pending against you arose, and you tell me that you still do not understand that we are refraining from asking you questions about the matters out of which the circumstances connected with the indictment are not concerned?

Mr. TRAVIS. Senator, I am a little confused myself on that question. Could it be read again?

Senator ERVIN. We have repeatedly stated, to Mr. Hutcheson, that we are not asking him to make any revelations about any circumstances that have any connection whatever with the indictment pending against him, but we are asking him about the use of union money under circumstances entirely disassociated from the matters out of which the indictment arises.

(The witness conferred with his counsel.)

Mr. TRAVIS. Mr. Chairman, of course, I have to assume the responsibility for advising this witness, and have done so, and the specific question which I believe you referred to about the expenditure of union funds for matters not connected with the union, if answered, and a refusal to answer the other question as to whether it was connected with union matters might lead to the inference that Mr. Raddock was paid moneys out of union funds for personal matters.

Senator ERVIN. With all due respect to counsel, that does not seem to be a really relevant observation. What we were talking about, Counsel, was that we were asking him about the use of union funds for purposes wholly disassociated with the circumstances out of which the indictment arises.

Mr. TRAVIS. I think that is just where the inference might arise. Senator ERVIN. In other words, you are telling the committee that, in your opinion, if he answers a question about matters wholly disassociated from the circumstances out of which the indictment arises, that will constitute an inference that he made payments in connection with the circumstances out of which the indictment arose?

Mr. TRAVIS. Yes.

Senator ERVIN. That is something I am unable to comprehend, with all due respect to counsel. I have a high respect for the function of counsel. Certainly, as a practicing lawyer, and while in this committee, I always have resented any effort to question a man about circumstances that involved a pending indictment. But the fact that a man is involved in a pending indictment does not give him a right under either the 14th amendment or any other amendment that I know of to refuse to answer questions in wholly disassociated areas. That is what this committee is talking to.

Mr. TRAVIS. I hope you realize, Senator, it is a very delicate question for me and a very heavy responsibility. But, knowing what I do about the matter under which he is indicted, I have to exercise my judgment as best I can. There are certain areas that I have determined I cannot safely allow Mr. Hutcheson to testify, and which I think would violate his fundamental rights if he was forced to.

Senator ERVIN. I understand your position very clearly; that it is your opinion that Mr. Hutcheson can't give the committee any information about the use of union funds in any area of his personal activity for fear that it might raise some inference against him in a matter wholly disassociated. I was interested in the question as to whether his refusal to answer is based in any way upon the understand

ing that the 14th amendment includes a right to refrain from selfincrimination.

Mr. TRAVIS. I don't think the witness, himself, understands anything about constitutional law, if I may put it that way.

Senator ERVIN. I was asking so that this committee can clarify itself, and so that some day maybe some court will rule on the question of where the people that drew the Constitution wasted the ink that wrote the fifth amendment on the provision against self-incrimination when they put in the due-process clause. I was trying to ask him to ask his counsel if the advice of counsel was based in any part, the advice of counsel that he should refrain from answering, was based in part upon the understanding or theory that the due-process clause embraced within its purview the right to refrain from self-incrimination as set forth in the fifth amendment.

Mr. TRAVIS. Of course, I think any man under indictmental guaranties of due process of law should not be questioned in any form concerning any matter that might remotely in any way aid the prosecution in that case.

Naturally, this committee can't sit as prosecutors or judges or jurors in that matter under which Mr. Hutcheson is indicted.

I think there are fundamental guarantees to any person under indictment that that matter shall be tried solely in the forum where the indictment lies.

Senator ERVIN. Your theory is a very intriguing one, and that is that if a man is under indictment for any offense, he can't be asked any questions about anything else. That is what it amounts to, even though these other things are wholly disassociated.

But I am interested in the question of the scope of the 14th amendment on this basis because the committee wants to know exactly what the man is refusing to answer concerning wholly disassociated things. That is all.

Before I pass over, I respect the duty of counsel. I have been a lawyer many times for many, many clients, and I regretted many times when I practiced law that I could not find a basis for getting quite as complete an exemption from testifying.

