Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Comer, you were having some problems with the teamsters union, were you, in 1956?

Mr. COMER. That is correct.

Mr. KENNEDY. And they went out on strike?

Mr. COMER. That is right.

Mr. KENNEDY. And you felt that you needed some guards to protect your property; is that right?

Mr. COMER. That is right.

Mr. KENNEDY. And you contacted the Belle Meade Police Department, Mr. Lucarini?

Mr. COMER. I believe the contact was made by one of our stockholders who in turn had Lieutenant Mozier get in touch with me. Mr. KENNEDY. And guards were assigned in early August of 1956? Mr. COMER. That is correct.

Mr. KENNEDY. Around the 2d or 3d of August of 1956?

Mr. COMER. Yes, the 3d, I think.

Mr. KENNEDY. Now, I understand from the previous witness that they only remained a couple of days, but I believe your records showed that they stayed about 10 days, the guards.

Mr. COMER. Yes. Our record based on payments to those guards, indicate that they were there from the 3d until the morning of the 12th.

Mr. KENNEDY. But anyway, at that time were you told those guards would have to be removed?

Mr. COMER. I was told by one of our supervisors who had been on duty at the warehouse the night of the 11th, a Saturday night, the 11th, that it appeared these guards would not be back. However, he had not been there all night himself and he said that I had better call McCloskey, who was the man who had been there all night and get the story. That I did.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will you recite that?

Mr. COMER. McCloskey reported that during the evening of Saturday two men who identified themselves as being from the sheriff's office had driven across the picket line and into our lot. Of course he went back immediately, not knowing who they were, to investigate. He asked them why they were there.

He was told that they wanted to talk to these two guards and wanted to know if there was any objection and he said "No." McCloskey said, "Well, I am also a commissioned deputy from the sheriff's office and if there is any trouble, I think that I can take care of it."

They said, "We would like to talk to them." So they talked to them and left. Later in the night, I believe it was reported sometime after midnight probably, that these guards received a telephone call from their office, which was the Belle Meade patrol.

The identity of the person calling was not known, but when this guard left the phone, he said it looked like they were not going to be able to return for duty the next night. He was asked why and he said, "Well, the sheriff called the office, the Belle Meade office, and told them that these men should be removed and in fact they would have to remove them.”

The guard further stated that it was because the sheriff had said that if they did come back out there, he would have to cancel their

commissions. So I then got in touch with Lieutenant Mozier of the Belle Meade patrol and asked him what the trouble was, and he said, well, that was substantially correct. They had been ordered not to send those men back out there anymore. He wanted to know if there was anything I wanted him to do and I said, "No, I want to get in touch with acting Sheriff Gourley and see why he has put out such an order."

For 2 or 3 hours I was not successful in getting in touch with him. Shortly after noon, that was on Sunday, I did reach him at home. I asked him if he knew why I had employed those men and I wanted to explain to him that they were strictly on guard duty out there and that we had a fence now in front of the place, our protective fence, and that we had over $2 million worth of brandnew equipment setting over there.

I explained that they were not employed as strikebreakers, nor to have anything to do with the picket line, but to protect that property, and as far as trouble with the union or picket line was concerned, I did not anticipate any because we were not trying to operate as employees would not cross the picket line and we were shut down 100 percent, so I did not anticipate any trouble with the picket line nor the union.

All I wanted was to protect that property, that it would be very easy for someone to slip into that lot and pour sirup into the engines and we would know nothing about it until we tried to start them again. I asked first, in the early part of the conversation, what the complaint was that I heard had been registered and who made it.

He said, well, all he could say was that there had been a complaint that they had interfered in some way with the picket line. I never learned who made the complaint.

I said to him, "Sheriff Gourley, anyone who says those men have had anything to do with that picket line at all, they are lying." He said, "Well, I can't help that, but we can't afford to have any trouble with these unions." He said, "A couple of years ago, during the rail strike, our office was severely criticized for some things that went on and we are just not going to take any part in these labor troubles."

I said, "Sheriff Gourley, I am not asking you to take any part in it. All I want is some guard service, and if you can't furnish it maybe I will have to make other arrangements. But I want to reiterate that I did not employ them or they were there strictly under my personal instructions to protect the property of Wilson Trucking Co. and that is all."

I hung up and I called Lieutenant Mozier back and told him that the sheriff had not given in and that I would have to make some other arrangements. Lieutenant Mozier agreed to assist me in getting other guards and getting them, maybe, out of the ranks of constables in the county over which the sheriff's office had no control.

I thanked him and told him that I thought I had a guard service organized within our supervisory personnel and that if I needed him I would call him back, which I did not.

Mr. KENNEDY. So the sheriff, in other words, told you that you could not have guards to protect your property because there was a labor union involved; is that right?

Mr. COMER. Well, he didn't say that because the labor union was involved; he just said

Mr. KENNEDY. Because there was a labor dispute?

Mr. COMER. Yes; that is right, and he couldn't afford to have any troubles with the unions.

Mr. KENNEDY. That is all.

Senator MCNAMARA. I see you referred to this organization as the Belle Meade patrol, and the previous witness referred to it as the Belle Meade Police Department. What is the official name; do you know? Mr. COMER. I believe it is now the Belle Meade Police Department and I believe when it was originally organized it was known as the Belle Meade patrol.

Senator MCNAMARA. How large is this community, Belle Meade? What is the approximate population?

Mr. COMER. I don't know. It is really a part of Nashville. It is incorporated at this time; but, actually, I couldn't say.

Senator MCNAMARA. It is actually part of Nashville?

