Mr. MEZANSKY. Well, there is a line of cases that always confront us. These unions contend that they are picketing for organizational purposes. In other words, the sign that these pickets carry states that the machine in that particular location is not serviced by a member of that particular union; so we are always faced with the contention that that sign is an expression of free speech, and it is educational picketing, and that the picketing was solely for organizational pur

poses.

Senator KENNEDY. The picketing was not against the employer, but against the machine?

Mr. MEZANSKY. Yes.

Senator KENNEDY. If this had been in interstate commerce, I will ask you, why wouldn't the provisions of the Taft-Hartley be involved, which clearly says forcing or requiring any employer or self-employed person. This would be

to engage in, or induce or encourage the employees of any employer to engage in, a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any services where an object thereof is (a) forcing or requiring any employer or self-employed person to join any labor or employer organization, or any employer or other person to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of any other producer, processor, or manufacturer, or to cease doing business with any other person.

It seems to me from the cases I have heard described, if they were in interstate commerce and within our competence, a secondary boycott would be involved. What is your judgment?

Mr. MEZANSKY. I believe you are correct. As a matter of fact, that was the basis for the injunctions issued by the State court under the New York law, which is similar to the Norris-LaGuardia Act.

Senator KENNEDY. It seems to me if the operators or owners of the installations were willing, were not afraid of other pressures, more physical than a picket line, were willing to take these cases to court, that I don't know of any court that would refuse an injunction in the cases as I have heard them described today and the ones I have read of yesterday, because there isn't a labor dispute.

The picket line is a fraud. No matter how they may cover it up by the signs on the pickets, that they are carrying, it is quite obvious what this operation is. I would think that you would be successful unless there is some stringent provision in the New York law in getting an injunction.

Mr. MEZANSKY. We were successful. We did obtain an injunction against local 531 and against local 19. But there is a practical difficulty.

First of all, we cannot locate these unions. For instance, local 19 had no address. We couldn't find where the officers were located. We couldn't serve them with process. The pickets would go to a store owner and would try to intimidate the store owner or in some instances one of the men behind the union, local 19, Amalfitano, would simply make an appearance at the location and the machine would immediately be turned around or disconnected.

We couldn't locate Mr. Amalfitano for quite some period of time, nor could we locate any other official. Under the New York law, in order to sue an unincorporated association, you must serve either the president or the treasurer. I have been advocating some law in New York

requiring labor unions to register as the corporations are required to do; that is, we can sue a corporation by serving process on the secretary of state. There is no such law in respect to labor unions.

These paper unions, they simply have no address nor a telephone, and we can't find them. By the time we are able to get out our injunction papers and serve them, the machines have been disconnected and other machines installed.

Senator KENNEDY. In the legislation which Senator McClellan is interested in, that I have been interested in, I don't think there is any doubt that every union in interstate commerce would have to be so registered. There might be another word used, but they would have to report to the Secretary of Labor.

Obviously, of course, as you say, the use of a union in order to enforce a racketeer's demands should be done away with. But I would think that it would indicate some necessity for the State of New York to consider this experience, as we are considering it on the national level.

It seems to me that if it were in interstate commerce, not in "no man's land," but in interstate commerce, you could have an appeal brought to the Board, in the case of a secondary boycott, or I would think that you might be able to get some action, if the interstate commerce were affected, where it seems to me that the Department of Justice, in a conspiracy between one operator and a union, or you might have to have two operators in order to meet the provisions of the antitrust law, that you can get action by the Department of Justice on restraint of trade, if it were in interstate commerce.

It is difficult, of course, for us to deal with intrastate, but I think it indicates quite clearly the fact that New York is going to have to consider what action it can take in order to meet the intrastate problem.

As

Mr. MEZANSKY. I think the provisions you spoke about are very important, and we do hope that legislation of that sort is enacted. I say, there are these practical difficulties.

I was just wondering, even under the Taft-Hartley law, you still have those lines of decisions about educational picketing and organizational picketing. The contention of a union in those particular cases is that they are not trying to force or compel any boycott, or compel any unfair labor practice, but they are merely advertising as a matter of free speech, they are advertising that the standards of employment in respect to that particular machine are lower than the standards of the particular union that is doing the picketing.