Mr. TRAVIS. I think, Senator, you have found, too, since you started practicing law that today the Constitution might have a little different meaning over the intervening years in some respects.

Senator ERVIN. I will make the confession that what I was taught about Constitution in law school and what I used to read in lawbooks about it is somewhat outmoded and that some of the principles that have come about are as variable and changing as a shifting in the temporary occupants of the seats on the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. I think the record is clear from the witness' testimony and from the record made that the witness has not and does not invoke the fifth-amendment privilege in his declining to answer the questions that have been put to him.

Are we correct then in that understanding?
Mr. TRAVIS. Very definitely, Senator.
Mr. KENNEDY. Let the witness answer.
The CHAIRMAN. I am asking the witness.
Mr. HUTCHESON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. My understanding, then, is correct.
Mr. HUTCHESON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. So there will be no misinterpretation of the record, I simply wanted to have the witness state it again.

All right, proceed.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, we have some material that I will just ask Mr. Hutcheson about.

One is Mr. Raddock's trip down here to Washington, D. C., when he stayed at the Hotel Washington, and his bill was paid out of union funds.

Could you tell us what he was doing down here for the union?

Mr. HUTCHESON. I would have to know the date, Mr. Kennedy. Mr. KENNEDY. I will give it to you.

He was here on September 3 of 1957, September 3d through the 5th, 1957, and he stayed at the Hotel Washington.

(The witness conferred with his counsel.)

Mr. HUTCHESON. I couldn't answer that offhand, Mr. Kennedy, without checking up.

The CHAIRMAN. The question primarily would be: Was he here on union business, if he was paid by union funds?.

Mr. HUTCHESON. If the bill was O. K.'s and paid by the organization; yes, sir, Senator, he was.

Mr. KENNEDY. What was he doing here in Washington on that day? Mr. HUTCHESON. I couldn't answer it without doing some checking up on it.

Mr. KENNEDY. You were down here with him, were you not, at that time?

Mr. HUTCHESON. I don't recall.

Mr. KENNEDY. You were also here on the third and fourth, the record shows, and both of your bills were paid by the carpenters. Then there was the transportation down here to Washington. Could you tell us what it was that you were doing down here?

Mr. HUTCHESON. I couldn't remember, Mr. Kennedy. I am in and out of Washington so often that I can't remember just what each trip is.

Mr. KENNEDY. Then on September 10. Mr. Raddock flew out to Chicago, Ill. What was he doing out there, on September 10, 1957? (The witness conferred with his counsel.)

Mr. HUTCHESON. Upon advice of counsel, I refuse to answer on the same ground as previously related.

Mr. KENNEDY. I am sorry.

But he was also out there on August 11, in Chicago, would you tell us what he was doing out there?

The CHAIRMAN. Was that paid for by the union?

Mr. KENNEDY. The union paid charges of $94.27 for that trip of Mr. Raddock to Chicago.

Mr. HUTCHESON. On the advice of counsel I refuse to answer the question on the same grounds as previously related.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. The question is: Was he there on union business for which the union had the responsibility for payment? Mr. HUTCHESON. On the advice of counsel I refuse to answer sir. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair, with the approval of the committee, orders and directs the witness to answer the question.

(The witness conferred with his counsel.)

Mr. HUTCHESON. I still refuse on the same grounds. The CHAIRMAN. I asked you a moment ago if he was here in Washington on union business, the trip counsel interrogated you about, and you said if the union paid for it, yes, he was on union business.

Now we are asking you about the trip to Chicago, on the 11th of August 1957. It appears from the records that the union paid his expenses on that trip. Was he on union business at that time?

Mr. HUTCHESON. On the advice of counsel I refuse to answer on the same ground.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair, with the approval of the committee, orders and directs the witness to answer the question.

Mr. HUTCHESON. I still refuse, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Do we have the records of payments by the union? Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, we do.

The CHAIRMAN. Who can testify to this on the staff?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Tierney.