Mr. COMER. It is one of the principal residential areas.
Senator MCNAMARA. Of Nashville?

Mr. COMER. Yes, sir, of Nashville.

Senator MCNAMARA. Then, is it normally covered by the Nashville Police Department?

Mr. COMER. No, it is outside the city limits.

Senator MCNAMARA. They have no police department of their own? Mr. COMER. No, other than this Belle Meade patrol.

Senator MCNAMARA. Which is a private organization?

Mr. COMER. Yes.

Senator MCNAMARA. So they depend totally on the sheriff's office for police protection?

Mr. COMER. Well, this area depends to some extent on the sheriff's office, those who don't subscribe to this privately operated organization. Senator MCNAMARA. If you do not subscribe to this privately operated patrol, or police force, then you are dependent upon the sheriff's office for police protection?

Mr. COMER. That is correct.

Senator MCNAMARA. Do you now have an agreement with the teamsters union?

Mr. COMER. Yes, sir.

Senator MCNAMARA. You are operating a union shop now?

Mr. COMER. Yes, sir.

Senator MCNAMARA. For all of your employees? Are all of the truckdrivers members of the teamsters union?

Mr. COMER. Yes, sir.

Senator MCNAMARA. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Call the next witness. Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Gourley.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you solemnly swear that 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?

Mr. GOURLEY. I do.

TESTIMONY OF EVERETT E. GOURLEY

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

Mr. GOURLEY. Everett E. Gourley, 2802 West Linden, Nashville, Tenn., and I sell automobiles, and also, I am coroner of Davidson County.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you waive the right to counsel?

Mr. GOURLEY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Under your laws of the State of Tennessee, if the sheriff dies or the office of sheriff becomes vacant, does the coroner automatically succeed to that office as acting sheriff?

Mr. GOURLEY. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

Mr. KENNEDY. Did you succeed to the office of acting sheriff on March 23, 1956?

Mr. GOURLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. KENNEDY. You were sheriff then, or acting sheriff, in August of 1956 at the time of the difficulties between the teamsters and the Wilson Trucking Lines?

Mr. GOURLEY. That is right.

Mr. KENNEDY. Did you have some conversations with Lieutenant Mozier regarding the removal of the guards that had been stationed at the Wilson Truck Lines?

Mr. GOURLEY. I talked to someone out there and I don't remember who it was, before I talked to the chief. I talked to the chief about it later.

Mr. KENNEDY. Had you been approached by any teamster officials prior to that about removing the guards?

Mr. GOURLEY. No, sir.

Mr. KENNEDY. Did you tell Lieutenant Mozier that the guards must be removed?

Mr. GOURLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. KENNEDY. You told him that the guards were to be removed, is that right?

Mr. GOURLEY. Yes, sir. I don't think that I said "must," and I said I thought it would be a good idea.

Mr. KENNEDY. You said if they were not removed their commissions would be lifted?

Mr. GOURLEY. No, sir.

Mr. KENNEDY. You never had any conversation like that?

Mr. GOURLEY. No, sir.

Mr. KENNEDY. The testimony to the contrary is not correct?
Mr. GOURLEY. I do not remember making that statement.

Mr. KENNEDY. Do you think that you might have made that statement?

Mr. GOURLEY. I could have, but I don't see where I would have because it was not necessary to make a statement like that if they removed them. They usually cooperate on those things.

Mr. KENNEDY. You understood that they would be removed when you gave the instructions?

Mr. GOURLEY. That is right.

18

Mr. KENNEDY. But you say that prior to the time that you ordered their removal, that you had not had any conversations with the teamsters officials?

Mr. GOURLEY. No, sir.

Mr. KENNEDY. For what reason did you order their removal?

Mr. GOURLEY. I just thought we were supposed to be-there had been no violence out there and we were the law-enforcing group in Davidson County and we had not heard from anyone in the Wilson Trucking Co. about there being any violence and I just thought that we would be better off and everybody would be better off or concerned in not having anyone go.

I knew we were within 3 minutes and we had men patrolling that place all of the time in a car, uniformed men, and I figured that would really have more effect than men in civilian clothes, anyway.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you call them off from other places? They had the Belle Meade Police Department or agency out there serving a lot of people. They had deputy sheriff commissions.

Mr. GOURLEY. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. They were assigning them around to serve people wherever people wanted that service. Did you call them off anywhere else?

Mr. GOURLEY. No, sir; I did not know there was any others going on like that.

The CHAIRMAN. You knew what that department does out there? Mr. GOURLEY. They had permission to patrol Belle Meade and look after homes and residences out there.

The CHAIRMAN. And property, that is the same thing as looking after a home, or looking after any other business, the same thing as looking after this property, was it not? There was not a bit of difference?

Mr. GOURLEY. It is probably under the same category.

The CHAIRMAN. But you called the others off?

Mr. GOURLEY. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Why did you single out this one and call it off?

Mr. GOURLEY. I just thought it was the best thing to do.

The CHAIRMAN. Why did you think it?

Mr. GOURLEY. That was my better judgment.

The CHAIRMAN. That was your better judgment?

Mr. GOURLEY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. What was your worst? You knew you called them off to appease somebody, and who was it?

Mr. GOURLEY. No, sir; I did not. There was no one approached me on it at all.

The CHAIRMAN. No one at all?

Mr. GOURLEY. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. How did you find out the guards were out there? Mr. GOURLEY. There were a couple of deputies that went out to this place, and I suppose they talked to someone, and they called me about that night and asked me to come out there, and I went out and sat across the street about 30 minutes and watched them, and there was no violence and nothing going on wrong, and I just thought