was short of funds and that they issued checks to employees in payment of salary and then these checks were endorsed back to the company? I don't know whether I understood your testimony.

Mr. RADDOCK. I don't believe that I understand your question, Senator.

Senator ERVIN. You were speaking of these checks, checks being issued by the Trade Union Courier, or on some occasions by the World Wide Press, to employees, and then the checks being received back, or the amount of the checks being received back by the Courier or the World Wide Press.

Mr. RADDOCK. That isn't quite what I suggested, Senator.
Senator ERVIN. I wish you would explain.

Mr. RADDOCK. I will try to, to the best of my ability. Through the years, there have been times, as in any business, where there is a shortage of funds due to a depletion of income from time to time, when certain expenditures have to be met, as for instance, payroll on a weekly basis, and in a particular instance quite often the Courier might have had to go out and borrow money that week in order to meet payroll, or World Wide Press might have had to go out and borrow money in order to purchase a carload of paper.

In these particular instances that I refer to, where Mr. Dunne testified that the payroll checks of employees of Courier were deposited in a World Wide Press bond account, these employees had to be paid, and very obviously they would have had to be paid with cash money in lieu of these checks.

This money would have had to come from a source other than Trade Union Courier, because if Courier deposited these employees' checks in the World Wide Press account, then World Wide Press would have, in exchange, given the Trade Union Courier the cash that week with which to meet its payroll.

This would have been balanced out by the checks of the employees' payroll. As Mr. Dunne testified this morning, a number of checks, totaling X amount of dollars, were deposited in the World Wide Press bond account, this would have been in exchange for the cash which would have been advanced by World Wide to the Trade Union Courier

This has happened a number of times in our organization. I am Sorry to say that. I would like us to be so capitalized that these things would not be necessary.

Senator ERVIN. What I do not understand, then, is why did you have to take the checks? Why did you pay them checks and take the money?

For example, if the Courier borrowed the money from the bond account of the World Wide Press, why didn't it make the deposit of the World Wide bond account check into the bank and then let these checks go and be cashed?

That would seem to be a simpler method of bookkeeping.

Mr. RADDOCK. Because as a normal occurrence our bookkeeping department would make up checks for payroll individual checks for a number of the employees. If there was not sufficient moneys in the account to cash these checks that day, quite often a number of the employees would be asked to hold their checks for a few days until there would be sufficient moneys in the account to be able to meet these checks.

Senator ERVIN. In other words, you issued checks to your employees in payment of the payroll and then you cashed the checks, instead of them taking them and cashing them themselves?

Mr. RADDOCK. Well, they might not have been able to cash them had they gone to the bank. There might not have been sufficient moneys. Senator ERVIN. How could you cash them yourself? Instead of cashing checks, why didn't you take the money to the bank and deposit it in the bank?

Mr. RADDOCK. I thought that I explained that, Senator.

Senator ERVIN. Well, the more the explanation, the less I understand it.

Mr. RADDOCK. Then let me try to explain it again. In the case of someone purchasing a bond from World Wide Press Syndicate, and if this would have been a bond which was paid for by check, perhaps made out to Maxwell C. Raddock, or a check made out to cash, or cash-if it was cash, it would have been turned in, into our office. Trade Union Courier and World Wide Press at that time, you must remember, were located at the same premises. So physically our set up was such, unlike today, where were are perhaps 30 miles apart, at that time we were located at the same premises, and while this was a transaction between two corporations, it was a transaction between two corporations located at the same premises.

So what appears rather unusual was a normal procedure.

Senator ERVIN. As I was thinking, it seems to be an abnormal procedure which could have been handled in a normal way. If the bond account got a check, it would strike me that instead of cashing that check and bringing the cash back there, that you would deposit it in the bank.

Mr. RADDOCK. Unless it was after hours, Senator. You see, it looks like it was not the best kind of procedure. But this is hindsight on my part. I can't recall that.

Senator ERVIN. Even after hours, though, you could find it difficult to get a check cashed yourself.

Mr. RADDOCK. I agree with you, Senator. Hereafter there cannot be such occurrences, because now it is high-lighted by something like this, for which I am thankful.