TESTIMONY OF PAUL J. TIERNEY-Resumed

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tierney, you have been previously sworn?
Mr. TIERNEY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tierney, you may identify the document which the Chair hands you.

Mr. TIERNEY. This is a document furnished us by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, Indianapolis, Ind.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that a document from their records?

Mr. TIERNEY. This is a document prepared by the general counsel of Carpenters, upon our request, and it shows Maxwell Raddock was issued an air travel card by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, and this is a list of all the charges made against that air travel card for travel by Raddock from April 1956 through November 1957. The CHAIRMAN. That document may be made exhibit No. 58. (The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 58" for reference and may be found in the files of the select committee.)

The CHAIRMAN. Does that document, furnished you by the general counsel from the Brotherhood of Carpenters, show that Mr. Maxwell C. Raddock submitted or received payment from the Brotherhood of Carpenters for the trip to Chicago on the date of August 11, 1957? Mr. TIERNEY. It does. It shows that he was paid for a round-trip passage between New York and Chicago on August 11, 1957.

The CHAIRMAN. May I inquire, now: Have you examined the hotel records there to ascertain who paid the hotel bill of Mr. Raddock on that trip?

Mr. TIERNEY. I have, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Has the hotel record previously been made an exhibit?

Mr. TIERNEY. Yes, it has.

The CHAIRMAN. Exhibit No. 45, A & B.

I hand you this exhibit and ask you to examine it and state who paid the hotel bill for Mr. Raddock on that trip, and how much.

Mr. TIERNEY. This exhibit shows that the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America paid for Maxwell Raddock's stay

at the Drake Hotel from August 11 through August 17, a total of $147.10.

The CHAIRMAN. $147 plus $97 is what the records of the brotherhood and the hotel reflect was paid by the union for that trip? That much at least?

Mr. TIERNEY. That's correct, sir.

TESTIMONY OF MAURICE HUTCHESON, ACCOMPANIED BY HOWARD TRAVIS AND F. JOSEPH DONOHUE, COUNSEL-Resumed

The CHAIRMAN. The question is, Mr. Hutcheson: Were Mr. Raddock's expenses paid on that trip by union funds while he was on union business?

Mr. HUTCHESON. On the advice of counsel I refuse to answer the question on the same grounds as previously related, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair orders and directs the witness to answer the question, with the approval of the committee.

Mr. HUTCHESON. I still refuse, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. All right; proceed, Mr. Kennedy.

Mr. KENNEDY. You were out in Chicago at the same time, were you not, with Mr. Raddock?

Mr. HUTCHESON. On advice of counsel, I refuse to answer.

Mr. KENNEDY. You were out in Chicago at the same time?

Mr. HUTCHESON. On the advice of counsel, I refuse to answer on the same grounds.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair orders and directs the witness to answer the question, with the approval of the committee.

Mr. HUTCHESON. I still refuse, sir.

Mr. KENNEDY. The records, Mr. Chairman, indicate that Mr. Hutcheson was present at the same time.

The CHAIRMAN. Were your expenses on that Chicago trip paid by the union?

(The witness conferred with his counsel.)

Mr. HUTCHESON. On the advice of counsel I refuse to answer on the same ground as previously related.

The CHAIRMAN. You are ordered and directed to answer the question, with the approval of the committee.

Mr. HUTCHESON. I still refuse, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Again with respect to these questions that have been put to you, we are to understand you are not invoking the fifth amendment privilege?

(The witness conferred with his counsel.)

Mr. HUTCHESON. Yes, sir; I am declining on the grounds previously stated.

The CHAIRMAN. And not invoking the fifth amendment privilege! Mr. HUTCHESON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, or no? Are you or not? Yes or no.

Mr. HUTCHESON. No, I am not.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Senator ERVIN. Mr. Chairman, may I ask one or two questions along that line and then I will subside?

Mr. Hutcheson, you are familiar with the provisions of the AFLCIO ethical code concerning officers of affiliated unions who invoke the fifth amendment: aren't you?