◆ SpookStack

o~ Director -b= 9n28=45 As a matter of background, it is stated that ELSHOFF commenced nezotiations with WILLIAWRYAN, operator of Mine A, looking toward the purchase of Mine A in April, 1941, whioh, it ie noted, was shortly after ELSHOFF had negotiated a olosed shop agreement with U.M.W. at Mine B. The negotiations with RYAN resulted in the purchase of the assets of Mine A and the acquisition of the unexpired portion of the lease on this mine on September 4, 1941. However, the designation of ELSHOFF as the purchaser . of Mine A was in reality a fiction inasmuch as the $60,000 purohase price was advanced directly to RYAN by EDMUNDISURKE, en Attorney for U.Li.W. BURKE subsequently retained title to the assets of Mine A subject to an which ELSZ0°F was to form for the purpose of operating Mine A. ppasrs that at the time of WAGNEx'ta investigation which occurred in October, 1941, Mine A was owned by BURKE in his oapacity of Attorney for U.M.W. and this fact was, of course, wall kmown to both ELSAOFF and EDMUNDSON, It is noted thet the above facts are inconsistent with ELSHNOrF's statement to WATER as indicated in his memorandum dated November 1, 1941, to the effect bhat PICU narseanalta had haypeht aaerteidn aenate and the uneynirad nartian ree Pus Se Pe de A ee ee Te ek re of a leese of Mine A, and had in turn leased these assets to the Mine B Coal Company, which was then operatin~= Mine A. In general, the point to be proved in connection with the Mine A matter is that ELSZOPT, an employer, conspired with sDMUNDSO! and other officials of U.M.W. to deprive the employees of Mine A of their righte under the Fational Labor Relations Act. In interviewing WAGER it is desired, af sourse, that everything he my be able to recall sooncerning his conversations with ELSHOFF, SDICNDSOU, and any other persons he may have interviewed be recorded. However, it is rejuested that WATNER be asked the following spesific questions: ~— l. Did ELSHOFF indicate whether he or oscatatcerrt, his Superintendent, had indicated te any of the former employees of Mine A that he hoped to mine the seam of coal in Mine A from Mine B7 2. Did ELSHOFF indicate whether he or FALCETTI had advised any former employees of Mine A concerning the belief that he was not obligated to hire any of the former employees of Mine A since he had not taken over a corporation but had merely purchased some of the assets of the sorporationf 3. Did ELSHOFF indioate to WAGNER whether he would have deolined to operate Mine a through its owm shaft if the former employees of Mine A had not switched affiliations from P.M,A. to UeN.W.? Code, hector $10% egreement with ELSZo?r that the assets would be transferred to a a we 2 r