Mr. KENNEDY. Did you understand them to be people that had underworld connections?

Mr. GOTTLIEB. I would infer that way.

Mr. KENNEDY. So then you went to see Mr. Carmine Lombardozzi again!

Mr. GOTTLIEB. Yes, sir.

Mr. KENNEDY. You went to his home, did you?

Mr. GOTTLIEB. I phoned him, and he told me to stop in to see him the following day, and I stopped in there about 10:30 the following day.

There was a telephone call and I asked if he knew the particular tavern and he didn't know whether he did or not, and he said, "Don't worry, I will take care of it."

Mr. KENNEDY. Was it taken care of then?

Mr. GOTTLIEB. It was taken care of.

Mr. KENNEDY. You didn't have to take your machine out?

Mr. GOTTLIEB. No, sir.

Mr. KENNEDY. Did you feel that maybe your difficulties would be removed if you met with Al Cohen of local 531, if you had a conversation with him?

Mr. GOTTLIEB. I beg your pardon. I didn't quite get the question. Mr. KENNEDY. Did you feel that maybe the problems would be removed if you met with Al Cohen of local 531?

Mr. GOTTLIEB. Well, it would have been alleviated.

Mr. KENNEDY. So did you meet with him, with Mr. Cohen?

Mr. GOTTLIEB. I did.

Mr. GOTTLIEB. Mr. Lombardozzi, at Mr. Lombardozzi's home. Mr. KENNEDY. What was decided at that meeting, or what did you discuss?

Mr. GOTTLIEB. There was nothing decided, but the discussion was with reference to a location that had been taken at Bath Avenue in Brooklyn by a sticker identified as 531. In going to the location and questioning the owner as to who the individual is, the name of Cohen popped up. In other words, he received a check signed by Cohen.

Mr. KENNEDY. Was Mr. Cohen at this meeting, and was he interested in having you buy his stickers from his local?

Mr. GOTTLIEB. Well, at the meeting, when I ran into that difficulty, I also appealed to Mr. Lombardozzi, what he can do for me. He said that he would contact Cohen and I should call him back and he will let me know, if he can make an appointment with Cohen to meet with me. That appointment was made and I met with Cohen a couple of days after. During that discussion of that particular location he wasn't cooperative, Mr. Cohen wasn't cooperative in releasing or turning back the location but as an inducement it was as much as inferred that if I purchased the stickers that I could expect that the location would be returned.

Mr. KENNEDY. Here was the situation where the head of the union was offering to sell you the stickers of the union so that you could

place them on your machines and thereafter you wouldn't be bothered?

Mr. GOTTLIEB. That is about it.

Mr. KENNEDY. There was never any discussion about the benefits for any employees or workers?

Mr. GOTTLIEB. No, sir.

Mr. KENNEDY. It was just a question of buying the stickers from his union?

Mr. GOTTLIEB. Of obtaining stickers.

Mr. KENNEDY. So you would have protection?

Mr. GOTTLIEB. Well, that is about it.

Mr. KENNEDY. Now, what was the relationship between Mr. Lombardozzi and Mr. Cohen?

Mr. GOTTLIEB. 1 beg your pardon, sir.

(The witness conferred with his counsel.)

Mr. GOTTLIEB. The relationship other than friendly, I wouldn't know.

Mr. KENNEDY. They were friendly?

Mr. GOTTLIEB. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Did you agree at the meeting to buy the stickers? Mr. GOTTLIEB. No, sir.

Mr. KENNEDY. Now, I have just one other matter not directly related to Mr. Lombardozzi, but you had another situation in May or June of 1958 in connection with the change of the ownership of a bar and grill on Fourth Avenue in Brooklyn?

Mr. GOTTLIEB. That is correct.

Mr. KENNEDY. You had the jukebox in that location; is that right? Mr. GOTTLIEB. That is correct.

Mr. KENNEDY. And there was a sale of the tavern?

Mr. GOTTLIEB. That is right.

Mr. KENNEDY. Were you approached and told that your jukebox would have to be removed?

Mr. GOTTLIEB. I was.

Mr. KENNEDY. Would you relate what happened in connection with that?

