has been in the courts for 7 years. We repeat what we have declared throughout those years: the charges are false, there has never been any conspiracy, and we know that ultimately we will be vindicated."

This form of Marxist polemics and falseness by the executive board assumes the membership will blind itself to the fact that two juries have now found the top officers of Mine-Mill guilty, that a Federal court of law has ruled upon the tenuous contention advanced by highpriced counsel that the conspiracy was legally dead-and once again, no cogent denial that the officers signed false affidavits. Nor is there a charge that the union or its membership asked the officers to engage in such tactics; thus there is no explanation as to why individual members must pay for the criminal involvement of Dichter, Skinner, Sanderson,

et al.

The game of hare and hounds will continue ad nauseam, or until the Marxists are cornered after the last round of judicial roulette at the expense of members and taxpayers.

Aside from the unremitting, invariant conduct of the Communist oligarchy in leading the membership into extravagant tangents and departures from trade unionism and into sensitive areas involving internal security-as if conduct weren't the most reliable criterion-The Mine-Mill Union, October 1963, again assures all and sundry, by a firstpage headline, that the six convicted September 20, 1963, of filing false non-Communist affidavits with the National Labor Relations Board will "APPEAL VERDICT." At whose expense? Silence.

The union paper is employed for the nth time to report on the individual problems of the miscreants who hold on to the union's structure, power, and assets:

Convicted in the 4-week trial in the U.S. district court in December were International President A. C. Skinner, Secretary-Treasurer Irving Dichter, Administrative Assistant Harold Sanderson, District 4 Board Member Raymond Dennis, International Representative Charles H. Wilson, and former SecretaryTreasurer Maurice E. Travis.

The six-man, six-woman jury took the case at 6:30 p.m., September 19, and returned its verdict at 4 p.m., September 20.

Follows then a re-recital by high-priced counsel of the alleged merits of the defense: the very contentions and proofs that were rejected by an American jury after some 24 hours of due deliberations following a month of due process in which every nook and cranny had been explored by competent counsel-three of them. Another jury December 17, 1959, had found the same men guilty of the same charge: Violating section 371 of title 18, United States Criminal Code:

"Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States."

The whole third page of the same issue, October 1963, is devoted, not to trade unionism, but to slanted versions of the trial as evidenced by more than two columns of "Taylor Discusses 'Conspiracy' Case" and "Dead Men Tell Tales, by Nathan Witt, General Counsel." The prosecutor's version is not reported at all. Union counsel assures the membership and contributors:

I doubt that we will have to go through any more trials. There are at least as many good points on appeal this time as there were before. * **

Although this chapter of the committee's report is devoted to a review of the facts surrounding the use or abuse of the tax exemption

and Internal Revenue Service, it will be noted that the tactics or policies of the union's officers creep through. For instance, the first page of the October 1963 issue of the Mine-Mill Union, obviously supported by members and tax-exempt dues, is given over to the reporting of the outcome of the month's trial. But it is headlined:

"VAN CAMP ACQUITTED; OTHERS TO APPEAL VERDICT"

The emphasis manifestly is not upon the conviction of the union's six top officers for the second time, but upon the fact that one officer escaped. A Government witness, Bill Mason, had died between the first and second trials. His testimony was a link between Van Camp and the conspiracy charged by the grand jury in Denver. When Bill Mason testified during the first trial, November 2 to December 17, 1959, nine officers, past and present, of Mine-Mill, were convicted, including Van Camp, international representative.

The reporting, in adroit manner, headlines the one acquittal while subordinating the fact that six officers were found guilty again. This phase is a small aspect of the whole. Thanks to the death of a Government witness, another of the defendants escapes conviction. Two more witnesses, Kenneth Eckert and Leo Ortiz, had "had it" and refused to testify again. The process of dragging out the trials and appeals thereby continues to exploit the usual vicissitudes of any human drama-deaths, delays, and happenstances.

There is consequently a "whittling process" in action, time being on the side of the defendants because the burden of proof remains constantly upon the prosecution. The more witnesses that die, fail to recollect important evidences, or express weariness and recalcitrance, the better the defendants' chances for securing escape from the chargesregardless of merit.

It is for such reasons that the subcommittee charges that the officers play "judicial roulette" with the members' tax-exempt moneys and defense funds.

As Mine-Mill General Counsel Nathan Witt summed it up, with complacence, "Dead Mean Tell Tales," 26 thus registering an objection to the Government's use of Mason's testimony on the first trial. Testimony de bene esse is standard practice where a witness has been examined and cross-examined and has died before the case was closed. Mason was killed in an automobile accident.

Counselor Witt pointed to one of the many vicissitudes, commented upon supra, when he reported:

Fortunately, two other witnesses who testified at the first trial in 1959 but who refused to testify again are still alive. They are Ken Eckert and Leo Ortiz. If either or both had died, their first trial testimony could also have been used against the defendants, as Mason's was. (Incidentally, Eckert and Ortiz join quite a few others who have testified against Mine-Mill or its leaders in the past, but who have declined to do so ever again.)

Then the union's lawyer took a reading on the "strange course of justice" which found 14 leaders of the union indicted in 1956 for conspiracy. He whittled the figure down to 11 who went to trial, neglecting to inform the reader-members of The Mine-Mill Union that three

26 Column in The Mine-Mill Union, October 1963, p. 3.

were

didn't contest the charges, having filed pleas of nolo contendere 27 awaiting sentence of the court. These three are Albert Pezzati, former secretary-treasurer; Alton Lawrence, former executive board member; and Graham Dolan, former editor of The Mine-Mill Union.