Senator ERVIN. It seems to me it would be much simpler, and I think it would be a more normal thing, if you have two separate corporations, presumably with two separate bank accounts, and if one was going to borrow from the other, it seems to me what you would do would be to have an exchange of checks.

That is, if World Wide wants to loan money to the Courier, they would draw a check on their bank account and that check would be deposited.

It seems to me that you used, to me, an abnormal way of doing business to complicate simplicity.

Mr. WALDMAN. Senator, there is no question that would have been better practice, and that this was not in accordance with the best practice. But I would point out that it may well have been on occasions that a day or so would have been saved by doing this, which would have been taken up by going through the two separate checks, and on occasion money was needed that particular day.

Senator ERVIN. There is another thing that troubles us on the committee, and that is this. Whenever we start to asking people how they got the bonds, they all plead the fifth amendment, so far.

Mr. RADDOCK. I wish they wouldn't, Senator. I wish they wouldn't. They have nothing to hide insofar as any transaction with Courier or World Wide. This is one thing we do intend to establish before this committee. I know that we will be given that opportunity, Senator, so I have heard.

Senator ERVIN. Every one of them who has been here so far, as near as I can recall, has either pleaded the fifth amendment, or he has shown himself to be the possessor of one of the most complete forgetteries of any human being who has ever been before the committee. Mr. RADDOCK. I would say that the pleading of the fifth amendment is their personal privilege. However, I would plead with them that insofar as the Courier and World Wide are concerned, that they please not avail themselves of the fifth amendment.

Senator ERVIN. The committee echoes that supplication and prayer. Mr. RADDOCK. I am glad to know we are working together, Senator. Mr. KENNEDY. I am not going to go through all of them, but at least one of them, for instance, Morris Horn, who appeared this morning, he got $3,000 in bonds and, according to your records, they don't show that any money was paid for those bonds. The same thing is true for Louis Block, his son. What is the explanation of that? You have explained some exchanges and checks and other transactions, but what about Morris Horn?

Mr. RADDOCK. While I do not have the records before me, nor did I prepare the records, I do know, and I am under oath, and I am testifying, insofar as Morris Horn is concerned, that happens to be one situation with which I was made familiar at the time that Morris Horn was sold $3,000 worth of bonds by my brother Mac. Mr. KENNEDY. By check or by cash?

Mr. RADDOCK. That I do not know, and I don't intend to testify to something to which I don't have complete knowledge. But I do know this, that when my brother Mac told me that he had sold, at long last, Morris Horn, $3,000 worth of bonds, I told him that I didn't think it was such a tremendous thing that he had done.

Mr. KENNEDY. Would you mind answering the question, Mr. Raddock? You are not answering the question. The records show $3,000 worth of bonds to Morris Horn. The records show that they weren't paid for.

Mr. RADDOCK. I can't accept that, Mr. Kennedy, that the records show that they are not paid for.

The CHAIRMAN. It doesn't show that they were paid for.

Mr. RADDOCK. It does not show that they were paid for?

The CHAIRMAN. It does not show that they were paid for.

Mr. RADDOCK. I don't know whether those records are complete. They would have to show in one form or another that they were paid for.

The CHAIRMAN. They should.

Mr. RADDOCK. They probably do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WALDMAN. Mr. Chairman, I take it we will be given an opportunity to examine those records before your hearings are complete on that?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir, you may examine them. All right, is there anything further?

Senator ERVIN. Can you give me any reason why Louis Block would want to have a bond that was purchased for his wife put into her maiden name rather than her name as his wife?

Mr. RADDOCK. I believe, Mr. Senator, you would have to ask either Louis Block or his wife for the answer to that, because World Wide Press Syndicate, to my knowledge, never suggested in whose names the bond purchases should be made out. It was only the bond purchaser who decided in whose name the bond purchase should be made out. We were not the masters of that situation.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, is there anything further?

Mr. RADDOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the privilege.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, several days ago you called as a witness Ernest Mark High, who did not appear in answer to a subpena. We have since sent him a telegram and told him that he could expunge the record if he appeared today. I would like to call him again, if we may. Can we call him again?

The CHAIRMAN. What is the name?
Mr. KENNEDY. Ernest Mark High.

