The Quiet Don: The Untold Story of Mafia Kingpin Russell Bufalino (11 page)

Other business was up for discussion, including the garment industry, the Teamsters and narcotics. Earlier that year, in June, a struggle ensued between the warring factions for control of a portion of the New York City drug trade. One man, Frank Scalise, who had been associated with Lucky Luciano, was shot and killed in front of his Bronx home.

The men were in the middle of their discussions when Croswell and the state police happened upon the meeting, and the more than sixty gangsters in attendance fled.

Among the men arrested were Carlo Gambino, who assumed control of the Mangano family in New York that would eventually bear his name; Paul Castellano, a Gambino capo régime, or captain, who in later years would succeed Gambino but meet his end when an upstart named John Gotti plotted his execution in a hail of bullets in front of a New York steak house; John Scalish, the driver of the Cadillac registered to the Buckeye Cigarette Service, and the head of the Cleveland mob; and Santo Trafficante Jr., the head of the South Florida family and majority owner of the Sans Souci casino in Havana. Trafficante was using a nom de plume, Louis Santos. Others in attendance included Stefano Magaddino; Sam Giancana, of Chicago; Nick Civella, of Kansas City; and representatives from families in Milwaukee, Dallas, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Also arrested were the Commission chairman, Joseph Bonanno, of New York, who was found by police hiding in a cornfield, and Vito Genovese, who tried to make his escape with Bufalino and several other men inside a 1957 Black Chrysler Imperial driven by Bufalino. The car, which was registered to the Medico Electric Company, was stopped at the roadblock at the end of the driveway.

Some sixty-four men were arrested, and the story made front-page news across the nation. A grand jury was convened on January 14, 1958, to determine if the men in attendance had broken any laws, and the ongoing investigation produced a treasure trove of intelligence.

They learned that Joseph Barbara, for instance, had business relationships dating back years with several men from Pittston and Detroit and maintained a ledger with debts due to a number of people. He owed $2,500 to Charles Bufalino; $10,000 to Louis Pagnotti, the owner of a Scranton coal company; $15,000 to Angelo Polizzi, the Detroit mobster; and $10,000 to Santo Volpe.

The official “Report on the Activities and Associations of Persons Identified as Present at the Residence of Joseph Barbara, Sr., at Apalachin, New York on November 14, 1957, and the Reasons for Their Presence,” was submitted to New York governor W. Averell Harriman on April 23, 1958, and it concluded that the meeting had been planned in advance, was called to discuss mob business—most likely the murder of Anastasia—and that it had been organized by Russell Bufalino.

Apalachin was a milestone in the annals of organized crime, wiping out previous myths and misconceptions about the Italian Mafia, particularly the very public stance by the FBI that the Mafia even existed, and displayed once and for all the vast organizational network that connected family to family and city to city.

Several mob factions seethed over what they believed to be a major breech. Bufalino escaped blame, but there were attempts on Stefano Magaddino’s life, including an attempted bombing of his home. Aside from the embarrassment, the public for the first time now knew that, yes, there was an organized syndicate of mob families and, even worse, many of the men were now publicly identified.

The press that followed the astounding breakup of the national mob meeting followed the story for weeks, infuriating the Mafiosi and embarrassing the U.S. government, and the government wasted no time trying to prosecute several of the attendees, including Bufalino. On December 4, 1957, the FBI sent a telex reporting that the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) had begun investigating Bufalino’s citizenship.

INS, Philadelphia is conducting ‘large scale’ investigation of BUFALINO with view to deporting him. INS has information BUFALINO has claimed birth in Pittston, Pa. in 1903, though actually born in Italy. INS has located birth record Luzerne County, Pennsylvania which it believes forged, and through arrangements made by INS Washington, is taking record to Washington for examination by FBI laboratory. INS investigation now aimed at gathering all available information re foreign birth in preparation for interview of BUFALINO in near future
.

On December 16, 1957, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service filed a motion of deportation against Bufalino, claiming, as the FBI reported, that he was not born in Pittston but in fact was born in Sicily. The deportation officer assigned to his case reported that the decision was based on a number of factors, including Bufalino’s “failure to establish good moral character, his lying under oath regarding his birthplace and other false testimony and his two fraudulent entries into the United States in 1956.”

Bufalino was ordered deported, but he appealed the decision, and he would find himself fighting the government for the next decade. Of more immediate concern was a subpoena to testify before the McClellan Senate Committee.

* * *

LED BY SENATOR
John McClellan, of Arkansas, the Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in Labor and Management was created before Apalachin to study organized crime’s influence in labor racketeering. After Apalachin, the committee now had a road map and subpoenaed many of the gangsters that attended the meeting. The committee’s chief counsel was Robert F. Kennedy, who would lead the questioning. Anticipating that nearly every gangster subpoenaed to testify before the committee would claim their Fifth Amendment rights, Kennedy used the sessions to show the world everything he could about the men, that they truly existed, controlled vast businesses and were nothing more than an organized group of hoods and criminals. His bitter confrontations with Jimmy Hoffa, one of 1,500 witnesses who would eventually testify, captured the nation’s attention.

Unlike the bombastic Hoffa, who reveled in the back-and-forth with Kennedy, Bufalino had little to say. It didn’t matter, since it was Kennedy who did all the talking.

“The first witness this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, is Russell Bufalino,” said Kennedy. “Would you tell me where you were born?”

“I respectfully decline to answer the question on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me,” said Bufalino.

