Mr. LUKEN. I certainly believe to my own personal knowledge and things I have read that have occurred, giving them the credit that one should give a newspaper account and not taking the complete verbatim-I feel it is necessary that there be some legislation in the labor field. I do not take the technical objection that some people take, that a labor organization is a private society and therefore should not be legislated against.

Legislated against is wrong. I should not say there should not be legislation in that field.

I have to say that I think some of the people are using the present exposés. I have to point out that all of the union officials I know, and in our locality in particular, there are far more of those dedicated individuals than those who are attempting to enrich themselves.

That is notwithstanding that someone just reading a newspaper might come to the conclusion that all union officials are not such nice people. There are an awful lot of dedicated union officials who maybe don't have the education and intellect of business people, or something like that, but they are doing a job in the best way they know how. They should not be criticized as a group for the failings of a few.

I see no objection, and I feel that a union basically is today an economic society, and it is not just a fraternal organization or a church organization. I feel that the Government has a right and a duty to legislate in that field.

But, I think, Senator, that one of the main problems-and I have a tendency to get into politics which I would like to stay out of-but one of the main problems here is that some people have seized upon this opportunity to legislate against unions rather than to legislate for union members.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, that might be conceded without arguing it either way. The position I have taken is that decent dedicated union leadership in this country ought to come in here and help us write legislation to deal with that element that needs dealing with, and yet protect and preserve decent unionism.

Mr. LUKEN. I do not disagree with you.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the point I have.

Mr. LUKEN. I have cooperated with your committee when requested. The CHAIRMAN. I am sure that you have.

But I do say, it is just like crime. We don't enact a law making larceny or theft a crime because the majority of our people are thieves. We enact such a law to protect the majority from the imposition of a very small minority. Is that not correct?

Mr. LUKEN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That is true, I think, in this field. I agree with you, and I have tried to emphasize it everywhere I have made any statement, that the great majority of union people and union leaders in my judgment are dedicated people trying to serve the interest and welfare of the laboring people that they represent. But I do say to you, sir, that this other element, this minority that we are trying to deal with, its influence is growing, and unless it is curbed and brought under control, unless something is done about it, the day will come when decent unionism in this country will be in danger.

I think it serves the interest of all those who are for unions and those who believe in them, and those who believe that working people

ought to have their rights. I think it serves their interest and welfare to find the kind of legislation needed to drive the crooks and thieves and exploiters out of unions and preserve that which is decent and good and for the interest of the working people of this country.

Mr. LUKEN. On that last statement, Senator, I agree wholeheartedly.

The CHAIRMAN. That is my position, and I think it is going to take a bill of rights or something similar to it in order to bring into union halls, into some of them, the protections and the freedoms and the rights that human beings are entitled to wherever they are.

All right. Proceed.

Mr. KENNEDY. Just to go back, we had some reference to Mr. Harvey Friedman. He had been, prior to being sent in by Mr. Presser, arrested for transportation of illegal liquor, forgery, blackmail, obtaining signatures by false pretenses, and in 1949 he was arrested and convicted and received 31⁄2 years in Lewisburg Prison for interstate transportation of stolen automobiles. That was just prior to the time that Mr. Presser sent him down into Ohio.

Then when he got down there he was convicted for false statements. First he was indicted for blackmail and then convicted for false statements and obtaining property by false pretenses and received a sentence of 1 to 6 years.

Now, you spoke about the conversation that you had with Mr. Presser that he would come in and take over your union if you caused him any difficulty. You said that you went back and had the meeting with your membership. Did they ever try the approach of offering you something if you would go along with them, as long as these threats did not work?

Mr. LUKEN. Yes, sir; 2 days later I was offered the presidency of the joint council.

Mr. KENNEDY. By whom?

Mr. LUKEN. By Mr. Friedman first, and Mr. Presser later. I was standing in a hotel lobby and he came up and he said, "Why don't you get along with us, why don't you play ball? You are a young man and you could go far, and you could be president of the joint council if you wanted to be," and Mr. Presser later joined in.

(Members of the select committee present at this point in the proceedings were Senators McClellan, Capehart, and Goldwater.) Mr. KENNEDY. What did you say to that?

