INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD TUESDAY, JULY 14, 1959 U.S. SENATE. SELECT COMMITTEE ON IMPROPER ACTIVITIES, Washington, D.C. The select committee met at 9 a.m., pursuant to Senate Resolution 44, agreed to February 2, 1959, in the caucus room of the Senate Office Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select committee) presiding. Present: Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; Senator John F. Kennedy, Democrat, Massachusetts; Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Democrat, North Carolina; Senator Frank Church, Democrat, Idaho; Senator Barry Goldwater, Republican, Arizona; Senator Carl T. Curtis, Republican, Nebraska. Also present: Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel; Paul J. Tierney, assistant counsel; Arthur G. Kaplan, assistant counsel; Harold Ranstad, assistant counsel; Walter J. Sheridan, investigator; Pierre E. G. Salinger, investigator; Ruth Y. Watt, chief clerk. PROCEEDINGS The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. (Members of the select committee present at the convening of the session were Senators McClellan, Goldwater, and Curtis.) The CHAIRMAN. All right, Mr. Hoffa, come around, please. TESTIMONY OF JAMES R. HOFFA, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, EDWARD BENNETT WILLIAMS Resumed The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hoffa, you were sworn on your previous appearance during this series, and it will not be necessary to administer the oath again. You will remain under the same oath. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. Mr. KENNEDY. Yesterday we had some testimony, which I believe you heard, in connection with the approach that was made to Mr. Crum regarding Mr. Godfrey Schmidt. Would you care to comment on that? The CHAIRMAN. Let the record show that Mr. Williams appears as Mr. Hoffa's counsel. Mr. HOFFA. I will comment to the extent that Bartley Crum, who testified yesterday, was apparently the lawyer for Harry Bridges, regardless of what he stated yesterday-and knowing Harry Bridges as he stated yesterday, also-since 1934, and apparently representing Schmidt, and having problems with the counsel of the Teamsters Union in regard to the excess fee that Schmidt was trying to collect; and also in regard to the question of the money that he had turned in for the monitor expense-Crum apparently shopped around knowing by the newspapers that we were in discussion with Bridges on certain aspects of union affairs, and he apparently contacted Bridges, and discussed the matter based upon his own testimony with Bridges. Mr. KENNEDY. Who is that? Mr. HOFFA. I am talking about Crum. Mr. KENNEDY. Do you know that he contacted Bridges? Mr. HOFFA. I listened to what he said yesterday. Mr. KENNEDY. You don't know who contacted whom, then? Mr. HOFFA. Yesterday Crum said that Bridges and Goldblatt went to his home. Normally, people don't go to an individual's home unless they are invited. So, apparently, Crum invited Bridges and Goldblatt. This is an assumption on my part. But they must have discussed the question of the fee-not once, but apparently many times, according to Crum's testimony. Mr. KENNEDY. That is right. Mr. HOFFA. It is true I did talk to Goldblatt, and I did talk to Crum. Each time that I talked to him I told him that they would have to take the matter up with our counsel. I did not tell our counsel that I was discussing the matter with Goldblatt because I did not believe that I had any right to supersede my judgment for our attorney's judgment concerning this situation. Insofar as the document that Crum talks about, that was read over the phone to myself by Goldblatt, and apparently Crum came on later; however I have no recollection of the call or of the conversation. They read a document and whoever had prepared it and apparently Crum prepared it-reading it in the transcript last night. It seems like it is a legal document. He had a copy in handwriting and if they did read it to me, I don't recall it. Even according to Crum's testimony I had referred them to our attorney, Edward Bennett Williams, because this was a legal problem and we refused to get into the question of trying to supersede our judgment for Williams'. Now, how many times he talked to me about it, I don't know. It was immaterial to me. If they wanted to talk, we had other business with the Longshoremen's Union of the west coast, and during those conversations that we had, oftentimes Goldblatt would talk about the question of how we were coming in regard to the fee that Bartley Crum had an interest in, because apparently Bartley Crum's legal fee was contingent upon the fact that he was able to collect for Schmidt's fee. We never arrived at any settlements and there was no reason to. It was in front of the court, being handled by our attorney, and from Crum's own testimony he talked to Williams many times concerning this issue. His senior partner also talked to Attorney Williams concerning this problem. Now what there is of it-that was trying to be made here yesterday, I don't know. What I do know-looking at the record on Bartley Crum, he has a very fluid background, to say the least, and his association with certain individuals who he would very likely go to visit brought about apparently the meeting between Bridges and Goldblatt and himself; and then the phone calls to myself trying to collect the fee for Schmidt so he could get paid his legal fees out of Schmidt's fee. Mr. KENNEDY. What do you mean a "fluid background"? I didn't understand that. Mr. HOFFA. Well, I noticed that he has been connected with many organizations that apparently were so-called Communist-front organizations, Communist-background organizations, and that he has represented many individuals who apparently have records dealing with the alleged question of communism. Mr. KENNEDY. That is shocking. Mr. HOFFA. It is huh? Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. Mr. HOFFA. You know it, and you must have it. It has been in many newspapers. The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead. Mr. HOFFA. That is all. So I think it is a fluid background. The CHAIRMAN. Now, do I understand you and your testimony to be in effect that in your opinion Harry Bridges, Goldblatt, and Crum, entered into some agreement or conspiracy in connection with this development? Mr. HOFFA. I don't say a "conspiracy," Senator. The CHAIRMAN. You think that Bridges is in on it and Goldblatt is in on it-that they are a part of what was referred to here yesterday as a "smear," and as this thing has developed, that they are back of this in some way, to embarrass you? Mr. HOFFA. No, I do not believe that. I believe that out of their past relationship and because Crum, having recognized that we were sitting down with Bridges and properly figuring that Bridges would be willing to talk to us or particularly, me about this situation, I would imagine that he contacted his old friend Bridges and tried to work out a settlement. But we refused to do it, and it was always returned to our lawyer, since it was a legal question. The CHAIRMAN. What would be Bridges' interest in your paying or settling this fee, one way or the other? I don't quite get it. Mr. HOFFA. Probably friendship with Crum, because it is my understanding sir, that Crum cannot collect his fee unless he collects Schmidt's fee. The CHAIRMAN. That could very well be true, and I can imagine he may be working on a contingent basis. Mr. HOFFA. I believe so. The CHAIRMAN. There will no doubt be something recovered ultimately, and it might be worked in that way. But it is your theory then that he appealed to Bridges and made contact with Bridges and Goldblatt to try to enlist their assistance in working out a settlement or in collecting the fee for Schmidt? Mr. HOFFA. I believe so. The CHAIRMAN. That is your theory of it. 36751-59-pt. 56- -13 Mr. HOFFA. In reading the record last night-if you read it; he had it scrambled up quite a bit, but it seems as though that is what I could get out of the record. The CHAIRMAN. What was your interest in Goldblatt and Crum and Bridges working together in this matter? You said that they did contact you and you don't remember what was said. But what was your interest in it, Mr. Hoffa? Mr. HOFFA. I didn't have any interest in it. We were discussing with Bridges and Goldblatt the question of a pact to coordinate between our unions the question of resolving the issues created out of automation and containerization. Recognizing that many jurisdictional disputes could very well take place out of the automation or mechanization of the waterfront, we were trying to head off another 1934 between the Teamsters and the ILA and the ILWU. The CHAIRMAN. Would that have any relation at all? I don't get the relation between that and the claim of a lawyer which has once been approved by the court and is still in litigation. I can't get the connection with Bridges or Goldblatt getting involved in the matter of settlement of this fee. This thing has presented a kind of a puzzle, and I am trying to follow the different leads in it to see where they go or where they lead us. What can possibly be Bridges' interest or Goldblatt's interest? I am talking about getting them active, taking affirmative steps toward getting this matter of a fee for Mr. Schmidt adjusted. What would be the moving cause for them to do it? Mr. HOFFA. I can only imagine past relationship. The CHAIRMAN. You can only imagine some past relationship? The CHAIRMAN. All right. Proceed. Mr. KENNEDY. When Mr. Goldblatt contacted you, what would he tell you, Mr. Hoffa? Mr. HOFFA. If I recall correctly, and I didn't keep any notes, the first time that Goldblatt talked to me about this situation was that Bartley Crum had contacted him as to whether or not we would pay the fee that was supposed to be paid to Schmidt so far as the $210,000 was concerned. Later on the question of monitor pay was raised, and he told me that he had known Bartley Crum for many years, and that Bartley had asked him to talk to us about this question. Now, I referred him to our attorney. (At this point Senators Mundt and Ervin entered the hearing room.) Mr. KENNEDY. You had some further conversations with him about it, did you? Mr. HOFFA. I told you, each time we talked about the question of our normal operation. Then there would become a question sometime during the discussion or at the beginning or end: Had we been able to work out our differences? Each time they were referred to our lawyer. Mr. KENNEDY. And when you referred them to the lawyer, would you refer Mr. Goldblatt to your lawyer? Mr. HOFFA. No. Mr. KENNEDY. What would you say? Mr. HOFFA. Goldblatt had nothing to do with Ed Williams. I simply told him to take it up with Ed Williams, our attorney. |