mr. Steska. I'm ot sure though. | Q. Sir, did you receive any. instruetions from anyone as to when you #hould cut off the Callanan ‘collections and. 7 _reinstitute the other collections? A. I believe that was 3” “another meeting, sir. s I , -Q. All right. Where was that meésting: held? A. I imag- © ine atethe Electricians’ -or encase mae but I — it* was Electricians’ hall, ee “Q. ‘Did you stinal that seating? A. Yes, sir. —--- [978] Q. And ‘do you ‘recall what was decided. at that e / meeting? A. Verbatim, I can’t remember, sir. a cd * Q. Well, just in essence or substance, what “was itt A = It was decided to end the. Callanan Gift Fund. § Q. All right. Who made that: recommendation? A. I = imagine it was Mr. Steska. | , 4 - Q. All right. Were there ary. motions made. or— A. i I couldn’t. remember, sir. | os >. Q. Do you tecall if it was decided at that meeting to reihstitute the old. political,. or: Voluntary Political Fund? A. No, sir, I can’t remember if it was done at that time. -Q. But it was reinstituted, right after that? A. Yes, sir. a Q, All right. Well, ‘sir, was there any hiatus, or delay, 4 or period of time when no collections were coming in for. ‘y ‘either the Callanan or the Voluntary Political Fund! - _A. No, sir, because, like I said; there was an overlap, but. | whether there was a period of time—many. peoplé came in. | . with the Callanan Gift Fund the same as, after it ended the same as ‘they came in . with’Whe Voluntary Fund ‘before : it started. There was. an overlap — but I ont o - lieve there was any. breach ‘of time. . . | Q.-Sir, do you know if the amount of money you were | 279] receiving through ‘that period remained constant?” r- about constant? A. Yes, sir, = Q. That is before the Callanan Fund began, sal then ‘after it quit? The. amount of collections’ remained about | the same? A. I’d. have to check ‘the records, but’ I- would _. say it was approximately the same. ae ee es ' ‘Sir, did you have any a ee distributing a card that was styled a Gift Fund? A. Yes, sir. .Q. All right.. t did you do with. réspect to the. ih ” tribution of those-cards? A. I distributed them to various | people that came in. If they had mailed them i in,. mailed. ‘them, mailed the check in, I’d. take their address and mail — them a sare Fund card if rat wanted to ‘mail it back | signed: = sr were you given a great big ‘ask of these Gift Fund cards? A. There was a package, sir. | ' Q. Who gave that package to you? A. li imagine it was delivered to the office. I mean it was delivered to the office, -but I don’t believe anybody actually gave it to . Me. Ut wall, 4 ten Mr Steska. Q. Well, delivered— when you say to the “ollie. now | [280] which one of the offices are you: 1 talking abate A. The Volunteer office. | “ a And was it ina lates amen A. No. I think they: come—yes, sir, I think there’s four small packages in a - package about, approximately. twelve inches long, I guess. .Q. And you say, is it’ your testimony that you don’t - remember for. sure who it was, but you believe it was Mr. Steska that brought. them to you? Atl say I think they _ probably were delivered. right to my office, but if any-. One gave them to me, it would have had‘to be Mr. Steska, | os "9 “Who told you eat to do with. the cards after they | were received, if anyone? A.:Well, I took it for granted | they were going to be signed; to distribute them like I did, | Any business that. was transacted with the Gift. Fund Was with Mr. Steska, but I can’t remember amet how it. a was transacted. . : sss Q. At. this time, Mr.. —— was he e president « of the E y ; | Union’. A. Yes, sir.” a .- + Q, All right. Now, sir, these Gift Pend cards,—I'l ask a] : the reporter, to mark this Government’ s Exhibit 72. . 4 _ - (Thereupon, Geverameiit’s 5 Exhibit No. 72 was marked. | by [283] the reporter for the purpose of identification.) _ — pdt tah) _' QI am handing you. what’s been marked Govéen | _ ment’s Exhibit 72, and ask you to examine that. and°see . . if that is an ace rate copy of ‘the cards that you just we 7 fied about? A,Yes, sir. _ —- Q. And which you distributed? + Yes, ‘sir! Q All right. Now, sir, ‘in distributing these Gift Fand- = cards, did you mail any of tem? A. Yé&, sir, - | Q. Where did you mail them? A. To the address,of peo B ple that were mailing checks 1 in regularly and never com. : . ing into the office. 3 3 DOE oa 2a .Q.. ‘How many people: taniled. shocks in sali that. 4 - didn’t.come into the office? Give us the approximate | - number) A. Td say approximately sored tvs: a week; ; “in that neighborhood. , ; , Q.. “About ‘seventy-five. a week sent in sealer checks! - A. Yes, ae at various ti Not. the same: seventy-five . “every ‘week, but I imaginé | collected about. seventy-five J E _.checks a week. . “e Q. All right. So. that those preety 4 five | you: at dl: a q Gift Fund card? A. Yes, sir. : _ [282] Q All right. Did you write them a letter? A. I be’ lieve there was a form. letter I put in with the card; yes, o ; . or. I can’t rememker ‘the form letter. Mr. ties gave. it to me. I believe it was what was adopted * the meet- “ ing of the membership. . — Q. You say the’ form letter, was given to you by Mr. & Steska? pW Yes> sir. Q Who was it signed by? A. Mr. Steska. . ee, Q. All right. Ne ow, that accounts for- seventy-five of them. How-did you distribute’ the others?’ A. Various: —. * people that ‘collected on the jobs, I gave it to them.. Some people theyhad on the job. Or if somebody was starting = a job, I gave them cards to give to sti that .would a then.come on the job.. , Q. Did you hand-deliver these? That i is, to the foremen ae or ‘stewards? A. Mostly; yes, sir. : sey 3 "+ Q..Did-you hand-deliver it. to-them ‘in your —— or out = ‘onthe job? A. In my office. ~ 3 } Q When you hhand,delivuved’ them, did - you tell thei ‘anything, or ‘give them any instructions [283] A. No, sir. © - 4 It was pretty self-explanatory after the meeting sia everything. They all mew what should be’ done with =) ‘them. - Q. Sir, let x me ask you chair sit Did you puilatlly . tell them—and yon can tell the jury whether, you did or not—to have the membership sign: them and ‘return them ' to yout” A. Well, yes, sir, but’ they had béen with these ‘eatds for many times, for many years, and they knew—— Q. ‘This should be done? A. ——this should be done. de _ anyone who wanted to sigh them. | Ne Q. When the cards were signed, were they returned to - + yout A. Yes; sir, ~ Q. After they. were signed: ‘and ‘returned to you, - what di [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386414_0053%3A01. Public record. Not legal advice.