“Mr. Bufalino, our interest in you centers around your attending the meeting at Apalachin and also your union contacts. I think that we have some information that would indicate that you played a very prominent role in setting up the meeting at Apalachin; that you did it with the assistance of Mr. Barbara. I wonder if you would make any comments on that before we start to develop the facts that we have.”

“I respectfully decline to answer the question on the ground that the question may tend to incriminate me.”

“According to our information, you were born on October 29, 1903, in Montedoro, Italy. That is in Sicily. Is that correct?”

“I respectfully decline to answer the question on the ground that the question may tend to incriminate me.”

“And yet despite that fact, the records at Luzerne County in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., show that you were born October 29, 1903, in Pittston Township, Pa.”

“Is that a question?”

“Yes.”

“I respectfully decline to answer that question on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me.”

“Could you explain to the committee how it is that these records show that you were born in Pittston, Pa., when, in fact, you were born in Italy?”

“I respectfully decline to answer that question on the grounds that the question may tend to incriminate me.”

“Is Mary Bufalino any relation to you?”

“I respectfully decline to answer the question on the grounds that the question may tend to incriminate me.”

“Isn’t it a fact that Mary Bufalino worked in the records office in Wilkes-Barre, Pa.?”

“I respectfully decline to answer the question on the grounds that the question may tend to incriminate me.”

“Are you related to Mr. William Bufalino?”

“I respectfully decline to answer that question on the grounds that the question may tend to incriminate me.”

“Isn’t it correct that William Bufalino, who is secretary-treasurer of Local 985 of the Teamsters, is a cousin of yours?”

“I respectfully decline to answer the question on the grounds that the question may tend to incriminate me.”

“Isn’t it correct also that Mr. William Bufalino is an attorney?”

“I respectfully decline to answer the question on the grounds that the question may tend to incriminate me.”

“Did Mr. William Bufalino play any part in altering the records at the Wilkes-Barre Records Office?”

“I respectfully decline to answer the question on the grounds that the question may tend to incriminate me.”

“Wasn’t it the purpose of getting the records altered so that it would appear that you were born here in the United States, and, therefore, could not be deported to Italy?”

“I respectfully decline to answer the question on the grounds that the question may tend to incriminate me.”

“Can you tell us what companies you own or operate in the Pittston–Wilkes-Barre–Scranton area?”

“I respectfully decline to answer the question on the grounds that the question may tend to incriminate me.”

“Do you own and operate the Penn Drape & Curtain Co., of South Main Street, Pittston, Pa.?”

“I respectfully decline to answer the question on the grounds that the question may tend to incriminate me.”

“Are the Sciandras of Pittston, Pa., in business with you?”

“I respectfully decline to answer the question on the grounds that the question may tend to degrade or incriminate me.”

“What was your wife’s maiden name?”

“Carolina Sciandra.”

“Isn’t it a fact that Angelo Sciandra attended the meeting at Apalachin?”

“I respectfully decline to answer the question on the grounds that the question may tend to incriminate me.”

“Could you tell us if you have ever been arrested, Mr. Bufalino?”

“I respectfully decline to answer the question on the grounds that the question may tend to incriminate me.”

“Isn’t it a fact that you have been arrested some seven or eight times?”

“I respectfully decline to answer the question on the grounds that the question may tend to incriminate me.”

“And that you have not been convicted on any of those charges?”

“I respectfully decline to answer the question on the grounds that the question may tend to incriminate me.”

“We have a number of companies with whom we believe you are connected, starting with the ABS Contracting Co., of Pittston, Pa. Is it correct that you are associated with them?”

“I respectfully decline to answer the question on the grounds that the question may tend to incriminate me.”

“The Penn Drape & Curtain Co., in Pittston, Pa.?”

“The same answer.”

“Would you answer the question.”

“I respectfully decline to answer the question on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me.”

“And you were associated with Bonnie Stewart, Inc., of New York City, N. Y.?”

“I respectfully decline to answer that question on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me.”

“Isn’t it correct that Dominic Alaimo and James Plumeri both had financial interests in that company also?”

“I respectfully decline to answer the question on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me.”

“And Claudia Frocks of 224 West 35th Street, New York?”

“I respectfully decline to answer the question on the grounds that the question may tend to degrade or incriminate me.”

“Isn’t it correct that Angelo Sciandra also has an interest in that company?”

“I respectfully decline to answer that question on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me.”

“And isn’t it correct also that he pays you a certain amount of money each week for the work that you do for that company?”

“I respectfully decline to answer the question on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me.”

“You are on the payroll as an expediter. Could you tell us what an expediter does?”

“I respectfully decline to answer the question on the grounds that the question may tend to incriminate me.”

“Do you in fact do any work for this company, or are you on the payroll because of your connections, Mr. Bufalino?”

“I respectfully decline to answer the question on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me.”

“You receive from that company $105 a week gross, is that right?”

“I respectfully decline to answer the question on the grounds that the question may tend to incriminate me.”

“And you were put on the payroll back in 1953, were you not?”

“I respectfully decline to answer the question on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me.”

“Then also you are on the payroll of the Fair Frox as an expediter. You are on their payroll also?”

“I respectfully decline to answer the question on the grounds that the question may tend to incriminate me.”

“That is F-a-i-r F-r-o-x, and you are on their payroll as expediter at $125 a week, are you not?”

“I respectfully decline to answer the question on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me.”

“Could you tell us what you do to earn that money?”

“I respectfully decline to answer the question on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me.”

“Isn’t it a fact that part of the money you receive is to handle labor relations for those companies, and to prevent any trouble or difficulties with the union?”