The CHAIRMAN. In other words, from your observation there, there was nothing serious discussed, nothing of any consequence, any serious conference held about anything. It was just chitchat and lunch? Mr. UNGAR. Precisely.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we have that in the record straight.

Gentlemen, does any member of the committee have any question? Mr. KENNEDY. Do you want to ask him specifics?

The CHAIRMAN. Frame the specific question, Mr. Counsel.

Proceed. Ask the specific question, bringing out the testimony given by the two witnesses so that this witness can state his position. give his testimony, on the question.

Mr. KENNEDY. Was there any discussion at the luncheon that Mr. Bartley Crum, if he did not appear as a witness before the committee and testify before the committee, that Mr. Godfrey Schmidt would be paid his fees?

Mr. UNGAR. No, sir, none that I heard, and I think I heard everything.

Mr. KENNEDY. There was no discussion along those lines whatsoever?

Mr. UNGAR. No.

Mr. KENNEDY. In fact, there was no discussion that Mr. Bartley Crum was going to appear as a witness?

Mr. UNGAR. I can't recall that there was.

Mr. KENNEDY. That you cannot make definite. But you can make definite the fact that there was no discussion that if Bartley Crum did not appear as a witness, that the fees of Godfrey Schmidt would be paid?

Mr. UNGAR. That is right.

Mr. KENNEDY. That was not discussed?

Mr. UNGAR. That is right.

Senator ERVIN. Mr. Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Ervin?

Senator ERVIN. I would like to ask you if this was said in your presence at that luncheon, that Mr. Williams told Mr. Crum that if he, Mr. Crum, did not appear before this committee as a witness, that he, Mr. Williams, would see that—rather, that if he, Mr. Crum, did not appear as a witness before this committee, that he legal fee claimed by Godfrey Schmidt would be paid on the following day, namely, on Friday of that week?

Mr. UNGAR. Certainly not. It would have been ridiculous for him to have made such a statement. Had he made it, I certainly would have remembered it.

Senator ERVIN. Did you go to the meeting with Mr. Williams?
Mr. UNGAR. I went to lunch with Mr. Williams.

Senator ERVIN. How did you and Mr. Williams travel to the luncheon engagement?

Mr. UNGAR. We walked over to the Mayflower hotel, I believe, where Mr. Crum was, met him in the lobby and then decided that he would eat at Duke's instead.

Senator ERVIN. Did you leave with anyone?

Mr. UNGAR. No; just Mr. Williams and I.

Senator ERVIN. You went with Mr. Williams and left with Mr. Williams?

Mr. UNGAR. That is right.

Senator ERVIN. Was there any separation between you at any time? Mr. UNGAR. The three of us walked out together, walked part way along, and then Mr. Crum went off in one direction, and Mr. Williams and I in another.

Senator ERVIN. You came away with the impression that the luncheon engagement was a purely social affair?

Mr. UNGAR. Exactly.

Senator ERVIN. The only reason you went there was for companionship and victuals?

Mr. UNGAR. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions?

Mr. KENNEDY. Have you talked with anybody in connection with what you might testify on here?

Mr. UNGAR. I just talked to Mr. Ray Bergan out in the hall.
Mr. KENNEDY. Who is Ray Bergan?

Mr. UNGAR. He is an associate of Mr. Williams.

Mr. KENNEDY. Was that in connection with what you might be asked here?

Mr. UNGAR. Yes, sir. I asked him what it was all about, because all I had gotten was a call to come down.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything further?

Mr. KENNEDY. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. You may stand aside.
Mr. Crum, have you got anything to say?

TESTIMONY OF BARTLEY C. CRUM-Resumed

Mr. CRUM. No, sir, except to repeat what I have heretofore said to the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. You have heard the testimony and you reassert your previously sworn statement?

Mr. CRUM. Yes, I do. That is true.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions?

If not, stand aside.

The only thing the Chair can do is to make the observation that someone is certainly varying from the truth, and it comes from forces or people who are members of the bar, people who are officers of the court. Such conduct certainly should not be tolerated, and it should not be unattended to insofar as the truth can be ascertained and the innocent protected and the guilty exposed.

