The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1929-03-02
Hillquit Contradicts Umhey.


1t is clear that under questioning
from Boudin, the teamwork between
Hillquit and mis- tool, Umhey, fell to
pieces. Umhey and his boss gave
different answers to the same ques-
lions. Umhey had stated in his tes-
timony (given in yesterdays Daily
Worker) that the right wing Joint
Eoard got part of the money to buy
the shares from the bank. Hiliquit
ssid that the Joint Board got the
money from the group of outsiders
TO whom it sold shares.
Three hundred and seventy-five of
the total of 1,275 shares had already
been sold to Hillquit and three other
Socialists" at 5000 a share-much
lower than the market price. Had
they been sold to outsiders, thou
sands of dollars more would have
been realized, thus decreasing the
debt of the left wing Joint Board
1.-THE real Joint Board) to the bank.
Instead, these thousands of dollars
remained with Hillquit and his part
ners as clear profit!
Fake Pretext.
The other 900 shares suffered the
same fate, as Hillquit himself testi-
fled. Some pretext was found in
the banks bylaws for selling the
shares to the fake Joint Board
(which cu1iously enough was the
first and only stakeholder to reply
when the shares were offered for
sale). though the Joint Boards Of
fer, $195, was sos per share less
than the offer cf an outside group.
THE offer of this outside group was
also considerably less than the mar
kCt price, Had the bank accepted
the offer Of the outside group, it
would have realized $2T9,000 instead
of the s175,0oO it got from the Sig
man. Schlesinger fake Joint Board.
This difference of 100000 would
have practically wiped out the debt
Ct the real Joint Board to the bank.
But this money went into the pock-
cts of the Sigman- Schlesinger gang!
Another question arises: how did
the right wing "Joint Board" sud
denly become shareholder in the
international Union Bank? The real
Joint Board had owned 1,275 shares,
but these had come into the posses
sion of Frederick Umhey, the trus-
tee, at the end of 1926 by the sim
pie device of making them over in
his name. BY this trickery the
Joint Board and the left wing locals
were deprived only of their
shares, but of their vote in the bank.
But if the shares were in Umhey's
name, how did the Joint Board 1.-THE
fake right wing one) become a
shareholder?
Three Significant Facts.
Out of this maze of tricky man.
ipulations and outright swindling
three significant facts emerge.
/. Hillquit, the leader of the So
cialist party and one Of the leaders
Of the Second International, was at
torney for the left wing Joint Board
when the agreement with the Inter-
national Union Bank, involving the
loan of 100000, was made in 1925.
On Aug. 9, 1925, he sent letter
reproduced in Wednesdays Daily
Worker) to Louis Hyman, then
manager of the Joint Board, giving
his word that the property Of the
Joint Board and the left wing locals
would be returned to them. Several
months after this promise was made,
the trustee whom Hillquit had pro-
posed, Frederick F. Umhey, Hill
quits office manager, took the
shares entrusted to him and made
them over in his own name. And
the Joint Board and the left wing
locals were not even informed Of it!
2. Hillquit, who as attorney for
the Joint Board, had promised to
protect It's right to the shares, was
himself one Of the purchasers Of the
shares--and at 4 profit to himself!
8. Hillquit, AZ lawyer for the In.
ternational Union Bank (now q pri-
vate bank, as one Of the bank d.
rectors, and as boss Of Umhey, en-
gineered the entire deal by which
800 of the shares were sold in such
way that the right wing clique
made 100000 profit--for continu-
ing the pogrom against the rank
and file.
Bank Claims Union Buildings.
OF course, 1t may be objected that
Hillquit as lawyer for the bank had