Mr. DONALD MARQUIS. Yes; he did.

Mr. KENNEDY. And according to the testimony, we have some information that he was involved in arranging a bribe in 1950-51 and still he continued to work for the association.

Mr. DONALD MARQUIS. I didn't know that.

Mr. KENNEDY. It wasn't until the fact that he was not able to keep pickets off your restaurant, he was unable to keep the pickets away, that his services were dispensed with; is that right?

Mr. DONALD MARQUIS. That is right.

Mr. KENNEDY. That is as you testified here. Again, on this question, you had Mr. Gutgsell. First you retained Mr. Champagne, who was an attorney for the gangsters out there.

Ultimately you got Mr. Gutgsell. His services were dispensed with when he was unable to keep picket lines off of one of your restaurants. Is that correct?

Mr. DONALD MARQUIS. That is correct.

Mr. KENNEDY. So I think you were not all innocent babes in the woods in this situation, being imposed upon by the Teitelbaums, the Champagnes, the Sam Englishes, and the Louis Romanos.

That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions?

Senator MUNDT. Yes. Were you in the committee room yesterday when Mr. Greenfield testified?

Mr. CLIFTON MARQUIS. No; I was not.

Mr. DONALD MARQUIS. We were here part of the afternoon, but I don't remember his name.

Senator MUNDT. Mr. Greenfield, anyhow, who was the man that hoped to become the general counsel, let me put it that way, for a competitive restaurant association, and testified that he was motivated to get into this because it was general practice in the city of Chicago for people owning restaurants to bribe the policemen in order to let them run after hours, and serve liquor to minors, and run joints, in connection with the restaurant and so forth. How general a practice do you think that was in the city of Chicago?

Mr. DONALD MARQUIS. I did not know that it prevailed.

Senator MUNDT. Have you had any trouble with the police of Chicago coming in and trying to shake you down?

Mr. DONALD MARQUIS. No.

Mr. CLIFTON MARQUIS. No.

Senator MUNDT. Do you know any

Mr. CLIFTON MARQUIS. We don't have any alcohol.

Senator MUNDT. Do you know any members of your association that have had that experience?

Mr. CLIFTON MARQUIS. We don't have any bars in our lunchrooms. We are open all the time. So the element of closing time does not have anything to do with it in our business.

Senator MUNDT. You do have members in your association, I suppose, that serve drinks along with food?

Mr. CLIFTON MARQUIS. Yes, some of these.

Senator MUNDT. At these meetings that you hold, has there been a source of general complaint about the conduct of the police of the city of Chicago that they try to come in and shake down your members? Mr. CLIFTON MARQUIS. I have not heard of such a thing.

Senator MUNDT. You have not heard of such a thing. It was just a unique source of information that came to Mr. Greenfield and nobody else heard it as far as you know of?

Mr. CLIFTON MARQUIS. As far as I know of.

Senator MUNDT. Do you remember the Big Nine Crime Commission that they had in Chicago?

Mr. CLIFTON MARQUIS. Yes, I remember it; yes.

Senator MUNDT. Did either of you testify before that?

Mr. CLIFTON MARQUIS. No.

Senator MUNDT. Were members of your association generally called in to testify before that?

Mr. CLIFTON MARQUIS. Not that I heard of.

Senator MUNDT. Was that a crime commission established primarily to investigate crime dealing with restaurants and taverns and things of that type?

Mr. CLIFTON MARQUIS. I would assume that, from reading about it in the paper. Otherwise, I don't know anything about it.

(At this point, Senator Kennedy entered the hearing room.)

Senator MUNDT. But you think in the main, those were not incidents involving members of your association?

Mr. CLIFTON MARQUIS. I don't think so.

Senator MUNDT. Did the owner of the Red Barn or the Red Wheel belong to your association?

Mr. CLIFTON MARQUIS. I never heard of it, so I don't know.
Senator MUNDT. All right.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
Call the next witness.

Mr. KENNEDY. I would like to call the counsel who then replaced Mr. Teitelbaum for the Chicago Restaurant Association and have him tell the committee how he settled the strike at the Marquis Retuarants. That would be Mr. Champagne.

The CHAIRMAN. Be sworn, please. You do solemnly swear the evidence you shall give before the Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. CHAMPAGNE. I do.