I do think that this record should go immediately, a copy of it to Judge Letts, a copy of it to the monitors, and a copy of it to the Department of Justice. With the approval of the members of the committee, the Chair so orders and directs.

Is there objection? That will be the order of the Chair.
Senator CAPEHART. Could I ask Mr. Crum a question?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, you may. Senator Capehart?

Senator CAPEHART. Mr. Crum, are you well acquainted with Harry Bridges?

Mr. CRUM. Yes, very well.

Senator CAPEHART. How long have you known him?

Mr. CRUM. I have known him since 1934, I believe, Senator.

Senator CAPEHART. Have you represented him as a lawyer?
Mr. CRUM. No, sir; I have not.

Senator CAPEHART. Under what circumstances have you known him?

Mr. CRUM. I have known him as a representative of business in collective bargaining arrangements with Mr. Bridges.

Senator CAPEHART. In other words, you have been an attorney for employers.

Mr. CRUM. Yes, sir; the Shipowners Association in San Francisco? Senator CAPEHART. Have you practiced law all your life in New York?

Mr. CRUM. Until the last 10 years, when I lived in New York.
Senator CAPEHART. You were originally in San Francisco?
Mr. CRUM. Yes, sir; I was.

Senator CAPEHART. And you have known Harry Bridges since 1934?

Mr. CRUM. Yes, I have known him very well.

Senator CAPEHART. Now you are practicing law in New York City! Mr. CRUM. Yes, sir.

Senator ERVIN. You said Mr. Goldblatt came to your home; was that in New York?

Mr. CRUM. Yes, at 165 East 80th Street, New York.

Senator CAPEHART. How long have you known Mr. Goldblatt?

Mr. CRUM. I believe about the same time as I have known Mr. Bridges. He was originally, I think, business agent of the Warehousemen's Union.

Senator CAPEHART. Do you have any reason to believe that Bridges or Goldblatt did contact Mr. Williams or Mr. Hoffa?

Mr. CRUM. I don't know about Mr. Bridges contacting Mr. Williams. I am certain that both Mr. Bridges and Mr. Goldblatt were in constant communication with Mr. Hoffa.

Senator CAPEHART. But you knew both Goldblatt and Bridges quite intimately as a result of your legal contacts with them?

Mr. CRUM. Yes; I did, and do.

The CHAIRMAN. Is Mr. Godfrey Schmidt present?

Mr. SCHMIDT. Right here.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you wish to testify? You have heard this testimony. The Chair just felt that it would be proper to give you an opportunity if there is anything you wish to state under oath.

Mr. SCHMIDT. I did want to make a comment or two on some of the misrepresentations that were made, in my opinion.

The CHAIRMAN. Just a moment. If you want to testify, this is the way to do it:

You do 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. SCHMIDT. I do.

TESTIMONY OF GODFREY P. SCHMIDT

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Schmidt, you have been present and heard this testimony regarding a subject matter in which you are interested, and that is the collection of your attorney fees and also your fees as

a monitor, and have you heard all of the testimony that has been given here of Mr. Crum and Mr. Williams today, and of Mr. Ungar?

Mr. SCHMIDT. Yes; I have, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. The Chair will give you an opportunity to make a brief statement. I don't want it too long. I want to give you an opportunity, but I want to move along if I can.

Mr. SCHMIDT. In the first place, I want to say that everything that Mr. Crum said here under oath he had previously told me either orally or in letter form.

Mr. KENNEDY. Is that contemporaneous with these events?

Mr. SCHMIDT. Yes; it was contemporaneous with these event. I immediately told Martin O'Donoghue about it, the chairman of the board. I immediately told one of the agents of the FBI about it. As soon as I could get together my plaintiffs, I told them about it.

Mr. KENNEDY. So informing all these individuals started last year; is that correct?

Mr. SCHMIDT. That is right.

Mr. KENNEDY. It has not been something that has been going on the last couple of weeks?

Mr. SCHMIDT. No; it started with the Labrutto-Feinstein matter, went on to be the Feldschuh matter, and went on to a third matter that was not referred to here, a McAllister matter, which was another approach for a bribe.

