Evening star., 1960-07-22

OlllOAl PlCo1ACllSy, OuO Ills 1OCS
insisted they have him on the
run.
These conflicting victory
claims we're inspired by rulings
Yesterday in which the United
States Court of Appeals:
/. Authorized a civil trial of
misconduct charges against
Mr.. Hoffa, but expressed doubt
that the courts can legally re-
move him from Office. even if
the charges are proved.
2. Rejected Mr.. Hoffa's plea
for an immediate union con-
vention, but urged all parties
to rush preparations for a con-
vention-which would end
supervision of the Teamsters by
a board of monitors.
Mr.. Hoffa made no official
comment, but he passed the
word through aides that he
considered the rulings "a
95 per cent victory" in his battle
with the monitors.
But Martin F. ODonoghue.
outgoing chairman of the board
Of monitors, and Godfrey P.
Schmidt, a lawyer for some
anti-Hoffa members of the
Teamsters, maintained that the
rulings left the door wide open
for Mr.. Hoffa'S custer.
The rulings did clear the way
for Mr.. Hoffa'S trial on charges
by the monitors that he mis-
used $500,000 of union money
to promote a Florida real estate
venture in which he held a
financial interest. The civil
trial is tentatively scheduled to
start in october when Federal
District Judge Joseph r. Jack
son returns from a vacation in
Europe.
The monitors are consider
ing making a request for trans
fer of the trial to another judge
to permit an early start.
Mr.. Hoffa and the union
asked the Court of Appeals to
issue writs of mandamus 10
prevent the trial. They argued
in part that the courts have
no authority to remove Team
ster officers.
The Court of Appeals refused
to grant the extraordinary re-
. lief" Of mandamus writs, but
said the refusal docs not i'm
ply disagreement with the
merits of the petitioners CMr.
Hoffa'S and the union's) con-
tentions should they arise on
direct appeal" after the trial.
Say Hoffa Violated Decree
In pressing the misconduct
charges, the majority of the
three-man board of monitors
argued that Mr.. Hoffa's &C
tivitieS in the real estate deal
violated a 1858 decree by Fed
eral District Judge F. Dickin-
son Let's.
This decree-which allowed
Mr.. Hoffa to take Office as pro-
visional president under super
vision by the monitors -re-
quired him to safeguard dnion
funds. Since Mr.. Hoffa violated
the decree, the monitors sug-
gested, he has forfeited his right
to office and should be ousted
by the courts.
The Court of Appeals said the
1858 decree did not specifically
give Judge Let's or Judge Jack
son power to select or remove
Teamster officers, and added
that the courts are bound by
the terms of the decree.
Union lawyers interpreted
this statement to mean that
the courts are powerless to re-
move Mr. Hoffa from office.
Mr.. ODonoghue and Mr..
Schmidt challenged this inter
probation. They observed that
the Court of Appeals referred
in a footnote to the possibility
of contempt of court proceed
ings as weapon to force Mr..
Hoffa to live up to his obliga-
tions under the decree.
A TeamSter lawyer main
tained that Mr.. Hoffa is in no
danger of a contempt convic-
tion. He could be found in con-
tempt only for violating a very
specific court order and no
such order exists, this lawyer
said.