The CHAIRMAN. On May 29, as chairman of the committee, I sent a wire to Mr. Ernest Mark High, AFL Spotlight, Empire State Building, New York, N. Y., in which he was notified-and this wire may be printed in the record at this point-in which he was notified that he had defaulted in appearance before the committee pursuant to a subpena served on him on May 13, 1958, and that that default had been noted on May 27. Such default would subject him to a penalty of contempt of the Senate. Then he was advised:

You will be given a final opportunity to purge yourself of contempt by appearing and bringing said records before the committee at room 101, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C., on Wednesday, June 4, 1958, by 2 p. m. Upon failure to appear and produce the records, the committee will proceed with contempt action.

I received a reply by Western Union which may be incorporated in the record at this point, dated June 2. This states that the telegram sent, to which I have referred, was delivered to Mr. High. (The documents referred to follow :)

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE IMPROPER
ACTIVITIES IN LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD,

Mr. ERNEST MARK HIGH,

May 29, 1958.

AFL Spotlight, Empire State Building, New York, N. Y.: You are hereby notified that your default in appearance before the committee pursuant to a subpena served upon you on May 13, 1958, was noted on May 27, 1958. Your default subjects you to the penalty of contempt of the Senate.

It is further noted that you failed to produce any records called for by the subpena.

You will be given a final opportunity to purge yourself of contempt by appearing and bringing said records before the committee at room 101, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C., on Wednesday, June 4, 1958, by 2 p. m. Upon failure to appear and produce the records, the committee will proceed with contempt proceedings. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN,

Chairman, Senate Select Committee To Investigate Improper Activities in Labor or Management Field.

Official business.

JOHN L. MCCLELLAN,

NEW YORK, N. Y.

Chairman, Senate Select Committee To Investigate Improper Activities in Labor or Management Field, Washington, D. C.:

Your telegram of May 29 was not received by my office until June 2, 1958, because of the intervening Memorial Day weekend. I did not reply immediately because I had expected to receive a medical report respecting my physical ability to appear before your committee and as I have heretofore informed you to make certain that such appearance would not jeopardize my life I have been told that I may expect such a report tomorrow and upon its receipt will advise. ERNEST M. HIGH, The Spotlight.

JOHN L. MC CLELLAN,

[Western Union Teleg Co.]

NEW YORK, N. Y., June 2, 1958.

Chairman, Select Committee: Asking Rept Dely, Washington, D. C.

ERNEST MARK HIGH,

AFL Spotlight, Empire State Building.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, we have not had any response from Mr. High, but we do have an affidavit from an attorney in New York. We might ask if Mr. High is present here now.

The CHAIRMAN. I will. Mrs. Watt, call room 101 and have him. called there by someone. Let them identify himself to see if he is present.

Mr. KENNEDY. The affidavit shows that he has been active in New York City over the period of the past week over the days that he was called on to appear before the committee, despite the fact that he claimed he was home. Also, we have information that he was at his office during this pertinent period of time.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. High? Ernest Mark High?

He does not reply. All right, we will finish out in this letter a little later.

In the meantime, this affidavit from Mr. Herbert S. Thatcher, an attorney at law, whose offices are at 1009 Tower Building, Washington, D. C., the affidavit being dated the 2d day of June 1958, may be inserted into the record at this point.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

AFFIDAVIT

District of Columbia, 88:

Having been requested to do so by a representative of the McClellan committee, employed on the staff of Robert Kennedy, counsel for that committee, I make the following statement:

My name is Herbert S. Thatcher, and I am an attorney at law, with offices at 1009 Tower Building, Washington, D. C. This is to certify that I was present in the city court of the city of New York, New York County, on Thursday morning, May 22, 1958, at 10 a.m. in connection with a lawsuit which had been set for trial at that time before a judge whose name, I believe, is Shapiro.

The name of the lawsuit is "Ernest M. High v. Arnold S. Zander, as international president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO," and involved a claim by Mr. High for the cost of printing an alleged number of excess copies of the newspaper Spotlight. I am general counsel for the federation and was a necessary witness in the case. Mr. Zander and the union were represented by Attorney Martin E. Raphael, 38 Park Row, New York, N. Y. Present in court were Mr. High and his attorney, Mr. Alexander Eltman, Empire State Building, New York, N. Y. Mr. High appeared to be in