Senator KENNEDY. I know it is difficult to look behind the signs always for a National Labor Relations Board, but I would think in the case of the union described, in the absence of a legitimate labor dispute, I would think it would be possible to get action by the Board. I think it is certainly being examined. I would think that the third remedy, of course, is the State courts.

In fact, you did get an injunction regardless of whether the New York State law was adequate or not. In other words, I would think that most of the courts would give you some protection against the misuse of a union by racketeers for the purposes of, really, extortion.

Mr. MEZANSKY. You take the case of local 19. We obtained an injunction there at the very end of the trial, and the judge made some very serious and very important findings. He was going to hold some of the defendants for the grand jury. But even before he signed the

formal injunction document, the final judgment, local 266 come into the picture, of the Teamsters Union.

In other words, the attorney for local 19 in that particular case, the next day announced that he became an attorney for a new association known as the United Game Operators, I believe, and that association immediately entered into a contract with local 266 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

So no sooner do we get an injunction against one union than another union starts picketing.

Senator KENNEDY. What is your suggestion for that?

Mr. MEZANSKY. Well, I do think that a very comprehensive labor law which would require registration of these unions as corporations— I don't think unions are being picked on when there is such a requirement. I mean, corporations are subjected to registration, or you can serve the secretary of state.

There should be a report on the officers, complete reports as to the whole union setup and the membership file, and so forth.

Senator KENNEDY. In conclusion, it seems to me that with the evidence that has been given as to the organization of this union, and the fact that there were self-employed people in it, other people who were not even aware of it, that they were not receiving any benefits or paying any dues, that it was sort of a sticker-sale business, with the picket line to put force behind the sale, I would think that the courts would give some protection.

But I agree that that is probably not sufficient. It would seem to me in these cases of intrastate commerce, as in the case in New York, I am sure that the people in New York are watching these hearings and are going to be concerned about the misuse of the picket lines as we are down here.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think unions that engage in such practices should be entitled to tax-exempt privileges?

Mr. MEZANSKY. No; of course not.

The CHAIRMAN. Neither do I.

All right; call the next witness.

Thank you very much.

Mr. KENNEDY. Lt. James Mooney.

The CHAIRMAN. Lieutenant Mooney, you do solemnly swear the evidence you shall give before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Lieutenant MOONEY. I do.

TESTIMONY OF LIEUTENANT JAMES S. MOONEY

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

Lieutenant MOONEY. My name is James S. Mooney. I am a lieutenant in the New York City Police Department, assigned to the criminal intelligence squad.

The CHAIRMAN. How long have you been a member of the police department?

Lieutenant MOONEY. Thirteen years.

The CHAIRMAN. How long have been a member of this squad? Lieutenant MOONEY. Criminal intelligence squad? A year and a half.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Proceed, Mr. Kennedy.

Mr. KENNEDY. For a period of time you have been assigned to help and assist this committee; is that correct?

Lieutenant MOONEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. KENNEDY. For how long have you been with us?

Lieutenant MOONEY. Since last May.

Mr. KENNEDY. And you had three other members of the New York Police Department with you?

Lieutenant MOONEY. Yes, sir. I have three detectives with me.

Mr. KENNEDY. As you know, Mr. Chairman, that was through Police Commissioner Kennedy, who allowed these four police officers to come to work with the committee during this period of time. Lieutenant MOONEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. KENNEDY. Lieutenant, you have some information, do you not, in connection with the situation that occurred at Apalachin, N.Y., in November of 1957?

Lieutenant MOONEY. Yes, I do.

Mr. KENNEDY. And that is directly involved, is it not, with the hearings we are conducting at the present time?

Lieutenant MOONEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. KENNEDY. And directly involves an individual who has been mentioned in the previous testimony, Mr. Carmine Lombardozzi. Lieutenant, do you have a statement that you can read in connection with that?

Lieutenant MOONEY. I have, Mr. Kennedy.

Mr. KENNEDY. In connection with the meeting at Apalachin?
Lieutenant MOONEY. Yes; I have.

Mr. KENNEDY. Can he go ahead with that, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. The statement was submitted?