The CHAIRMAN. Let us settle this one first.

Mr. SCHMIDT. I would like to make some comments, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. With reference to the testimony here today?

Mr. SCHMIDT. In the first place, I would like it understood that it was a deliberate misrepresentation to say that I publicized any statement that I was working for the public good without any expectation of remuneration, because the very complaint that I filed on the 19th of September said in so many words that I was asking the court to fix my fee in the event that the court granted me the victory in the case. So that there was never any misrepresentation to the public or anyone else about that matter. I did say that I would never charge my 13 clients anything, and I have kept my word.

The second thing is that the whole matter of reporting to Mr. Christy and the beginning of Mr. Williams' familiarity with these approaches made indirectly to me did not come with the article from Bob Bedolis in the Herald Tribune. Actually it came from telephone conversations from myself and my attorney which I made directly to Mr. Williams, and the last conversation I had in July, before we went to see Judge Letts, was the conversation about the McAllister matter. When he heard that, he said he thought we should go to the judge, just as Mr. O'Donoghue has said, and we went to the judge the following Monday. He said that I had filed fees, not fees but expenses totaling $90,000. I did no such thing; and his figure is a little different from what it was in his own affidavit or statement of September 29, because in that statement he said it was around $60,000, and that was for the records of the court. They have to verify that I filed expense items totaling about $9,000, and they were cut to about $6,000, and they were cut because I had printed a large number of documents such as the consent order, and the judge thought that the Teamsters should not be required to pay for that printing bill, and in addition

there was a $2,000 item for my accountant which the judge thought

I should pay.

That is the reason for the cutting, and it was not a question of a bill that was magnified to the tune of $90,000.

The monitor's fee, he said, he believed was $25 an hour. We had a meeting of the monitors at which he was present, and it was agreed that we were to receive $25 an hour, and they paid the first half year's money fees at that rate for me, and all expenses, and they did not challenge it except temporarily. They paid it, and I filed the second half for the last half of 1958 on the same basis, and it came to about $28,000 rather than $25,000, and they have been holding that up. Senator GOLDWATER. Who agreed to that; the judge?

Mr. SCHMIDT. No; the monitors, and Mr. Williams on behalf of the international.

Senator GOLDWATER. They agreed to $25 a day?

Mr. SCHMIDT. Yes, indeed-$25 an hour.

Senator GOLDWATER. Pardon me. I did not know we were talking about lawyers.

Mr. SCHMIDT. Then the so-called petition of the 29th of September was a petition signed by Mr. Williams and Mr. Bergan, his associate, alleging seven-I mean eight-different charges, and at the trial that began on November 5 of last year they withdrew seven of the eight charges and pressed only the one on conflict of interest. They asked for my disqualification. The court of first instance, that is to say, Judge Letts, refused to disqualify me, and even refused to hold that there was a conflict of interest.

The court of appeals in two matters refused to disqualify me but referred the matter back to Judge Letts. There was never at any time any question presented to me by counsel on either side, that is to say, my own counsel or the international counsel, asking me to put in no appearance in the alleged conflict of interest matter.

From the very start of the monitorship, I and the union monitor, Mr. Wells, disclosed to the chairman that we were attorneys with an active practice. It is quite impossible to be in the active practice of the law without running into representation that in one way or another involves the Teamsters as a sprawling organization that hits every articulation in our economic system. I said that right from the beginning. The union monitor was there. I said, "I cannot afford to give up my practice for the monitorship." I said that same thing in court before Judge Letts, and I said, in addition, that the whole question of conflict of interest had to be appraised, it seemed to me, in a reasonable fashion, because I could not claim and did not claim as plaintiffs' monitor that I was an impartial person. After all, I was attorney for the plaintiffs who had commenced this action.

I also pointed out that I was representing some employers in dealings with local unions that were not subject to the court's jurisdiction, and I felt with them in matters that were outside the purview of the consent order, and for that reason I felt that there was no conflict of interest.

The CHAIRMAN. That has been settled. You have now resigned?
Mr. SCHMIDT. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. It is a moot question now, except as it is to be taken into account with respect to your fee.