Mr. LUKEN. I pointed out to him that they already had a president of the joint council.

Mr. KENNEDY. What did he say?

Mr. LUKEN. He said, "Resignations could be arranged."

Mr. KENNEDY. You refused to go along with that?

Mr. LUKEN. I later became president of the joint council, but with

his active opposition rather than his support.

Mr. KENNEDY. And on your own terms; is that right?

Mr. LUKEN. On the terms of the group which I was working with; yes, sir.

(At this point Senator McClellan withdrew from the hearing room.) Mr. KENNEDY. Then there was an investigation by the so-called Bender committee in 1954 of some of the Teamster officials in Ohio, was there not?

Mr. LUKEN. Yes, sir. I believe it was in Cleveland, sir. Mr. KENNEDY. Did you have any conversations at the meeting of your joint council in connection with that investigation?

Mr. LUKEN. I believe that is a matter that your committee investigated about a year ago. My recollection on it is not completelythis is 4 or 5 years ago. As I recall it, a letter was brought in from the State or from Cleveland, requesting money so that they could pay the expenses of the officers, Presser and Triscaro, who appeared before the Bender or the Hoffman committee. I am never sure which one it was.

One of our officers stated the union provided them with counsel, and what other expenses were there.

Mr. Starling

Mr. KENNEDY. What position did he hold?

Mr. LUKEN. Mr. Starling was then president of the joint council in Cincinnati.

Mr. KENNEDY. You were just an officer?

Mr. LUKEN. I was just a board member.

Mr. KENNEDY. Did you write down his statement at the time?

Mr. LUKEN. Yes, I did, Mr. Kennedy; and as I recall it I don't remember whether the statement was made directly that the money was to be given to Senator Bender for calling off the committee hearings, or whether it was to be given to other people. I wrote it down and you have it.

(At this point Senator McClellan returned to the hearing room.) Mr. KENNEDY. I believe we have given that to you.

Mr. LUKEN. At the time I wrote this down, and it said Mr. Starling said, "Other moneys were spent to pull certain strings to see that these charges were dropped."

I cannot say accurately at this moment whether Mr. Bender was the man that was supposed to have dropped the charges or whether this was charges that county officials were pursuing as a result of the Bender investigation.

Mr. KENNEDY. It was at the time the investigation was going on. Would you relate the beginning part of it, first, as to how the subject came up?

Mr. LUKEN. A letter was brought in, and when we made an investigation of this at your request, or your man came in and went through our files, we could not find the letter, but we did find that in the minutes of the meeting there was a reference made to the letter, the fact that it was brought in, that Mr. Starling read it, requesting money.

Mr. KENNEDY. I might say, Mr. Chairman, we have examined the files, and that letter to which he is referring is missing from the files. Mr. LUKEN. It was not in our files, but, of course, Mr. Starling had the letter. Maybe it never went in the files or if it went in, it came out. But it was not there when your investigator looked. I think the secretary of the Council was with him. I did not personally look, but I am sure the files were gone over by two people.

The minutes of the meeting showed that the request was made. It only showed that the request was made for money. It did not say exactly what it was for. At that time I was sort of amazed at this statement being made that the money was being raised to pay off officials, and I wrote it down, November 17, 1954.

Mr. KENNEDY. The date of the meeting was November 22, 1954? Mr. LUKEN. The letter was dated November 17, 1954, and the meeting was November 22.

Mr. KENNEDY. And the question then was raised, "As long as we have paid all the legal fees in connection with Mr. Presser, why do they need money?" What was the answer to that?

Mr. LUKEN. His answer was, "Other money was spent to pull certain strings to see that these charges were dropped."

That is what I wrote down at that meeting when he said it.

The CHAIRMAN. I was out for a moment. Who made that answer? To whom were you talking?

Mr. LUKEN. He was the then president of the Joint Council, who was president of Ohio Conference and was more or less Mr. Presser's emissary in Cincinnati.

The CHAIRMAN. What was his name?

Mr. LUKEN. Mr. Starling. He was defeated in the reelection bid last December.