Mr. GOTTLIEB. A tavern owner in the immediate area came in one day and introduced himself as Augie, who operates Augie's Tavern, and he presented a card, a business card, with Ernie's Music Co., and told me that he had an order to set a machine at the bar of Connaught. I didn't know that there was a change of ownership and I was taken aback by the fact that these people claimed that they had an order. I knew that I had a contract with Connaught. I inquired from Augie as to who this Ernie is, and I had never heard of him as being in the business.

Mr. KENNEDY. Ernie of Ernie's Music Service?

Mr. GOTTLIEB. That is right.

Mr. KENNEDY. He is the one who was going to take it away from you, supposedly?

Mr. GOTTLIEB. The one that represented the music company and he was identified as that. I asked who this Ernie was, and I don't recall ever hearing of Ernie or of Ernie's Music Co.

Well, he said, "I will bring him in and you can meet him." So I said, "What is involved here?"

He said, "Well, for $250 I think that I can get Ernie and make a compromise."

Mr. KENNEDY. So did he bring Ernie in to see you?

Mr. GOTTLIEB. Yes; a couple of days later, Ernie came in.

Mr. KENNEDY. How much money did you pay Ernie?

Mr. GOTTLIEB. I didn't pay Ernie, and I paid Augie. I didn't pay that at that time. I still stalled for time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Who did you finally pay?
Mr. GOTTLIEB. I finally gave it to Augie.
Mr. KENNEDY. That was your friend.
Mr. GOTTLIEB. $150.

Mr. KENNEDY. For Ernie, too?

Mr. GOTTLIEB. To be split, as I understood it.
Mr. KENNEDY. Could you identify Ernie?

The CHAIRMAN. The Ernie you have been talking about, that is Ernie Rupolo?

Mr. GOTTLIEB. Well, I think that was the name. I believe that is the name.

The CHAIRMAN. I hand you a photograph here and ask you to examine it and state if you identify it.

(A photograph was handed to the witness.)

Mr. GOTTLIEB. Yes, that is it.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that a picture of the Ernie you have been talking about?

Mr. GOTTLIEB. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be made exhibit No. 13.

(The photograph referred to was marked "Exhibit 13" for reference and may be found in the files of the select committee.)

The CHAIRMAN. All right, Mr. Counsel, do you want this record put in also?

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, I would like to do that.

The CHAIRMAN. Who can identify the record?
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Corrigan.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you been previously sworn?
Mr. CORRIGAN. Yes, sir.

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH CORRIGAN-Resumed

The CHAIRMAN. You may identify this. I present to you what purports to be a police record of one Ernie Rupolo. Would you examine it and state if you identify it.

Mr. CORRIGAN. Yes, sir. This is the prisoner's criminal record, New York City Police Department. It is a criminal record of Ernest Rupolo, alias "Ernie the Hawk."

The CHAIRMAN. Did you know him as "Ernie the Hawk"?

Mr. GOTTLIEB. I have heard it within the last month or two.

The CHAIRMAN. That may be made exhibit No. 13A.

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 13A" for reference and may be found in the files of the select committee.)

The CHAIRMAN. What are the convictions on it?

Mr. CORRIGAN. There are seven arrests, convictions are for petty larceny, burglary, vagrancy, felonious assault in the first degree, an assault involving a gun.

The CHAIRMAN. What was the longest sentence that he received; some 5 to 10 years, wasn't it?

Mr. KENNEDY. I believe 5 to 10 years.

Mr. Chairman, we have had considerable amount of testimony regarding Ernie Rupolo, and he was involved in our earlier hearings as the gunman for Mike Miranda, and for Vito Genovese to kill a man by the name of Gallo, and he put the gun to Gallo's head and the gun didn't go off and he went in and fixed the gun in his home and then he came out the second time and put the gun to Gallo's head and shot him five times in the head.

Mr. Gallo lived, and then ultimately Mr. Genovese was indicted and was to be tried in connection with this case, after he was brought back from Italy, and the key witness who was being kept in police custody in jail, the key witness was poisoned to death so the trial wasn't able to go ahead.

This picture, you can see, Mr. Rupolo here in the picture, just before this picture was taken, had been shot in the eye, right under the nose, and in the chin. He is rather a notorious character.