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. It is just a statement as to the factual information that has been developed in connection with the meeting at Apalachin.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. You may proceed to read the state

ment.

Lieutenant MOONEY (reading):

The New York City Police Department is in possession of some information concerning the meeting of the notorious individuals who gathered at the home of Joseph Barbara at Apalachin, N.Y., on November 14, 1957.

The information indicates that the following took place: One of those individuals influential in the jukebox field was called to account for his activity. This person was previously scheduled to be killed, but instead his situation was considered by a council made up of certain of the higher ranking individuals present at Apalachin.

The offender was not allowed to be present or to participate in the hearing, but was required to remain in Barbara's garage to await the verdict. The council decided to fine the offender $10,000. Our present information indicates that the offender was Carmine Lombardozzi.

Mr. KENNEDY. This is information, Lieutenant, that comes from a very reliable source?

Lieutenant MOONEY. From a confidential source; yes.

Mr. KENNEDY. And a reliable source?

Lieutenant MOONEY. Reliable, too.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will you give us the background of Mr. Carmine Lombardozzi, and any information that you have on him?

Lieutenant MOONEY (reading):

Carmine Lombardozzi, with aliases of Alberto Lombardozzi, Carmine Lavigna, Al and Blackie, is known to the New York City Police Department under "B" No. 82584, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation No. 290869. He is 45 years old. He was born on February 18, 1913. He presently resides at 114 Stratford Road, Brooklyn, N.Y.

His criminal record shows 21 arrests, including vehicle homicide, disorderly conduct, dangerous weapon, with a pool cue, bookmaking, vagrancy, and being AWOL from the U.S. Army. He was convicted 13 times, twice for disorderly conduct, four times for bookmaking, once for being a common gambler; a charge of rape and abduction, which was reduced to disorderly conduct; and a charge of burglary, which was reduced to unlawful entry.

The files of the New York City Police Department show that he was a bookmaker and loan shark until 1952, at which time he assumed the greater dominance in the underworld, continuing his activity, however, as a money lender or shylock.

His legitimate employment since 1929 has been as a laborer, mechanic, longshoreman, stevedore, a builder and contractor. His known associates include Albert and Anthony Anastasia, Mike Miranda, and Paul Castellano, who were both present at Apalachin; Gus Frasca; Sabato Muro, also known as Little Mitsky; and George Smurra.

Mr. KENNEDY. Spell those names. C-a-s-t-e-l-l-a-n-o?

Lieutenant MOONEY. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Gus Frasca?

Lieutenant MOONEY. F-r-a-s-c-a.

Mr. KENNEDY. Sabato?

Lieutenant MOONEY. M-u-r-o.

Mr. KENNEDY. George?

Lieutenant MOONEY. S-m-u-r-r-a.

Mr. KENNEDY. Who are they?

Lieutenant MOONEY. They are all known criminals in the city of New York.

Mr. KENNEDY. Go ahead.

Lieutenant MOONEY (reading):

Lombardozzi attended the Apalachin meeting on November 14, 1957, and he traveled to Joseph Barbara's home with Natale Evola, Joseph Riccobono, and Frank Cucchiara. He stayed overnight with them at the Dell Motel. When questioned by the New York City Police Department, Lombardozzi stated that he is the president of the Superior Tube Corp., in Brooklyn, N.Y., which company tests television tubes. He owns the Mec Platers in New York City, which plates brass and copper, and Sabato Muro is the president of this firm.

He is also interested in the Monti Marine Corp., which does ship repairing. Lombardozzi stated at the time of the interview that he promotes good will for the company with shipowners, labor unions, and personnel.

Mr. KENNEDY. Did he state also that he does some public relations and labor relations work for some ship company?

Lieutenant MOONEY. Yes, he did.

Mr. KENNEDY. Continue, please.

Lieutenant MOONEY. He also stated that he owns an interest in the Mobile Marine Power & Equipment Co., which owns one piece of equipment which is a portable generator, and leases it to Monti Marine for $750 a week.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, that is of some significance, obviously. He not only owns or has owned a small percentage of Monti Marine, but Monti Marine in turn does much of the work on the large ships that come into the New York City area.

Lieutenant MOONEY. Yes, it does.