Having jumped down from 14 to 11, Witt was able to bring the figure to 9, 2 having been acquitted by the trial judge during the first trial in 1959. Two more won out on academic contentions advanced by the union's counsel on appeal. The figure is thus reduced to seven, with a further reduction of one (Van Camp) narrowing the figure to six. Should there be further legal entanglements or reversals on appeal, the union counsel may have further cause for optimism in the hope that on a third trial more Government witnesses will have either died or adopted the attitude of refusing to face up to the ordeal.

Nolo contendere, according to Bouvier's Law Dictionary, is a Latin phrase meaning "I do not wish to contest" and is defined as a plea sometimes accepted in criminal caseswhereby the defendant does not directly admit guilt, but tacitly admits it by throwing himself upon the mercy of the court. The acceptance of the plea is said to rest entirely upon the discretion of the trial judge. This plea has the same effect in a criminal case as the plea of guilty, to the extent that judgment and sentence may be pronounced as if upon a verdict of guilty.

APPENDIX TO TITLE II-INTERNAL REVENUE

SERVICE

HISTORY OF TAX-EXEMPTION LEGISLATION

The subcommittee regards as a statutory anachronism the placement of the term "labor organizations" on the same line in the Revenue Code as "agricultural" and "horticultural" organizations. Other than revealing the congressional intendment to deal with early-day innocuous groups-far removed from power and profit-the wording is today an ineptness.

It would be well to delve into the origin of the wording of the present statutory provision which exempts all labor organizations from Federal income tax. An original motivation which stems from the days of fraternities, fellowships, brotherhoods, and such groups, which later emerged into full-fledged unions, is traceable all the way back to 1909. It concerned itself with insurance. To protect such groups from legislation appertaining to insurance and regulations, the exemption was allowed and the individual union was not brought within the ambit of the term "insurance company." Heavy emphasis was placed a half-century ago upon the "fraternal" character of the labor organizations in those days, for indeed in many respects they were "lodge" type organizations-a far cry from the monolithic character of Mine-Mill in guiding workers in the uranium and nonferrous industry.

THE WORDING

Labor organizations are currently exempted from income tax by the following language:

EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION—

An organization described in subsection (c) or (d) or section 401(a) shall be exempt from taxation under this subtitle unless such exemption is denied under section 502, 503 or 504 [relating to feeder organizations, prohibited transactions, investments, etc.].

*

(c) LIST OF EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS.-The following organizations are referred to in subsection (a):

(5) Labor, agricultural or horticultural organizations.

The wording of the exemption provisions relating to labor organizations is regarded as having its origin in section 38 of the PayneAldrich Tariff Act of 1909 (36 Stat. 11). Section 38 of that act, known as the Corporation Tax Act, imposed an excise tax upon “* * * every corporation, joint stock company or association, organized for profit and having a capital stock represented by shares, and every insurance company,

The statute as originally proposed was not qualified by a specific exemption for any named class of organization. In discussions on the

66

Senate floor 54 years ago (and the subject hasn't been touched upon in this particular since), a question was raised by Senator Burkett as to whether fraternal organizations, including labor organizations organized as fraternal orders,1 might be classified as insurance companies because of their mutual benefit programs. The floor manager of the legislation, Senator Flint, responded that the Committee on Finance had considered the problem, and it was their opinion that such organizations were excluded from the tax. The discussion indicates that Senator Flint believed that this exclusion was based on the essentially nonprofit nature of the organizations concerned. Senator Flint stated, however, that the problem posed would receive the committee's attention during the course of the debate.2

A few days later, in apparent response to the need to make the coverage of the bill clearer with respect to the benefit programs of labor and fraternal organizations, Senator Burkett offered an amendment on the floor, to be referred to the Committee on Finance. It provided:

That nothing in this section contained shall apply to fraternal beneficiary societies, orders, or associations operating under the lodge system, including labor organizations, and providing for the payment of life, sick, accident, and other benefits to the members of such societies, orders, or associations, and dependents of such members (44 Congressional Record 1909, at p. 4063).

The Committee on Finance considered Senator Burkett's amendment, but felt that a specific reference to labor organizations was not necessary since the phrase "fraternal beneficiary organizations" was considered broad enough. Accordingly, an amendment was offered which exempted fraternal organizations but omitted specific reference to labor organizations. Senator Burkett, who collaborated with the Finance Committee in developing this amendment, explained the omission by stating that the thought of the committee was that there would not be "any question but that the term 'fraternal beneficiary societies, orders, or associations operating under the lodge system' would include them (labor organizations), and it was thought best not to name any particular organization or anything, but to include them under the term 'beneficiary organization'" (44 Congressional Record 4149).3

Senator La Follette reported the opinion of representatives of labor organizations that the language incorporated in the amendment as originally offered by Senator Burkett was very much safer and should be included in the amendment (44 Congressional Record 4154). He indicated that he was informed that "all of them [labor organizations] pay sick benefits but they are not all organized under the lodge system" (44 Congressional Record 4155).

In the course of the debates, others became concerned as to the exempt status of other classes of corporations. As a result, section

1 Senator Burkett specifically mentioned the Ancient Order of United Workman (Congressional Record, p. 3937).

2 This discussion between Senators Flint, Burkett, McCumber, and Cummins is found at 44 Congressional Record 3937-3938.

It should be noted that a large number of the labor organizations of the day that provided mutual assessment benefits for their members were organized in the form of fraternal brotherhoods. See 23d Annual Report of the Commissioner of Labor, "Workmen's Insurance and Benefit Funds in the United States" (1908).