Mr. Gottlieb, did you ultimately talk to the attendant at the bar, the new bar owner, as to that?

TESTIMONY OF BENJAMIN GOTTLIEB, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, SAMUEL MEZANSKY AND JOSEPH M. GODMAN-Resumed

Mr. GOTTLIEB. Yes, I did. I decided that I would go in and find out who the new people that took over the bar were, and I found two very pleasant young men who had purchased the bar.

Mr. KENNEDY. And they said they had no intention of turning the business over to Rupolo?

Mr. GOTTLIEB. I expected that they would possibly tell me that so-and-so OK'd me, or something. But they never raised that question, and I didn't question them as to what connection they had with Augie or Ernie. So I just let it go at that. I found that they were reasonable, pleasant, and didn't disturb me.

Mr. KENNEDY. Do you think you might have just been taken for $150!

Mr. GOTTLIEB. I think I might have been taken.

Mr. KENNEDY. Formerly you paid the label fees and the union dues to Local 1690 of the Retail Clerks; is that right? You paid them directly?

Mr. GOTTLIEB. Yes, sir.

Mr. KENNEDY. Lately you have increased the salaries of your employees and had them pay it?

Mr. GOTTLIEB. That is right.

Mr. KENNEDY. Both the label fees and the dues; is that right? Mr. GOTTLIEB. That is right.

Mr. KENNEDY. In passing also and we will have more testimony about it at a later time-you also had difficulty with local 19, did you not?

Mr. GOTTLIEB. Yes, sir.

Mr. KENNEDY. And that was also a union that was run by people with questionable records, as you understood it?

Mr. GOTTLIEB. I believe so.

Mr. KENNEDY. That is all.

Senator KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Kennedy?

Senator KENNEDY. As I understand, Mr. Gottlieb, the net worth of your equipment is approximately $85,000 to $90,000?

Mr. GOTTLIEB. The net worth?

Senator KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. GOTTLIEB. Book value.

Senator KENNEDY. Book value. As I understand it, if you included the value of the locations which you have been able to develop, it would bring the figure up to around $250,000.

Mr. GOTTLIEB. Well, you don't know until you make a deal.

Senator KENNEDY. Approximately. In other words, it indicates the value of these locations and the amount of money that is involved in attempting to maintain your locations. How many locations did you have?

Mr. GOTTLIEB. In music, about 125; and in cigarette machines, approximately 250.

Senator KENNEDY. So that is 375. That was 375 which would represent the difference between $85,000 and $250,000. It would indicate that those are worth more than $1,000 each, averaging it out.

Mr. GOTTLIEB. Well, it probably wouldn't average out quite that much. But there are other factors involved. There is bonuses involved; there is advances; loans involved in that whole picture. It would bring it up to about that much.

Senator KENNEDY. It indicates, however, what is at stake, and the pressures that would be brought to bear for a $1,000 location or a location which is worth more or less than $1,000; is that right? It indicates there is a great interest in maintaining these locations, and that there is a good deal at stake and pressures involved between the competing operators in maintaining one location as opposed to another; is that right?

Mr. GOTTLIEB. Yes, sir.

Senator KENNEDY. I would like to ask you or your attorney why it was that in the case where a picket line might be established around a location in order to force out your machines, or force you to buy stickers, why it was that the secondary-boycott provisions of the TaftHartley Act could not have been invoked against such a picket line? (The witness conferred with his counsel.)

Mr. GOTTLIEB. I am sorry, Senator; I just didn't get the question. Senator KENNEDY. Does the counsel wish to comment on that? Mr. MEZANSKY. We obtained an injunction in the State court. The contention was that this was not

Senator KENNEDY. Was this intrastate or "no man's land"?

Mr. MEZANSKY. We did get an injunction against the picket line eventually.

Senator KENNEDY. Is there any reason why in all of these cases where a genuine labor dispute was not involved and it was merely an attempt to use a picket line for the purpose of a secondary boycottwhich it was-is there any reason to believe that the State courts would not have issued an injunction if the operators or the owner of the installations had been willing to take a suit to the State court?