TESTIMONY OF ANTHONY V. CHAMPAGNE, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, H. CLIFFORD ALLDER

The CHAIRMAN. State your name, your place of residence, and your business or occupation.

Mr. CHAMPAGNE. My name is Anthony V. Champagne, and I am an attorney at law, duly licensed to practice in the State of Illinois, with an office at 5679 West Madison Street. I reside at 1501 Bonnie Brae, River Forest, Ill.

The CHAIRMAN. You have counsel?

Mr. CHAMPAGNE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Counsel, identify yourself for the record.

Mr. ALLDER. My name is H. Clifford Allder, my business address is 401 Third Street NW., Washington, D. C. I am a member of the bar of the District of Columbia.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Champagne, we have had some testimony that you were the one that replaced Mr. Teitelbaum in the Chicago Res

taurant Association as their attorney, and that you were then able to settle the Marquis strike.

Could you tell the committee how it was that you were retained by the Chicago Restuarant Association and how you came to settle the Marquis strike?

Mr. CHAMPAGNE. Mr. Kennedy, under the Constitution of the United States

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes?

Mr. CHAMPAGNE. And all of its amendments, including the fifth amendment, I decline to answer for the reason that my answer may tend to incriminate me, and I decline to be a witness against myself.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Champagne, you were the counsel for this Chicago Restaurant Association. All we are doing is trying to find the facts surrounding your representation of that group. What I want to know is how you came to be retained by them.

Would you please give the committee that information?

Mr. CHAMPAGNE. Under the Constitution of the United States, and all of its amendments, including the fifth amendment, I decline to be a witness against myself and respectfully decline to answer the question for the reason that my answer may tend to incrminate me.

Senator KENNEDY. Mr. Champagne, you are an attorney at law? Mr. CHAMPAGNE. Yes, sir.

Senator KENNEDY. You are at the present time practicing law? Mr. CHAMPAGNE. Yes, sir.

Senator KENNEDY. Do you feel that you should remain an attorney at law, a member of the State bar of Illinois, and come before this committee and refuse to give the information about how you met your responsibilities as an attorney at law, and, in a sense, an officer of the court?

Mr. CHAMPAGNE. Senator Kennedy, under the Constitution of the United States, and all of its amendments, including the fifth amendment, I respectfully decline to answer for the reason that my answer may tend to incriminate me.

(At this point, Senator McClellan withdrew from the hearing room.)

Senator KENNEDY. Mr. Champagne

Mr. CHAMPAGNE. And I respectfully decline to be a witness against myself.

Senator KENNEDY. Mr. Champagne, of course, you have that constitutional privilege. The question is whether you should be permitted to continue to practice law in the State of Illinois, as a member of the State bar of Illinois, and with the privileges that go with membership in the bar.

If you choose to exercise your constitutional privilege, do you have any comments as to whether you should be permitted by the State bar association to continue to practice law?

I don't think we have had an attorney take the fifth amendment. You and Mr. Teitelbaum are the first two attorneys who have taken the fifth amendment before this committee, in my opinion. I am hopeful that the State bar of Illinois should move against both of

you.

I believe you should be disqualified from practicing. I don't want in any way to interfere with your rights to take the fifth amendment.

You are certainly entitled to take that, if you feel an answer would incriminate you. But I don't think that you should be permitted to continue to enjoy the privileges of membership in the State bar association, be an officer of the court, with all of the responsibilities that are placed upon you as an attorney. I don't think you can do both, in my opinion. I am hopeful that the bar association will look into it. This is a matter, the conduct of attorneys is a matter which has been of some concern to the members of this committee for the past 18 months. We have had other attorneys who, I think, have had conflicts of interest between their responsibility and duty as a member of the bar and the actions they took.

This is the first time we have had two cases of taking the fifth amendment. And I don't think you should be permitted, nor Mr. Teitelbaum in view of that, to continue to practice in the State of Illinois. I am not attempting at all to discuss whether you should or shouldn't take the fifth amendment. But I don't think there is any doubt that your conduct in taking the fifth amendment should definitely be investigated by the Bar Association of the State of Illinois, and I think if you take the fifth amendment they should disbar you. The same goes for Mr. Teitelbaum.

Do you want to comment on that?

