The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1929-02-28
COURT RECORD
SHOWS CROOKED
HILLQU|T DEALS
Agent of Socialists"
Makes Admissions

Dulluln2S IOO.
The Joint Beard refused to per-
nit the buildings which the workers
had acquired thru years of strug-
gle and sacrifice to be turned over
to a capitalist bank and be sold.
The Joint Board claimed that the
shares were enough to cover the
debt.
The attorney for the Joint Board,
Louis B. Boudin, took the case to
court to prevent the bank from con-
fiscating the buildings. On Jan. 16,
1929, the case of Joseph Borucho-
WITT versus the 100 East 125th st.
Corporation, which claimed the
buildings, came up before Justice
Townley in the county supreme
court. Boruchowitz, who was then
manager of local %, had been one
of the signers Of the agreement with
the international Union Bank at the
time the money was borrowed.
Tells of Union Struggle.
Boudin, at the trial, described the
situation in the union at the time
the loan was made. He declared
that because of their bitter expert
ences in the Joint Action struggle of
1925, the Joint Board and the left
wing locals had refused to have the
bank act as trustee of the shares
and the stock of the buildings. Hill
quit, who was the lawyer for both
parties, proposed that his office
manager, Umhey, act as trustee,
and he gave his personal guarantee
that the Joint Board and the locals
would get their property back.
at is important to know who the
trustee was" Boudin told Justice
Townley, "and it is also important
to know that notwithstanding the
fact that Umhey was named as
trustee, he was named as trustee
merely on Mr.. Hillquit's response
bility; it was his responsibility and
the assurance of these people that
counted rather than Mr.. Umhey's
personal standing in. the matter. -.
Mr.. Umhey really plays no role ex-
cept that he was obeying somebody's
orders; he was taking orders from
somebody, and that he was doing
what he was told r. do" Court
Minutes, page 12).
Boudin Reveals Plot.
fiere Boudin discussed fl detail
the entire conspiracy and revealed
the motives behind the Sigman po-
grom. The right wing clique. he
said, decided to- take advantage of
the fact that the property of the
Joint Board and the locals was in
Hillquit's office. The pogrom served
as a pretext for confiscating this
property.
"We expect to prove the people
who are in control of the General
Executive Board" Boudin said,
"who were also in control of the
bank. conspired with the bank and
Mr.. Umhey to renew the fight which
had been settled the year before and
to get hold of the property of the
Joint Board and these local unions,
and for that purpose declared these
people out of office" court
Minutes, page 49,.
How did Hillqu,t's trustee Umhey.
effect this? He coolly made over
The shares that had been entrusted
to him in his own name and by this
simple trick deprived the Joint
Board and the locals of their prop
erty. And IN this way Umhey (act-
ing OF Hillquit's instructions) also
deprived the Joint Board and the
locals of the vote they had in the
bank as shareholders. This enabled
the right wing to retain their grip
on the bank, a grip which was
threatened by the large number of
shares owned by the left wing Joint
Board and locals.
As result of this piece of
trickery, the new board of directors
was elected in January 1927 with
out the left wing locals being even
informed of the stockholders meet
ing! Umhey had changed roles; he
was no longer trustee, he was now
the boss of the unions shares. And
so he held fake meeting Of fake
stockholders and elected fake
board of directors.
So much Cor the shares. Now lie!
as consider how Umhey, Hillquit's
trustee, became the "owner" os the
buildings.
On the witness stand lawyer
Boudin quizzed Umhey concerning
the so-called 1870 East 25th Street
Corporation which Umhey had or
ganized in order to gain control o.
the buildings. The testimony fol
lows:
Question: Now when was the
defendant, 1870 East 25th Street
Corporation organized?
Answer: In the month Of August
1927.
@. And was that organized by
your office, / mean Mr.. Hillquit's
office, as attorney?
A: Yes.
@: Who were the incorpora-
tors, do you know!
A: believe they were three
employees in the office.
@: Just what is commonly
known as dummies?
A: Dummy incorporators,
! that's right