Senator GOLDWATER. What were these charges? Do you recall? Mr. KENNEDY. They were appearing before the Bender committee, Mr. Presser and Mr. Triscaro, at that period of time.

Mr. LUKEN. Trying to recap it as best I can, Mr. Presser, Triscaro, and certain other officials who appeared before the Bender committee or the Hoffman committee, as a result of that appearance, we were in Cincinnati, none of our people were involved, were solicited for moneys to pay their expenses. One of the executive officers asked what the expenses were. Their lawyer was provided for by the union. What expenses did they have?

Why do we have to give money?

The answer was given that "Other money was spent to pull certain strings to see that these charges were dropped."

Right at that time the committee also went out of existence with some flair, if you might recall. I am sure Senator Bender's name was mentioned, but I want to make it clear that I am not saying that this man said the money went to Senator Bender. It may have; it may not have.

Mr. KENNEDY. Was this in 1954?

Mr. LUKEN. This was in 1954.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thought that was a House committee.

Mr. LUKEN. It was a House committee. I am referring to Senator Bender. It was Representative Bender at the time.

Mr. KENNEDY. He was a Congressman at the time. They were holding hearings. It was a question of whether they were going to resume the hearings and press some contempt action against Mr. Presser. It was decided about this period of time to drop the contempt action, and they did not hold the hearings that had possibly been expected.

Could we have that note made an exhibit, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Let me see the note.

Mr. LUKEN. May I explain, Senator, that the notation on the top was just-well, that piece of paper was a note that was given to me by the office clerk when I came into the meeting to call Mr. Struberg, who was a company executive. That is his phone number.

When the statement was made I was sort of shocked. I wasn't shocked that a politician would take a bribe. I was shocked that somebody would be stupid enough to say so in front of seven people. The CHAIRMAN. Is this your handwriting?

Mr. LUKEN. Yes, sir; written on November 22, 1954.

The CHAIRMAN. You identify it as your handwriting and you state this occurred there at the meeting at the time?

Mr. LUKEN. That was written on November 22, 1954, and it was one of those things you throw in your files and these guys found out.

The CHAIRMAN. It was in your file and you recognize it as yours?
Mr. LUKEN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Then it may be made exhibit No. 58.

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 58" for reference, and may be found in the files of the select committee.)

Senator CAPEHART. Are you intimating that some politician, maybe Mr. Hoffman or Mr. Bender, took a bribe?

Mr. LUKEN. I am not intimating anything.

Senator CAPEHART. What did you mean by the statement that you made a while ago, that you weren't shocked at a politician taking a bribe?

Mr. LUKEN. Previously, I said I was shocked. No, I would not be shocked at a politician taking a bribe. I think the record is pretty replete that we have had numbers of them in this country who have taken a bribe. I wouldn't be shocked at it. I was shocked at a man making a statement that they were bribing an official, in front of all those witnesses.

Senator CAPEHART. What do former Senator Bender and Congressman Hoffman have to do with it?

Mr. KENNEDY. Congressman Hoffman is not involved in this.

Mr. LUKEN. I don't know that either was involved. My answer is in direct reply as to what that note means. I can only give you what it means and what was said at the time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Congressman Hoffman had nothing to do with this. Senator CAPEHART. The note says―

Mr. Starling says that other moneys were spent to pull certain strings to see that these charges were dropped.

Mr. Starling made that statement, did he?

Mr. LUKEN. Yes, sir. That statement is in quotations there, and I wrote it down. The reason I wrote it down is, as I say, I was shocked that a statement like that would be made. It was something really unusual, and I worte it down so I wouldn't be misquoted at a later time.

Senator CAPEHART. What were you talking about at the time?

Mr. LUKEN. We were talking about a request for money from the people who had appeared before the Bender committee, or for a group of people acting in their behalf, to raise money to pay the expenses of that appearance.

Senator CAPEHART. How did this testimony of yours, intimating, maybe, by inference, maybe, that maybe Bender or Hoffman got some money you weren't intimating that?

Mr. LUKEN. I was not, sir. I was trying to make it very clear.

The way my answer fitted into Mr. Kennedy's question was I wanted to make it clear that I was not stating that Mr. Bender or