Mr. CHAMPAGNE. You are asking me if I wish to comment on what you have just said?

Senator KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. CHAMPAGNE. I respectfully decline to comment under the provisions of the Constitution of the United States and all of its amendments, including the fifth amendment. I respectfully decline to answer for the reason that my answer may tend to incriminate me, and I decline respectfully to be a witness against myself.

Senator KENNEDY. I want to make it clear that the question you were asked by the counsel was what steps you took as an attorney after you succeeded Mr. Teitelbaum, to bring the strike to an end. I believe after the strike was ended, which was 7 days after you assumed the position of responsibility that the strike was ended, yet the Marquis Restaurants all remained nonunion. The question which was asked you was what you did and what steps were taken?

As I said, you have taken the fifth amendment and I have given you, at least my opinion, as to what action the bar ought to take. (At this point, Senator McClellan entered the hearing room.) Senator MUNDT. Mr. Champagne, are you a graduate of a reputable law school?

(The witness conferred with his counsel.)

Mr. CHAMPAGNE. Yes, sir, Senator.

Senator MUNDT. Thank you. Are you a member of the Chicago Bar Association?

Mr. CHAMPAGNE. Yes, sir, Senator.

Senator MUNDT. Are you a member of the Illinois Bar Association! Mr. CHAMPAGNE. No, sir.

Senator MUNDT. Are you a member of the American Bar Association?

Mr. CHAMPAGNE. No, sir.

Senator MUNDT. Just the Chicago bar?

Mr. CHAMPAGNE. Just the Chicago bar.

Senator MUNDT. I asked if you were a member of the State bar, and I believe you said no.

Mr. CHAMPAGNE. You asked me if I was a member of the Illinois bar, and I answered that I was not.

The Illinois Bar Association?

Senator MUNDT. I am not a lawyer. I guess there is a difference. Are you a member of the Illinois bar?

Mr. CHAMPAGNE. Association?

Senator MUNDT. Association. That is what I asked you, and you said no. Is that correct?

Mr. CHAMPAGNE. That is correct.

Senator MUNDT. But you are admitted to practice anywhere in the State of Illinois?

Mr. CHAMPAGNE. Yes, sir.

Senator KENNEDY. May I ask one question? Do you have to be a member of the Bar Association of Chicago or the bar association of the State to practice before the courts of Illinois?

Mr. CHAMPAGNE. No, sir.

Senator KENNEDY. You don't have to be a member of either group? Mr. CHAMPAGNE. No, sir.

Senator KENNEDY. Who certifies you for admission to practice before the courts? Once you graduate from the law school, do you take a bar exam?

Mr. CHAMPAGNE. That is correct.

Senator KENNEDY. And you are admitted to the bar of Illinois, in that case, or Chicago?

Mr. CHAMPAGNE. If you successfully pass the State bar examination conducted by the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois, you then become admitted.

Senator KENNEDY. Are there canons of ethics in the Chicago bar, the Illinois bar?

Mr. CHAMPAGNE. I know there are canons of ethics of the Chicago bar, but I don't know about the Illinois bar.

Senator KENNEDY. The Illinois bar or the Chicago bar have moved to disbar attorneys; you know that, don't you, Mr. Champagne, in the past?

In other words, the bar itself, in Chicago or in Illinois, does have some competence and jurisdiction over the actions of members of the bar and their rights to practice in Chicago and Illinois; isn't that correct? In fact, I believe there was a case before the Supreme Court, wasn't there, recently, involving the rights of an attorney practicing in Illinois, and the actions the bar had taken in Illinois, and the actions the bar had taken in Illinois in disbarring him? I don't think there is any doubt that it is possible for attorneys, your peers, in Illinois, to disbar you, if they felt that your conduct before this committee had been against the ethics of the bar association or the members of the bar of that city and State; isn't that correct?

Mr. CHAMPAGNE. I don't quite understand your question.
Senator KENNEDY. Do you know what disbarment proceedings are?
Mr. CHAMPAGNE. It seems to me that you were making-

Senator KENNEDY. I don't want to ask you about it. I will just state that there are procedures for disbarring in the State of Illinois and the city of Chicago, by other attorneys, if they feel that an attorney does not meet the standards of the profession. In my opinion,